[CAham] Remote base-type linking (was 146.520)

Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:08:38 -0800

I'm a little confused...  then again, I'm still on my first pot of
coffee...   I'm guessing that the 440 system is tied to a 220 txr
that is set for your pair...  

Reminds me a bit of an incident involving another remote base (not
connected with Shorty's system) - this guy had a DC-daylight remote
up on a very high peak running in excess of 100W on 2m into a 
relatively high-gain vertical...  one morning he decided bring up
a distant repeater near the state-line and chat with the locals,
and couldn't understand the rather icy response he received...

Turns out he'd made a habit of demo'ing his machine by parking on
this pair and running up and down the PL tones...  '... see, I can
bring up this box in Santa Barbara, <dtmf> and this one in the desert,
<dtmf> and this one in San Diego...'  never once realizing that he
was jamming the input to every machine he wasn't entertaining himself
with...  8*)  8*(   

But back to your problem...  an auxiliary station is defined as "an
amateur station transmitting communications point-to-point within a
system of cooperating amateur stations" - it doesn't say anything
about maintaining the link 24/7, so technically they're bound by
rules governing auxiliary operation...  if the link is not coordinated,
they've got primary responsibility for resolving the interference problem.

I'm not sure that emails to SCRRBA will do it...  look over the minutes
of their meetings - the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease.
Get a sample of your user base together and go complain in mass - 
that seems to be about the only way anything ever happens (and then,
only if it's not targeted against a popular machine).

On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 05:03:12PM -0800, Mike Levy wrote:
> On a (semi-) related issue, we've got a 440 system out here which uses the
> input frequency to link to a 220 machine...from 3045' ASL!  It is a
> controllable link, but regardless of that, it is interfering with our local
> 220 machine on the same pair as the machine they are linking to.  I have
> emailed SCRRBA and CC'd the 220SMA, but have yet to receive a reply--or even
> an acknowledgment of my inquiry--from either group.  It's been almost two
> weeks since I sent the email.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?  If this was a remote base, then (I guess)
> we'd have to live with it, but it's a point-to-point link, which last thing
> I knew was supposed to take place on a link frequency, NOT on the input from
> a high-level (at least in HAAT) site!  The site in question is Sierra Peak,
> BTW, near Santiago.  This problem has been occurring for over a year, and
> the offending system has interfered with our weekly RACES net on more than
> one occasion.
> 
> In regards to the "146.520" thread:
> 
> I agree completely.  Too many remote bases sit on 52 and tie it up.  They
> belong on the designated (146.460/147.525) frequencies, and not on 52.  I
> know of one un-named system who used to tie up the V/UHF calling channels
> all the time...now they tie up IRLP. ;)
> 
> 
> Mike KE6ALV
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brent Corbin" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 16:33
> Subject: [CAham] 146.520
> 
> 
> |
> | Now that we know folks are monitoring, I'll stir the pot
> | a little...  what's with the remote-bases that keep popping
> | up on 146.52?  Do these folks not realize that when they
> | transmit from Frazier, or Oat, or Lukens, or Santiago, or...
> | they effectively prevent low-level users throughout their
> | coverage area from using the national calling freq?  Do they
> | not realize there is a simplex frequency set aside on 2m
> | specifically for remote-bases to keep them from jamming .52
> | over such a wide radius (Last time I was in Yosemite, I could
> | hear one of the near-Frazier sites with little/no problem on
> | my HT!) ?
> |
> | Does SCRRBA make any effort at all to educate R/RB owners when
> | coordination is granted?
> | _______________________________________________
> | CAham mailing list
> | [email protected]
> | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/caham
> |
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CAham mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/caham