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-
", 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'. WP
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 holde
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. H
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 c
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
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 hi
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
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
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 meth
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 p
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 w
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 my
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
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 los
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.
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 case
"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
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 fai
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
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,
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 w
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
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 t
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 recom
o: 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 w
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 m
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 ha
Per ยง97.205 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
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 c
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 the
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
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
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 recei
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
