Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes
about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the
Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be
solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case
it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well)
Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote:
>
> I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is running or
> going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides most coordinators
> don't know much about the equipment being used.
>
> I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel
> repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference
> problem occurs they might be asked to get involved.
>
> There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but
> probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise, is
> desired, hi.
>
> 73, ron, n9ee/r
>
> >From: George Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT
> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was
> >Re: subaudibe tones..)
>
> >
> >Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
> >about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has "control" of
> >the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to cite
> >Part 97 to back up his claim:
> >
> >>At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >{snip}
> >> >>
> >> >> Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical standards
> >> >> would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
> >> >>wouldn't coordinate such a system.
> >
> >(a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob NO6B
> >>>
> >>>You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
> >>>issuing coordinations?
> >
> >>We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
> >>(a)(22).
> >
> >I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power to
> > >>recommend<< technical parameters, not to "control" them, and certainly not
> >to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
> >noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a pair of
> >GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star 1.2
> >GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
> >rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
> >
> >
>
> Ron Wright, N9EE
> 727-376-6575
> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
> No tone, all are welcome.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
