I concur with Joe. WPRC has done a good job at putting a CTCSS grid in their coordination area.
Corey-- a note . . . In my case I maintain 4 repeaters in Fayette County, PA with 3 of them being mounted at 2600-2800 AMSL and a HAAT greater than 1000'. On the eastern side of the mountain ridge HAAT could be said to be 200' on average with the western side of the ridge, there ain't nothing higher than us going west for a long way. i.e. till you hit Colorado. Of those 4 repeaters, 1 is currently full time PL (443.750+ 131.8 W3PIE), 2 of the VHF's are in fulltime TX PL with the ability to turn the RX PL on via DTMF control. (147.045 + 131.8 W3PIE, 145.170 - 131.8 WB3JNP) Our remaining repeater is in the process of going to the same setup and should be resolved over the next few months (147.255 + W3PIE) A minor band opening has us routinely picking up mobiles 200-400 miles away on VHF and same or greater on UHF. A major band opening will have stations from Canada talking to stations in Georgia via our repeaters As a note, when the repeaters are in Full PL and the band is "wide open" you may not realize it as the repeater isn't retransmitting the skip. On the flip side of that issue, you may not be able to use your repeater system because the non pl'ed signal is stronger into the receiver than you with the PL. Routinely happens with a backup Public Safety Repeater here on 453.525/458.525 118.8 when the skip is wide open. Traffic from Kentucky state comes in stronger than the mobiles 15 miles from the repeater. Getting people to use the PL'ed repeater is another story. I have been trying to get people to understand that they can transmit a PL of 131.8 on the repeater input full time to make the transition to PL repeater easier. The response I get frequently is :: But the repeater isn't in PL, it won't work if I transmit the PL. . . . Enough from me for now. 73, Tony, KA3VOR -----Original Message----- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MCH Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordi nator authority (was Ã? Re: subaudibe tones..) Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination. Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard, contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the traffic and not enable CTCSS. Joe M. Corey Dean N3FE wrote: > > Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and > aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as > many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a > band opening like we had last week!!! > > Corey N3FE > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote: > > > Joe, > > > > Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on their web site, but not part of any coordination. > > > > Wonder what requirments your WPA state. > > > > Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a good job. > > > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > > > > > > >> From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT > >> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was ÃÂàRe: subaudibe tones..) > > > >> > >> Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes > >> about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the > >> Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be > >> solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case > >> it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well) > >> > >> Joe M. > >> > >> Ron Wright wrote: > >>> > >>> I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used. > >>> > >>> I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference problem occurs they might be asked to get involved. > >>> > >>> There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise, is desired, hi. > >>> > >>> 73, ron, n9ee/r > >>> > >>>> From: George Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT > >>>> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >>>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was Re: subaudibe tones..) > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been > >>>> about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has "control" of > >>>> the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to cite > >>>> Part 97 to back up his claim: > >>>> > >>>>> At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote: > >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>>>> At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote: > >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>> {snip} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical standards > >>>>>>> would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know we (TASMA) > >>>>>>> wouldn't coordinate such a system. > >>>> > >>>> (a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer) > >>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Bob NO6B > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when > >>>>>> issuing coordinations? > >>>> > >>>>> We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3 > >>>>> (a)(22). > >>>> > >>>> I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power to > >>>>>> recommend<< technical parameters, not to "control" them, and certainly not > >>>> to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as > >>>> noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a pair of > >>>> GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star 1.2 > >>>> GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same > >>>> rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?) > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Ron Wright, N9EE > >>> 727-376-6575 > >>> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > >>> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > >>> No tone, all are welcome. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > Ron Wright, N9EE > > 727-376-6575 > > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > > No tone, all are welcome. > > > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by repeater.net, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by repeater.net, and is > believed to be clean. > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
