Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination.
Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the
decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard,
contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the
traffic and not enable CTCSS.
Joe M.
Corey Dean N3FE wrote:
>
> Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and
> aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as
> many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a
> band opening like we had last week!!!
>
> Corey N3FE
>
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote:
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on
> > their web site, but not part of any coordination.
> >
> > Wonder what requirments your WPA state.
> >
> > Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the
> > equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to
> > look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my
> > experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a
> > good job.
> >
> > 73, ron, n9ee/r
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT
> >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
> >>  Re: subaudibe tones..)
> >
> >>
> >> Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes
> >> about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the
> >> Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be
> >> solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case
> >> it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well)
> >>
> >> Joe M.
> >>
> >> Ron Wright wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is
> >>> running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides
> >>> most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used.
> >>>
> >>> I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel
> >>> repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference
> >>> problem occurs they might be asked to get involved.
> >>>
> >>> There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but
> >>> probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise,
> >>> is desired, hi.
> >>>
> >>> 73, ron, n9ee/r
> >>>
> >>>> From: George Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT
> >>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
> >>>> Re: subaudibe tones..)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
> >>>> about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has "control"
> >>>> of
> >>>> the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to
> >>>> cite
> >>>> Part 97 to back up his claim:
> >>>>
> >>>>> At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
> >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>>>> At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
> >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>> {snip}
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical
> >>>>>>> standards
> >>>>>>> would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
> >>>>>>> wouldn't coordinate such a system.
> >>>>
> >>>> (a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob NO6B
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
> >>>>>> issuing coordinations?
> >>>>
> >>>>> We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
> >>>>> (a)(22).
> >>>>
> >>>> I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> recommend<< technical parameters, not to "control" them, and certainly
> >>>>>> not
> >>>> to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
> >>>> noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a
> >>>> pair of
> >>>> GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star
> >>>> 1.2
> >>>> GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
> >>>> rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ron Wright, N9EE
> >>> 727-376-6575
> >>> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
> >>> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
> >>> No tone, all are welcome.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ron Wright, N9EE
> > 727-376-6575
> > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
> > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
> > No tone, all are welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> >
> >
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by repeater.net, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
