[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Now the 'rest of the story'... I stand corrected in my misunderstanding of what went on, and apologize for complaining in public when I was in error. Ed Ed Bathgate Manufacturing Test Engineer Marconi division of Ericsson 4000 Marconi Drive Warrendale PA 15086-7594 (724) 742-6575 Fax (724) 742-7177
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this past weekend. I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members did, and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow from a repeater group who travelled several hours to be there. He was there, in person, with documentation, they insisted he dident have the correct information, and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail. Turns out they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail, that they hadent read. He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship. They were not going to fix it. That's just not the way its done Then they chewed on him because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago, and instead of just doing a modification, they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to reapply at the next session. What a pain in the Neck. I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity, you need lots of age acquired patience to deal with their little kangaroo court. Ed Bathgate Manufacturing Test Engineer Marconi division of Ericsson 4000 Marconi Drive Warrendale PA 15086-7594 (724) 742-6575 Fax (724) 742-7177
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Now the 'rest of the story'. WPRC does not accept modifications of coordination from anyone but the holder of the coordination. That includes in writing or in person. Would YOU want someone else changing YOUR coordination? The transfer of the coordination in question was just requested by the holder days before the meeting and his letter was only seen by the Secretary as of the start of the meeting (as you said - it was in the incoming mail). It never even made it to the coordinator yet! You can't expect something to be processed before it is received. The item in question was received by the Secretary 1/18/07. Rather than mail it to the coordinator, he held it for physical hand-off at the meeting to save the postage. (which is reasonable and common practice) As you noted, once the transfer was brought to light, there was no problem. Had this transfer been sent in earlier, it would not have been an issue at all. Do you send a check in the mail then complain when it is not cleared your bank a few days later? It's exactly the same thing. There is a process paperwork must go through, and it's not a three minute process or even a three day process. Yes there was confusion because someone was talking as if this paperwork was submitted years ago when it was days. It was quickly cleared up when the fact that it was just received was brought to light (as you said). As for they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to reapply at the next session., what are you talking about? That is an outright lie. The transfer is being processed and will be complete within a week from the day it was received by the coordinator. (and only taking that long due to the fact that 11 other coordination requests were received the day before his). Joe M. Bathgate, Ed wrote: I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this past weekend. I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members did, and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow from a repeater group who travelled several hours to be there. He was there, in person, with documentation, they insisted he dident have the correct information, and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail. Turns out they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail, that they hadent read. He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship. They were not going to fix it. That's just not the way its done Then they chewed on him because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago, and instead of just doing a modification, they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to reapply at the next session. What a pain in the Neck. I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity, you need lots of age acquired patience to deal with their little kangaroo court. Ed Bathgate Manufacturing Test Engineer Marconi division of Ericsson 4000 Marconi Drive Warrendale PA 15086-7594 (724) 742-6575 Fax (724) 742-7177 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Yeah, as the former 2 meter and at one time 6 meter coordinator for NARCC here in norther california, I know what you mean about folks wanting instant satisfaction. Stuff takes time! We are volunteers who have actual lives other than our day jobs and coordinating. Paperwork, research, phone calls, plotting coverage, etc. is time consuming. People should wait a while longer before launching thier bitch and moan tirades against a coordinator or the coordinating body. I deal with the commercial side of things these days. Try getting a part 74 950mhz link (radio studio/transmitter links) coordinated *and* licensed in less than 6 months or so. That being said, it is the coordinating body/coordinators job to try and git 'er done in a *reasonable* amount of time.. For some reasonable means the same as instant, unfortunatley. 7treez, Dave Fortenberry, NA6DF - Original Message - From: mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners Now the 'rest of the story'. WPRC does not accept modifications of coordination from anyone but the holder of the coordination. That includes in writing or in person. Would YOU want someone else changing YOUR coordination? The transfer of the coordination in question was just requested by the holder days before the meeting and his letter was only seen by the Secretary as of the start of the meeting (as you said - it was in the incoming mail). It never even made it to the coordinator yet! You can't expect something to be processed before it is received. The item in question was received by the Secretary 1/18/07. Rather than mail it to the coordinator, he held it for physical hand-off at the meeting to save the postage. (which is reasonable and common practice) As you noted, once the transfer was brought to light, there was no problem. Had this transfer been sent in earlier, it would not have been an issue at all. Do you send a check in the mail then complain when it is not cleared your bank a few days later? It's exactly the same thing. There is a process