From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 07:12:02 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 07:12:02 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Happy Birthday Mike!
Message-ID: <1808549733.3940925.1359807127820.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>

      Mike
   Happy Birthday Fearless leader!Have a nice day KB2VRM!....(VROOM)..Love the callsign!....73...Pete ARB 

                                                                                                      

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From bob at cooper.edu  Sat Feb  2 08:51:50 2013
From: bob at cooper.edu (Prof Bob Hopkins)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 08:51:50 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Happy Birthday Mike!
In-Reply-To: <1808549733.3940925.1359807127820.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>
References: <1808549733.3940925.1359807127820.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>
Message-ID: <510D19F6.2070705@cooper.edu>

YEA MIKE!  happy birthday
bob wb2udc
On 2/2/2013 7:12 AM, overthetop52 at yahoo.com wrote:
>        Mike
>     Happy Birthday Fearless leader!Have a nice day KB2VRM!....(VROOM)..Love the callsign!....73...Pete ARB
>
>                                                                                                        
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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


From n2gj at amsat.org  Sat Feb  2 10:10:35 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:10:35 +0000
Subject: [RVRC] HAPPPPPPPPY BIIIIIIRRRRTTTTTHHHHDDDDAAAYYYYYYY, MIKE!
Message-ID: <CAO2dfso9ni3yBhL5tV-gCMxCQja9O47HT=ncmg96Leo5PBa=sQ@mail.gmail.com>

ALL THE BEST ON YOUR BIRTHDAY AND BEST WISHES FOR MANY MANY MORE TO COME!
 BEST 73,

GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org

From n2gj at amsat.org  Sat Feb  2 10:12:23 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:12:23 +0000
Subject: [RVRC] Happy Birthday, Brian, N2MPM!
Message-ID: <CAO2dfsqvhuK70J3oVHj_qEGL8NaVFYK3sVh41UrzZapoyb1=Fw@mail.gmail.com>

Must be Groundhog Day...seems like I just sent birthday greetings to our
fearless leader, Mike KB2VRM!  Well, another fine alumnus of RVRC is
celebrating the anniversary of his 29thh birthday today,!  ARL FORTY SIX
Brian!  73,

GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org

From w2sjw at comcast.net  Sat Feb  2 13:42:30 2013
From: w2sjw at comcast.net (Scott Wilson)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:42:30 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] HT's for sale
Message-ID: <001501ce0175$0ebbc070$2c334150$@comcast.net>

Guys,

 

                My friend Joe, K2JJS has 3 HT's he's trying to sell, so I
told him I'd spread the word:

 

                1 - Wouxun KG-UV6D v2 in perfect condition for $120. This is
type-accepted commercial model that covers 136-174 & 420-520 & has the new
2.5k step option.

                1 - Wouxun KG-UVD1P in 'good' condition for $50. He did not
specify, but I'm assuming it's V/U.

                1 - Kenwood TH-6 tri-bander in like-new condition for $200.

 

                If anyone is interested, please let me know, and I'll put
you in touch with him. He lives in the Flemington area, and is looking to
complete these sales without having to ship.

 

73

Scott, W2SJW

 


From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 08:47:34 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (Pete Fierro)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 05:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [RVRC] Sunday Night Net
Message-ID: <1359899254.9179.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

????? Hello
??? I'm unable to do the net tonight.Could someone take it?Happy Birthday to Brian N2MPM.Best wishes&73..Pete

From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 22:22:26 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:22:26 -0500
Subject: [RVRC]
 http://ptwc.weather.gov/ptwc/text.php?id=pacific.TSUPAC.2013.02.06.0118
Message-ID: <196816436.4105508.1360120946884.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>

