Greetings
I read this response&just couldn't believe what I'm reading here.Its like Mr Ray is not stepping up to the plate&taking responsibility for the action of the repeater causing said interference.He should read the FCC rules carefully regarding what a control operator is.I think the FCC refuses to get involved in something like this because,maybe according to them,this is a non issue?There is something wrong to infer that we should not complain about this?Maybe they should cut back on their power?I have no idea the location of this repeater.
As the saying goes,
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."...73...Pete KD2ARB
________________________________
From: drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net>
To: RVRC <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 7:27 AM
Subject: [RVRC] W2FLA Repeater
Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: W2FLA Repeater
To: RVRC
I was afraid that this would happen when Bill read the letter to the club,
notwithstanding the fact that Bill's letter was clear enough to get the ball
rolling for cooperation.
Can a complete copy of Bill's letter be .pdf ed to the members to juxtapose
against Tom Ray's response?
I have unfortunately had the distinction of experiencing this kind of
ignorance in business matters when the other side of an issue is falsely
confident of their position, "shooting from the hip" as they say, and they
usually remain unresolved unless you spend money, time, effort, and/or you
are able to circumvent the rules.
But, here are my preliminary thoughts and comments about this letter without
analyzing Bill's letter and studying the whole matter further at this time.
1st, Tom Ray W2TRR is not the Trustee - owner/operator of the repeater and
does not bear legal responsibility for the interference therefrom. It is my
understanding that the Trustee -owner of the repeater license and any
control operators involved with the interference are liable and responsible
for their actions to the FCC. Keep in mind the fact that they are not
complaining about us interfering with them and thus if a formal complaint is
ultimately filed some day, it is not a zero sum game as in plaintiff and
defendant.
Tom Ray is already defending FLA, stating family issues etc, while echoing
his justifications as if he was the Trustee and/or Control operator, to Mr.
Muzyka whom I presume is a control operator, to sanction Ray's response to
Bill's letter. This diversion is done while failing to meet the obligations
of the office which Ray holds with coy responses, "intellectualizing" ( - as
in a neurotic psychology term) and asking questions he already concluded
from Bill's letter, instead of answering properly by investigating further
and offering to lend assistance. He is attempting to close the issue.
This is totally inappropriate, but the only response to Bill's letter that
is important must be by the Trustee - Owner of the license - not received
yet.
2nd, Without examining other sections of the FCC regulations it is implicit
within the 97.205(c) rule, that the operative precedence term is
"coordination" for which if defective, as I believe is the case and Bill's
letter implies, would place the burden on the later licensed repeater. FLA
was coordinated in 2006 and our club has existed for many years before that
time with no major changes.
3rd, Ray is protesting too much and should be smart enough to know he is
weak here. But, that is debatable from his email and he is adamant about
UNYREPCO being a coordinating entity with FLA's approval in 2006, However,
he completely discredits his own statements with the following:
"While it is true that [UNYREPCO has been somewhat inactive over the past
several years,] an election was held in September where I was elected
President of the organization. Since that time, we have been actively
working on [clearing up the mess that has been UNYREPCO] during this time."
[SIC] and next he says...
[it had been
somewhat stagnant, but the organization has and remains in operation]
By way of example - rhetorically - "In the forgoing 2 statements, is that
like the girl that is SOMEWHAT PREGNANT after having relations?"
Note: The UNYREPCO site just added the following, and in my view feigned,
statement to their website at unyrepco.org.
{{You may have heard or read on at least one neighboring council's website
that UNYREPCO has ceased functioning. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Your repeater
coordination is NOT in jeopardy, nor will it be. UNYREPCO is actively
coordinating repeaters and at present has several in cross coordination
(this being written 2/18/2012). If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact our President, Tom Ray, at president at unyrepco.org}}
And if you go to unyrepco.com you get the following statement:
{{It has come to our attention from several sources that The Upper New York
State Repeater Council (UNYREPCO) has apparently ceased to be operational in
the aforementioned areas. As repeater owners/operators, you should be keenly
aware that having an active, functional coordination body to represent your
interests is vital to the continued interference free operation of your
stations. Without a viable coordination body in place, you have no one to
represent your interests should there be interference issues, channel
grabbing, or FCC problems that require confirmation of coordination, etc.}}
I'm sorry but I have to say that this guy, Ray, is a jerk and suggest
waiting to see or perhaps prodding the Trustee "Sherman" to formally respond
because he may be preoccupied with "family matters," though that is not an
excuse, and may inappropriately expect others to take care of his
interference problem by making the matter go away with the kind of
assertions that Ray has made herein. This email response smacks of cronyism
among the repeater clan up there and they are not going to be easy to get
cooperation without force of some kind.
Other areas for the Club to explore are perhaps unyrepco.org's own
regulations may be violated with respect to the FLA repeater.
The Coordination Policy page has the following:
{{Repeater-to-repeater distances for 10, 6, 2, and 1.25 meter co-frequency
coordinations are 120 miles. This becomes 160 miles for Very High Profile
Repeaters (VHPR's) with AMSL at or above 3000 feet. For coordinations at or
below 3000 feet AMSL, the Coordination Committee may consider the
terrain/ERP factors to achieve a good coordination at a closer distance.
Especially flat areas of the state, however, may require a longer distance.
