[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Bathgate, Ed]

Now the 'rest of the story'...

I stand corrected in my misunderstanding of what went on,
and apologize for complaining in public when I was in error.

Ed

Ed Bathgate
Manufacturing Test Engineer
Marconi division of Ericsson
4000 Marconi Drive
Warrendale PA 15086-7594
(724) 742-6575
Fax (724) 742-7177

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Dave Fortenberry]

Yeah, as the former 2 meter and at one time 6 meter coordinator for NARCC 
here in norther california, I know what you mean about folks wanting 
"instant satisfaction". Stuff takes time! We are volunteers who have actual 
lives other than our day jobs and coordinating. Paperwork, research, phone 
calls, plotting coverage, etc. is time consuming. People should wait a while 
longer before launching thier "bitch and moan" tirades against a coordinator 
or the coordinating body. I deal with the commercial side of things these 
days. Try getting a part 74 950mhz link (radio studio/transmitter links) 
coordinated *and* licensed in less than 6 months or so.

That being said, it is the coordinating body/coordinators job to try and 
"git 'er done" in a *reasonable* amount of time..
For some "reasonable" means the same as "instant", unfortunatley.

7treez,
Dave Fortenberry, NA6DF


- Original Message - 
From: "mch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned 
owners


> Now the 'rest of the story'. WPRC does not accept modifications of
> coordination from anyone but the holder of the coordination. That
> includes in writing or in person. Would YOU want someone else changing
> YOUR coordination? The transfer of the coordination in question was just
> requested by the holder days before the meeting and his letter was only
> seen by the Secretary as of the start of the meeting (as you said - it
> was in the incoming mail). It never even made it to the coordinator yet!
> You can't expect something to be processed before it is received. The
> item in question was received by the Secretary 1/18/07. Rather than mail
> it to the coordinator, he held it for physical hand-off at the meeting
> to save the postage. (which is reasonable and common practice)
>
> As you noted, once the transfer was brought to light, there was no
> problem. Had this transfer been sent in earlier, it would not have been
> an issue at all.
>
> Do you send a check in the mail then complain when it is not cleared
> your bank a few days later? It's exactly the same thing. There is a
> process paperwork must go through, and it's not a three minute process
> or even a three day process.
>
> Yes there was confusion because someone was talking as if this paperwork
> was submitted years ago when it was days. It was quickly cleared up when
> the fact that it was just received was brought to light (as you said).
>
> As for "they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to
> reapply at the next session.", what are you talking about? That is an
> outright lie. The transfer is being processed and will be complete
> within a week from the day it was received by the coordinator. (and only
> taking that long due to the fact that 11 other coordination requests
> were received the day before his).
>
> Joe M.
>
> Bathgate, Ed wrote:
>>
>> I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this 
>> past
>> weekend.
>>
>> I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members 
>> did,
>> and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow 
>> from a
>> repeater group who travelled several hours to be there.  He was there, in
>> person, with documentation,  they insisted he dident have the correct
>> information,  and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary
>> finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail.  Turns 
>> out
>> they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail,  that they hadent 
>> read.
>>
>> He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship.   They were
>> not going to fix it.  "That's just not the way its done"   Then they 
>> chewed
>> on him  because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago, 
>> and
>> instead of just doing a modification,  they made him relinquish his
>> coordination,  and required him to reapply at the next session.
>>
>> What a pain in the  Neck.
>>
>> I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity,  you need 
>> lots
>> of "age acquired patience" to deal with their little kangaroo court.
>>
>> Ed Bathgate
>> Manufacturing Test Engineer
>> Marconi division of Ericsson
>> 4000 Marconi Drive
>> Warrendale PA 15086-7594
>> (724) 742-6575
>> Fax (724) 742-7177
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

Now the 'rest of the story'. WPRC does not accept modifications of
coordination from anyone but the holder of the coordination. That
includes in writing or in person. Would YOU want someone else changing
YOUR coordination? The transfer of the coordination in question was just
requested by the holder days before the meeting and his letter was only
seen by the Secretary as of the start of the meeting (as you said - it
was in the incoming mail). It never even made it to the coordinator yet!
You can't expect something to be processed before it is received. The
item in question was received by the Secretary 1/18/07. Rather than mail
it to the coordinator, he held it for physical hand-off at the meeting
to save the postage. (which is reasonable and common practice)

As you noted, once the transfer was brought to light, there was no
problem. Had this transfer been sent in earlier, it would not have been
an issue at all.

Do you send a check in the mail then complain when it is not cleared
your bank a few days later? It's exactly the same thing. There is a
process paperwork must go through, and it's not a three minute process
or even a three day process.

Yes there was confusion because someone was talking as if this paperwork
was submitted years ago when it was days. It was quickly cleared up when
the fact that it was just received was brought to light (as you said).

As for "they made him relinquish his coordination, and required him to
reapply at the next session.", what are you talking about? That is an
outright lie. The transfer is being processed and will be complete
within a week from the day it was received by the coordinator. (and only
taking that long due to the fact that 11 other coordination requests
were received the day before his).

Joe M.