       Greetings
   Magnitude 8.0 quake hits the Santa Cruz islands in the western Pacific..73..Pete


http://ptwc.weather.gov/ptwc/text.php?id=pacific.TSUPAC.2013.02.06.0118

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 12:05:15 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:05:15 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] =?iso-8859-1?q?BREAKING=3A_Ham_Radio_Shuts_Down_Super=A0Bo?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?wl_-_Ham_Hijinks_-_The_Noise_Blankers_Radio_Group?=
Message-ID: <448077525.4177900.1360256736317.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>

     Greetings
   See?We Hams can be terrorists too!!..73...Pete ARB

http://www.noiseblankers.com/hijinks/2013/2/4/breaking-ham-radio-shuts-down-super-bowl.html

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From drumor at optonline.net  Thu Feb  7 12:42:07 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:42:07 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] =?iso-8859-1?q?FW=3A__BREAKING=3A_Ham_Radio_Shuts_Down_Sup?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?er=A0Bowl_-_Ham_Hijinks_-_The_Noise_Blinkers_Radio_?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?Group?=
Message-ID: <004201ce055a$73733a50$5a59aef0$@optonline.net>

Sounds like bad press for Ham radio especially since they were operating off
Battery power and not on the mail.

73
Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of overthetop52 at yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 12:05 PM
To: RVRC
Subject: [RVRC] BREAKING: Ham Radio Shuts Down Super?Bowl - Ham Hijinks -
The Noise Blankers Radio Group

     Greetings
   See?We Hams can be terrorists too!!..73...Pete ARB

http://www.noiseblankers.com/hijinks/2013/2/4/breaking-ham-radio-shuts-down-
super-bowl.html

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
______________________________________________________________
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


From w2sjw at comcast.net  Sun Feb 10 10:37:42 2013
From: w2sjw at comcast.net (Scott Wilson)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:37:42 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Loss of my e-mail server capability
Message-ID: <000001ce07a4$90e52390$b2af6ab0$@comcast.net>

Guys,

 

                It appears last Wednesday that Comcast finally brought down
the ban-hammer on incoming port 25 mail traffic for residential customers.
The e-mail system I was running on my server here for the use of myself &
the club's second domain address now fails to function. Any of the solutions
around this issue will cost me more money than I'm paying now per month, and
I don't see the need to upgrade my home service to a commercial account.

 

                Anyone that regularly uses a '@w2qw.net' address, either
actively, or forwarded to another public address, will have to make other
arraignments. I am also dropping the w2qw.net domain name at the expiration
of its term in April.

 

                Drew has done an outstanding job keeping the main w2qw.org
site going, and this club only really needs one location on the internet.

 

                I've enjoyed doing what I could as a little bonus to the
club, but I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Anyone that has
me stored personally in their contacts as scott at w2sjw.com needs to delete
that address as well.

 

73

Scott


From kc2vrj at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 10:43:28 2013
From: kc2vrj at gmail.com (Paul Nannery)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:43:28 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Loss of my e-mail server capability
In-Reply-To: <000001ce07a4$90e52390$b2af6ab0$@comcast.net>
References: <000001ce07a4$90e52390$b2af6ab0$@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAJ+g-fHayLpHWFN2Qa9QKzgTYm7p-USMMPBP4uwTR-zL7yUgzA@mail.gmail.com>

Scott what is the cost of the w2qw.net address yearly?
On Feb 10, 2013 10:37 AM, "Scott Wilson" <w2sjw at comcast.net> wrote:

> Guys,
>
>
>
>                 It appears last Wednesday that Comcast finally brought down
> the ban-hammer on incoming port 25 mail traffic for residential customers.
> The e-mail system I was running on my server here for the use of myself &
> the club's second domain address now fails to function. Any of the
> solutions
> around this issue will cost me more money than I'm paying now per month,
> and
> I don't see the need to upgrade my home service to a commercial account.
>
>
>
>                 Anyone that regularly uses a '@w2qw.net' address, either
> actively, or forwarded to another public address, will have to make other
> arraignments. I am also dropping the w2qw.net domain name at the
> expiration
> of its term in April.
>
>
>
>                 Drew has done an outstanding job keeping the main w2qw.org
> site going, and this club only really needs one location on the internet.
>
>
>
>                 I've enjoyed doing what I could as a little bonus to the
> club, but I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Anyone that has
> me stored personally in their contacts as scott at w2sjw.com needs to delete
> that address as well.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Scott
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