(Areas of concern are the Mohawk River Valley due west to Rochester.}}
The repeater to repeater distance is probably about 100 miles on my map and
I don't know the elevation of the FLA repeater.
That's my preliminary take on this response.
To Bill, there is nothing more aggravating and insulting than taking time to
carefully compose a letter seeking an intelligent response and getting
nothing but a high noise level so far.
What Say RVRC Members?
73
Hank N2MU ...-.-
----- Original Message -----
From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
To: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:58 PM
Subject: [RVRC] FW: W2FLA Repeater
>
>
>
>
> From: Tom Ray - W2TRR [mailto:tom.ray at unyrepco.org]
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 3:13 PM
> To: w2qw at w2qw.org
> Subject: Fwd: W2FLA Repeater
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Tom Ray - W2TRR <tom.ray at unyrepco.org>
> Date: Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM
> Subject: W2FLA Repeater
> To: w2qw at w2qw.com, kb2vrm at gmail.com, w2udt at arrl.net
> Cc: sherman at w2fla.com, kq2h at yahoo.com, Captainlance
> <captainlance at optonline.net>, secretary at unyrepco.org
>
>
> UNYREPCO, Inc.
>
> PO Box 858
>
> Vails Gate, NY 12584
>
> email: president at unyrepco.org
>
>
>
> February 17, 2012
>
>
>
> Mr. Michael Christiansen, President
>
> Raritan Valley Radio Club
>
> 111 Preston Drive
>
> Gillette, NJ 07933
>
>
>
> cc: Mr. William Hudzik, Trustee, W2QW
>
>
>
> Mr. Christiansen:
>
>
>
> I am in receipt of your letter to Mr. Sherman Liefer, trustee of
> repeater W2FLA dated February 8, 2012.
>
>
>
> First and foremost, I believe you are quite mistaken if you think that
> UNYREPCO no longer exists. In fact, we have been actively
> coordinating repeaters and in fact have several cross coordinations in
> the works at
this
> point in time. While it is true that UNYREPCO has been somewhat
> inactive over the past several years, an election was held in
> September where I was elected President of the organization. Since
> that time, we have been actively working on clearing up the mess that
> has been UNYREPCO during
this
> time.
>
>
>
> As such, you are hereby informed that the W2FLA repeater coordination
> is alive and well. UNYREPCO had never folded as an organization - it
> had
been
> somewhat stagnant, but the organization has and remains in operation -
> and the coordination held by W2FLA, coordination number 2006-R019
> dated
October
> 14, 2006, is indeed valid.
>
>
>
> I will refer back to 97.205(c) of the Commissions rules:
>
>
>
> "(c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference
> to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully
> responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one
> station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of
> the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the
> noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the
interference."
>
>
>
> Seeing as this repeater is, in fact, coordinated, the last line, "the
> licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to
> resolve the interference." does not apply in this instance.
>
>
>
> Mr. Liefer has had a major family problem and I have been
> corresponding
with
> Alex Muzyka. He has not indicated that there have been any changes in
> the repeater as coordinated through UNYREPCO. That being said, Alex
> is copied on this note, and I ask that he confirm this by clicking "REPLY
ALL".
> Please know that if the repeater is not operating as stated in the
> NOTICE
OF
> COORDINATION referenced above, then it becomes necessary to
> re-coordinate the repeater (ie, if there have been changes in the
> geographic location, ERP, or antenna height above ground, which would
> be considered major changes).
>
>
>
> I am, however, confused by your letter. The next to last paragraph
states,
>
>
>
> "The Raritan Valley Radio Club kindly requests you to investigate what
> has changed in the
>
> operation of the repeater to cause this interference on the input
frequency
> and to
>
> notify us of what steps are being taken to mitigate the interference
> as quickly as
>
> possible."
>
>
>
> The W2FLA repeater, as coordinated, is not transmitting on your input
> frequency of 146.025 MHz. Is this where you are experiencing the
> problem, as you have stated above? If it is, what is the logic behind
> stating that W2FLA is causing a problem on your input frequency?
> Additionally, you
have
> offered no geographic boundaries where this problem is occurring.
> Since
the
> W2FLA repeater is not transmitting on your input frequency, I do not
> understand why they would be in violation and need to "mitigate the
> interference as quickly as possible." If the problem is occurring on
> your input frequency as you have stated, it would seem to me that it
> is being caused either by an uncoordinated repeater that someone has
> put up (which may also be causing problems with the W2FLA repeater),
> or by person(s) utilizing your input frequency for some other purpose.
> In neither of
these
> cases is W2FLA responsible for interference to your input frequency.
>
>
>
> I respectfully request that you clarify your statements as to the
> interference you are experiencing between the Raritan Valley repeater
> and the W2FLA repeater and work with Mr. Muzyka and Mr. Liefer such
> that all parties are on the same page here. If, in fact, you are
> experiencing interference on your INPUT frequency, that, to me, does
> not seem to be the problem of the W2FLA repeater trustees, as it is
> not transmitting on your input frequency.
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Ray - W2TRR
>
> President
>
> UNYREPCO, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Ray - W2TRR
>
> President
>
> UNYREPCO, Inc.
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ______________________________________________________________
> RVRC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
______________________________________________________________
RVRC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html