[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic area. If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance on the HF band, and tell others they cannot use them what would most of us say? I for one would say you were working split. 73! -Adam WJ4X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Adam that was funny! Thanks for that. Have fun, Alan Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Adam techiea...@yahoo.com Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:48:38 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic area. If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance on the HF band, and tell others they cannot use them what would most of us say? I for one would say you were working split. 73! -Adam WJ4X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Or maybe one of the big wideband AM signals, 25 kcs. Jim K7OET From: Adam techiea...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:48:38 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic area. If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance on the HF band, and tell others they cannot use them what would most of us say? I for one would say you were working split. 73! -Adam WJ4X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
The issue you point to of CW being allowed in the voice band is a bandwidth issue. That has nothing to do with repeater sub-bands. You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
--- On Sun, 7/26/09, Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net wrote: From: Steve petn...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 10:35 PM This is a bit of another example where people want to extend their Constitutional Rights beyond what was intended. If we think any closed repeater system should be open to all because it uses a shared resource (the frequencies), then where do we stop? Does that mean that anyone gets to ride in my vehicle for free because I am driving on a public road, or Interstate Highway? A closed repeater is taking up space. If you want to go the highway route, look at it in another way. YOu are on two lane interstate and a friend comes along side of you . Both of you decide to stop in the middle of the road to talk. You are in your own car, but stopping the whole highway. HOw would you like it if when your repeater was not being used, someone else put a repeater on the air, maybe even using a digital mode that you can not decode by ear ? In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one of them. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system. I don't think I'll lay awake nights worring about it just yet. What are the odds that something like this will come close to happening? Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
OK, let's see if you understand this explanation... The only place on 2M repeaters are not allowed is in the satellite and weak signal sub-bands. From your theory, FM simplex, packet, and any mode other than satellite, weak signal, and repeaters are the only modes that should be operated on 2M? If you call Part 97 a bandplan, that's what you're saying. Put another way, where is the band segment for FM simplex? Where is the band segment for Packet? Part 97 is not a bandplan - it only describes the sub-bands where certain modes are legal. That doesn't mean the entire legal sub-band is only for those modes. I would argue that the FCC never intended to make the 146-148 MHz segment entirely repeaters, and by allowing them in that segment meant the exclusion of any other mode. Again, just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to do something. Part 97 is exclusionary, not inclusionary. You notice the repeater sub-bands say that repeaters may be operated in all EXCEPT the satellite and weak signal sub-bands, and not that they MUST be operated there. I would be legal operating CW on the PSK frequency on HF. Does that mean that people should operate only CW there? CW is legal on the ECARS/MidCARS/WCARS frequencies. Should CW be operated there? Again, legal does not make something right. When I'm responding to an emergency call, it is legal to travel at 100+ MPH. Does that mean I should? No - there are other concerns IN ADDITION TO the legal aspects. You don't seem to understand that. Same with repeaters - there are other aspects to the bands in addition to what is legal on any particular frequency. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: The issue you point to of CW being allowed in the voice band is a bandwidth issue. That has nothing to do with repeater sub-bands. You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:57:07 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
And who made 2M the only repeater band? Just like HF - if all the frequencies are used, try another band or wait for something to open up. Also, many areas have SNP pairs where anyone can put a repeater on the pair. Oh, and what would happen if 'all' repeaters went closed? I would make mine open and have the most popular repeater in the area. Joe M. Ralph Mowery wrote: In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Suspose all repeater owners decide to go closed and not let any new hams on the system.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
But that is not always an option. We have some repeater owners/trustees who simply are not mentally stable. I've seen trustees shut repeaters down because of the following: 1. People were talking about guns. 2. People were talking all night. 3. Someone allowed his child to talk on the repeater. yea, those repeaters sit idle until someone starts using them, then the repeaters get shut down because someone is using them for legal activity! -- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:12:07 AM PDT From: Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner.com In lots of areas, there are no open 2 meter repeater pairs. Yes, and there are plenty of open repeaters sitting there idle. Go use one of them.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
My views on this: #1 - If you want a closed repeater then you should get a private repeater pair coordinated in an appropriate private-communication pool. will happily assign you a private repeater pair for a reasonable price. Plain and simple. Amateur radio is not a replacement for a cell phone, nor should it be treated like one. If you legitimately NEED private communications this isn't even a significant expense. Make your 'radio club' worthwhile with a *real* private repeater (that your non-radio-geek wife can use, too!) Just because you hold an amateur license doesn't mean your communications/equipment/use are always in the interest of amateur radio and quite often are in the exact opposite interest of the overall community. This also includes situations where all the rest of the users of your closed repeater happen to be licensed amateurs, too. If nothing else, GMRS licenses are cheap (not ham cheap, but cheaper than a 'real' repeater pair) and get you UHF and plenty of power for most communications. #2 - digital does not mean 'closed system' - it means you gotta pay (for hardware) to play. Its also not the end of the 'home made repeater' - if anything its just the beginning... Just my 2 cents as a semi-interested party. JS Maire-Radios wrote: * yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. * * * * John *
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote: You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. Why don't we discuss the fact that in virtually every area in the country, there are at least three repeaters in the linear translator part of the band? This makes it impossible to coordinate and implement a linear translator, which functions like a repeater but repeats *any* mode within the bandpass -- and does so using the minimum amount of power. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Good point on GMRS, Jacob. I have a GMRS license that I use with family on road trips, etc. I have considered putting up a GMRS repeater as well, but know there's not enough users to really warrant the work, so I stay with my 70cm amateur repeater. 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. Such as, is that an open repeater, or does it have a tone? We actually have a fair amount of ambiguity about what open and closed really mean, CSQ and PL/DPL have been conflated with open and closed to create a reality where a number believe if it has a tone you're not allowed to talk on it, others are confused, and of course, many do know what's going on. On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Jacob Suter wrote: My views on this: #1 - If you want a closed repeater then you should get a private repeater pair coordinated in an appropriate private-communication pool. will happily assign you a private repeater pair for a reasonable price. Plain and simple. Amateur radio is not a replacement for a cell phone, nor should it be treated like one. If you legitimately NEED private communications this isn't even a significant expense. Make your 'radio club' worthwhile with a *real* private repeater (that your non-radio-geek wife can use, too!) Just because you hold an amateur license doesn't mean your communications/equipment/use are always in the interest of amateur radio and quite often are in the exact opposite interest of the overall community. This also includes situations where all the rest of the users of your closed repeater happen to be licensed amateurs, too. If nothing else, GMRS licenses are cheap (not ham cheap, but cheaper than a 'real' repeater pair) and get you UHF and plenty of power for most communications. #2 - digital does not mean 'closed system' - it means you gotta pay (for hardware) to play. Its also not the end of the 'home made repeater' - if anything its just the beginning... Just my 2 cents as a semi-interested party. JS Maire-Radios wrote: * yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. * * * * John * -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Larry Wagoner 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. Seconded on both points. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
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 larrywago...@bellsouth.net To: 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
CTCSS is mandatory here. Western New York Southern Ontario Repeater Counsel is the coordinating body for my area. They have recommended tones, but permit alternative tone use. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:52 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters 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
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 larrywago...@bellsouth.net To: 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
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 7/27/2009 14:08, you wrote: On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, JOHN MACKEY wrote: You can call the frequency ranges (where the FCC allows repeaters) a defacto band plan or any other term you want. What it means is that a person could use 146.52 Mhz as a repeater input or output legally as long as they are not causing interference. Why don't we discuss the fact that in virtually every area in the country, there are at least three repeaters in the linear translator part of the band? In SoCal there is no spectrum for linear translators in the VHF/UHF bandplans. A long time (30 years?) ago there were 2 pairs available for them, but were removed due to lack of any interest in the mode. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org wrote: From: Don Kupferschmidt d...@httpd.org Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 8:52 PM 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 You can check out what the SERA has to say for many of the southern states here: http://www.sera.org/ They recommend using a subaudio tone and discourage closed repeaters. Our repeater has always had the policy for over 35 years that you should suppport one repeater, but have basic access to all. It was not a requirement that you had to support any repeater. A few years ago they tried to make it a requirement that repeaters had to have a subaudio tone. Many repeater owners sent out a bunch of email and got that requirement reversed. While the repeater I help keep up had a subaudio tone on it because at one time there was a paging system that was keying up lots of repeaters in the state, I sent email not to make the tone a requirement.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
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.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
WPA has standard CTCSS tones (and CDCSS codes), but use (decode) is not mandated except in specific cases, and encode is highly recommended. On SNP pairs, the CTCSS/CDCSS Tones/Codes are coordinated only to the extent to prevent reuse in a given area. Regardless, CTCSS/CDCSS use does not make a repeater closed. A closed repeater is one on which users are not authorized to use unless given permission by the owner/group/another member/whatever. It could even be CSQ receive and be closed. An open repeater is one which anyone can use UNLESS they have been denied authorization. BTW, WPA had a linear translator on the air, but the owner removed it after interference from users of FM repeaters in other states whose bandplan didn't include LTs. As there was no interest in the mode, WPA followed suit and coordinated FM repeaters in that segment since it was clear it wasn't usable for LTs. Joe M. Don Kupferschmidt wrote: 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?
