This could get real interesting, real fast, since the big difference between SCRRBA and TASMA band plans is whether the 70cm repeater inputs should be above or below the outputs. They are opposite polarities!
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -----Original Message----- From: Jeff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 3:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band Larry, In my personal opinion, I would not want a repeater trustee, or repeater owner to be heading up a coordinating committee. NO6B, as I recall, has been both while on various decision making positions at TASMA. Also, anyone on TASMA or SCRBBA should NOT be considered for any coordination of any kind while also engaged in coordination, and even after leaving a coordination group, should give up their rights to a new coordination for some period, say 5 years. There is probably a desire on the part of some 2-meter repeater owners to take over some of the 440 coordinations to further their "global" expansion plans, or linking plans, or whatever they have in mind for 440. Good luck. Jeff, W6FCC Formerly WA4EGT --- On Mon, 5/4/09, larryw6lar <[email protected]> wrote: From: larryw6lar <[email protected]> Subject: Re: TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band To: [email protected] Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 11:14 AM WA6ARC wrote: > A storm is brewing in Southern California as TASMA makes a move to > take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band. In what one > repeater owner referred to as a "turf war", others believe the move > will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and cut costs of > services by eliminating SCRRBA. > > Multiple complaints have been heard over the years about the lack of > cooperation with repeater owners and SCRRBA leadership. A group of > repeater owners recently approached TASMA and requested that TASMA > assume the role of coordinator of the 440 band and the new board at > TASMA agreed in principle to move ahead with the idea. > > TASMA established a working group at the December meeting and the > group has issued a recommendation to the members to change the bylaws > of TASMA to become the 440 band coordinator. > Below are the proposed changes that will be voted on by TASMA > membership at the next general meeting. > > > 1. Meeting began with a discussion of the proposed bylaw changes > necessary to enable 440 coordination. The bylaw changes had been > revised based on the discussions in the April 25 meeting. Two set of > changes were presented. The first marked "Vote 1" consisted of three > bylaw changes that needed to be made to enable 440 coordination. The > second marked "Vote 2" was a bylaw change to change the organizations > name. The bylaws were reviewed and were accepted without any changes. > > 2. The draft motion to be presented to the membership to enable 440 > coordination was reviewed and discussed. There was a discussion about > wording changes Bob NO6B wanted to see in the second paragraph. All > attendees agreed to change the motion to incorporate the changes Bob > proposed to the committee. The discussion also touched on how 70 > centimeter functional standards might differ from 2 Meter standards. > All attendees agreed to start the process using the 2 meter standards > and to have the Technical Committee decide the functional standard > changes necessary for 70 centimeters using standard TASMA procedures. > > 3. The section of the motion to provide grandfathered coordination was > discussed. The discussion centered around the length of time of the > "transition period" in which grandfathered coordinations would be > allowed. The discussion was about how much time was reasonable to > submit a RFC for grandfathered coordination and how fast the Technical > Committee could respond to grandfather RFCs. There was concern that > the Technical Committee may be overwhelmed by the volume of > grandfathered coordination requests. There was also concern that lack > of a deadline would create problems for the Technical Committee in the > long run. After considerable discussion, the attendees decided to set > the grandfather RFC time limit to expire 12/31/11. The time period was > set for six months to inform the amateur community about the changes > and for eighteen months to submit the grandfather RFC. The attendees > also decided that the deadline applied to the submission of the > grandfather RFC to the Technical Committee not to action by the > Technical Committee. > > 4. There was a discussion about potential conflicts between two > stations requesting grandfather coordination's who would interfere > with each other. The attendees decided to allow the Technical > Committee to resolve such disputes with appeal rights to the Board of > Directors as provided under current TASMA bylaws and policies. > > 5. There was a discussion as to the best way to proceed to present the > motion and bylaws changes to the membership. The attendees agreed to > publish the bylaw changes and the proposed motion in the July > newsletter and to have a discussion about it at the August 8 meeting. > They also agreed to publish it in the November newsletter with a vote > scheduled for the December 5 meeting. Dave KA6TBF agreed to write the > newsletter for July. The attendees agreed that the proposed changes > needed to be discussed in the Chairman's Message column and by a > separate article as well. Howard KG6GI suggested that a FAQ be > prepared by the committee of likely questions to asked by the > membership of the effects of the change with the committee's answers > to those questions. The attendees agreed that preparation of a FAQ > would be very helpful and decided to have each committee member > develop questions and answers which would then be reviewed and > discussed by the committee. Howard agreed to prepare a power point > presentation of the FAQ for discussion at the August 8 meeting. There > was a discussion about including the FAQ in the July newsletter which > was not resolved. > > 6. There was a discussion about how the ARRL would react to our > proposal and to how we should deal with them. The attendees agreed > that Bob NO6B should talk with Dick Norton N6AA very soon and explain > to him what we are doing and why we are doing it. > > 7. There was a discussion about the need to recruit assistance for the > Technical Committee for the increased workload to implement 70 > centimeter coordination. The attendees agreed that whatever changes > the Technical Committee decided on to implement 70 centimeter > coordination, they had to be done in a manner that would not disrupt 2 > meter coordination. The attendees decided to leave it up to the > Technical Committee to decide the method of recruiting additional > help. > > > > > > Beware: Be very careful what you wish for folks. The 2 meter band in Southern California is a ZOO. 440 is not much better but I've had much better response from SCRRBA over the years than TASMA. I have been virtually ignored when filing concerns with TASMA over a coordination of a repeater on the same frequency I am on. Even though it can almost and sometimes does capture my receive when I am listening to my own repeater. When I voiced my concerns to that repeaters owner, who by the way got on to the TASMA tech committee about the time he asked for coordination, he told me to go to you know where. He was going to get his frequency no matter who had to suffer his interference. I asked the TASMA board members via e-mail to require at least a directional antenna for that coordination but was totally ignored. Now I hear his users complaining about the "Strong" signal on my repeater causing them grief. All of my 25 watts and a directional antenna. I spent a number of years prior to this trying to get a livable frequency from TASMA and finally did but only for a year or so. When I asked for a frequency for a 440 repeater from SCRRBA they gave me a number of them to try and listen to. I found one and they put me into testing. After the coordination was complete they asked if another repeater in test on the frequency I was on was causing any problems. We let that go for a time and all worked out as they asked me if I thought the other repeater could live on my frequency. I said OK and they got their coordination. So there you go. I'm sure there are many other stories out there. Some good and some bad about both groups. And many repeater owners seem to want to build an empire and have an empire builder attitude. They need to get a life. Just my 2cents. Larry / W6LAR --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Repeater Owners Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/repeaterownersassociation?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