paperwork must go through, and it's not a three minute process or even a three day process. Yes there was confusion because someone was talking as if this paperwork was submitted years ago when it was days. It was quickly cleared up when the fact that it was just received was brought to light (as you said). As for they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to reapply at the next session., what are you talking about? That is an outright lie. The transfer is being processed and will be complete within a week from the day it was received by the coordinator. (and only taking that long due to the fact that 11 other coordination requests were received the day before his). Joe M. Bathgate, Ed wrote: I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this past weekend. I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members did, and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow from a repeater group who travelled several hours to be there. He was there, in person, with documentation, they insisted he dident have the correct information, and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail. Turns out they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail, that they hadent read. He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship. They were not going to fix it. That's just not the way its done Then they chewed on him because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago, and instead of just doing a modification, they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to reapply at the next session. What a pain in the Neck. I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity, you need lots of age acquired patience to deal with their little kangaroo court. Ed Bathgate Manufacturing Test Engineer Marconi division of Ericsson 4000 Marconi Drive Warrendale PA 15086-7594 (724) 742-6575 Fax (724) 742-7177 Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE IT A CLOSED mschine! --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jim B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: W5KGT wrote: And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
hi all, With about all rigs manufactured in last 10 years or more CTCSS encode is standard and finding the tone of the repeater is easy. If the repeater transmits the tone some rigs find it for you. However, this is only if you know a repeater exist on a frequency. Here in Florida I have a high repeater that is NOT toned. With the influx of new Hams and ones on vacation about every week someone comes on my machine and comments it is the only one they can make. The reason is the other repeaters are toned and due to the typical Ham Radio not keeping things up to date they cannot get into the toned repeaters because the tone has been changed. Tone has definite advantages and is being required by repeater cancels more. However, the advantages do not alway apply. Hearing DX is not a problem with me for I have always thought DX was part of Ham Radio. Noise is becoming more common these days so tone would help this. Putting tone on a repeater does not bring it into the 21st century. It brings it to about 1950s technology, but can be good for many. 73, ron, n9ee/r --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE IT A CLOSED mschine! --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Jim B. jdb@ wrote: W5KGT wrote: And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Coy, Repeater coordination is important. However, the ones often doing it don't know much...they like the title, but not the work and many do not even own or operate a repeater. Here in Florida we do have a good coordinating council, but they often get into the mode of making rules that apply to all. My only real problem is they make decissions among them selves without allowing the repeater owners/trustees vote. I would respond to your council you have and state you have notified them on atleast 3 occations the repeater is on the air and that you are willing to demostrate it to them...while they are on the phone bring it up and if possible make a contact. If they continue to take action to de-coordinate I would threaten with legal action. I am sick of all the suing going on in our country, but sometimes it is required. They coordinated you so they have to live with it. If this had been an issue it should have been addressed initially. Most often a good council only wants say your CTCSS tone so another repeater on the same pair does not use it. Here in Florida the council has posted standard tones for each region and most follow it. The only real problem one region was given 100 Hz, kinda the standard for CTCSSng a repeater without closing it...of course these days if you want to close a repeater don't use CTCSS, use non- standard methode or DCS, but most rigs now come with DCS, but dought if most Hams know of it and how to program it in their rigs, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r Coy Hilton wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this. Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners Posted by: Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ac0y8 Date: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:57 am ((PST)) Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE IT A CLOSED mschine! Group, As Coy said, CTCSS does not make a repeater closed! In fact ALL repeaters in Illinois must pretty much use other than carrier squelch to be coordinated or retain their coordination. Actually, it's up to each repeater system operator here to use carrier, CTCSS, DTMF, Captain Crunch, or whatever access, but in cases of interference, preference will be given to the system not using carrier squelch. 73, Al, K9SI
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? Not necessarily. If you can prove that you tried to cooperate with the frequency coordinator in good faith the coordinator failed to respond in kind, the FCC will do little past the letter of inquiry. I have witnessed this first hand. Man, you Northerners and Westerners are an aweful petty bunch. Stuff like this would NEVER happen in the South /sarcasm I think that this really reflects a serious negative attitude in our hobby that should be addressed. People get entirely too tied over over 'my pair' when there are other bands to conquer. This behavior furthers in the mindset that this is an old man's hobby -- because only an old man with nothing else to do with his time but cause trouble can sustain the fight., The result causes brilliant technically minded people to leave, go elsewhere, or just write off entire groups of people based on the interactions with a few bad apples. Food for thought. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.-- Henry Kissinger