Bathgate, Ed wrote:
> 
> I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this past
> weekend.
> 
> I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members did,
> and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow from a
> repeater group who travelled several hours to be there.  He was there, in
> person, with documentation,  they insisted he dident have the correct
> information,  and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary
> finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail.  Turns out
> they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail,  that they hadent read.
> 
> He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship.   They were
> not going to fix it.  "That's just not the way its done"   Then they chewed
> on him  because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago,  and
> instead of just doing a modification,  they made him relinquish his
> coordination,  and required him to reapply at the next session.
> 
> What a pain in the  Neck.
> 
> I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity,  you need lots
> of "age acquired patience" to deal with their little kangaroo court.
> 
> Ed Bathgate
> Manufacturing Test Engineer
> Marconi division of Ericsson
> 4000 Marconi Drive
> Warrendale PA 15086-7594
> (724) 742-6575
> Fax (724) 742-7177
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Bathgate, Ed]

I attended a local repeater coordination meeting WPRC in Butler Pa this past
weekend.

I was amazed at the amount of argument and bickering the board members did,
and seemed to go out of their way to make life difficult for a fellow from a
repeater group who travelled several hours to be there.  He was there, in
person, with documentation,  they insisted he dident have the correct
information,  and refused to even read it.Then the WPRC secretary
finally got them to shut up for a moment and read their own mail.  Turns out
they did have the paperwork in their incoming mail,  that they hadent read.


He requested a modification of the callsign, and trusteeship.   They were
not going to fix it.  "That's just not the way its done"   Then they chewed
on him  because somebody else made an error on the paperwork years ago,  and
instead of just doing a modification,  they made him relinquish his
coordination,  and required him to reapply at the next session.

What a pain in the  Neck.

I see why somebody said about it being an old mans activity,  you need lots
of "age acquired patience" to deal with their little kangaroo court.

Ed Bathgate
Manufacturing Test Engineer
Marconi division of Ericsson
4000 Marconi Drive
Warrendale PA 15086-7594
(724) 742-6575
Fax (724) 742-7177

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Al Wolfe]

Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners
Posted by: "Coy Hilton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] ac0y8
Date: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:57 am ((PST))

Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE
IT "A CLOSED" mschine!


Group,
As Coy said, CTCSS does not make a repeater closed! In fact ALL 
repeaters in Illinois must pretty much use other than carrier squelch to be 
coordinated or retain their coordination.

Actually, it's up to each repeater system operator here to use carrier, 
CTCSS, DTMF, Captain Crunch, or whatever access, but in cases of 
interference, preference will be given to the system not using carrier 
squelch.

73,
Al, K9SI 

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator]

Coy,

Repeater coordination is important.  However, the ones often doing it 
don't know much...they like the title, but not the work and many do 
not even own or operate a repeater.

Here in Florida we do have a good coordinating council, but they 
often get into the mode of making rules that apply to all.  My only 
real problem is they make decissions among them selves without 
allowing the repeater owners/trustees vote.

I would respond to your council you have and state you have notified 
them on atleast 3 occations the repeater is on the air and that you 
are willing to demostrate it to them...while they are on the phone 
bring it up and if possible make a contact.  If they continue to take 
action to de-coordinate I would threaten with legal action.  I am 
sick of all the suing going on in our country, but sometimes it is 
required.  They coordinated you so they have to live with it.  If 
this had been an issue it should have been addressed initially.

Most often a good council only wants say your CTCSS tone so another 
repeater on the same pair does not use it.  Here in Florida the 
council has posted standard tones for each region and most follow 
it.  The only real problem one region was given 100 Hz, kinda the 
standard for CTCSSng a repeater without closing it...of course these 
days if you want to close a repeater don't use CTCSS, use non-
standard methode or DCS, but most rigs now come with DCS, but dought 
if most Hams know of it and how to program it in their rigs, hi.

73, ron, n9ee/r



> 
> Coy Hilton wrote:
> > 
> > HI Gang
> >  I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed
> > repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent 
a
> > email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I
> > answered "yes" each time.  I had even had a on going discussion 
about
> > having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was 
never
> > asked to prove the repeater existed or even to "prove it" in any 
other
> > way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this
> > reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 
years.
> > 
> > My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of 
having a
> > repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the 
FCC
> > rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators 
will
> > allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further
> > replies or suggestions as how to handle this.
> > 
> > The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind 
this.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Ron Wright, Skywarn Coodinator]

hi all,

With about all rigs manufactured in last 10 years or more CTCSS 
encode is standard and finding the tone of the repeater is easy.  If 
the repeater transmits the tone some rigs find it for you.

However, this is only if you know a repeater exist on a frequency.

Here in Florida I have a high repeater that is NOT toned.  With the 
influx of new Hams and ones on vacation about every week someone 
comes on my machine and comments it is the only one they can make.  
The reason is the other repeaters are toned and due to the typical 
Ham Radio not keeping things up to date they cannot get into the 
toned repeaters because the tone has been changed.

Tone has definite advantages and is being required by repeater 
cancels more.  However, the advantages do not alway apply.  Hearing 
DX is not a problem with me for I have always thought DX was part of 
Ham Radio.  Noise is becoming more common these days so tone would 
help this.

Putting tone on a repeater does not bring it into the 21st century.  
It brings it to about 1950s technology, but can be good for many.

73, ron, n9ee/r



--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE 
> IT "A CLOSED" mschine!
> 
> 
> --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B."  wrote:
> >
> > W5KGT wrote:
> > > And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL
> > > tone in his data base.
> > 
> > The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. 
> Then 
> > suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. 
> Access 
> > codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were 
> told NOT to.
> > -- 
> > Jim Barbour
> > WD8CHL
> >
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Coy Hilton]

Contrary to some beliefs, putting CTCSS on a repeater DOES NOT MAKE 
IT "A CLOSED" mschine!


