[InHam] OT: Region OP QRMing Lafayette repeater CASE CLOSED

[Paul Webster]

Hello Stephen & All, 
Thanks for the info Stephen. 
In light of the information in this latest email from Stephen, I consider this case closed. 
I want to thank all the group moderators/owners for their patience w/me for my posting about this on their egroups & for allowing me to post about this on their egroups.
I also want to thank all who responded w/offers of assistance. 
I want to thank all the members of all the egroups that I posted emails about this, to, for putting up w/me for posting about this. 
I will stand down & secure on this issue & suggest that others do the same.  
Thankyou 
73/75 de ka9jwx, Paul Lewis Webster
SKCC #5322
John 3:16
Proud member of the;
ARRL
NRA
Handihams
LiveFreeUSA
60 Plus (even tho I am younger then 60)
Long:-87.334L (-87*20'3"W)
Lat:41.4967N (41*29'48"N)
EN61HL
Merrillville, Indiana, 46410-3503, USA 
;-)


--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Stephen M. Parker <shortwave at verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Stephen M. Parker <shortwave at verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: [InHam] OT: Region OP QRMing Lafayette repeater
> To: "'Dean, Gregory A SSG RET'" <greg.dean at us.army.mil>, "'Paul Webster'" <ka9jwx at yahoo.com>, "'InHams'" <inham at mailman.qth.net>
> Cc: wb9omc at yahoo.com, "'W9TN'" <steve at vanfrank.com>, "'R. Bruce Stewart'" <756pro at verizon.net>
> Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 10:28 AM
> It's time to address this issue
> officially before it gets even further out
> of hand.
> 
> I am President of the Board of Directors of the non-profit
> organization that
> owns and manages the 147.135 repeater in West Lafayette,
> Indiana, the
> Western Indiana Radio Emergency Services (W.I.R.E.S.). This
> repeater has
> been owned and operated by W.I.R.E.S. for over 25 years and
> presently uses
> the club call sign WI9RES.
> 
> The local ham who first mentioned the alleged
> "interference" to this
> repeater has not contacted any of the club officers of
> W.I.R.E.S. with his
> concern. He is not a W.I.R.E.S. official, but one of the
> net control
> stations for a weekly net that is held on our machine.
> 
> The individual in the Chicago area that was referenced in
> regard to
> occasionally bringing up our repeater in West Lafayette was
> identified and
> contacted a few years ago. His identity is no mystery, as
> he legally
> identifies when engaged in conversation. We do not consider
> his
> transmissions as interference, merely a distant station
> bringing up our
> repeater. And this happens VERY rarely, mainly during
> Spring morning band
> openings on 2M. It is merely a slight annoyance, as we only
> hear one side of
> the conversation taking place. And his signal is weak
> enough that it does
> not over-power or interfere with local conversations taking
> place on our
> repeater any more than other distant signals do when there
> is a band
> opening.
> 
> The repeater northwest of the Chicago area that we believe
> he operates
> through does not require CTCSS to access, but he apparently
> does transmit an
> 88.5 Hz tone. We are certain this is unintentional and the
> individual in
> question has been contacted about this. Whether he chooses
> to act upon our
> request to deactivate (or change) his CTCSS encoding is up
> to him. At any
> rate, we do *not* consider this to be intentional or
> harmful interference,
> merely a rare annoyance. Most of the local hams understand
> this.
> 
> We have never observed or been advised of any interference
> from this station
> during the Thursday evening net that was referenced in
> previous emails. I
> have monitored that net for many years, served for a few
> years as one of its
> net controls, and have not observed the interference
> mentioned. If present
> management of that net has experienced any problems, we are
> not aware of
> them and have not been asked to look into any issues. That
> particular net
> chooses to disable CTCSS for repeater access, resulting in
> occasional
> transmissions being heard from stations accessing distant
> repeaters. This is
> normal and to be expected - not to be considered
> interference. That is why
> most repeaters use CTCSS for access - to eliminate
> co-channel interference.
> 
> One would expect that any possible problems with a repeater
> would be
> discussed first with the owner or trustee of that local
> machine, rather than
> rallying a man-hunt for a "rogue" operator 100 miles away.
> As the owners and
> operators of the WI9RES repeater, we do not want to cause
> any hard feelings
> for any ham in the Chicago area (or elsewhere for that
> matter) who may
> unknowingly be accessing our system on rare occasions. As
> Spring and 2M band
> openings approach, we will be closely monitoring to see if
> any actual
> interference occurs here. We record all repeater activity
> to aid us in
> investigating any complaints or concerns. If we do hear the
> one individual
> from Chicago who we believe does not require CTCSS to
> access his local
> machine, we will contact him directly to discuss the issue
> with him in a
> neighborly and polite manner. Thank you all for your
> understanding.
> 
> As for the suggestion of swapping frequencies with the
> local D-STAR 2M
> repeater, there are a multitude of valid reasons why this
> is not even
> remotely being considered. As has already been established,
> there is no
> interference issue on the WI9RES machine. Additionally,
> there are just as
> many 146.73 repeaters in the region as there are on 147.135
