Before this gets out of hand, allow me to state that my post mentioning TASMA in conflict with SCRRBA was in error, and I posted a retraction. The potential conflict is between SCRRBA and NARCC; TASMA is not a party to the low in/high out versus high in/low out issue on 70cm band plans. At least, not yet.
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of raffertysec Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: TASMA & 70 cm band coordination Respectfully and only with respect -- I think it suggests a lot about character when I read your reply Mr. Dengler. TASMA does not *yet* have a band plan but you are fully aware of a motion placed before the board recommending the continued use of the SCRRBA band plan as it exists. Therefore, TASMA has a 70cm band plan. http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16 <http://forums.scaroa.org/showthread.php?p=16&posted=1#post16> This is a partial list of the WIN System that features repeaters with overlapping coverage, but granted coordination. Pair after pair after pair on two bands linked together providing duplicate content and under the direct control of one man. K6JSI and even a sight impaired person could not miss the extreme conflict of interest. I believe that most of us know that on 440 1) most repeaters are limited range and private and this practice absolutely does not serve amateur radio operators, and 2) one has to pay to play. Has anyone actually listened to the "simplex" frequencies on 2/440 lately where linking is already being done in violation of the existing band plans? http://www.thedeanfamily.com/winreptr.htm <http://www.thedeanfamily.com/winreptr.htm> The next conference call on Skype is scheduled for May 12th as I recall. Who's invited? Yet another closed door meeting? One entity conrolling all spectrum will only add to the corruption most of us know takes place but say nothing about because we're already coordinated and don't want to find ourselves penalized for having an opinion. It isn't my intent to present an ad homenum attack against you or to create controversy in this group -- your record and that of TASMA speaks for itself and controversy has long, long, long existed. I am shocked that it has taken this long for someone to light the fuse. I hope to read a respectful reply from you and strongly recommend that we cut the crap. It serves no one and certainly does not serve the amateur radio operators for whom the spectrum is intended. It is not intended for those that earn a living selling memberships to linked system that place 5 repeaters on one hilltop all linked together. Respectfully, how is this going to work? Shorty is going to have his friends show up again, he'll pay their dues again, kick more people off of the board and gain control; he'll be the chairman that says yes or no to primary and link frequencies for others because they conflict with his business of selling memberships? Mr. Dengler, please. A straight answer. Perhaps this local issue should be taken elsewhere because it isn't fair to this group. Much can be accomplished to clear the air, but it begins by taking off your tap dancing shoes. --- In [email protected] <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> , n...@... wrote: > > At 5/4/2009 17:46, you wrote: > >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 > > TASMA has a 70 cm bandplan? That's news to me! > > Bob NO6B > Chairman, TASMA >