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Here is the way we do it in Arkansas. There are six districts and each use different CTCSS tones. As far as the discussion of open and closed based on tone, I hear from many older hams that toned repeaters are closed and non-toned repeaters are open (must have been that way before my time no doubt). Our local club repeater is open, some access to it requires tone, and some doesn't. None of it is closed, but we do have the right and exercise the right to limit access to those who follow the policies set forth by the club. Always with the attitude to help and encourage all, with much patience and understanding. If some nutcase just refuses too act right, then it becomes closed to him. I am not trying to address the closed repeater question at all, simply that OPEN repeaters may or may not be toned, and even an open repeater may restrict certain users and still not have a tone on their repeater. http://www.arkansasrepeatercouncil.org/page25.html John Godfrey KE5NZY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Kupferschmidt Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:52 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters 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 larrywagoner@ mailto:larrywagoner%40bellsouth.net bellsouth.net To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 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
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Until your local coordinating body cites you for interference on a coordinated frequency pair. Just to clarify my PERSONAL opinion, it doesn't hurt my feelings at all if a repeater is closed access. Chris Kb0wlf From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:32 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Yep my point exactly. Owning a repeater is owning a station, not a frequency. Owning and operating a repeater, is, by part 97 almost identical to owning, say for example, an HF radio and having it set up and operational. Both are stations, neither own a frequency. The only difference is one operates under automatic control and another doesn't. On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:55 PM, AA8K73 GMail wrote: I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.25/2256 - Release Date: 07/25/09 05:58:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent?
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The other sub-issue here is interference. If someone starts using a frequency someone else has been using, that's intentional interference. Does anyone have the right to intentionally interfere with someone else? Operating on an occupied frequency always has been against the rules. If anyone wants to put on their own repeater, they can. A pair (frequency) might not be available in the band they want, but I doubt every repeater pair is used anywhere - including the most densely populated areas of the country. I wanted a reliable P25 digital system to use. Every pair in my area is supposedly coordinated. http://www.metrocor.net/frequencylist.htm Many are paper repeaters that are supposedly local to me. I put up a mixed mode P25 machine on VHF. The NAC is set to the digital equivalent of CSQ. The system ID's itself per 97.119. The antenna has a deep null toward the active system on my pair (which is actually below the radio horizon). The system is engineered to provide local coverage only. No linking, no IRLP, just a basic P25 local repeater. The point being I would not care if other used the system. It's been up for a more then a year. Not a peep from anyone other then the handful of people I told about it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
If you do have your tent set up on public property, you would not care who enters it? I value my life, how about you? Or in this case, my license. This stuff about holding a frequency hostage... You are certainly welcome to use any frequency that a repeater uses, just not be repeated through it. If the repeater is deemed limited access, you must ask for permission to use it. If you have a closed repeater or know of someone that does, why is it closed? It is monetary, or a decision to limit access to a group of friends? Most I know of, are a group of friends. John At 09:14 AM 7/26/2009, you wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Still can't own an amateur frequency, but you can own a STATION. GC W2DB --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, AA8K73 GMail aa8...@... wrote: I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
This wasn't my post but I do have some thoughts on the subject. I do partially understand the problems of both sides. Yes the equipment is owned by someone and no one else has the right to demand use of it. However I would also say comparing a repeater to your home station is a bad choice. On your home station if the freq is clear you are free to use it. It isn't owned by any one person. In the repeater world this isn't true. Repeater owners feel that not only the equipment is theirs but the freq is theirs too. If a local repeater is not in current use and I also have a repeater on the same freqs why can't I use the pair. I am not using their equipment to do it am I? I know this is reaching but hopefully you can see my point. I personally own, operate and upkeep 2 repeaters along with an aprs digi and igate with a partner that happens to be currently deployed with the military. I don't and won't operate these stations in a private mode. They are open for anyone to use. I will address bad operation with the individuals and direct them to the many repeater operator manuals available. I would prefer to see actions taken to require all repeaters that occupy valuable and in short supply freq pairs to operate openly. Hopefully we also would be able to have the chronic bad actors taken care of the same as you would anywhere in the amateur world (we need some work here too). The best (irritating) story is back when autopatches were used before cell phones were so abundant. I received a phone call VERY early in the morning, 2 or 3 am. They were just calling to let me know the autopatch wasn't working. They didn't get much of a thank you but we talked about it the next day. My name is Tim Campbell KB2MFS Co-owner and operator of the N4CKV repeaters and N4CKV-1 aprs digi I am receiving digest emails daily so my response may be a little slow. Re: Closed Repeaters Posted by: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net mwbesemer2000 Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:03 pm (PDT) That's not the issue here and you know it. Let's see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you've got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
The same analogy could be made for AM-FM-TV stations as well as Cellular, Nextel, and other such similar private owners of the public radio spectrum who get exclusive use granted. Allan Crites WA9ZZU --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Zabawa kg4...@... wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have the RIGHT to use your radio. I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency pair, that I have any expectation of exclusive right to those frequencies. Also consider how much of our debate is actually part 97 and how much we are debating long held best practice and gentleman's agreement. I don't think operating simplex on a repeater output is malicious interference if it's not walking over the repeater transmitter. I think if you want closed repeater access that you should use PL, or better, DPL, or best, DTMF access (turn it on when you use it). I think the number of times someone would operate simplex on a repeater input as a necessity of band congestion and just happen to use the same PL/DPL as the repeater is astronomical... unless the person were just trying to cause trouble... oh wait, that would then be malicious interference. I have the view I do on this because I do not hold the premise that because I have a coordinated repeater that I have the right to the spectrum. And actually none of us have the RIGHT to use the spectrum. We are granted the PRIVILEGE of using it by the government by obtaining the proper class amateur radio license. Getting along, being considerate, willing to compromise, and making and following our own rules is a big part of why the government has been as good as it has to Amateur radio. For example, there are no bandplans in part 97... those are things we agreed to on our own. Maybe if there's such a shortage of repeater frequencies and a huge pent up demand for them we should consider changing our bandplans? I know there are some areas of the country that have problems using 440 (I'm really sorry guys, I wish you didn't have those restrictions). the amateur 440 band is 30MHz wide. A repeater takes 2 x 5kHz channels. Jesus people, what are we fighting about? On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Dennis Zabawa wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Good analogy. Yes, you do have the right to keep others from entering your tent no matter where it is located. As long as you have the permission to use the property, your tent can stay there as long as you want, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to use it. It's still *your* tent. You can allow others to use it, but that's your decision, not theirs. Again, tent or ham station - it's still private property. That goes for all repeaters, too. In my area, virtually all repeaters are open which means anyone can use them unless expressly told otherwise. On mine, anyone can use it except for a few people who have caused malicious interference to other people they didn't want using my repeater. Yes, those people banned were cited by the FCC, too. I have the right to deny anyone use of my repeater for any reason I see fit. Joe M. Dennis Zabawa wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
