Yes, lots of comments, lots of opinions this week. Here's a new one. If someone wants their own private repeater for their own group, put it on a private BAND. How about coordinating a pair on the 220 band or 1.2 ghz. Privacy, lots of available pairs, nothing to fight over, and you won't have to deal with the rif raf if that is your worry. The characteristics of 220 are about the same as 2 mtrs anyway, less trouble line of sight probably than UHF. -M
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Monday, July 27, 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 of stuff out there where I think the hams used whatever reeds their surplus gear came with, etc. OR are left over from before the coordination. I'm actually NOT using the coordinated tone. My county is on the edge, and every other machine in the county is actually using the wrong tone. I went with "local preference" instead of the coordinated one. I'm not sure when the licensing took place of a lot of these folks, but they seem to start in the middle of the KC0 calls. On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Don Kupferschmidt wrote: 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 about this matter when applying for or renewing their coordination? I live in Southeastern Wisconsin, just north and west of Milwaukee. I could be wrong about this, but I seem to remember a PL frequency band plan by region in the state that is recommended by the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters, who is the coordination body for the state. As there are many hams who are replying to this thread in the CONUS, has anyone checked to see if their individual coordination body has either recommended or mandated PL/DPL (or other regulated means) to keep a system that has been coordinated closed (or open)? Any guidelines that you wish to share with the group? I'd be interested in hearing the results. 73, Don, KD9PT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Wagoner" < <mailto:larrywagoner%40bellsouth.net> larrywago...@bellsouth.net> To: < <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> 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 a >>"closed" repeater. > > Cort, > When were these people licensed - and WHO taught them? > I teach the Tech class in my area - and the facts about tones are > PART of the course (the way I teach it, anyway). > I am often stunned by what LICENSED HAMS do NOT know about this > hobby. Things they should have learned when getting their TECH license. > > > Larry Wagoner - N5WLW > VP - PRCARC > PIC - MS SECT ARRL > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4280 (20090726) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
