-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a
moment
@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a
moment the fact
Mhz as a repeater input or output legally
as long as they are not causing interference.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Again, I will point
--- On Sun, 7/26/09, Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
From: Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 10:35 PM
This is a bit of another example
where people want to extend their
In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs.
Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one
of them.
Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams
on the system.
I don't think I'll lay awake nights worring about it
--
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does
not follow that you must or you should.
Their wording
And who made 2M the only repeater band? Just like HF - if all the
frequencies are used, try another band or wait for something to open up.
Also, many areas have SNP pairs where anyone can put a repeater on the pair.
Oh, and what would happen if 'all' repeaters went closed? I would make
mine
But that is not always an option. We have some repeater owners/trustees who
simply are not mentally stable.
I've seen trustees shut repeaters down because of the following:
1. People were talking about guns.
2. People were talking all night.
3. Someone allowed his child to talk on the repeater.
My views on this:
#1 - If you want a closed repeater then you should get a private
repeater pair coordinated in an appropriate private-communication pool.
will happily assign you a private repeater pair for a reasonable price.
Plain and simple. Amateur radio is not a replacement for a cell
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote:
You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a
defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a
person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as
long as they are not causing interference.
Good point on GMRS, Jacob. I have a GMRS license that I use with
family on road trips, etc. I have considered putting up a GMRS
repeater as well, but know there's not enough users to really warrant
the work, so I stay with my 70cm amateur repeater.
On a likely non-related issue concerning
At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non-
trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a
closed repeater.
Cort,
When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them?
I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Larry Wagoner wrote:
On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non-
trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes a
closed repeater.
Cort, When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? I teach
the Tech class in my area
to
share with the group?
I'd be interested in hearing the results.
73,
Don, KD9PT
- Original Message -
From: Larry Wagoner larrywago...@bellsouth.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 04:10 PM 7
@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there
are
a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share.
I'm going to throw out a question to all:
Has anyone checked
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 04:10 PM 7/27/2009, you wrote:
On a likely non-related issue concerning open vs. closed: A non-
trivial number of the local believe that use of PL/DPL constitutes
At 7/27/2009 14:08, you wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote:
You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a
defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a
person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as
long as
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org wrote:
From: Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 8:52 PM
I've been watching this post for a
number of days now. Seems
, 2009 9:50 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I'll grab a reply to Don and Larry together:
We do have PL coordination in Kansas. There are recommended frequencies for
different regions to make it a bit easier, but there's still a lot
WPA has standard CTCSS tones (and CDCSS codes), but use (decode) is not
mandated except in specific cases, and encode is highly recommended. On
SNP pairs, the CTCSS/CDCSS Tones/Codes are coordinated only to the
extent to prevent reuse in a given area.
Regardless, CTCSS/CDCSS use does not make
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I've been watching this post for a number of days now. Seems that there are
a lot of hams who have at lot of opinions to share.
I'm going to throw out a question to all:
Has anyone checked with in individual state coordinating associations
...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:32 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Yep my point exactly. Owning a repeater is owning a station, not a
frequency. Owning and operating a repeater, is, by part 97
If you do have your tent set up on public property, you would not
care who enters it?
I value my life, how about you? Or in this case, my license.
This stuff about holding a frequency hostage... You are certainly
welcome to use any frequency that a repeater uses, just not be
repeated through
When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it
is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have
the RIGHT to use your radio.
I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that
because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency
Good analogy. Yes, you do have the right to keep others from entering
your tent no matter where it is located. As long as you have the
permission to use the property, your tent can stay there as long as you
want, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to use it. It's still
*your* tent.
-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now
using public
Repeater coordination should be granted or denied based on interference
matters, not on how someone wants to operate their repeater. Since
people have the right to control their private property, such a policy
is begging for a lawsuit.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Being a past chairman
.
David
WA4ECM
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:17 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 10:52 AM 7/26/2009, you wrote:
Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many
applications for close repeater systems. All and every application
that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed
their closed status to an open status.