No matter how the repeater owners feel, they don't own the frequency. They activate a repeater which uses it on a continual basis until it's shut down - no different than turning on your HF radio, finding a clear frequency, then operating there for years. When do you lose the right to say someone cannot operate your station? Both are using 'public spectrum', so that argument is moot. I know someone who has a killer station on 160M. I can't put up a similar antenna, so do I have the right to demand to use his station so I can work that rare DX? It's not a bad analogy - both are ham radio stations owned by you. How long you use a frequency should not determine if others can demand to use your station or not. Joe M. Tim and Janet wrote: This wasn't my post but I do have some thoughts on the subject. I do partially understand the problems of both sides. Yes the equipment is owned by someone and no one else has the right to demand use of it. However I would also say comparing a repeater to your home station is a bad choice. On your home station if the freq is clear you are free to use it. It isn't owned by any one person. In the repeater world this isn't true. Repeater owners feel that not only the equipment is theirs but the freq is theirs too. If a local repeater is not in current use and I also have a repeater on the same freqs why can't I use the pair. I am not using their equipment to do it am I? I know this is reaching but hopefully you can see my point. I personally own, operate and upkeep 2 repeaters along with an aprs digi and igate with a partner that happens to be currently deployed with the military. I don't and won't operate these stations in a private mode. They are open for anyone to use. I will address bad operation with the individuals and direct them to the many repeater operator manuals available. I would prefer to see actions taken to require all repeaters that occupy valuable and in short supply freq pairs to operate openly. Hopefully we also would be able to have the chronic bad actors taken care of the same as you would anywhere in the amateur world (we need some work here too). The best (irritating) story is back when autopatches were used before cell phones were so abundant. I received a phone call VERY early in the morning, 2 or 3 am. They were just calling to let me know the autopatch wasn't working. They didn't get much of a thank you but we talked about it the next day. My name is Tim Campbell KB2MFS Co-owner and operator of the N4CKV repeaters and N4CKV-1 aprs digi I am receiving digest emails daily so my response may be a little slow. Re: Closed Repeaters http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/message/92834;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWFxaW4zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEbXNnSWQDOTI4MzQEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTI0ODYwNTQzMw-- Posted by: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net mailto:mwbese...@cox.net?subject= Re%3A%20Closed%20Repeaters mwbesemer2000 http://profiles.yahoo.com/mwbesemer2000 Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:03 pm (PDT) That's not the issue here and you know it. Let's see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you've got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Hi Cort, Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed status to an open status. I guess if a coordinator is allowing repeaters to get coordinated with a closed status, it really does not benefit the ham community. Having had and owned a linked repeater system with over 28 personal repeaters within a system that has over 75 linked repeaters through 4 states. If we closed the system to a members closed system. Nobody would ever use the system and more than ½ of the repeaters would get kicked off the hill tops. When we have clubs ask for repeater space on the tower, the first thing I ask is what do they plan to accomplish with their system and second is the system for all to use. I have had several say their system is closed for club members only. Those groups would never get free space on the towers. The guys that want to benefit all amateurs and their systems are open to all licensed amateurs, I would always go out of my way to help them out and most of the time I would even give them FREE space. Hell, I would even combine them in on the broadband antennas and multi couplers as long as their equipment was engineered good and clean. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have the RIGHT to use your radio. I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency pair, that I have any expectation of exclusive right to those frequencies. Also consider how much of our debate is actually part 97 and how much we are debating long held best practice and gentleman's agreement. I don't think operating simplex on a repeater output is malicious interference if it's not walking over the repeater transmitter. I think if you want closed repeater access that you should use PL, or better, DPL, or best, DTMF access (turn it on when you use it). I think the number of times someone would operate simplex on a repeater input as a necessity of band congestion and just happen to use the same PL/DPL as the repeater is astronomical... unless the person were just trying to cause trouble... oh wait, that would then be malicious interference. I have the view I do on this because I do not hold the premise that because I have a coordinated repeater that I have the right to the spectrum. And actually none of us have the RIGHT to use the spectrum. We are granted the PRIVILEGE of using it by the government by obtaining the proper class amateur radio license. Getting along, being considerate, willing to compromise, and making and following our own rules is a big part of why the government has been as good as it has to Amateur radio. For example, there are no bandplans in part 97... those are things we agreed to on our own. Maybe if there's such a shortage of repeater frequencies and a huge pent up demand for them we should consider changing our bandplans? I know there are some areas of the country that have problems using 440 (I'm really sorry guys, I wish you didn't have those restrictions). the amateur 440 band is 30MHz wide. A repeater takes 2 x 5kHz channels. Jesus people, what are we fighting about? On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Dennis Zabawa wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.30/2263 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Repeater coordination should be granted or denied based on interference matters, not on how someone wants to operate their repeater. Since people have the right to control their private property, such a policy is begging for a lawsuit. Joe M. Mike Mullarkey wrote: Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed status to an open status.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I'm not sure how long many on this board have been in ham radio but years ago when getting a license for a ham repeater, yes there was a special license, it was mandatory that you had a receiver monitoring the output of your repeater and if the frequency was in use the repeater was not to transmit to cause interference to an existing conversation. Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? There are enough simplex frequencies available that there should not be a need to use a frequency that has a repeater output. I listen/scan the basic simplex frequencies and usually hear one or two conversations a week. Most of the simplex frequencies never are used. David WA4ECM -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have the RIGHT to use your radio. I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency pair, that I have any expectation of exclusive right to those frequencies. Also consider how much of our debate is actually part 97 and how much we are debating long held best practice and gentleman's agreement. I don't think operating simplex on a repeater output is malicious interference if it's not walking over the repeater transmitter. I think if you want closed repeater access that you should use PL, or better, DPL, or best, DTMF access (turn it on when you use it). I think the number of times someone would operate simplex on a repeater input as a necessity of band congestion and just happen to use the same PL/DPL as the repeater is astronomical... unless the person were just trying to cause trouble... oh wait, that would then be malicious interference. I have the view I do on this because I do not hold the premise that because I have a coordinated repeater that I have the right to the spectrum. And actually none of us have the RIGHT to use the spectrum. We are granted the PRIVILEGE of using it by the government by obtaining the proper class amateur radio license. Getting along, being considerate, willing to compromise, and making and following our own rules is a big part of why the government has been as good as it has to Amateur radio. For example, there are no bandplans in part 97... those are things we agreed to on our own. Maybe if there's such a shortage of repeater frequencies and a huge pent up demand for them we should consider changing our bandplans? I know there are some areas of the country that have problems using 440 (I'm really sorry guys, I wish you didn't have those restrictions). the amateur 440 band is 30MHz wide. A repeater takes 2 x 5kHz channels. Jesus people, what are we fighting about? On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Dennis Zabawa wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 10:52 AM 7/26/2009, you wrote: Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed status to an open status. May I offer a solution that seems to work in my area? There is a very nice repeater near here - operated by a local DX group and owned by one of their members. It is nominally open - but is for the *main* use of the DX group. It is, if you will, open with PREFERRED status enjoyed by the group. Their use is considered primary with other users secondary, if you will. Now the owner is thinking of making the machine D-Star. I regret that, because it will mean I can no longer use it (I don't do D-Star) but it is *HIS* machine. He also has some other personal rules. Again - I may disagree with them, but it is *HIS* machine. I get to use it as a guest - and I am expected to behave that way. I'm not sure when we lost sight of that relationship. Larry Wagoner - N5WLW VP - PRCARC PIC - MS SECT ARRL
