Yea - make it someone who doesn't care about anything other than the money - that would really 'improve' things. :-\
That's what exists in the Land Mobile bands - bands where you have two repeaters coordinated 200 FEET apart. Is that REALLY what you want? Joe M. Paul Plack wrote: > > You know, Ron, you just gave me an inspiration. > > What if the coordinators themselves were not hams, and not eligible to > operate ham repeaters? Imagine how many "paper repeaters" and how much > corruption would disappear instantly! > > Maybe we should all elect professional spectrum managers instead of > hams, and pay them out of the dues. Hmmm... > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Ron Wright <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2008 6:41 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? > > Joe, > > I know of some Hams who have talked to Riley about setting up standards > for coordinators. He and FCC do not want to even think about it. > > What does it take to be a coordinator??? There may be some standards in > the FCC minds. For commercial there are some standards and I think they > call license, but for Ham Radio I think anyone can call themselves a > coordinator. Some states have more than one. Some repeater owners get > upset with the existing coordinator and just form their own. > > It is a volunteer position and know some just get fed up with what they > have to take. A good coordinating body would have good leadership. > Leadership, as we were taught in the military, is that trait where the > direction given makes others WANT to follow and do as they say. This is > often much more than having technical knowledge of a subject. One just > likes following this leader. > > Coordination could be held by a non-licnesed person if the coordinator > allowed it. However, the FCC might not follow this. I don't think > there is anything in Part 97 preventing this. Since this person could > not put on a repeater then there would not be an interferrence problem. > It would only tie up a repeater pair for the council's policy > restrictions and allow anyone to put on a repeater on that pair within > the policy. Other issues such as a paper repeater would do the same for > a licensed person. > > Coordination is one area where Amateur Radio is truly self policing > that > has some FCC backing. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > Ron Wright, N9EE > > 727-376-6575 > > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > > No tone, all are welcome. > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, MCH wrote: > > > When it comes to a coordination, what term CAN you use with the FCC > > since they have no term for the holder of a coordination? You can't > > call that person a licensee since the coordination is not a license. > > > > Trustee is an appropriate term in any sense of the word since that > > person is entrusted with the coordination - the very definition of a > > trustee... someone who is entrusted with something. > > > > Joe M. > > > > Paul Plack wrote: > >> Wayne, > >> > >> "Trustee" appears to remain in use by some coordinators for > repeaters > >> operated directly by the licensees, a context in which the term has > >> not had any meaning to the FCC since the "WRxxxx" callsigns went > >> away. As long as we use the terms the FCC expects in any official > >> communication with the agency itself, I guess it doesn't hurt to > >> humor the coordinators. Sure does make things confusing, though. > >> > >> 73, > >> Paul, AE4KR > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:wa2yne%40gmail.com>> > >> To: <[email protected] > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>> > >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:43 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? > >> > >> > >>> There are quite a few repeaters using club call signs rather than > >>> an > >>> individuals call sign. > >>> I used our club call sign on my first repeater, and am using my > own > >>> on my > >>> repeater here. > >>> According to the application for coordination here in Texas, I > will > >>> be > >>> the trustee of the repeater. > >>> However, it is not written in stone that a repeater _must_ be > >>> coordinated. > >>> But it is better in case of any possible conflict with another > >>> repeater > >>> to be coordinated. > >>> > >>> I will agree that the license for the call used must be valid at > >>> the time > >>> of operation, or it is in violation of the rules. > >>> Sometimes the rules can be confusing, and I have often seen them > >>> misinterpreted. > >>> And technically, any repeater has a trustee who is resposible for > >>> proper > >>> operation, etc... > >>> YMMV > >>> > >>> Wayne WA2YNE > >>> Imperial, Tejas > >>> 441.950TX 446.950RX Tone 167.9 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:01:53 -0500, Paul Plack > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:pwplack%40comcast.net>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guys, a "trustee" in FCC licensing terms is someone other than the > >>>> licensee who agrees to be responsible for the legal operation of a > >>>> transmitter. > >>>> > >>>> Back in the days when the FCC required a repeater to be licensed > >>>> separately with its own callsign, the person responsible for its > >>>> operation was a "trustee," because a club or other party was the > >>>> licensee. When they did away with separate repeater licenses, > there > >>>> was > >>>> no more need for trustees. > >>>> > >>>> If your callsign is on the repeater, you are the licensee, not the > >>>> trustee. > >>>> > >>>> Similarly, on Field Day, if a bunch of guys get together and use > >>>> the > >>>> callsign of the group's only extra-class licensee as the station > >>>> callsign for everyone operating, the guy who holds that > callsign is > >>>> the > >>>> station licensee, not a trustee. If it's a club with a club > >>>> callsign > >>>> separate from any of the individuals, then someone must be a > >>>> trustee for > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> Are there any repeaters left using club callsigns? If so, those > >>>> would be > >>>> the only repeaters which still have trustees. > >>>> > >>>> Paul, AE4KR > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: > >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/ <http://www.opera.com/mail/> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 5/19/2008 > 5:04 PM