> MHz. Changing
> frequency pairs is not something easily and quickly done.
> In individual's
> transceivers, it's a breeze. At the repeater site, quite a
> different story,
> as I'm sure many of you know. And the implication that
> interference doesn't
> matter with D-STAR is, of course, entirely without merit.
> 
> I hope this email can lay to rest all of the buzz that has
> been generated
> on, at last count, 7 different email lists to countless
> individuals. I
> apologize for the stir of excitement caused by a situation
> that should have
> been dealt with locally, and likely should not have been
> brought up at all
> to the general ham population of the region. I do not
> subscribe to most of
> the groups that this email topic has been distributed to,
> so I hope that
> word of this being a "non-issue" will spread to those who
> may be taking this
> to task. 73, and thank you for your time.
> 
> Stephen M. Parker, WR9A
> President, W.I.R.E.S.
> P.O. Box 4574
> Lafayette, IN 47909-4574
> 
> 
> West Lafayette, IN Repeaters:
> 147.135+ MHz, 88.5 Hz CTCSS  WI9RES (SKYWARN, ARES)
> 146.760- MHz, 88.5 Hz CTCSS  W9YB (IRLP 4315)
> 444.500+ MHz, 88.5 Hz CTCSS  W9YB
>  53.190- MHz  W9YB
> 224.960- MHz  W9YB
> 443.775+ MHz, 88.5 Hz CTCSS  KA9VXS (SKYWARN Link)
> 444.300+ MHz, D-STAR, W9ARP-B (Linked to W9ICE-B D-STAR)
> 146.730- MHz, D-STAR, W9ARP-C
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: inham-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:inham-
> > bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Dean, Gregory A SSG RET
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:43 PM
> > To: Paul Webster; carmachicago; ChicagoAmateurRadio
> Post; InHams;
> > KA9QJGsyahoogroup; KB9YGD Group post;
> NoonTimeFourm-Post; QCWA Ch 36
> > Subject: Re: [InHam] OT: Region OP QRMing Lafayette
> repeater
> > 
> > One solution, of course which might be unacceptable,
> is to swap the
> > WIRES frequencies (147.135) with the local D-Star 2m
> repeater
> > (146.730).  The 73 machine does not have many
> stations in the region on
> > its frequencies.  And if 147.135 was on D-Star
> then the interference
> > would not matter.
> > 
> > The objections would be that everyone would have to
> reprogram their
> > radios....
> > 
> > N9NWO
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Duane Mantick <wb9omc at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Duane Mantick <wb9omc at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Chapter 36] OT IndianaWeatherOnline
> covers Ohio & maybe
> > parts of other states
> > > To: "Paul Webster" <ka9jwx at yahoo.com>
> > > Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 5:45 PM
> > 
> > > Hey OM, owing to your location
> > > (and also the "To:" list in the email I am
> > > replying to) you may be able to help
> > > me out.
> > 
> > Down here in Lafayette, we have a repeater
> > > (our main local 2-meter machine) on 147.135
> output, 147.735
> > > input PL 88.5hz.
> > 
> > There is apparently a similarly
> > > paired machine up in "the region" and it has ONE
> > > ham who for some reason seems to like
> transmitting an 88.5hz
> > > PL tone to that machine when I am told that it
> isn't
> > > needed.
> > 
> > I have yet to get a callsign on the guy (and I
> > > realize that it would help a LOT).
> > 
> > On nearly any even
> > > slight band opening on 2 meters, he'll be on in
> the
> > > evenings bringing up our machine but seemingly
> not able to
> > > hear it (well........) or with no intention of
> *working*
> > > it.
> > >
> > > I personally do NOT recall hearing other stations
> from
> > > his area bringing up OUR machine, opening or not,
> which
> > > tends to add some credence to the claim that the
> other
> > > machine either is an open machine or uses a
> different PL
> > > tone (which you would *think* would cause him to
> be
> > > transmitting whatever THAT tone is, and NOT
> 88.5).
> > >
> > > I am Assistant Net Manager for the Thursday
> evening
> > > net held here as well as one of the Net Control
> stations,
> > > and yep - he has interfered with our net on
> occasion.
> > 
> > > It is S.O.P. for us to drop the PL during our
> thursday net
> > > so that anyone who still is using a rig without
> PL
> > > capability can participate.......in cases where
> we get
> > > either this guy specifically or other
> interference of some
> > > sort we may opt to turn it back on to try and
> keep such
> > > stuff out.
> > >
> > > What you could do is either spread the word or if
> you
> > > are already aware of a similar situation (meaning
> it could
> > > be the same guy with a bad habit) get me in touch
> with him
> > > via email or with the trustee of that repeater.
> > 
> > We *think* it is Chicago area, which makes the most
> likely
> > > possibility the W9NXP machine in Markham (PL
> listed as
> > > 107.2) [south side of Chicago, just north of
> where 80 and
> > > 294 split] and the ARRL repeater directory that I
> have
> > > lists the sponsor as "AREA".  Illinois has
> > > some other machines on the same frequency and so
> these
> > > cannot be totally ruled out:
> > >
> > > Savanna N9FID listed sponsor P.A.R.C.
> > > Mt. Vernon KB9KDE listed sponsor ARCOM
> > > Quincy WB9OTW listed sponsor WB9OTW
> > >
> > > Any help you can give would be appreciated.
> > My goal isn't to stomp on anybody, but just to try to
> > > locate the Amateur in question and "suggest"
> that
> > > he may be "accidentally or inadvertently"
> causing
> > > interference under certain circumstances, and
> possibly
> > > without being aware of it (I hope).
> > >
> > > TNX and 73
> > > Duane
> > > WB9OMC
> 
>