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 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 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"
> > <ac0y8@> 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.
> > >
> >
> >
>