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Lawsuits will be the death of us if we don't change how and when they are used! The freq allocations that the government has allowed us to use are put there for the masses to use not for a priveleged few. There are other avenues available besides amateur repeaters to handle and allow specific use as well as limit those that can use them. I agree completely that open systems should be given priority over closed ones for coordination simply because the mere idea of a closed system goes against what the Ham spirit is supposed to be about. I do think owner/operators should be able to ban certain users due to continuous problems but this is much different than closing a system. HF has been used as an example so I will try that one too. Just because your friend may have a killer 160M antenna does not give you the right to go into his house uninvited and use his antenna. Besides he may have a loaded gun. It also does not give him the right to squat on a freq and hold it for years deciding who can use it and who can't. What I would like to see happen is this guy would invite anyone interested in 160M DX to come for a visit and use his station or if met on the air allow the other guy to join in the qso. Maybe we should establish coordination groups for HF freqs too!!!(kinda works that way on 75M anyway) Tim KB2MFS --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: Repeater coordination should be granted or denied based on interference matters, not on how someone wants to operate their repeater. Since people have the right to control their private property, such a policy is begging for a lawsuit. Joe M. Mike Mullarkey wrote: Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed status to an open status.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Oh, BTW: I've never run a system that was closed for more than a few months. The only time I've been closed was when I was trying to get a new and elaborate system on the air. I kept it closed for a few months until all of the kinks were worked out and understood. Unfortunately our state coordinator cannot be troubled to get the city, callsign, or status listed correctly after several update forms being submitted to do that. I happen to believe in open systems for the most part, but also am painfully aware of the cost to individuals putting up systems, and am advocate for the owner remaining in control. I guess my feeling is that if we disallow a closed repeater, what's next? Will the next regulation change take away the ability for the owner to set his/her own rules for using a system? Mike, I do like your comments -- closed systems probably are a lot less likely to get free support. It's your tower (or under your control), you can give someone space or not. Which is exactly my point. For decades our community has managed to regulate itself pretty nicely -- well, I should say, where I've lived it has. On Jul 26, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Mike Mullarkey wrote: Hi Cort, Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed status to an open status. I guess if a coordinator is allowing repeaters to get coordinated with a closed status, it really does not benefit the ham community. Having had and owned a linked repeater system with over 28 personal repeaters within a system that has over 75 linked repeaters through 4 states. If we closed the system to a members closed system. Nobody would ever use the system and more than ½ of the repeaters would get kicked off the hill tops. When we have clubs ask for repeater space on the tower, the first thing I ask is what do they plan to accomplish with their system and second is the system for all to use. I have had several say their system is closed for club members only. Those groups would never get free space on the towers. The guys that want to benefit all amateurs and their systems are open to all licensed amateurs, I would always go out of my way to help them out and most of the time I would even give them FREE space. Hell, I would even combine them in on the broadband antennas and multi couplers as long as their equipment was engineered good and clean. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have the RIGHT to use your radio. I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency pair, that I have any expectation of exclusive right to those frequencies. Also consider how much of our debate is actually part 97 and how much we are debating long held best practice and gentleman's agreement. I don't think operating simplex on a repeater output is malicious interference if it's not walking over the repeater transmitter. I think if you want closed repeater access that you should use PL, or better, DPL, or best, DTMF access (turn it on when you use it). I think the number of times someone would operate simplex on a repeater input as a necessity of band congestion and just happen to use the same PL/DPL as the repeater is astronomical... unless the person were just trying to cause trouble... oh wait, that would then be malicious interference. I have the view I do on this because I do not hold the premise that because I have a coordinated repeater that I have the right to the spectrum. And actually none of us have the RIGHT to use the spectrum. We are granted the PRIVILEGE of using it by the government by obtaining the proper class amateur radio license. Getting along, being considerate, willing to compromise, and making and following our own rules is a big part of why the government has been as good as it has to Amateur radio. For example, there are no bandplans in part 97... those are things we agreed to on our own. Maybe if there's such a shortage of repeater frequencies and a huge pent up demand for them we should consider changing our bandplans? I know there are some areas of the country that have problems using 440 (I'm really sorry guys, I wish you didn't have those restrictions). the amateur 440 band is 30MHz wide. A repeater takes 2 x
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 7/26/2009 07:15, you wrote: If you have a closed repeater or know of someone that does, why is it closed? It is monetary, or a decision to limit access to a group of friends? Most I know of, are a group of friends. John Out here we have (maybe had - not sure if the coordinating bodies still follow this, but they did at one point) distinctions between the above 2 reasons: a CLOSED repeater is one where permission is required to use it, but that permission can be obtained simply by joining a support organization, and thus is open to all provided they pay dues. PRIVATE repeaters also require permission to use, but that permission is at the discretion of the trustee. The private repeaters are typically the group of friends systems. Yet another classification is noted in the list at http://rptrlist.w6jpl.ampr.org: friendly systems (either closed or private) allow occasional usage by non-members for purposes of test-driving the system or to simply say hi. This is good IMO as it gives noobies more repeaters to try without risk of being chewed out for intruding on someone's private frequency. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
At 7/26/2009 09:01, you wrote: I m not sure how long many on this board have been in ham radio but years ago when getting a license for a ham repeater, yes there was a special license, it was mandatory that you had a receiver monitoring the output of your repeater and if the frequency was in use the repeater was not to transmit to cause interference to an existing conversation. I actually had a repeater on the air equipped with such a BCLO receiver. Funny how often the repeater wouldn't come up when someone wanted to use it once others figured out they could transmit a weak signal on the output to keep the repeater locked down. Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? No, because those who are trying to use the output for simplex are not following the area bandplan. No different that someone claiming interference to his CW communications on 7250 kHz by adjacent SSB. There are enough simplex frequencies available that there should not be a need to use a frequency that has a repeater output. I listen/scan the basic simplex frequencies and usually hear one or two conversations a week. Most of the simplex frequencies never are used. Exactly. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
-- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc. - Original Message - From: rahwayflynn To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:28 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: The other sub-issue here is interference. If someone starts using a frequency someone else has been using, that's intentional interference. Does anyone have the right to intentionally interfere with someone else? Operating on an occupied frequency always has been against the rules. If anyone wants to put on their own repeater, they can. A pair (frequency) might not be available in the band they want, but I doubt every repeater pair is used anywhere - including the most densely populated areas of the country. I wanted a reliable P25 digital system to use. Every pair in my area is supposedly coordinated. http://www.metrocor.net/frequencylist.htm Many are paper repeaters that are supposedly local to me. I put up a mixed mode P25 machine on VHF. The NAC is set to the digital equivalent of CSQ. The system ID's itself per 97.119. The antenna has a deep null toward the active system on my pair (which is actually below the radio horizon). The system is engineered to provide local coverage only. No linking, no IRLP, just a basic P25 local repeater. The point being I would not care if other used the system. It's been up for a more then a year. Not a peep from anyone other then the handful of people I told about it. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.30/2262 - Release Date: 07/25/09 18:01:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
That's true, John. but it was the national simplex calling frequency BEFORE repeaters were invented. It just happens to lie in an island in the middle of the subbands. 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!!
