You know, Ron, you just gave me an inspiration. What if the coordinators themselves were not hams, and not eligible to operate ham repeaters? Imagine how many "paper repeaters" and how much corruption would disappear instantly!
Maybe we should all elect professional spectrum managers instead of hams, and pay them out of the dues. Hmmm... 73, Paul, AE4KR ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Wright To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? Joe, I know of some Hams who have talked to Riley about setting up standards for coordinators. He and FCC do not want to even think about it. What does it take to be a coordinator??? There may be some standards in the FCC minds. For commercial there are some standards and I think they call license, but for Ham Radio I think anyone can call themselves a coordinator. Some states have more than one. Some repeater owners get upset with the existing coordinator and just form their own. It is a volunteer position and know some just get fed up with what they have to take. A good coordinating body would have good leadership. Leadership, as we were taught in the military, is that trait where the direction given makes others WANT to follow and do as they say. This is often much more than having technical knowledge of a subject. One just likes following this leader. Coordination could be held by a non-licnesed person if the coordinator allowed it. However, the FCC might not follow this. I don't think there is anything in Part 97 preventing this. Since this person could not put on a repeater then there would not be an interferrence problem. It would only tie up a repeater pair for the council's policy restrictions and allow anyone to put on a repeater on that pair within the policy. Other issues such as a paper repeater would do the same for a licensed person. Coordination is one area where Amateur Radio is truly self policing that has some FCC backing. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM, MCH wrote: > When it comes to a coordination, what term CAN you use with the FCC > since they have no term for the holder of a coordination? You can't > call that person a licensee since the coordination is not a license. > > Trustee is an appropriate term in any sense of the word since that > person is entrusted with the coordination - the very definition of a > trustee... someone who is entrusted with something. > > Joe M. > > Paul Plack wrote: >> Wayne, >> >> "Trustee" appears to remain in use by some coordinators for repeaters >> operated directly by the licensees, a context in which the term has >> not had any meaning to the FCC since the "WRxxxx" callsigns went >> away. As long as we use the terms the FCC expects in any official >> communication with the agency itself, I guess it doesn't hurt to >> humor the coordinators. Sure does make things confusing, though. >> >> 73, >> Paul, AE4KR >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> >> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:43 AM >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? >> >> >>> There are quite a few repeaters using club call signs rather than >>> an >>> individuals call sign. >>> I used our club call sign on my first repeater, and am using my own >>> on my >>> repeater here. >>> According to the application for coordination here in Texas, I will >>> be >>> the trustee of the repeater. >>> However, it is not written in stone that a repeater _must_ be >>> coordinated. >>> But it is better in case of any possible conflict with another >>> repeater >>> to be coordinated. >>> >>> I will agree that the license for the call used must be valid at >>> the time >>> of operation, or it is in violation of the rules. >>> Sometimes the rules can be confusing, and I have often seen them >>> misinterpreted. >>> And technically, any repeater has a trustee who is resposible for >>> proper >>> operation, etc... >>> YMMV >>> >>> Wayne WA2YNE >>> Imperial, Tejas >>> 441.950TX 446.950RX Tone 167.9 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:01:53 -0500, Paul Plack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Guys, a "trustee" in FCC licensing terms is someone other than the >>>> licensee who agrees to be responsible for the legal operation of a >>>> transmitter. >>>> >>>> Back in the days when the FCC required a repeater to be licensed >>>> separately with its own callsign, the person responsible for its >>>> operation was a "trustee," because a club or other party was the >>>> licensee. When they did away with separate repeater licenses, there >>>> was >>>> no more need for trustees. >>>> >>>> If your callsign is on the repeater, you are the licensee, not the >>>> trustee. >>>> >>>> Similarly, on Field Day, if a bunch of guys get together and use >>>> the >>>> callsign of the group's only extra-class licensee as the station >>>> callsign for everyone operating, the guy who holds that callsign is >>>> the >>>> station licensee, not a trustee. If it's a club with a club >>>> callsign >>>> separate from any of the individuals, then someone must be a >>>> trustee for >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Are there any repeaters left using club callsigns? If so, those >>>> would be >>>> the only repeaters which still have trustees. >>>> >>>> Paul, AE4KR >>>> >>> -- >>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