From w2sjw at comcast.net  Sun Feb 10 14:46:38 2013
From: w2sjw at comcast.net (Scott Wilson)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:46:38 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] UPDATE - Loss of my e-mail server capability
Message-ID: <000001ce07c7$57a3c500$06eb4f00$@comcast.net>

Guys,

 

                As an amazing 11th-hour savior, Rich Dunajewski (N2DLX) has
graciously offered to help me get the websites & e-mail system migrated to a
proper commercial location!

 

                Please bear with me for a day or so until I get everything
moved over. The info you all use to access the e-mail system should not
change, but if it does, I'll let you know.

 

73

Scott


From n2gj at amsat.org  Mon Feb 11 17:23:07 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:23:07 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Fw: John E. Karlin, Who Led the Way to All-Digit Dialing,
	Dies at 94
In-Reply-To: <9646A1744E1C4DAD8F54DD5DD59EF082@marvbronsPC>
References: <9646A1744E1C4DAD8F54DD5DD59EF082@marvbronsPC>
Message-ID: <CAO2dfso=D9TGc85nY2atmi62fvCpjat9zrorwYFY1gcHkqjwJQ@mail.gmail.com>

It's interesting to recall that, at the NY World's Fair in Flushing
Meadows, AT&T's Pavilion had a "contest" type board where you could compete
against someone who was dialing a conventional number vs. using the Touch
Tone keypad.  A digital timer was used to keep score.  Does anyone else
remember that?

I remember there was also a "Picturephone" booth - as I recall, it was B&W
and fairly grainy....a similar "booth" was "installed" on the set of "2001:
A Space Odyssey."  73,

http://davidszondy.com/future/Living/picturephone.htm


GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Marvin Bronstein <marvbrons at verizon.net>wrote:

> **
>
>
> *Subject:* John E. Karlin, Who Led the Way to All-Digit Dialing, Dies at
> 94
>
>
>
>   John E. Karlin, 1918-2013
>  John E. Karlin, Who Led the Way to All-Digit Dialing, Dies at 94
> Courtesy of Alcatel-Lucent USA
> John E. Karlin, a researcher at Bell Labs, studied ways to make the
> telephone easier to use.
> By MARGALIT FOX<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/margalit_fox/index.html> Published:
> February 8, 2013 172 Comments<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/business/john-e-karlin-who-led-the-way-to-all-digit-dialing-dies-at-94.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0#commentsContainer>
> A generation ago, when the poetry of PEnnsylvania and BUtterfield was
> about to give way to telephone numbers in unpoetic strings, a critical
> question arose: Would people be able to remember all seven digits long
> enough to dial them?
>   Enlarge This Image
>  Bell Telephone Laboratories
> Experimental model of a touch-tone phone from 1959.
>  Enlarge This Image
>  Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
> John E. Karlin in 1965.
>
>  And when, not long afterward, the dial gave way to push buttons, new
> questions arose: round buttons, or square? How big should they be? Most
> crucially, how should they be arrayed? In a circle? A rectangle? An arc?
>
> For decades after World War II, these questions were studied by a group of
> social scientists and engineers in New Jersey led by one man, a Bell Labs
> industrial psychologist named John E. Karlin.
>
> By all accounts a modest man despite his variegated accomplishments (he
> had a doctorate in mathematical psychology, was trained in electrical
> engineering and had been a professional violinist), Mr. Karlin, who died on
> Jan. 28, at 94, was virtually unknown to the general public.
> But his research, along with that of his subordinates, quietly yet
> emphatically defined the experience of using the telephone in the mid-20th
> century and afterward, from ushering in all-digit dialing to casting the
> shape of the keypad on touch-tone phones. And that keypad, in turn, would
> inform the design of a spate of other everyday objects.
>
> It is not so much that Mr. Karlin trained midcentury Americans how to use
> the telephone. It is, rather, that by studying the psychological
> capabilities and limitations of ordinary people, he trained the telephone,
> then a rapidly proliferating but still fairly novel technology, to assume
> optimal form for use by midcentury Americans.
>
> ?He was the one who introduced the notion that behavioral sciences could
> answer some questions about telephone design,? Ed Israelski, an engineer
> who worked under Mr. Karlin at Bell Labs in the 1970s, said in a telephone
> interview on Wednesday.
>
> In 2013, the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the touch-tone phone,
> the answers to those questions remain palpable at the press of a button.
> The rectangular design of the keypad, the shape of its buttons and the
> position of the numbers ? with ?1-2-3? on the top row instead of the
> bottom, as on a calculator<http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/denisnata/denisnata1011/denisnata101100079/8280436-big-black-calculator--keypad-background.jpg>? all sprang from empirical research conducted or overseen by Mr. Karlin.
> The legacy of that research now extends far beyond the telephone: the
> keypad design Mr. Karlin shepherded into being has become the international
> standard on objects as diverse as A.T.M.?s, gas pumps, door locks, vending
> machines and medical equipment.
> Mr. Karlin, associated from 1945 until his retirement in 1977 with Bell
> Labs, headquartered in Murray Hill, N.J., was widely considered the father
> of human-factors engineering in American industry.
>
> A branch of industrial psychology that combines experimentation,
> engineering and product design, human-factors engineering is concerned with
> easing the awkward, often ill-considered marriage between man and machine.
> In seeking to design and improve technology based on what its users are
> mentally capable of, the discipline is the cognitive counterpart of
> ergonomics.
>
> ?Human-factors studies are different from market research and other kinds
> of studies in that we observe people?s behavior and record it,
> systematically and without bias,? Mr. Israelski said. ?The hallmark of
> human-factors studies is they involve the actual observation of people
> doing things.?
> Among the issues Mr. Karlin examined as the head of Bell Labs? Human
> Factors Engineering department ? the first department of its kind at an
> American company ? were the optimal length for a phone cord (a study that
> involved gentle, successful sabotage) and the means by which rotary calls
> could be made efficiently after the numbers were moved from inside the
> finger holes<http://img2.etsystatic.com/004/0/6620830/il_fullxfull.366687750_ermg.jpg>,
> where they had nestled companionably for years, to the rim outside the
> dial <http://www.rotarydialphones.com/red_phone.jpg>.
> John Elias Karlin was born in Johannesburg on Feb. 28, 1918, and reared
> nearby in Germiston, where his parents owned a grocery store and tearoom.
> He earned a bachelor?s degree in philosophy, psychology and music, and a
> master?s degree in psychology, both from the University of Cape Town.