--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Jim B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> W5KGT wrote:
> > And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL
> > tone in his data base.
> 
> The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. 
Then 
> suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. 
Access 
> codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were 
told NOT to.
> -- 
> Jim Barbour
> WD8CHL
>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

Not with just about every scanner made having the ability to instantly
display it. All someone needs to do is listen to the frequency. Many PC
scanner programs even have logging.

As for not giving the coordinator access to the info, WPA keeps
published and non-published info separate - it's even a separate entry
on the coordination form with warnings about what is and is not
published.

But, if you don't give it to them, and they can't verify the repeater is
there, you take your chances on what happens.

Joe M.

Ken Arck wrote:
> 
> At 11:40 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:
> 
> >W5KGT wrote:
> > > And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL
> > > tone in his data base.
> >
> >The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then
> >suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access
> >codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to.
> 
>  security feature, although it seems many Hams try to use it as one.
> 
> And besides, with today's radios it ain't exactly rocket science to
> figure out which particular tone(s) a particular system uses.
> 
> I don't see where it makes one iota of difference whether tone(s) are
> published or not...
> 
> Ken
> --
> President and CTO - Arcom Communications
> Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
> http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html
> Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
> we offer complete repeater packages!
> AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
> http://www.irlp.net
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Kris Kirby]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Ken Arck wrote:
>  feature, although it seems many Hams try to use it as one.

*BINGO*
 
A repeater is closed by virtue of the owner saying "this is my system, 
screw off." -- not by hiding the access method (PL, DPL, DTMF, etc). 

I don't know where that myth started from but it's been wrong from day 
one. Requiring a PL does NOT equal a closed repeater. 

--
Kris Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit
longer."-- Henry Kissinger

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Ken Arck]

At 11:40 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:

>W5KGT wrote:
> > And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL
> > tone in his data base.
>
>The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then
>suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access
>codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Jim B.]

W5KGT wrote:
> And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL
> tone in his data base.

The only problem with that is they have a tendency to publish it. Then 
suddenly the repeater isn't closed anymore. It's happened here. Access 
codes/tones were published in the ARRL directory when they were told NOT to.
-- 
Jim Barbour
WD8CHL

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Christopher Zeman]

I don't many, but I was simply responding to the statement that only 
"old men" are the ones causing trouble. I just wanted to point out that 
anyone with the means to put up a repeater have the same opportunity to 
cause trouble. BTW, I'm 29. :)


I considered putting up a 6M or 900MHz repeater myself but, like you, 
lack the resources necessary to get it on a tower. I have a low-band GE 
Mastr II sitting at home that needs to be duplexed. I think I'll do it, 
and just buy the rest of the system, piece-by-piece, until I have a 
fully functioning system as well. I'll put it up when opportunity 
presents itself.


Kris Kirby wrote:


On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Christopher Zeman wrote:
> How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be
> handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply
> stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college
> grads) at work.

Let's put this into (a) perspective; how many 16-22 year olds do you
know who have the means and/or ability to put a repeater up?

I am 27 and have a fully-built 900MHz repeater sitting in a garage
because I lack the resources to erect and/or maintain a tower site.
You'd likely want to note that my choice of band means I can all but
declare my own coordination as 95% of the US has no local 900MHz
repeater operating in Part 97 service.

I just look at this more from a perspective of eliminating interference
-- for example, there's no reason for a large network of repeaters to
NOT be on the same frequency if they have a common backbone on a
different band and are designed for interconnected use only. You'll only
ever hear the repeater you are closest to and likewise, will only 'work'
the reciever closest to your location (except in rare cases).

Likewise, it's futile to attempt to work a repeater 80 miles away on the
same frequency as a local repeater five miles from your location with
just a PL tone change. You reciever will capture the local repeater
every time the carrier goes active, regardless of any ability to discern
correct PL. The RF signal just won't be there. These are proven solvable
problems. People problems, on the other hand...

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Kris Kirby]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Christopher Zeman wrote:
> How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be 
> handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply 
> stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college 
> grads) at work.

Let's put this into (a) perspective; how many 16-22 year olds do you 
know who have the means and/or ability to put a repeater up? 

I am 27 and have a fully-built 900MHz repeater sitting in a garage 
because I lack the resources to erect and/or maintain a tower site. 
You'd likely want to note that my choice of band means I can all but 
declare my own coordination as 95% of the US has no local 900MHz 
repeater operating in Part 97 service.

I just look at this more from a perspective of eliminating interference 
-- for example, there's no reason for a large network of repeaters to 
NOT be on the same frequency if they have a common backbone on a 
different band and are designed for interconnected use only. You'll only 
ever hear the repeater you are closest to and likewise, will only 'work' 
the reciever closest to your location (except in rare cases).

Likewise, it's futile to attempt to work a repeater 80 miles away on the 
same frequency as a local repeater five miles from your location with 
just a PL tone change. You reciever will capture the local repeater 
every time the carrier goes active, regardless of any ability to discern 
correct PL. The RF signal just won't be there. These are proven solvable 
problems. People problems, on the other hand...

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Ken Arck]

At 07:58 AM 1/22/2007, you wrote:



>local coordinating group carries the full weight of the FCC's teeth,
>as the FCC almost always sides with the coordinating group. When push
>comes to shove, the "rogue" repeater operator WILL lose...

<---Oops sorry, that was supposed to go offlist

Ken
--
President and CTO - Arcom Communications
Makers of the world famous RC210 Repeater Controller and accessories.
http://www.ah6le.net/arcom/index.html
Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave and
we offer complete repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000
http://www.irlp.net

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Ken Arck]

At 07:33 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:

>Remember - the FCC is the only
>one with the authority to license use. These are
>shared channels and we need to share them fairly.