May I offer a solution that
Cellular
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
When you turn on your 2M radio and tune
At 7/26/2009 07:15, you wrote:
If you have a closed repeater or know of someone that does, why is it
closed? It is monetary, or a decision to limit access to a group of friends?
Most I know of, are a group of friends.
John
Out here we have (maybe had - not sure if the coordinating bodies still
At 7/26/2009 09:01, you wrote:
I m not sure how long many on this board have been in ham radio but years
ago when getting a license for a ham repeater, yes there was a special
license, it was mandatory that you had a receiver monitoring the output of
your repeater and if the frequency was in
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex
conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would
be interference to the
WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many
paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters.
lance Alfieri
President, MetroCor, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: rahwayflynn
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday,
MACKEY
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:05 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com
Today
Martin,
It SOUNDS as though he's trying to help. Why not give him the list and see
what happens? That's how we obtained coordination for one of our systems
here in GA.
Mike
WM4B
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rahwayflynn
You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone,
but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters, why not do everyone
a service and send it to us? if you are really interested in the repeater
community, you might consider volunteering some of your time to
-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Captainlance
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:24 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone,
but if as you say you have such a list
-718-8052 Cellular
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
-- Original Message --
Received
: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down
anyone, but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters,
why not do everyone a service and send it to us? if you are really
interested in the repeater community, you might
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Hi John,
When you were on the Board along with me, what would you have done if there
were an application for coordination come through that was intended for a
closed system.
Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
6886 Sage Ave
Firestone
-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a
moment the fact
Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the
ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have
spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you
have to use that mode.
CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should
Threaded...
Alan Rabin wrote:
Consider
for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are
effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic
area.
True enough.
If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance
on the HF band, and
or c) The info is wrong or incomplete.
That said, if you don't want to be part of the solution, then you are
part of the problem. If you complain about something, and someone in a
position to solve it asks you for specifics, and you don't give any, it
severely cripples your original
] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Unless the state frequency coordinator is the one with all of the paper
repeaters
On Jul 26, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B
After reading just a little of the opening paragraph below, .well..WHAT ?
Interesting the comment here though, that an OFFICIAL CERTIFIED LETTER was
sent, and in the same breath, what if 'he' didn't know 'he' was aware of his
interference? You know this is part of the problem. The whole thread
I had a couple of newer hams recently have an 'experience'. Two were
talking, and a third joined in. The first two were wondering how the
third found where they were, and the third said they were coming through
the (x) repeater. Their reply was Oh, I guess 5 kHz off the input
is close
not be illegal.
Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing
a frequency does not make it illegal.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re
recognizing
a frequency does not make it illegal.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT
From: MCH m...@nb.net
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment
An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just
happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION
is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner
of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to
use his
I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency.
Cort Buffington wrote:
An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens
to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under
no more obligation to allow someone to use it than
: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio
.
Dave Stephens Sr
KF6WJA
Grants Pass Oregon
--- On Sat, 7/25/09, Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net wrote:
From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 8:03 PM
/09, Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net wrote:
From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 8:03 PM
That’s not the issue here and you know it.
Let’s see you spend your
Yep my point exactly. Owning a repeater is owning a station, not a
frequency. Owning and operating a repeater, is, by part 97 almost
identical to owning, say for example, an HF radio and having it set
up and operational. Both are stations, neither own a frequency. The
only difference is
You said it before I could, and that is exactly the reason why this
petition is doomed before it was filed. The FCC has no legal authority
to demand anyone allow use of anyone's station by anyone else.
Joe M.
Cort Buffington wrote:
An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a
And that's still the case. It's not a matter of owning frequencies -
it's a matter of allowing others to use your station.
Do you feel you have the right to use the personal property of someone
else without their consent (implied or expressed)?
The other sub-issue here is interference. If
: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Since when is Amateur radio use predicated on Emergency
Communications? That is not the ONLY reason for Amateur Radio (well,
maybe in your world). My reason for Amateur Radio is far from EmComm
and Providing a service when all else fails. Though I do support
60 matches
Mail list logo
