--
Received: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:54:47 PM PST
From: Mike Mullarkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
HI John,
I agree with to a point but the FCC will first ask the coordinating group
witch repeater
MCH wrote:
Coordination is not required, but when one repeater is coordinated, and the other is not,
*the uncoordinated one must resolve the problem*. That's in Part 97.
I'll pick on Joe here a minute
The rules state that it is *primarily* the responsibility of the
uncoordinated repeater
Daron -
In a perfect world you would be correct. But unforunately amateur
radio coordination is far from perfect.
Regarding some of the systems that the ORRC believe are uncoordinated which
I am affilated, that is because they do not recognize the 2 other
coordinating
bodies in Oregon.
True, but what alternative is there to eliminate the interference other
than a change to the uncoordinated system? (especially with a CSQ
repeater that is causing harmful interference)
In this case, the addition of CTCSS/CDCSS would resolve it to the
satisfaction of the coordinated trustee,
Camilo So wrote:
First of all I want to apologize to the Moderator for bringing up a of
topic on this group, most of all thank you to every one that reply
specially Joe M. (MCH) this is the same shortcut my XYL is working at
(Miami Children Hospital). Again thanks to all.
Since you followed
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
If he calls the FCC, he will find he is SOL. Coordination is not
required, but when one repeater is coordinated, and the other is not,
the uncoordinated one must resolve the problem. That's in Part 97. It
doesn't matter who
It is a fact the NFCC recognition/certification means zero in the eyes of
the FCC. What matters is recognition by the local constituency.
I'm curious and would enjoy the documentation you have that shows that
statement to be factual.
I can understand that if there is a legal conflict between
...another system owner wrote me a terse email because he could hear my new
repeater on his channel on his base station, about 80 miles away.
Which, of course, does not meet the definition of interference.
At 11/3/2008 07:20, you wrote:
Daron -
In a perfect world you would be correct. But unforunately amateur
radio coordination is far from perfect.
Regarding some of the systems that the ORRC believe are uncoordinated which
I am affilated, that is because they do not recognize the 2 other
:50:17 AM PST
From: Daron Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
It is a fact the NFCC recognition/certification means zero in the eyes of
the FCC. What matters is recognition by the local constituency.
I'm
-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
...another system owner wrote me a terse email because he could hear my new
repeater on his channel on his base station, about 80 miles away.
Which, of course, does not meet the definition of interference.
Daron-
The NFCC does not create coordination councils. The constituents recognize
their
own coordination council.
John.I never made any reference to the NFCC creating anything, I simply
pointed out the one recognized group for Oregon per the NFCC. The
'constituents' of Oregon did exactly
Daron-
There is no reason why other coordination groups need to jump thru the
hoops (what you called provisions in the bylaws) of the ORRC to become
coordinating bodies. Instead they can do exactly the same as the ORRC did
and have their 'constituents' recognize the group they desire. If it was
There is no reason why other coordination groups need to jump thru the
hoops (what you called provisions in the bylaws) of the ORRC to become
coordinating bodies. Instead they can do exactly the same as the ORRC did
and have their 'constituents' recognize the group they desire. If it was
good
My intention was not to provide a resolution, but to point out the
responsibility of said resolution does not fall solely on the un
dude... So says the FCC rules.
Kevin
True, but what alternative.
Kevin Custer wrote:
MCH wrote:
Coordination is not required, but when one
This thread has gone from helping out a builder with a coordination
problem to a discussion of internal ORRC politics.
The only question I would have is whether any of the OTHER coordinators
are working with anyone other than ORRC. If not, the new groups are not
considering the existing
Camilo,
The other guy that let his coordination expire is out of luck and needs to
vacate the channel. Being a past chairman of the ORRC Oregon Region Relay
Council. If the guy that has had the channel and not followed the buy laws
of the FRC and filed update paperwork. Try to work with the
If he is uncooperative, and uncoordinated, just call the FCC. That's
about all you can do. You might mention this option to him and that may
make him more receptive to acceptable solutions.
Joe M.
Camilo So wrote:
Hi sorry for out of topic question, because most of the friend I have
ask no
for 444.425 MHZ. The approved date is 10/05/08.
Camilo W4CSO
- Original Message -
From: Mike Mullarkey
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Camilo,
The other guy that let his
Camilo,
I forgot to mention that the FRC is suppose to mediate these issues for you.
It sounds like that they are running the good old boys network down there
and in these days that doesn't always work. They have an interest to mediate
this since they will be drug though the coals if you do in
The NFCC will not get involved with internal issues such as this.
Joe M.
Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Camilo,
The other guy that let his coordination expire is out of luck and needs
to vacate the channel. Being a past chairman of the ORRC Oregon Region
Relay Council. If the guy that has
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Camilo So
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 3:37 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Hi Mike,
My problem is I can not use my repeater because I have PL , His don't have a
PL every time I key up I am bringing
Thank you much Mike.
Camilo
- Original Message -
From: Mike Mullarkey
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Camilo,
We really should not clog the list with this since
Have the coordinator get you a different channel. Don't mess with the sharing
idea.
-- Original Message --
Received: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:50:27 PM PST
From: Camilo So [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Hi sorry
Sorry Mike, I disagree. As you know,I spent about 10 years on the ORRC myself,
several of those as the database manager.
The other repeater was there first. The coordination council either (1) did
not have an accurate database and/or (2) did not research it throughly. Even
if the first repeater's
If the other guy is smart he'll call the FCC first, as he was on the
channel
first. Coordination is not required, and the coordiation group should
have
suspected he was still there if the coordination had expired. LOTS off
coordinations expire but the repeaters stay on the air.
First,
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:16 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Have the coordinator get you a different channel. Don't mess with the
sharing
idea.
-- Original Message
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
Sorry Mike, I disagree. As you know,I spent about 10 years on the ORRC
myself,
several of those
02:28:15 PM PST
From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
If he is uncooperative, and uncoordinated, just call the FCC. That's
about all you can do. You might mention this option to him and that may
make him
And I will emphasize my previous point that you should call them ONLY
after all other resolutions have been tried. But, if there is no
acceptable alternative, you have the high road on the complaint.
Joe M.
Daron Wilson wrote:
If the other guy is smart he'll call the FCC first, as he was on
Message -
From: MCH
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
And I will emphasize my previous point that you should call them ONLY
after all other resolutions have been tried
: Mike Mullarkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
HI John,
I agree with to a point but the FCC will first ask the coordinating group
witch repeater is coordinated. That is exactly what Bin would do and has
done so
]
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] OT: Repeater coordination
If he calls the FCC, he will find he is SOL. Coordination is not
required, but when one repeater is coordinated, and the other is not,
the uncoordinated one must resolve the problem. That's in Part 97
Daron -
In a perfect world you would be correct. But unforunately amateur
radio coordination is far from perfect.
Regarding some of the systems that the ORRC believe are uncoordinated which
I am affilated, that is because they do not recognize the 2 other coordinating
bodies in Oregon. That
34 matches
Mail list logo