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Doug Dickinson]

I have to pipe up on this one. Coordinated repeaters
are a nice thing, but they are not absolutely
required. If you place a repeater on the air, with
proper PL access etc, and notify the coordinator of
this, they still have to consider your machine when
coordinating another. This has worked in cases where
these repeater coordinating groups have played
favorites - and it will prevail. While the coordinated
repeater will have the function of coordination behind
them, the coordinating committee does not have the
authority to assign exclusive use, not does it have
the authority to disregard sound pracice - like
ignoring a certified letter advising them of a
repeater on the air. The FCC has stood behind tone
access vs carrier access as teh appropriate way to
resolve "interference". Remember - the FCC is the only
one with the authority to license use. These are
shared channels and we need to share them fairly.

IMHO

Doug

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Christopher Zeman]

"This behavior furthers in the mindset that this is an old man's hobby 
-- because only an old man with nothing else to do with his time but 
cause trouble can sustain the fight."

How about the younger generation that thinks everything should just be 
handed to them? No, I am not referring to code/no-code. I am simply 
stating what I see in the 16-22 year-olds (especially the college grads) 
at work.

Chris
N9XCR

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Kris Kirby]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the 
> >FCC gets involved, you *will lose*, right?
> 
> Not necessarily.  If you can prove that you tried to cooperate with 
> the frequency coordinator in good faith & the coordinator failed to 
> respond in kind, the FCC will do little past the letter of inquiry.  
> I have witnessed this first hand.

Man, you Northerners and Westerners are an aweful petty bunch. Stuff 
like this would NEVER happen in the South



I think that this really reflects a serious negative attitude in our 
hobby that should be addressed. People get entirely too tied over over 
'my pair' when there are other bands to conquer. This behavior furthers 
in the mindset that this is an old man's hobby -- because only an old 
man with nothing else to do with his time but cause trouble can sustain 
the fight., The result causes brilliant technically minded people to 
leave, go elsewhere, or just write off entire groups of people based on 
the interactions with a few bad apples. Food for thought.

--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a bit
longer."-- Henry Kissinger

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[no6b]

At 1/19/2007 20:49, you wrote:
>Yes,
>
>No obligation to co-ordinate your repeater. However, and this I have seen 
>this personally,(fortunately in my favor) in an interference issue or 
>complaint the first question the FCC asks is this repeater coordinated?

Correct.

>  Even if you have been on that pair for centuries and the coordinators 
> have issued coordination of that pair to someone else, the FCC will hold 
> the non coordinated system responsible to eliminate the repeater interference

Correct, provided that the uncoordinated system never attempted to obtain 
coordination.  However, in this case it appears that Dave did attempt to 
communicate with the coordinator & the coordinator dropped the ball.  In 
that case the FCC will likely not get involved.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[no6b]

At 1/19/2007 19:16, you wrote:

>You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
>gets involved, you *will lose*, right?

Not necessarily.  If you can prove that you tried to cooperate with the 
frequency coordinator in good faith & the coordinator failed to respond in 
kind, the FCC will do little past the letter of inquiry.  I have witnessed 
this first hand.

Bob NO6B

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[M Haddix]

Mr. Schmidt,

Isn't it strange how irrate these people get when
attention is being brought to their short commings?? I
too have had this same experience with the
cooridinating association in my area and the response
to my complaints was identical to the response to
yours, seems kind of strange it was almost word for
word, kindof as it was a standard form letter of
reply. Anyway, don't even bother trying to work with
them, they are always rite and you will always be
wrong, especially now that we are labeled as trouble
makers in their community now.



--- n9uur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[n9uur]

Mr. Schmidt

I do not know you, never met you, have nothing against you except for 
the paperwork (and lack thereof) on my desk. There is no "good-ol-
boy" network, and I am greatly offended by that sort of accusation.

The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters primary issue with you is 
communication, and the lack thereof. Posting your point of view here 
is not communication with us. And the attitude expressed within your 
posts (candor) does not inspire me to go out of my way to take up 
your cause.

We have not "lost" any other renewal notices from the hundreds of 
other repeater owners in the state, and I suggest you have a talk 
with your mail pickup person, as your repeated statements of "I've 
sent it all in" does not ring true with what we have received since 
2001. I am sorry that it has taken a USPS Certified letter to get 
your attention, it was the first I have ever had to send out as 
W.A.R. Chairman; I suggest you read it again.

We DO move the meetings around the State of Wisconsin, I and the 
other Board members and Coordinators put on many miles each year. We 
go to the membership, so all have the opportunity of attending a 
meeting closer to home. I am very proud of this point. Our next 
meeting is in Appleton WI in March. I am also the W.A.R. webmaster, 
and do apologize for neglecting to post up the next meeting date, but 
the exact date is still being arranged due to confirmation of room 
access.

>From MY point of view, I and our Board, and especially the 
Coordinators that I have personally appointed, go out of our way to 
help and assist the Repeater owners of our state. Not just with 
Coordination, but we help people build machines, take test equipment 
to sites to help get machines working well, and teach people what we 
know. We are volunteers in the spirit of the advancement of Amateur 
Radio (yes I said that, and I believe it).

Sir, I am offended by your comments.

My apologies to Mr. Custer, this lists moderators, and the entire 
subscribed membership for posting a technically "off topic" post to 
this list in violation of its stated rules.
I will not post again on this list regarding this topic.

