[RVRC] FW: Top secret???

[Marvin Bronstein]

Scott and members,

Before this subject (FLA) is cast-off, our problem with the presence of 
'FLA' is simply that their coordination conforms to our coordinating 
parameters. To wit, they are in excess of the minimum 70 mile separation for 
co-channel operation. They operate with 'tone-coded-squelch' (PL) that is 
different than ours. Their signal level is adequately below 'destructive 
interference' levels to our repeater. We really have no 'argument' with 
their coordination other than getting them to cooperate by having their 
users NOT operate on this repeater while mobile in our coverage area.
We really have a very weak position to insist that they 'cease and desist', 
even though it was a poor decision for them to use that frequency. No 
repeater can expect a 'clear and open' channel/frequency and in other 
similar issues, the FCC has taken a dim view of bringing such issues before 
them.  So that, when RVRC has brought our repeater up to it's full 
performance level, we can approach 'FLA' and try to get cooperation with 
mobile operators to avoid the use of 'FLA' while mobiling in New Jersey.
'FLA' is tied into a network that mobile operators can switch to other 
repeaters and remain in communications with users of 'FLA' operating in New 
York State and Northeastern Pennsylvania.

73
Marvin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Wilson" <w2sjw at comcast.net>
To: "'Mike Christiansen'" <kb2vrm at embarqmail.com>; "'JOHN T McAuley'" 
<jtmcauley at embarqmail.com>; "'Prof Bob Hopkins'" <bob at cooper.edu>
Cc: <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???


> I could not have said this any more eloquently myself. We are NOT
> trying to put a 'flamethrower' on the air.
>
> It also begs the question about why we are not trying to fight FLA
> through proper administrative channels. We clearly have the burden of 
> proof
> in our favor, and should be doing everything in our power to get him to
> lower his power/antenna, or vacate the frequency completely (but alas, 
> that
> is a different argument for a different day).
>
> 73
> Scott
>
>