[RVRC] FW: Top secret???

[Marvin Bronstein]

( it's the fact that he's tied-in full time
> with KQ2H's expansive network. The end-users could switch to any other
> repeater on that system & we'll still be bombarded with their almost
> 'constant' traffic.)

But that is precisely why RVRC must bring our ERP back to it's original 
level and why CTCSS (PL) is mandated with repeater operation.  MetroCor and 
"TSARC" before MetroCor had developed the coordination parameters and 
together with our adjoining coordinating bodies have accepted those 
parameters.  We can not demand that we not hear their repeater! If we bring 
our signal back up to a proper level we will have better 'capture' in our 
own coverage areas.
When RVRC was forced to move our repeater from it's original location in 
Martinsville, we lost some coverage to the north.  We extended our tower at 
one point to improve coverage to the north....over the second ridge.....but 
northward isn't as good as coverage to the south. Even coverage due west is 
not quite as good as that from our former Martinsville location.  But 
running anything in excess of what we were coordinated for is inappropriate 
unless RVRC applies for a modification to our coordination with MetroCor and 
it is approved. (That would also be subject to the approval of UNYREPCO, 
'FLA's' coordinating body.)

Again, we can not simply demand that we must have a clear frequency on which 
we can't hear any other repeaters.  Let's see what improvements result with 
raising our transmitter power by  7db!!!! (25 W ~ 125 W)

73
Marvin
P.S. The use of networks that tie many repeaters together 'full-time' is 
something I have debated against for years.  When conversations are 
conducted between parties on other repeaters it causes simultaneous 
unnecessary traffic on unused repeaters. Just like the KQ2H network's tie-in 
with W2FLA. Networks should be 'linked-up' when needed by the operators. 
(ie., touch-tone signaling.)   Just my opinion, of course, but it has merit 
along with your 'objections' regarding 'FLA' tie-in with KQ2H.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Wilson" <w2sjw at comcast.net>
To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" <marvbrons at verizon.net>; "'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 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???


> Marv,
>
> I agree with your point of view - but the problem is not with the
> users in the field using W2FLA, it's the fact that he's tied-in full time
> with KQ2H's expansive network. The end-users could switch to any other
> repeater on that system & we'll still be bombarded with their almost
> 'constant' traffic.
>
> 73
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marvin Bronstein [mailto:marvbrons at verizon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 14:00
> To: Scott Wilson; 'Mike Christiansen'; 'JOHN T McAuley'; 'Prof Bob 
> Hopkins'
> Cc: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>