Gary Bargholz, N9UUR
Chairman
The Wisconsin Association of Repeaters





--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> After the excuses from these   people,  of course certified 
mail.
> Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want 
to play
> games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their
> excuses and stories.
> 
> Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination 
battle. I'll
> make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the 
point. Bring
> to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been 
screwed over
> as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin.
> 
> Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, 
however
> the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit
> unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. 
How
> effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts 
club is
> it?
> 
> Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving 
the
> meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on 
their site,
> it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next 
meeting
> Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a 
couple days
> before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are 
eating their
> doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the 
next one
> will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never 
hold it in
> one spot.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave Schmidt
> N9NLU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/19/07, mch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >   Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not
> > receiving it, I sure would have.
> >
> > But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where 
someone says
> > "This is my forth reply in two yeas", yet the complaint was the 
first
> > letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets 
lost in
> > the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC ("which 
was
> > changed years ago") when the copy of his coordination paperwork 
*he
> > enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' 
issues.
> >
> > As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc
> >
> > Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court 
fight?
> > (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your 
pair')
> >
> > You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and 
the FCC
> > gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking 
the
> > issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
> > violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
> > explanation.
> >
> > Joe M.
> >
> > Dave Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I'm glad I'm 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Bob M.]

In my state, the coordination council updates their
web page maybe the day after a meeting, telling you
about the meeting you missed the previous day. Minutes
of meetings are posted similarly way out of date, if
at all. Their on-line repeater list hasn't been
updated in a year, and it's not as if there are
hundreds of new repeaters to add. Maybe two or three
TOTAL. The reason: "it's a volunteer organization and
we have other things to do." Seems to me taking 10
minutes ONCE A YEAR to update four repeater lists
isn't that hard. They do it for the data they send to
the ARRL for their repeater directory; you'd think
they could just extract the info for the web page.

Of course it's a "clique" of repeater trustees or just
interested parties. Sure they reserve frequencies for
their own future use.

The NFCC faded away over the past several years. Every
state or US territory was listed there EXCEPT CT,
because CT hadn't quite met the requirements for
membership. Of course, some of the neighboring state's
councils hid behind this little factoid and refused to
acknowledge any of the CT repeaters. Maybe someone's
trying to get it going again.

Bob M.
==
--- Dave Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> After the excuses from these   people,  of
> course certified mail.
> Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail.
> Since they want to play
> games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper
> trail, not just their
> excuses and stories.
> 
> Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the
> coordination battle. I'll
> make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats
> basically the point. Bring
> to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others
> have been screwed over
> as well and are just waiting for someone to start
> things cookin.
> 
> Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was
> such a thing, however
> the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained
> well ... a bit
> unprofessional as well looks like it was created
> on Anglefire. How
> effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee
> and doughnuts club is
> it?
> 
> Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one.
> They keep moving the
> meetings all over the state. Although it is
> typically listed on their site,
> it appears that their site has not been updated. It
> still says next meeting
> Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web
> site till a couple days
> before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when
> they are eating their
> doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was
> in SE WI, the next one
> will probably will be 300 miles away in NW
> Wisconsin. They never hold it in
> one spot.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave Schmidt
> N9NLU


 

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

Says the FCC via 97.205(c):


(c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful
interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are
equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless
the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency
coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that
case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary
responsibility to resolve the interference. 


So, it is not the last repeater on the air who solves it (aas you
implied) - it's the uncoordinated one.

I never said it was mandatory to coordinate - only that if you don't,
you have to resolve the interference to a coordinated repeater. You said
show you - I did.

Joe M.

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
>  You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there
>  and the FCC
>  gets involved, you *will lose*, right?
> 
> 
> Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her
> repeater with a coordinating group.
> Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group.
> If the repeater is operational,  any repeater, coordinated or
> otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating
> repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a
> voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me
> some language in part 97 to the contrary.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[W5KGT]

I agree with Jeff. 
   I am the Coordinator for Louisiana. I have all the information in my data 
base for each repeater. So I should be able to check it. I also have Hams in 
different parts of the state that check on repeaters for me. We give a year 
before de-coordination. In that time someone should be able to here the 
repeater on the air. If not, I will personally contact the owner and find out 
what's happening. I own a handful of repeaters myself. And I can tell you that 
sometimes after a severe lighting strike, it may take a while to get things 
going again.
 
Show them that it is working. Or have a well known Ham verify it and send a 
e-mail. And make sure that the coordinator has the correct PL tone in his data 
base.   

 
W5KGT
Kevin Thomas
Calhoun, La.
LCARC  Coordinator

www.w5kgt.com 



- Original Message 
From: Jeff Kincaid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 7:34:55 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know
that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the
air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the
thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in
their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't,
they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box
functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they
going to know that? If that's the case, you need to take the bull by
the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a
mutually convenient time. If you can't they're going to believe that
you have a "paper repeater," and they're going to give the channel to
someone else. They clearly have doubts about your operation, and
you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out.

Regards,
Jeff W6JK

--- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> HI Gang
> I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed 
> repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a 
> email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I 
> answered "yes" each time. I had even had a on going discussion about 
> having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never 
> asked to prove the repeater existed or even to "prove it" in any other 
> way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this 
> reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years.
> 
> My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a 
> repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC 
> rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will 
> allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further 
> replies or suggestions as how to handle this.
> 
> The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this.
>





 

TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

You know, that's a common complaint I hear. The repeater council meeting
is not always in my back yard. Many organizations are required by their
bylaws to make it convenient for the membership. When you are dealing
with a state, that means it has to be moved around and may well be
several hundred miles away. If dealing with a national organization,
that may be thoudands of miles away.