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
This behavior furthers in the mindset that this is an old man's hobby -- because only an old man with nothing else to do with his time but cause trouble can sustain the fight. How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college grads) at work. Chris N9XCR
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
At 07:33 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote: Remember - the FCC is the only one with the authority to license use. These are shared channels and we need to share them fairly. Except there is continuing precedence that the recognized local coordinating group carries the full weight of the FCC's teeth, as the FCC almost always sides with the coordinating group. When push comes to shove, the rogue repeater operator WILL lose... To say that one should go ahead and do what they want regardless of the coordinating group's wishes is akin to saying one doesn't need to pay income taxes because the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. I live my life by a couple of simple rules - the first one being while I might screw with a local government agency, I will NEVER mess with the Feds g Kenm -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
At 07:58 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote: Except there is continuing precedence that the recognized local coordinating group carries the full weight of the FCC's teeth, as the FCC almost always sides with the coordinating group. When push comes to shove, the rogue repeater operator WILL lose... ---Oops sorry, that was supposed to go offlist Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Christopher Zeman wrote: How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college grads) at work. Let's put this into (a) perspective; how many 16-22 year olds do you know who have the means and/or ability to put a repeater up? I am 27 and have a fully-built 900MHz repeater sitting in a garage because I lack the resources to erect and/or maintain a tower site. You'd likely want to note that my choice of band means I can all but declare my own coordination as 95% of the US has no local 900MHz repeater operating in Part 97 service. I just look at this more from a perspective of eliminating interference -- for example, there's no reason for a large network of repeaters to NOT be on the same frequency if they have a common backbone on a different band and are designed for interconnected use only. You'll only ever hear the repeater you are closest to and likewise, will only 'work' the reciever closest to your location (except in rare cases). Likewise, it's futile to attempt to work a repeater 80 miles away on the same frequency as a local repeater five miles from your location with just a PL tone change. You reciever will capture the local repeater every time the carrier goes active, regardless of any ability to discern correct PL. The RF signal just won't be there. These are proven solvable problems. People problems, on the other hand... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I don't many, but I was simply responding to the statement that only old men are the ones causing trouble. I just wanted to point out that anyone with the means to put up a repeater have the same opportunity to cause trouble. BTW, I'm 29. :) I considered putting up a 6M or 900MHz repeater myself but, like you, lack the resources necessary to get it on a tower. I have a low-band GE Mastr II sitting at home that needs to be duplexed. I think I'll do it, and just buy the rest of the system, piece-by-piece, until I have a fully functioning system as well. I'll put it up when opportunity presents itself. Kris Kirby wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Christopher Zeman wrote: How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college grads) at work. Let's put this into (a) perspective; how many 16-22 year olds do you know who have the means and/or ability to put a repeater up? I am 27 and have a fully-built 900MHz repeater sitting in a garage because I lack the resources to erect and/or maintain a tower site. You'd likely want to note that my choice of band means I can all but declare my own coordination as 95% of the US has no local 900MHz repeater operating in Part 97 service. I just look at this more from a perspective of eliminating interference -- for example, there's no reason for a large network of repeaters to NOT be on the same frequency if they have a common backbone on a different band and are designed for interconnected use only. You'll only ever hear the repeater you are closest to and likewise, will only 'work' the reciever closest to your location (except in rare cases). Likewise, it's futile to attempt to work a repeater 80 miles away on the same frequency as a local repeater five miles from your location with just a PL tone change. You reciever will capture the local repeater every time the carrier goes active, regardless of any ability to discern correct PL. The RF signal just won't be there. These are proven solvable problems. People problems, on the other hand... -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:kris%40catonic.us
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
W5KGT wrote: And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
At 11:40 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote: W5KGT wrote: And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to. Folks seem to forget that PL/DPL was never meant to be a security feature, although it seems many Hams try to use it as one. And besides, with today's radios it ain't exactly rocket science to figure out which particular tone(s) a particular system uses. I don't see where it makes one iota of difference whether tone(s) are published or not... Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Ken Arck wrote: Folks seem to forget that PL/DPL was never meant to be a security feature, although it seems many Hams try to use it as one. *BINGO* A repeater is closed by virtue of the owner saying this is my system, screw off. -- not by hiding the access method (PL, DPL, DTMF, etc). I don't know where that myth started from but it's been wrong from day one. Requiring a PL does NOT equal a closed repeater. -- Kris Kirby [EMAIL PROTECTED] The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.-- Henry Kissinger
