Mr. Schmidt
I do not know you, never met you, have nothing against you except for
the paperwork (and lack thereof) on my desk. There is no "good-ol-
boy" network, and I am greatly offended by that sort of accusation.
The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters primary issue with you is
communication, and the lack thereof. Posting your point of view here
is not communication with us. And the attitude expressed within your
posts (candor) does not inspire me to go out of my way to take up
your cause.
We have not "lost" any other renewal notices from the hundreds of
other repeater owners in the state, and I suggest you have a talk
with your mail pickup person, as your repeated statements of "I've
sent it all in" does not ring true with what we have received since
2001. I am sorry that it has taken a USPS Certified letter to get
your attention, it was the first I have ever had to send out as
W.A.R. Chairman; I suggest you read it again.
We DO move the meetings around the State of Wisconsin, I and the
other Board members and Coordinators put on many miles each year. We
go to the membership, so all have the opportunity of attending a
meeting closer to home. I am very proud of this point. Our next
meeting is in Appleton WI in March. I am also the W.A.R. webmaster,
and do apologize for neglecting to post up the next meeting date, but
the exact date is still being arranged due to confirmation of room
access.
>From MY point of view, I and our Board, and especially the
Coordinators that I have personally appointed, go out of our way to
help and assist the Repeater owners of our state. Not just with
Coordination, but we help people build machines, take test equipment
to sites to help get machines working well, and teach people what we
know. We are volunteers in the spirit of the advancement of Amateur
Radio (yes I said that, and I believe it).
Sir, I am offended by your comments.
My apologies to Mr. Custer, this lists moderators, and the entire
subscribed membership for posting a technically "off topic" post to
this list in violation of its stated rules.
I will not post again on this list regarding this topic.
Gary Bargholz, N9UUR
Chairman
The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> After the excuses from these .... people, of course certified
mail.
> Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want
to play
> games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their
> excuses and stories.
>
> Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination
battle. I'll
> make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the
point. Bring
> to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been
screwed over
> as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin.
>
> Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing,
however
> the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit
> unprofessional as well.... looks like it was created on Anglefire.
How
> effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts
club is
> it?
>
> Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving
the
> meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on
their site,
> it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next
meeting
> Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a
couple days
> before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are
eating their
> doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the
next one
> will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never
hold it in
> one spot.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave Schmidt
> N9NLU
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/19/07, 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] <jeffk%40lafn.org>> 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<Repeater-Builder%
40yahoogroups.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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