If you don't want to make the trip, by all means don't. But don't
complain about the distance. As sure as you do, there are people 300
miles away who complained when it was in your area. It sounds like they
are trying to satisfy their membership to me.

Joe M.

Dave Schmidt wrote:
> 
> Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the
> meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their
> site, it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says
> next meeting Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web
> site till a couple days before the meeting to try and keep things
> quiet when they are eating their doughnuts. In this case, since the
> last meeting was in SE WI, the next one will probably will be 300
> miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in one spot.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[David Struebel]

Yes,

No obligation to co-ordinate your repeater. However, and this I have 
seen this personally,(fortunately in my favor) in an interference issue 
or complaint the first question the FCC asks is this repeater 
coordinated? Even if you have been on that pair for centuries and the 
coordinators have issued coordination of that pair to someone else, the 
FCC will hold the non coordinated system responsible to eliminate the 
repeater interference


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the
issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
explanation.

 
Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her 
repeater with a coordinating group.
Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. 
If the repeater is operational,  any repeater, coordinated or 
otherwise that significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating 
repeater is in violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a 
voluntary act. There is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me 
some language in part 97 to the contrary.


 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Glenn Little WB4UIV]

Per §97.205 Repeater station.


(c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to 
another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully 
responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one 
station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the 
other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated 
repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference.

As you can see, there is no mention of a repeater operating prior to the 
existence of the coordinator. At the inception of the coordination body, 
existing repeater owners were requested to coordinate their repeater. If 
they elected not to coordinate the repeater, all was well, until, the 
coordinator coordinated that frequency to a new owner. Then the 
noncoordinated repeater had to leave the air or explain to the FCC as to 
why they were causing interference to a coordinated repeater.

73
Glenn
WB4UIV


(At 10:57 PM 01/19/07, you wrote:
>In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
>gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the
>issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
>violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
>explanation.
>
>
>Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater 
>with a coordinating group.
>Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If 
>the repeater is operational,  any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that 
>significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in 
>violation of FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There 
>is no regulatory requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to 
>the contrary.
>

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Coy Hilton]

I'll respond to all replys through 68209.

If they wanted a aural or off the air check, and if they were so 
savvy why didn't they ask for just that? All the requests for info 
about the repeater being on the air was by email and I responded to 
each and every one and stating that the repeater is closed as 
coordinated.

And by the way, using CTCSS on a repeater does not make it a closed 
machine. My machine is closed by vertu of disabeling the Tx function 
by DTMF. All of the permitted users have the access code.

The coordinating agency NEVER asked for the access code nor did they 
ask for a live demo, if they had, they would have gotten it.

Oh, the FCC is already involved, the other guy drug Riley into it 
just before Christmas, and after Christmas, HE got a Dear DIP letter 
from Riley reminding him that if he reactivated a repeater on the 
pair he would be in vialation.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, mch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not
> receiving it, I sure would have.
> 
> But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone 
says
> "This is my forth reply in two yeas", yet the complaint was the 
first
> letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets 
lost in
> the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC ("which was
> changed years ago") when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he
> enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' 
issues.
> 
> As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc
> 
> Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court 
fight? 
> (that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair')
> 
> You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the 
FCC
> gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking 
the
> issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
> violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
> explanation.
> 
> Joe M.
> 
> Dave Schmidt wrote:
> > 
> > Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. 
Here, My
> > 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy 
coffiee
> > club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR -
> > www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly 
basis -
> > not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have 
sent the
> > filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that 
they
> > were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not
> > renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms 
again. Only
> > to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No 
letter
> > from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took 
place,
> > they just deleted the file.
> > 
> > Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF
> > pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the 
issue of
> > how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically
> > the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a
> > "cover their a*s" letter which stated that no renewals were 
received.
> > On top of that they are saying that they are not going to 
coordinated
> > anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops 
for
> > them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the 
air when
> > I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an
> > interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture 
at that
> > time ). Also because I was not open and free with information 
about my
> > system.  Hunh what?  If I was not open with information, I would 
not
> > have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR
> > already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that 
they
> > could not update my coordination because it has been de-
coordinated
> > and deleted, "There is nothing to update".  I sent them a 
rebuttal
> > letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the
> > renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire 
so the
> > freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper 
repeater...
> > etc etc.  That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up 
on a
> > month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope.
> > 
> > I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their 
friends or
> > to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the 
way
> > are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says 
you
> > cannot make money with Amateur Radio.   This would explain the
> > inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 
900Mhz
> > repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the 
whole
> > state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental
> > system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for
> > 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the
> > impression that they were saving the 900mhz spec

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[cruising7388]

 
In a message dated 1/19/2007 7:23:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]  
writes:

You  ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
gets  involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the
issue to  their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
violated their  published policies, bring that up and demand  an
explanation.





Says who? No repeater trustee is obligated to coordinate his/her repeater  
with a coordinating group.
Many repeaters pre-date the formation of an area coordination group. If the  
repeater is operational,  any repeater, coordinated or otherwise that  
significantly interferes with a pre-existing operating repeater is in violation 
 of 
FCC rules. Coordinating a repeater is a voluntary act. There is no regulatory  
requirement to do so. Show me some language in part 97 to the contrary. 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Dave Schmidt]

After the excuses from these   people,  of course certified mail.
Everything now is sent to WAR via certified mail. Since they want to play
games, I'm going to make sure there is a paper trail, not just their
excuses and stories.