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Martin, It SOUNDS as though he's trying to help. Why not give him the list and see what happens? That's how we obtained coordination for one of our systems here in GA. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rahwayflynn Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 5:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I haven't even touched on the fact that repeater usage is down dramatically in most areas in the country. Note the decline in the number of system listed in the NY/NJ area http://www.metrocor.net/144MHz.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20050226221406/http://www.metrocor.net/144MHz.htm
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone, but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters, why not do everyone a service and send it to us? if you are really interested in the repeater community, you might consider volunteering some of your time to assist our organization in it's duties.We openly solicit any responsible amateur to assist us. Any open channels that we can confirm only allow someone else to gain their use and coordination. you would be doing a public service to the Amateur community here in NY/NJ lance N2HBA President, MetroCor, Inc. - Original Message - From: rahwayflynn To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I'd love to hear how this plays out. Locally, we had great luck decoordinating a paper repeater and getting it recoordinated to us. All it took was a good relationship with our state coordinator and a little bit of time monitoring. We all understand that sometimes a system goes down and takes a bit longer to get operational again than we'd originally anticipated, but there are definitely repeaters out there. all over the US. that are paper only and will remain that way indefinitely unless we help. 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Captainlance Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone, but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters, why not do everyone a service and send it to us? if you are really interested in the repeater community, you might consider volunteering some of your time to assist our organization in it's duties.We openly solicit any responsible amateur to assist us. Any open channels that we can confirm only allow someone else to gain their use and coordination. you would be doing a public service to the Amateur community here in NY/NJ lance N2HBA President, MetroCor, Inc. - Original Message - From: rahwayflynn mailto:mafl...@att.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com , Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc. _ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Hi John, When you were on the Board along with me, what would you have done if there were an application for coordination come through that was intended for a closed system. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Unless the state frequency coordinator is the one with all of the paper repeaters On Jul 26, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: I’d love to hear how this plays out. Locally, we had great luck decoordinating a paper repeater and getting it recoordinated to us. All it took was a good relationship with our state coordinator and a little bit of time monitoring. We all understand that sometimes a system goes down and takes a bit longer to get operational again than we’d originally anticipated, but there are definitely repeaters out there… all over the US… that are paper only and will remain that way indefinitely unless we help. 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Captainlance Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone, but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters, why not do everyone a service and send it to us? if you are really interested in the repeater community, you might consider volunteering some of your time to assist our organization in it's duties.We openly solicit any responsible amateur to assist us. Any open channels that we can confirm only allow someone else to gain their use and coordination. you would be doing a public service to the Amateur community here in NY/NJ lance N2HBA President, MetroCor, Inc. - Original Message - From: rahwayflynn To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00 -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
When I first started as a board member for the Oregon Region Relay Council in 1989, we would have approved a closed repeater if the rest of the application was in order and acceptable. Later, we started strongly urging people to NOT apply for closed repeaters on 2 meters or 10 meters. The last couple years of my time on the ORRC board (leaving in 2003) we started to not approve applications for closed repeaters on 2 meters or 10 meters. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 04:50:15 PM PDT From: Mike Mullarkey k7...@comcast.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Hi John, When you were on the Board along with me, what would you have done if there were an application for coordination come through that was intended for a closed system. Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ 6886 Sage Ave Firestone, Co 80504 303-954-9695 Home 303-954-9693 Home Office Fax 303-718-8052 Cellular From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:05 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2264 - Release Date: 07/26/09 11:07:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I like your thinking, and it pretty much reflects my point of view. This brings to mind an amateur on another list who has a linked system in a large city, maybe Chicago, I don't remember; at any rate, it is an area with no available pairs at all. This amateur, with three linked repeaters, is very proud of the fact that his *private* system has only three users. This, to me, is wrong and selfish in many ways. Richard http://www.n7tgb.net/ www.n7tgb.net The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. -Margaret Thatcher _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alan Rabin Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Please excuse Me. I feel compelled to make this one comment. Consider for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic area. If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance on the HF band, and tell others they cannot use them what would most of us say? It seems to me that repeater coodination in the Amateur band is more of a courtesy than anything else. I see no reason that if and when a given repeater in not in use that like any other frequency or split in this case, that someone else can't use it as long as there is no interference to another station in operation. I know that may upset some, but we need to take responsibility for our operations as Amateurs. It's not that I don't believe in closed repeaters or wish to chastise those who do, but by default I believe they may be right on this one. I haven't even touched on the fact that repeater usage is down dramatically in most areas in the country. In a time like this we need activity on our systems we have in place to attract new folks in the hobby, not idle machines with restrictions. Just my 2 cents. Enjoy,, -Alan
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Threaded... Alan Rabin wrote: Consider for a moment the fact that when one employs a repeater, they are effectively sitting on two Amateur frequencies within a given geographic area. True enough. If I were to claim two Amateur frequencies let's say for instance on the HF band, and tell others they cannot use them what would most of us say? I would say: 1. Repeaters are not legal on HF below 29.5 MHz. 2. If you're talking about two simplex frequencies, that is fine. In fact the ARRL does it all the time with their bulletins (and with many more than two frequencies). 3. You're missing the point that repeaters by their nature CANNOT change frequency easily while simplex stations can. 4. What do you say when a contest takes up 100 kHz of spectrum on HF? Do you demand they cease and desist or do you try another band or another time? 5. Again, the point is not one of frequency use - it's one of being transmitted on someone else's station - someone else's physical property. That's the issue here. In fact, that's the only issue here - can you restrict someone else's access to YOUR station. 6. If they were on the frequency before you, too bad. Frequencies have always been first come - first served in the ham bands. If a repeater has used a pair for 5 years before you were licensed, they were clearly there first. It seems to me that repeater coodination in the Amateur band is more of a courtesy than anything else. You should read Part 97, then. It's clearly more than a courtesy now. It has legal teeth today. It was born out of necessity when fixed-frequency devices, such as repeaters, were employed. Back then, it was a courtesy. I see no reason that if and when a given repeater in not in use that like any other frequency or split in this case, that someone else can't use it as long as there is no interference to another station in operation. That is perfectly legal. Key words: As long as no interference is caused or possible. That's the other reason for coordination. I know that may upset some, but we need to take responsibility for our operations as Amateurs. Wake up. We're not in the 50s anymore. Today it's all about me, me, me - whether it comes to money or property or your supposed right to be happy. That's why there are so many lawsuits. It's about making someone else responsible for your mistakes or your unhappiness. IF you spill coffee on yourself and burn yourself, it's anyone else's fault but yours. It's the same way with this case - someone else wanting to use a repeater and trying to force the owner to comply after the owner likely said 'no'. They haven't gotten what they want, so they try to get the government to give it to them by forcing others. That's the society we live in today. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