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Not with just about every scanner made having the ability to instantly display it. All someone needs to do is listen to the frequency. Many PC scanner programs even have logging. As for not giving the coordinator access to the info, WPA keeps published and non-published info separate - it's even a separate entry on the coordination form with warnings about what is and is not published. But, if you don't give it to them, and they can't verify the repeater is there, you take your chances on what happens. Joe M. Ken Arck wrote: At 11:40 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote: W5KGT wrote: And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to. Folks seem to forget that PL/DPL was never meant to be a security feature, although it seems many Hams try to use it as one. And besides, with today's radios it ain't exactly rocket science to figure out which particular tone(s) a particular system uses. I don't see where it makes one iota of difference whether tone(s) are published or not... Ken -- President and CTO - Arcom Communications Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories. http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and we offer complete repeater packages! AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000 http://www.irlp.net Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
At 1/19/2007 19:16, you wrote: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? Not necessarily. If you can prove that you tried to cooperate with the frequency coordinator in good faith the coordinator failed to respond in kind, the FCC will do little past the letter of inquiry. I have witnessed this first hand. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
At 1/19/2007 20:49, you wrote: Yes, No obligation to co-ordinate your repeater. However, and this I have seen this personally,(fortunately in my favor) in an interference issue or complaint the first question the FCC asks is this repeater coordinated? Correct. Even if you have been on that pair for centuries and the coordinators have issued coordination of that pair to someone else, the FCC will hold the non coordinated system responsible to eliminate the repeater interference Correct, provided that the uncoordinated system never attempted to obtain coordination. However, in this case it appears that Dave did attempt to communicate with the coordinator the coordinator dropped the ball. In that case the FCC will likely not get involved. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
In my state, the coordination council updates their web page maybe the day after a meeting, telling you about the meeting you missed the previous day. Minutes of meetings are posted similarly way out of date, if at all. Their on-line repeater list hasn't been updated in a year, and it's not as if there are hundreds of new repeaters to add. Maybe two or three TOTAL. The reason: it's a volunteer organization and we have other things to do. Seems to me taking 10 minutes ONCE A YEAR to update four repeater lists isn't that hard. They do it for the data they send to the ARRL for their repeater directory; you'd think they could just extract the info for the web page. Of course it's a clique of repeater trustees or just interested parties. Sure they reserve frequencies for their own future use. The NFCC faded away over the past several years. Every state or US territory was listed there EXCEPT CT, because CT hadn't quite met the requirements for membership. Of course, some of the neighboring state's councils hid behind this little factoid and refused to acknowledge any of the CT repeaters. Maybe someone's trying to get it going again. Bob M. == --- Dave Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the excuses from these people, of course certified mail. Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their excuses and stories. Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin. Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is it? Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot. Regards Dave Schmidt N9NLU Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Mr. Schmidt I do not know you, never met you, have nothing against you except for the paperwork (and lack thereof) on my desk. There is no good-ol- boy network, and I am greatly offended by that sort of accusation. The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters primary issue with you is communication, and the lack thereof. Posting your point of view here is not communication with us. And the attitude expressed within your posts (candor) does not inspire me to go out of my way to take up your cause. We have not lost any other renewal notices from the hundreds of other repeater owners in the state, and I suggest you have a talk with your mail pickup person, as your repeated statements of I've sent it all in does not ring true with what we have received since 2001. I am sorry that it has taken a USPS Certified letter to get your attention, it was the first I have ever had to send out as W.A.R. Chairman; I suggest you read it again. We DO move the meetings around the State of Wisconsin, I and the other Board members and Coordinators put on many miles each year. We go to the membership, so all have the opportunity of attending a meeting closer to home. I am very proud of this point. Our next meeting is in Appleton WI in March. I am also the W.A.R. webmaster, and do apologize for neglecting to post up the next meeting date, but the exact date is still being arranged due to confirmation of room access. From MY point of view, I and our Board, and especially the Coordinators that I have personally appointed, go out of our way to help and assist the Repeater owners of our state. Not just with Coordination, but we help people build machines, take test equipment to sites to help get machines working well, and teach people what we know. We are volunteers in the spirit of the advancement of Amateur Radio (yes I said that, and I believe it). Sir, I am offended by your comments. My apologies to Mr. Custer, this lists moderators, and the entire subscribed membership for posting a technically off topic post to this list in violation of its stated rules. I will not post again on this list regarding this topic. Gary Bargholz, N9UUR Chairman The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the excuses from these people, of course certified mail. Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their excuses and stories. Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin. Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is it? Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot. Regards Dave Schmidt N9NLU On 1/19/07, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Mr. Schmidt, Isn't it strange how irrate these people get when attention is being brought to their short commings?? I too have had this same experience with the cooridinating association in my area and the response to my complaints was identical to the response to yours, seems kind of strange it was almost word for word, kindof as it was a standard form letter of reply. Anyway, don't even bother trying to work with them, they are always rite and you will always be wrong, especially now that we are labeled as trouble makers in their community now. --- n9uur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Schmidt I do not know you, never met you, have nothing against you except for the paperwork (and lack thereof) on my desk. There is no good-ol- boy network, and I am greatly offended by that sort of accusation. The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters primary issue with you is communication, and the lack thereof. Posting your point of view here is not communication with us. And the attitude expressed within your posts (candor) does not inspire me to go out of my way to take up your cause. We have not lost any other renewal notices from the hundreds of other repeater owners in the state, and I suggest you have a talk with your mail pickup person, as your repeated statements of I've sent it all in does not ring true with what we have received since 2001. I am sorry that it has taken a USPS Certified letter to get your attention, it was the first I have ever had to send out as W.A.R. Chairman; I suggest you read it again. We DO move the meetings around the State of Wisconsin, I and the other Board members and Coordinators put on many miles each year. We go to the membership, so all have the opportunity of attending a meeting closer to home. I am very proud of this point. Our next meeting is in Appleton WI in March. I am also the W.A.R. webmaster, and do apologize for neglecting to post up the next meeting date, but the exact date is still being arranged due to confirmation of room access. From MY point of view, I and our Board, and especially the Coordinators that I have personally appointed, go out of our way to help and assist the Repeater owners of our state. Not just with Coordination, but we help people build machines, take test equipment to sites to help get machines working well, and teach people what we know. We are volunteers in the spirit of the advancement of Amateur Radio (yes I said that, and I believe it). Sir, I am offended by your comments. My apologies to Mr. Custer, this lists moderators, and the entire subscribed membership for posting a technically off topic post to this list in violation of its stated rules. I will not post again on this list regarding this topic. Gary Bargholz, N9UUR Chairman The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dave Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After the excuses from these people, of course certified mail. Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their excuses and stories. Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin. Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is it? Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot. Regards Dave Schmidt N9NLU On 1/19/07, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they going to know that? If that's the case, you need to take the bull by the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a mutually convenient time. If you can't they're going to believe that you have a paper repeater, and they're going to give the channel to someone else. They clearly have doubts about your operation, and you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out. Regards, Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a stiffness if the band was popular... but with only one other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They made me feel like I was trying to coordinated a super-wideband repeater that would use 5mhz of specturm... the 'are you freaking crazy' .. mentality. Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that watches what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination is volentary, it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything. Coordinatation entities know this and can bend things around, make things up, then say, you didn't do this or that and you lost your coordination all relying on 'ther word' no proof, no one watching them. Its starting to seem like coordination entities are taking it way too extreme, playing favortism, playing games with repeater owners trying to free up frequencies for their friends... etc etc. By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them coordinate another repeater on that frequency pair, I'll just turn up the wattage and wait for the citations... then haul WAR into the court/fcc procedings to answer for their game playing... and make them use up the money they have stashed aside by making them use it up on attorney fees. Good luck with your plight with your coordinator they probably have a friend who wants a VHF repeater and are using an excuse to give their friend a freq pair. Dave Schmidt N9NLU ( yes, I'm not afraid to shout the truth and sign my name - not like others who hide behind excuses and lack of communications... heck, ignores communications - like the Wisconsin Assocation of Repeaters ) flame suit on On 1/19/07, Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a stiffness if the band was popular... but with only one other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They made me feel like I was trying to coordinated a super-wideband repeater that would use 5mhz of specturm... the 'are you freaking crazy' .. mentality. Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that watches what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination is volentary, it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything. Coordinatation entities know this and can bend things around, make things up, then say, you didn't do this or that and you lost your coordination all relying on 'ther word' no proof, no one watching them. Its starting to seem like coordination entities are taking it way too extreme, playing favortism, playing games with repeater owners trying to free up frequencies for their friends... etc etc. By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them coordinate another repeater on that frequency pair, I'll just turn up the wattage and wait for the citations...