Yeah, if it goes to court, I'll probably loose the coordination battle. I'll
make it known though that WAR is crooked. Thats basically the point. Bring
to light the bent things that WAR does. Maybe others have been screwed over
as well and are just waiting for someone to start things cookin.

Thank you for the nfcc link, I didn't know there was such a thing, however
the site looks a bit outdated and not maintained well ... a bit
unprofessional as well looks like it was created on Anglefire. How
effective is the NFCC... its just not another coffee and doughnuts club is
it?

Taking the issues to the WAR meetings. Good one. They keep moving the
meetings all over the state. Although it is typically listed on their site,
it appears that their site has not been updated. It still says next meeting
Nov 11, 2006. They probably will not change the web site till a couple days
before the meeting to try and keep things quiet when they are eating their
doughnuts. In this case, since the last meeting was in SE WI, the next one
will probably will be 300 miles away in NW Wisconsin. They never hold it in
one spot.

Regards

Dave Schmidt
N9NLU








On 1/19/07, mch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not
receiving it, I sure would have.

But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says
"This is my forth reply in two yeas", yet the complaint was the first
letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in
the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC ("which was
changed years ago") when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he
enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues.

As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc

Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight?
(that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair')

You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the
issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
explanation.

Joe M.

Dave Schmidt wrote:
>
> Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My
> 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee
> club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR -
> www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis -
> not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the
> filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they
> were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not
> renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only
> to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter
> from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place,
> they just deleted the file.
>
> Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF
> pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of
> how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically
> the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a
> "cover their a*s" letter which stated that no renewals were received.
> On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated
> anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for
> them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when
> I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an
> interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that
> time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my
> system. Hunh what? If I was not open with information, I would not
> have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR
> already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they
> could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated
> and deleted, "There is nothing to update". I sent them a rebuttal
> letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the
> renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the
> freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater...
> etc etc. That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a
> month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope.
>
> I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or
> to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way
> are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you
> cannot make money with Amateur Radio. This would explain the
> inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz
> repeater that would have b

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[mch]

Did you send your reply back certified? After their claim of not
receiving it, I sure would have.

But, things DO get lost in the mail. I've seen cases where someone says
"This is my forth reply in two yeas", yet the complaint was the first
letter received from him in over 10 years. (not that much gets lost in
the mail). Then he says to change his callsign to W3ABC ("which was
changed years ago") when the copy of his coordination paperwork *he
enclosed* shows his callsign as W3ABC. Talk about your 'huh?' issues.

As for the oversight panel: www.arrl.org/nfcc

Are you sure you want to drag another person into your court fight? 
(that would be the person who receives coordination on 'your pair')

You ARE aware that if someone else gets coordination there and the FCC
gets involved, you *will lose*, right? You are better off taking the
issue to their meetings to get it resolved. If you feel they have
violated their published policies, bring that up and demand an
explanation.

Joe M.

Dave Schmidt wrote:
> 
> Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My
> 444.275 machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee
> club - the Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR -
> www.wi-repeaters.org , they send renewal requests on a yearly basis -
> not e-mails. Everytime I have received a renewal form, I have sent the
> filled out renewal form to them. Then I received a letter that they
> were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair because I have not
> renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal forms again. Only
> to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways. No letter
> from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took place,
> they just deleted the file.
> 
> Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF
> pair, update info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of
> how and why my UHF pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically
> the Chairman, just sent back the coordination forms along with a
> "cover their a*s" letter which stated that no renewals were received.
> On top of that they are saying that they are not going to coordinated
> anything that I put on the air unless I jump through some hoops for
> them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the air when
> I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an
> interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that
> time ). Also because I was not open and free with information about my
> system.  Hunh what?  If I was not open with information, I would not
> have sent in a system update application ( Not knowing that WAR
> already deleted my coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they
> could not update my coordination because it has been de-coordinated
> and deleted, "There is nothing to update".  I sent them a rebuttal
> letter trying to inform them that I did, in fact, send in the
> renewals, that I let the 6 meter construction time frame expire so the
> freq pair could be re-assigned - no sence keeping a paper repeater...
> etc etc.  That was letter was sent via certified mail coming up on a
> month ago. Have I heard anything from the good ol boys? Nope.
> 
> I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or
> to those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way
> are sent wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you
> cannot make money with Amateur Radio.   This would explain the
> inflexability of trying to coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz
> repeater that would have been the second 900 repeater in the whole
> state of Wisconsin. It would have been more like an experimental
> system to see if it work or not. The system was already setup for
> 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the
> impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something,
> their own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it
> away'. I can understand such a stiffness if the band was popular...
> but with only one other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They
> made me feel like I was trying to coordinated a super-wideband
> repeater that would use 5mhz of specturm... the 'are you freaking
> crazy' .. mentality.
> 
> Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that
> watches what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination
> is volentary, it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything.
> Coordinatation entities know this and can bend things around, make
> things up, then say, you didn't do this or that and you lost your
> coordination all relying on 'ther word' no proof, no one watching
> them. Its starting to seem like coordination entities are taking
> it way too extreme, playing favortism, playing games with repeater
> owners trying to free up frequencies for their friends... etc etc.
> 
> By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them
> coordinate another repeater on that frequenc

Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Dave Schmidt]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one with coordnator issues. Here, My
444.275machine has been on the air for years. The good ol boy coffiee
club - the
Wisconsin Association of Repeaters - WAR - www.wi-repeaters.org , they send
renewal requests on a yearly basis - not e-mails. Everytime I have received
a renewal form, I have sent the filled out renewal form to them. Then I
received a letter that they were going to de-coordinate my frequency pair
because I have not renewed in over 2 years. WHAT? So I sent the renewal
forms again. Only to find out months later that I was decoordinated anyways.
No letter from WAR stating the fact that de-coordination actually took
place, they just deleted the file.

