Thanks for the info, I suspect the FCC is going to frustrate him further.
Best, dave ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Blasberg To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: KT1B Commentary on Green Petition to Ban Closed Repeaters Dave, I think Murray has an issue with repeaters that have a PL but not "advertising" the pl in any of their announcements. I'm not aware of any closed repeaters in Metro DC either, but I am aware of several with PL that do not have it on the ID/Announcement. As for GMRA and PL, they have a transmit PL on the repeaters and the members can activate receive PL on their radios so as not to get any bleed over from other repeaters on the same frequencies. I too wish they would have a PL on both of their machines. Dan KA8YPY On Aug 28, 2009, at 8:27 PM, WA3GIN wrote: > > > I'm not aware of any closed repeaters in the WDC area. In the VA-Md- > DC area perhaps a half dozen noted as (c) by T-MARC. There are > dozens of repeaters in the WDC area that go unused day after day > after day with a little use in the evenings by a few hand fulls of > civil defense volunteers. There is no spectrum use issue. Perhaps as > the commentator noted, there are too many low power repeater pairs > that perhaps preclude the installation of better coverage systems. I > tend to think there are some that hog freq. pairs purely for > egocentric reasons. > > SO, where is the beef - MURRAY? Who cares if there are a few closed > repeaters? Not me. What I'd like to see is the GMRA provisioning > PL on their repeater which is just 15KHz down from ours. As trustee > I get tired of silly request from the GMRA asking us to do something > about our users who occassionaly bring up their OPEN NON PL'd > repeater ;-)) > > My subjective opinion of one...please flame direct and spare the > reflector members ;-) > > 73, > dave > wa3gin > www.w4ava.org > > > > > >
