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

Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:56:51 -0800

hey brent.
about what you were saying about SCRRBA. here is my 2cents on them. for some
reason they remind me of the MOB. heh heh heh. i mean trying to work with them is
not an easy task. you try to get a list of all the coordinated repeaters through
them and forget it. this would make it really easy for a person to get
coordination. i came to the desision of my 2 meter repeater freq pair very easly
cause TASMA lists all the repeaters. my dad have a repeater on 440 years ago and
even then he had a hell of a time with SCRRBA. i dont think they changed at all in
20 years.

your thing about the guy with the 100 watt remote sparked this one. something i
"HEARD" so im not to sure but i am pretty sure that shorty has an amp on his 2
meter remote. if he  doesnt now i think he did in the past. everytime i have my 2
meter radio listening to 52, i will have my beams (twin 13s) pointed down towards
the san fernando valley (180 degrees out from frazier not to mention ALOT of
mountain between me and frazier) and i hear some one come on from his system on 52
FULL SCALE i just have to shake my head.  that kinda tells me that a bit of power
may be being run up there from him. not to smart.

dave

Brent Corbin wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CAham mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/caham