Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
I did nothing to violate thier policies. They admited they had no basis to de-coordinate me and was why they "rescinded" the coordination. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:43:04 PM CDT From: Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K > Joe, > > I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all the story. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > > > >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K > > > > >mccrpt, > > > >The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on > >another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason > >to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through > >their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user > >stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do > >they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of > >another repeater) > > > >If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to > >complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have > >any say if they are accessing my repeater. > > > >Joe M. > > > >Ron Wright wrote: > >> > >> MCH, > >> > >> Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. > >> > >> No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. > >> > >> 73, ron, n9ee/r > >> > >> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT > >> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >> > >> > > >> >WAIT A MINUTE! > >> > > >> >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they > >> >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have > >> >never HEARD your user in their repeater! > >> > > >> >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone > >> >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? > >> > > >> >Joe M. > >> > > >> >JOHN MACKEY wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. > >> >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran > >> >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded > >> >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users > >> >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not > >> >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. > >> >> > >> >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input > >> >> (147.600) > >> >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they do in > >> >> > >> >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated > >> >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. > >> >> > >> >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair > >> >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting > >> >> status, have never been given anything. > >> >> > >> >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their > >> >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. > >> >> > >> >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council > >> >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state > >> >> has > >> >> broken away from them and started a d
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
This is true. We've only heard one side of the story. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: > > Joe, > > I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, > but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators > policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all > the story. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater > >Trustee, K > > > > >mccrpt, > > > >The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on > >another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason > >to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through > >their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user > >stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do > >they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of > >another repeater) > > > >If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to > >complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have > >any say if they are accessing my repeater. > > > >Joe M. > > > >Ron Wright wrote: > >> > >> MCH, > >> > >> Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes > >> both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same > >> freq. > >> > >> No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other > >> repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. > >> > >> 73, ron, n9ee/r > >> > >> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT > >> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >> >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater > >> >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >> > >> > > >> >WAIT A MINUTE! > >> > > >> >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they > >> >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have > >> >never HEARD your user in their repeater! > >> > > >> >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone > >> >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? > >> > > >> >Joe M. > >> > > >> >JOHN MACKEY wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. > >> >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran > >> >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil > >> >> rescinded > >> >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the > >> >> users > >> >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not > >> >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. > >> >> > >> >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input > >> >> (147.600) > >> >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they > >> >> do in > >> >> > >> >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has > >> >> operated > >> >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. > >> >> > >> >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair > >> >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the > >> >> waiting > >> >> status, have never been given anything. > >> >> > >> >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their > >> >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. > >> >> > >> >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay > >> >> Council > >> >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the > >> >> state > >> >> has > >> >> broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because > >> >> of > >> >> their
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
Joe, I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all the story. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >Trustee, K > >mccrpt, > >The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on >another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason >to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through >their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user >stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do >they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of >another repeater) > >If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to >complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have >any say if they are accessing my repeater. > >Joe M. > >Ron Wright wrote: >> >> MCH, >> >> Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes >> both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. >> >> No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other >> repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. >> >> 73, ron, n9ee/r >> >> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT >> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >> >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC >> >> > >> >WAIT A MINUTE! >> > >> >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they >> >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have >> >never HEARD your user in their repeater! >> > >> >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone >> >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? >> > >> >Joe M. >> > >> >JOHN MACKEY wrote: >> >> >> >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. >> >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran >> >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded >> >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users >> >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not >> >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. >> >> >> >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input >> >> (147.600) >> >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they >> >> do in >> >> >> >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has >> >> operated >> >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. >> >> >> >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair >> >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting >> >> status, have never been given anything. >> >> >> >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their >> >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. >> >> >> >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay >> >> Council >> >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the >> >> state >> >> has >> >> broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of >> >> their >> >> frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. >> >> >> >> Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would >> >> be a pretty easy target. >> >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> >> Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT >> >> From: "kk2ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a >> >> > band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater >> >> > on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper >> >> > control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is >> >> > causing willful interference, it is not illegal. >> >> > >> >> > Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad >> >> > practice, yes. Illegal, no. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> Ron Wright, N9EE >> 727-376-6575 >> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS >> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL >> No tone, all are welcome. >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
mccrpt, The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of another repeater) If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have any say if they are accessing my repeater. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: > > MCH, > > Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both > repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. > > No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other > repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater > >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > > > > >WAIT A MINUTE! > > > >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they > >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have > >never HEARD your user in their repeater! > > > >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone > >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? > > > >Joe M. > > > >JOHN MACKEY wrote: > >> > >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. > >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran > >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded > >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users > >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not > >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. > >> > >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input > >> (147.600) > >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they do > >> in > >> > >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has > >> operated > >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. > >> > >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair > >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting > >> status, have never been given anything. > >> > >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their > >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. > >> > >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay > >> Council > >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state > >> has > >> broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of > >> their > >> frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. > >> > >> Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would > >> be a pretty easy target. > >> > >> -- Original Message -- > >> Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT > >> From: "kk2ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a > >> > band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater > >> > on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper > >> > control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is > >> > causing willful interference, it is not illegal. > >> > > >> > Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad > >> > practice, yes. Illegal, no. > >> > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > > > > Ron Wright, N9EE > 727-376-6575 > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > No tone, all are welcome. > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >WAIT A MINUTE! > >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have >never HEARD your user in their repeater! > >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? > >Joe M. > >JOHN MACKEY wrote: >> >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. >> >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input >> (147.600) >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they do in >> >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. >> >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting >> status, have never been given anything. >> >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. >> >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state >> has >> broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of >> their >> frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. >> >> Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would >> be a pretty easy target. >> >> -- Original Message -- >> Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT >> From: "kk2ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a >> > band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater >> > on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper >> > control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is >> > causing willful interference, it is not illegal. >> > >> > Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad >> > practice, yes. Illegal, no. >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