or c) The info is wrong or incomplete. That said, if you don't want to be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. If you complain about something, and someone in a position to solve it asks you for specifics, and you don't give any, it severely cripples your original statement's credibility. Joe M. rahwayflynn wrote: That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
If something ain't right then you fight it and fix it. Toss 'em under the bus if that's what it takes, but to sit and do nothing (and/or complain about it) is pointless. 73, Mike WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Unless the state frequency coordinator is the one with all of the paper repeaters On Jul 26, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: I'd love to hear how this plays out. Locally, we had great luck decoordinating a paper repeater and getting it recoordinated to us. All it took was a good relationship with our state coordinator and a little bit of time monitoring. We all understand that sometimes a system goes down and takes a bit longer to get operational again than we'd originally anticipated, but there are definitely repeaters out there. all over the US. that are paper only and will remain that way indefinitely unless we help. 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:Repeater- mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Captainlance Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:24 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters You are totally correct, it is not MetroCor's function to track down anyone, but if as you say you have such a list of paper repeaters, why not do everyone a service and send it to us? if you are really interested in the repeater community, you might consider volunteering some of your time to assist our organization in it's duties.We openly solicit any responsible amateur to assist us. Any open channels that we can confirm only allow someone else to gain their use and coordination. you would be doing a public service to the Amateur community here in NY/NJ lance N2HBA President, MetroCor, Inc. - Original Message - From: mailto:mafl...@att.net rahwayflynn To: mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Mr. Alfieri, I understand you are a volunteer, and appreciate your efforts on behalf of the amateur community. I also understand that MetroCor does not have the resources to track down out-of-service machines, and depends on the honesty of the amateur to relinquish coordination when he takes a system permanently out of service. That being said, and with all due respect: Over a 60 day period, if I cannot bring up a coordinated repeater with a 125W Motorola Spectra sitting on top of a 50+ foot building into a unity gain antenna, using the PL codes published on the metrocor website, A) it does not exist, or B)is out of service. Martin --- In mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Captainlance captainla...@... wrote: WE would be very interested in your supplying us with the list of the many paper repeaters on 2m. in your area that you claim to be on 2 meters. lance Alfieri President, MetroCor, Inc. _ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00 -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
This is a bit of another example where people want to extend their Constitutional Rights beyond what was intended. If we think any closed repeater system should be open to all because it uses a shared resource (the frequencies), then where do we stop? Does that mean that anyone gets to ride in my vehicle for free because I am driving on a public road, or Interstate Highway? How about Cellular systems, does this mean the Petitioner thinks anyone should be able to use my cell service because it operates on FCC licensed frequencies? How about all Fire Departments (for that matter ANY licensed service) using their repeaters on shared frequencies? Does this mean that many departments can just use the other agencies system and save their money, and the owner of a system has no recourse? It seems to me the gentlemen ( and Ladies ) have disappeared from the gentlemens agreements, and some coordination groups have applied the rules in an un-even manner. My repeaters are all open, but I support the right of others to do as they wish with their systems. It is still a lot of work and an expense to run even a single repeater, and many folks just want to take the politics out of it, so they should get to run their system the way they want. I DISAGREE with the language some people use on the radio, and even some of the topics I believe are inappropriate, these are some of the reasons people choose to run closed systems. If people disagree with a system philosophy or its owner, there are plenty of other repeaters, and if there are not other repeaters to use, then there should be plenty of pairs to put one up. Steve, N7KP.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Hi Group, There was a comment about a ham operator who was using the output frequency of a repeater for a conversation. As for as intential interference, is just that it's intential interferring an frequency that is using for the repeater output. We had a guy who come on a repeater during an simulated emergency net with the national guard and from the outcome of that the guy who caused the intential interference was sent an offical certified letter warning him of the prohibit use of any repeater that uses the callsign stated in the letter. My question would be, this person using the output frequency of the repeater...was his aware of it? The new hams even in this area of the low country of the tri-county including charleston, south carolina. Some of them and some of the older hams who probly spent more time on the hf frequencies needing guidence on using their 2m transceiver wasn't aware or made aware of the difference between hf frequencies where they have their guidlines. On hf there they are mostly sectioned out and prileges base on the license the ham operator has. Around in the area on 2 meters i have found people in the local area who think that the required 10 minute identification rule only applies to certain areas which it does not state in part 97.119 a perticular section of frequencies but entirely of the amateur radio spectrum. In my speaking to the new hams and older who have used only hf not experienced in 2 meters don't know which frequency range is for what function. Like in the south eastern repeater association has the popossed repeater outputs/inputs, simplex, digital voice, ssb, cw and so forth but as i have learned this knowledge have passed it upon those unknowing these facts. That's why i ask whether or not the person talking on the output frequency of the repeater was aware or unaware. From SERA guidline for repeaters and simplex frequencies it allows an understanding so not to have adjacent simplex conversations if a couple of hams wanted to have a long conversation not interupting/interferring with another set of hams on an adjacent simplex frequency and in the case of sera poposed simplex frequency list it gives 15 khz spacing between in bandwidth so the possibility of interference from an adjancent frequency in active communications won't interfer with each other. Education is the key and as our previous fcc enforcement officer riley hollingsworth stated we need to light up. In lighting up the crowded bands in 2 meters in this case is not jumping to a conclusion and that is why i am asking questions. If the station interference is not accidental from not knowing then we need not to jump down this person's neck but if it is intential interference then action needs to be taken place so those who use the repeater can continue their enjoyment of conversations. 73 for now. Keith, N2OBS
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
After reading just a little of the opening paragraph below, .well..WHAT ? Interesting the comment here though, that an OFFICIAL CERTIFIED LETTER was sent, and in the same breath, what if 'he' didn't know 'he' was aware of his interference? You know this is part of the problem. The whole thread this past week, sounds like someone's power trip, the control, the I, ME, MINE, mindset and yes it is ENTIRELY possible that someone was talking on the output of a machine and never knew there was a machine. If the person or PERSONS who thought enough to have ( an OFFICIAL .never heard it called that ) a LETTER sent to this poor guy, why wouldn't a 23 cent postcard been sent or heaven forbid a phone call been placed to see what the cut of this guy's cloth was before turning him into an adversary? Sounds to me like another case of shoot first and. I dare say you don't have to worry about closing the repeater on THAT guy. He would have little or nothin' to say to you. What a wonderful way to make new friends in ham radio. -M Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Hi Group, There was a comment about a ham operator who was using the output frequency of a repeater for a conversation. As for as intential interference, is just that it's intential interferring an frequency that is using for the repeater output. We had a guy who come on a repeater during an simulated emergency net with the national guard and from the outcome of that the guy who caused the intential interference was sent an offical certified letter warning him of the prohibit use of any repeater that uses the callsign stated in the letter. My question would be, this person using the output frequency of the repeater...was his aware of it? The new hams even in this area of the low country of the tri-county including charleston, south carolina. Some of them and some of the older hams who probly spent more time on the hf frequencies needing guidence on using their 2m transceiver wasn't aware or made aware of the difference between hf frequencies where they have their guidlines. On hf there they are mostly sectioned out and prileges base on the license the ham operator has. Around in the area on 2 meters i have found people in the local area who think that the required 10 minute identification