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
After the excuses from these people, of course certified mail. Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their excuses and stories. Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin. Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is it? Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot. Regards Dave Schmidt N9NLU On 1/19/07, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I'll respond to all replys through 68209. If they wanted a aural or off the air check, and if they were so savvy why didn't they ask for just that? All the requests for info about the repeater being on the air was by email and I responded to each and every one and stating that the repeater is closed as coordinated. And by the way, using CTCSS on a repeater does not make it a closed machine. My machine is closed by vertu of disabeling the Tx function by DTMF. All of the permitted users have the access code. The coordinating agency NEVER asked for the access code nor did they ask for a live demo, if they had, they would have gotten it. Oh, the FCC is already involved, the other guy drug Riley into it just before Christmas, and after Christmas, HE got a Dear DIP letter from Riley reminding him that if he reactivated a repeater on the pair he would be in vialation. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not receiving it, I sure would have. But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says This is my forth reply in two yeas, yet the complaint was the first letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC (which was changed years ago) when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues. As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair') You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place, they just deleted the file. Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a cover their a*s letter which stated that no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my coordination because it has been de- coordinated and deleted, There is nothing to update. I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope. I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can understand such a
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Per ยง97.205 Repeater station. (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. As you can see, there is no mention of a repeater operating prior to the existence of the coordinator. At the inception of the coordination body, existing repeater owners were requested to coordinate their repeater. If they elected not to coordinate the repeater, all was well, until, the coordinator coordinated that frequency to a new owner. Then the noncoordinated repeater had to leave the air or explain to the FCC as to why they were causing interference to a coordinated repeater. 73 Glenn WB4UIV (At 10:57 PM 01/19/07, you wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Yes, No obligation to co-ordinate your repeater. However, and this I have seen this personally,(fortunately in my favor) in an interference issue or complaint the first question the FCC asks is this repeater coordinated? Even if you have been on that pair for centuries and the coordinators have issued coordination of that pair to someone else, the FCC will hold the non coordinated system responsible to eliminate the repeater interference [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an explanation. Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
You know, that's a common complaint I hear. The repeater council meeting is not always in my back yard. Many organizations are required by their bylaws to make it convenient for the membership. When you are dealing with a state, that means it has to be moved around and may well be several hundred miles away. If dealing with a national organization, that may be thoudands of miles away. If you don't want to make the trip, by all means don't. But don't complain about the distance. As sure as you do, there are people 300 miles away who complained when it was in your area. It sounds like they are trying to satisfy their membership to me. Joe M. Dave Schmidt wrote: Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
I agree with Jeff. I am the Coordinator for Louisiana. I have all the information in my data base for each repeater. So I should be able to check it. I also have Hams in different parts of the state that check on repeaters for me. We give a year before de-coordination. In that time someone should be able to here the repeater on the air. If not, I will personally contact the owner and find out what's happening. I own a handful of repeaters myself. And I can tell you that sometimes after a severe lighting strike, it may take a while to get things going again. Show them that it is working. Or have a well known Ham verify it and send a e-mail. And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data base. W5KGT Kevin Thomas Calhoun, La. LCARC Coordinator www.w5kgt.com - Original Message From: Jeff Kincaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:34:55 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't, they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they going to know that? If that's the case, you need to take the bull by the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a mutually convenient time. If you can't they're going to believe that you have a paper repeater, and they're going to give the channel to someone else. They clearly have doubts about your operation, and you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out. Regards, Jeff W6JK --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, Coy Hilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Gang I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I answered yes each time. I had even had a on going discussion about having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never asked to prove the repeater existed or even to prove it in any other way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years. My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further replies or suggestions as how to handle this. The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this. TV dinner still cooling? Check out Tonight's Picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Says the FCC via 97.205(c): (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. So, it is not the last repeater on the air who solves it (aas you implied) - it's the uncoordinated one. I never said it was mandatory to coordinate - only that if you don't, you have to resolve the interference to a coordinated repeater. You said show you - I did. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right? Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater with a coordinating group. Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the repeater is operational, any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary.