Currently, WAR is ignoring my coordination request for a VHF pair, update
info on my UHF machine, as well as ignoring the issue of how and why my UHF
pair was de-coordinated. WAR, specifically the Chairman, just sent back the
coordination forms along with a "cover their a*s" letter which stated that
no renewals were received. On top of that they are saying that they are not
going to coordinated anything that I put on the air unless I jump through
some hoops for them. Their reasoning; Because I did not put a machine on the
air when I asked for a 6 meter pair ( It turned out to be an
interferance nightmare and quite a costly experimental venture at that time
). Also because I was not open and free with information about my system.
Hunh what?  If I was not open with information, I would not have sent in a
system update application ( Not knowing that WAR already deleted my
coordination ). The Chairman also stated that they could not update my
coordination because it has been de-coordinated and deleted, "There is
nothing to update".  I sent them a rebuttal letter trying to inform them
that I did, in fact, send in the renewals, that I let the 6 meter
construction time frame expire so the freq pair could be re-assigned - no
sence keeping a paper repeater... etc etc.  That was letter was sent via
certified mail coming up on a month ago. Have I heard anything from the good
ol boys? Nope.

I have come to this conclusion. WAR only coordinates their friends or to
those who donate money to WAR for newsletters ( which, by the way are sent
wether you subscribe/donate to WAR or not ). Who says you cannot make money
with Amateur Radio.   This would explain the inflexability of trying to
coordinate a very limited coverage 900Mhz repeater that would have been the
second 900 repeater in the whole state of Wisconsin. It would have been more
like an experimental system to see if it work or not. The system was already
setup for 902-927 where the WAR bandplan is 906-918. BAM, they gave me the
impression that they were saving the 900mhz specturm for something, their
own agenda... like keeping it empty fo the FCC can 'take it away'. I can
understand such a stiffness if the band was popular... but with only one
other repeater in WI at that time... jeeze. They made me feel like I was
trying to coordinated a super-wideband repeater that would use 5mhz of
specturm... the 'are you freaking crazy' .. mentality.

Coordination needs some oversite, some seperate organization that watches
what the coordination entities are doing. Since coordination is volentary,
it is not a requirement, the FCC will not do anything. Coordinatation
entities know this and can bend things around, make things up, then say, you
didn't do this or that and you lost your coordination all relying on
'ther word' no proof, no one watching them. Its starting to seem like
coordination entities are taking it way too extreme, playing favortism,
playing games with repeater owners trying to free up frequencies for their
friends... etc etc.

By the way, 444.275 is on the air, and will remain that way. Let them
coordinate another repeater on that frequency pair, I'll just turn up the
wattage and wait for the citations... then haul WAR into the court/fcc
procedings to answer for their game playing... and make them use up the
money they have stashed aside by making them use it up on attorney fees.

Good luck with your plight with your coordinator they probably have a
friend who wants a VHF repeater and are using an excuse to give their
friend a freq pair.

Dave Schmidt
N9NLU
( yes, I'm not afraid to shout the truth and sign my name - not like others
who hide behind excuses and lack of communications... heck, ignores
communications   - like the Wisconsin Assocation of Repeaters )






On 1/19/07, Jeff Kincaid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


  Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know
that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the
air when in fact it is not. So, they want to be able to kerchunk the
thing for themselves. Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in
their files and they should be able to key it up. If they can't,
they're going to doubt your veracity. Now, maybe you just had the box
functioned off when they chec

[Repeater-Builder] Re: coordination question for the seasoned owners

[Jeff Kincaid]

Coordinators are a savvy lot (well, some of them are), and they know
that sometimes a fellow will repeatedly claim that his gear is on the
air when in fact it is not.  So, they want to be able to kerchunk the
thing for themselves.  Even if it's closed, the PL tone should be in
their files and they should be able to key it up.  If they can't,
they're going to doubt your veracity.  Now, maybe you just had the box
functioned off when they checked it (every time), but how are they
going to know that?  If that's the case, you need to take the bull by
the horns and arrange to demonstrate the repeater's existance at a
mutually convenient time.  If you can't they're going to believe that
you have a "paper repeater," and they're going to give the channel to
someone else.  They clearly have doubts about your operation, and
you're going to have to meet them half way to straighten it out.

Regards,
Jeff W6JK

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Coy Hilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> HI Gang
>  I have had one of my 2 meter repeaters coordinated as a closed 
> repeater for at least two years. Three times last year I was sent a 
> email asking if the repeater was on the air and three times I 
> answered "yes" each time.  I had even had a on going discussion about 
> having multiple transmitters on the same pair coordinated. I was never 
> asked to prove the repeater existed or even to "prove it" in any other 
> way. They are trying to de-coordinate me on this pair using this 
> reason. when it has been coordinated as a CLOSED machine for 2 years.
> 
> My question to you is have any of you guys have ever heard of having a 
> repeater coordination recinded because of this. I know that the FCC 
> rules say that Closed repeaters are allowed and the coordinators will 
> allow coordinating a repeater as closed. I'm looking for further 
> replies or suggestions as how to handle this.
> 
> The local director and vice-director are actually the ones behind this.
>