rule only applies to certain areas which it does not state in part 97.119 a perticular section of frequencies but entirely of the amateur radio spectrum. In my speaking to the new hams and older who have used only hf not experienced in 2 meters don't know which frequency range is for what function. Like in the south eastern repeater association has the popossed repeater outputs/inputs, simplex, digital voice, ssb, cw and so forth but as i have learned this knowledge have passed it upon those unknowing these facts. That's why i ask whether or not the person talking on the output frequency of the repeater was aware or unaware. From SERA guidline for repeaters and simplex frequencies it allows an understanding so not to have adjacent simplex conversations if a couple of hams wanted to have a long conversation not interupting/interferring with another set of hams on an adjacent simplex frequency and in the case of sera poposed simplex frequency list it gives 15 khz spacing between in bandwidth so the possibility of interference from an adjancent frequency in active communications won't interfer with each other. Education is the key and as our previous fcc enforcement officer riley hollingsworth stated we need to light up. In lighting up the crowded bands in 2 meters in this case is not jumping to a conclusion and that is why i am asking questions. If the station interference is not accidental from not knowing then we need not to jump down this person's neck but if it is intential interference then action needs to be taken place so those who use the repeater can continue their enjoyment of conversations. 73 for now. Keith, N2OBS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I had a couple of newer hams recently have an 'experience'. Two were talking, and a third joined in. The first two were wondering how the third found where they were, and the third said they were coming through the (x) repeater. Their reply was Oh, I guess 5 kHz off the input is close enough to still come through it. They continued to talk for some time after that comment. 1. They should know the bandwidth of their transmitted signal and the separation between other receivers. 2. They should have known better than to select frequencies in the repeater input segment. 3. Once it was pointed out, they should have realized that they were potentially causing interference to others who wanted to use the repeater while they were talking on simplex near its input. All these should's, and not a lick of smarts to be found... Then I get requests for people who want to put repeaters on 5 kHz away from other repeaters, thinking it's far enough away since their radio goes in 5 kHz steps... Yes, the world IS getting dumber. I think it's because you can't tell young people they are WRONG anymore because you will hurt their feelings, and heaven forbid we can't have that, can we. So, we have a lot of stupid people around, BUT they all feel good. Unfortunately, some are getting ham licenses. Oh, and the one who wants repeaters 5 kHz off other repeater pairs? They TEACH ham radio classes and have for many years. Joe M. Michael Ryan wrote: After reading just a little of the opening paragraph below, …well..WHAT ? Interesting the comment here though, that an OFFICIAL CERTIFIED LETTER was sent, and in the same breath, what if ‘he’ didn’t know ‘he’ was aware of his interference? You know this is part of the problem. The whole thread this past week, sounds like someone’s power trip, the control, the I, ME, MINE, mindset and yes it is ENTIRELY possible that someone was talking on the output of a machine and never knew there was a machine. If the person or PERSONS who thought enough to have ( an OFFICIAL …never heard it called that ) a LETTER sent to this poor guy, why wouldn’t a 23 cent postcard been sent or heaven forbid a phone call been placed to see what the cut of this guy’s cloth was before turning him into an adversary? Sounds to me like another case of shoot first and… I dare say you don’t have to worry about closing the repeater on THAT guy. He would have little or nothin’ to say to you. What a wonderful way to make new friends in ham radio. -M *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Hi Group, There was a comment about a ham operator who was using the output frequency of a repeater for a conversation. As for as intential interference, is just that it's intential interferring an frequency that is using for the repeater output. We had a guy who come on a repeater during an simulated emergency net with the national guard and from the outcome of that the guy who caused the intential interference was sent an offical certified letter warning him of the prohibit use of any repeater that uses the callsign stated in the letter. My question would be, this person using the output frequency of the repeater...was his aware of it? The new hams even in this area of the low country of the tri-county including charleston, south carolina. Some of them and some of the older hams who probly spent more time on the hf frequencies needing guidence on using their 2m transceiver wasn't aware or made aware of the difference between hf frequencies where they have their guidlines. On hf there they are mostly sectioned out and prileges base on the license the ham operator has. Around in the area on 2 meters i have found people in the local area who think that the required 10 minute identification rule only applies to certain areas which it does not state in part 97.119 a perticular section of frequencies but entirely of the amateur radio spectrum. In my speaking to the new hams and older who have used only hf not experienced in 2 meters don't know which frequency range is for what function. Like in the south eastern repeater association has the popossed repeater outputs/inputs, simplex, digital voice, ssb, cw and so forth but as i have learned this knowledge have passed it upon those unknowing these facts. That's why i ask whether or not the person talking on the output frequency of the repeater was aware or unaware. From SERA guidline for repeaters and simplex frequencies it allows an understanding so not to have adjacent simplex conversations if a couple of hams wanted to have a long conversation not interupting/interferring with another set of hams on an adjacent simplex frequency and in the case of sera poposed simplex frequency list it gives 15 khz spacing between in bandwidth so the possibility of interference from an adjancent frequency in active communications won't interfer with each
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Again, I will point out that just because you *can* do something it does not follow that you must or you should. Their wording is obviously a block in which repeaters are legal. That does not mean repeaters are intended to cover the entire block. If you look carefully at Part 97, you will see that repeaters are legal everywhere except the satellite and other weak signal parts of the band. So, it's more of a matter that 146.520 is neither that it's included in the authorized repeater sub-band. And such a block does NOT make a bandplan. Again, CW is an authorized mode on all of 40M. Does that mean there should be no voice communications on 40M? Again, just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it should be done. I pointed this all out in previous posts. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Actually, part 97 DOES have what are, in effect, bandplans. Look in part 97.205-B, where it defines the repeater sub-bands: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. 146.52 Mhz falls right in the middle of the FCC designated repeater band and not in the frequency range which the FCC has reserved for simplex communications! Someone could land a repeater input or output on 146.52 Mhz and it would not be illegal. Just because a local planning group has or has not made a bandplan recognizing a frequency does not make it illegal. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:52 PM PDT From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Odd. It's not in the repeater band segment in WPA, nor is it in the ARRL's bandplan, and Part 97 doesn't have bandplans - they jsut have spectrum where certain operations are legal, but that doesn't mean you have to use that mode. CW is legal everywhere per Part 97. Does that mean you should only operate CW on all HF bands? Including the segments where voice communications are permitted? (except perhaps 60M) Just because you are legal to do something does not mandate that you do something. And I know of no local bandplan where 146.520 MHz is a repeater output or input. Therefore, any such operation is against the bandplan and poor practice (which is against Part 97). Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:42 AM PDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? Times like this it is interesting to point out the best known simplex freq of 146.52 MHz is in the repeater sub-band and NOT the simplex sub-band!! Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.31/2265 - Release Date: 07/26/09 17:59:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. John - Original Message - From: ccour79...@aol.com To: maire-rad...@verizon.net Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:49 PM Subject: RE: Closed Repeaters Hi: Wow, your note was familiar. Me and another guy have maintained 3 open repeaters in my area, privately owned by choice to avoid the politics. Most local users are supportive but there is one bad apple who constantly complains about them, the clock is off, the audio is off, it builds up the audio, it has PL, it doesnt have PL, the ID sounds low, the ID sounds different, it doesnt need the /R in the ID, he cant hit it in his basement on his handheld 5kc off frequency on low power with a dead battery and the radio turned off and of course it's not as good as what he had in Jersey!!! About the time I throw my hands up, someone comes along and says something nice and keeps me going for another week. 73 Chris KC4CMR -- A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Maire-Radios wrote: yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to give it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there. John - Original Message - From: ccour79...@aol.com To: maire-rad...@verizon.net Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:49 PM Subject: RE: Closed Repeaters Hi: Wow, your note was familiar. Me and another guy have maintained 3 open repeaters in my area, privately owned by choice to avoid the politics. Most local users are supportive but there is one bad apple who constantly complains about them, the clock is off, the audio is off, it builds up the audio, it has PL, it doesnt have PL, the ID sounds low, the ID sounds different, it doesnt need the /R in the ID, he cant hit it in his basement on his handheld 5kc off frequency on low power with a dead battery and the radio turned off and of course it's not as good as what he had in Jersey!!! About the time I throw my hands up, someone comes along and says something nice and keeps me going for another week. 73 Chris KC4CMR A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
That's not the issue here and you know it. Let's see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you've got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
sounds a bit petty to me. you know, the last time i checked, we were all here to provide emergency communications when needed. not to get out there and form clicks. i have had repeaters before and it cost me money, money i didnt really have. if you alone want to put up a repeater, then you pay to do so. if you cant afford it, then dont. why should anyone else pay for your hobby. either way, just remember (and it seems that there are to many people out there that have forgotten) we are here for one reason, and one reason alone... to provide a service to others when all else fail. Dave Stephens Sr KF6WJA Grants Pass Oregon --- On Sat, 7/25/09, Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net wrote: From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 8:03 PM That’s not the issue here and you know it. Let’s see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you’ve got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Since when is Amateur radio use predicated on Emergency Communications? That is not the ONLY reason for Amateur Radio (well, maybe in your world). My reason for Amateur Radio is far from EmComm and Providing a service when all else fails. Though I do support ARES and RACES, I do a lot of other things that are Amateur Radio related, to include contesting and Satellite Contacts. EMCOMM IS NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR AMATEUR RADIO. Dan KA8YPY On Jul 25, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Dave E Stephens Sr wrote: sounds a bit petty to me. you know, the last time i checked, we were all here to provide emergency communications when needed. not to get out there and form clicks. i have had repeaters before and it cost me money, money i didnt really have. if you alone want to put up a repeater, then you pay to do so. if you cant afford it, then dont. why should anyone else pay for your hobby. either way, just remember (and it seems that there are to many people out there that have forgotten) we are here for one reason, and one reason alone... to provide a service to others when all else fail. Dave Stephens Sr KF6WJA Grants Pass Oregon --- On Sat, 7/25/09, Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net wrote: From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 8:03 PM That’s not the issue here and you know it. Let’s see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you’ve got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Yep my point exactly. Owning a repeater is owning a station, not a frequency. Owning and operating a repeater, is, by part 97 almost identical to owning, say for example, an HF radio and having it set up and operational. Both are stations, neither own a frequency. The only difference is one operates under automatic control and another doesn't. On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:55 PM, AA8K73 GMail wrote: I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
You said it before I could, and that is exactly the reason why this petition is doomed before it was filed. The FCC has no legal authority to demand anyone allow use of anyone's station by anyone else. Joe M. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:27 PM, Maire-Radios wrote: *yes I know what you mean but the good Doctor on the voice message need to have an open mind and not expect everyone to g ive it all away. If he wants an open repeater maybe he need to get one and pay for it. Let everyone use it any time and see how it goes. The days when you built a repeater from parts is almost over now with all the digital systems out there.* ** *John* - Original Message - *From:* ccour79...@aol.com mailto:ccour79...@aol.com *To:* maire-rad...@verizon.net mailto:maire-rad...@verizon.net *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:49 PM *Subject:* RE: Closed Repeaters Hi: Wow, your note was familiar. Me and another guy have maintained 3 open repeaters in my area, privately owned by choice to avoid the politics. Most local users are supportive but there is one bad apple who constantly complains about them, the clock is off, the audio is off, it builds up the audio, it has PL, it doesnt have PL, the ID sounds low, the ID sounds different, it doesnt need the /R in the ID, he cant hit it in his basement on his handheld 5kc off frequency on low power with a dead battery and the radio turned off and of course it's not as good as what he had in Jersey!!! About the time I throw my hands up, someone comes along and says something nice and keeps me going for another week. 73 Chris KC4CMR *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585106x1201462830/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=115bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115* -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
And that's still the case. It's not a matter of owning frequencies - it's a matter of allowing others to use your station. Do you feel you have the right to use the personal property of someone else without their consent (implied or expressed)? The other sub-issue here is interference. If someone starts using a frequency someone else has been using, that's intentional interference. Does anyone have the right to intentionally interfere with someone else? Operating on an occupied frequency always has been against the rules. If anyone wants to put on their own repeater, they can. A pair (frequency) might not be available in the band they want, but I doubt every repeater pair is used anywhere - including the most densely populated areas of the country. If all the frequencies are in use on 60M, do you just intentionally interfere with one of the existing conversations or do you accept that there are no available frequencies in the band at this time and wait until there are or move to another band? Do you demand that someone terminate their QSO so you have a place to operate? Is that any more or less ethical than a demand to use someone else's station because there are no available pairs for you to operate YOUR station on? It's the same issue - people trying to force others off the air so they can operate. Joe M. AA8K73 GMail wrote: I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters
Yes I agree Ham Radio is more then Emergency Communications!! http://www.hamradioclassifieds.com Jack KZ4USA Bradenton, Florida - Original Message - From: Dan Blasberg ka8...@verizon.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:37 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters Since when is Amateur radio use predicated on Emergency Communications? That is not the ONLY reason for Amateur Radio (well, maybe in your world). My reason for Amateur Radio is far from EmComm and Providing a service when all else fails. Though I do support ARES and RACES, I do a lot of other things that are Amateur Radio related, to include contesting and Satellite Contacts. EMCOMM IS NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR AMATEUR RADIO. Dan KA8YPY On Jul 25, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Dave E Stephens Sr wrote: sounds a bit petty to me. you know, the last time i checked, we were all here to provide emergency communications when needed. not to get out there and form clicks. i have had repeaters before and it cost me money, money i didnt really have. if you alone want to put up a repeater, then you pay to do so. if you cant afford it, then dont. why should anyone else pay for your hobby. either way, just remember (and it seems that there are to many people out there that have forgotten) we are here for one reason, and one reason alone... to provide a service to others when all else fail. Dave Stephens Sr KF6WJA Grants Pass Oregon --- On Sat, 7/25/09, Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net wrote: From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mwbese...@cox.net Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 25, 2009, 8:03 PM That’s not the issue here and you know it. Let’s see you spend your money to finance a repeater and see how you feel when individuals fail to respect the rules you set forth. In the meantime, if you’ve got something to say, have the guts to sign your message. WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of AA8K73 GMail Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters I can remember when no one could own an amateur radio frequency. Cort Buffington wrote: An amateur repeater STATION is exactly that -- a STATION... just happens to be under automatic control. The owner of a repeater STATION is under no more obligation to allow someone to use it than the owner of any other STATION is. I don't show up at a hams house and demand to use his STATION, just because mine happens to be a repeater doesn't make it any different. Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.30/2262 - Release Date: 07/25/09 18:01:00 Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