> Throughout his studies he was a violinist in the Cape Town Symphony
> Orchestra and the Cape Town String Quartet.
>
> Moving to the United States, Mr. Karlin earned a Ph.D. from the University
> of Chicago in 1942. Afterward, he became a research associate at Harvard;
> he also studied electrical engineering there and at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology.
> At Harvard, Mr. Karlin did research for the United States military on
> problems in psychoacoustics that were vital to the war effort ? studying
> the ways, for instance, in which a bomber?s engine noise might distract its
> crew from their duties.
> In 1945 he joined Bell Labs, then the jointly owned research and
> development arm of the American Telephone & Telegraph and Western Electric
> Companies. (It is now owned by Alcatel-Lucent.) The first research
> psychologist on the labs? staff, Mr. Karlin spent his early years there
> working on problems in telephone acoustics.
>
> Before long, he later said, he realized that the dynamics of using a
> telephone involved far more than speaking and hearing. In 1947 he persuaded
> Bell Labs to create a unit, originally called the User Preference
> department and later Human Factors Engineering, to study these larger
> questions; Mr. Karlin became its head in 1951.
>
> An early experiment involved the telephone cord. In the postwar years, the
> copper used inside the cords remained scarce. Telephone company executives
> wondered whether the standard cord, then about three feet long, might be
> shortened. Mr. Karlin?s staff stole into colleagues? offices every three
> days and covertly shortened their phone cords, an inch at time. No one
> noticed, they found, until the cords had lost an entire foot.
> From then on, phones came with shorter cords.
>
> Mr. Karlin also introduced the white dot<http://2guystalkingmetsbaseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/black-rotary-phone.jpg>inside each finger hole that was a fixture of rotary phones in later years.
> After the phone was redesigned at midcentury, with the letters and numbers
> moved outside the finger holes, users, to AT&T?s bewilderment, could no
> longer dial as quickly.
> With blank space at the center of the holes, Mr. Karlin found, callers no
> longer had a target at which to aim their fingers. The dot restored the
> speed.
> Mr. Karlin?s biggest challenge was almost certainly the advent of the
> push-button phone<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5t5na44D0Dw>,
> officially introduced on Nov. 18, 1963, in two Pennsylvania communities,
> Carnegie and Greensburg.
>
> In 1946, a Bell Labs engineer, Rudolph F. Mallina, had patented an early
> model, with buttons arranged in two horizontal rows<http://www.google.com/patents?id=MmxUAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=2,394,926&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false>:
> 1 through 5 on top, 6 through 0 below. It was never marketed.
>
> By the late 1950s, when touch-tone dialing ? much faster than rotary ?
> seemed an inevitability, Mr. Karlin?s group began to study what form the
> phone of the future should take. Keypad configurations examined included
> Mr. Mallina?s, one with buttons in a circle, another with buttons in an
> arc, and a rectangular pad.
>
> The victorious design, based on the group?s studies of speed, accuracy and
> users? own preferences, used keys half an inch square. The keypad itself
> was rectangular, comprising 10 keys: a 3-by-3 grid spanning 1 through 9,
> plus zero, centered below. Today?s omnipresent 12-button keypad, with star
> and pound keys flanking the zero, grew directly from this model.
>
> Putting ?1-2-3? on the pad?s top row instead of the bottom (the
> configuration used, then as now, on adding machines and calculators) was
> also born of Mr. Karlin?s group: they found it made for more accurate
> dialing.
>
> Mr. Karlin?s first marriage, to Jane Daggett, ended in divorce. Survivors
> include his second wife, the former Susan Leigh, whom he married in 1963; a
> daughter from his first marriage, Bonnie Farber; three stepchildren,
> Christopher, Stuart and Susan Leigh, who confirmed her stepfather?s death,
> at his home in Little Silver, N.J.; six grandchildren; and three
> great-grandchildren. A son from Mr. Karlin?s first marriage, Christopher
> Karlin, died in 1968.
> Throughout his career, Mr. Karlin was happy to work out of the limelight,
> a stance doubtless reinforced by this cautionary tale of all-digit dialing:
> By the postwar period, telephone exchanges that spelled pronounceable
> words were starting to be exhausted. All-digit dialing would create a cache
> of new phone numbers, but whether users could memorize the seven digits it
> entailed was an open question.
>
> Mr. Karlin?s experimental research, reported in the popular press, showed
> that they could. As a result, PEnnsylvania and BUtterfield ? the stuff of
> song <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_muFwwTSMs> and story<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO2b1UfHDso>? began to slip away. By the 1960s, those exchanges, along with DRexel,
> FLeetwood, SWinburne and scores of others just as evocative, had all but
> disappeared.
>
> This did not please traditionalists, and thanks to the papers they knew
> the culprit?s name.?One day I was at a cocktail party and I saw some people
> over in the corner,? Mr. Karlin recalled in a 2003 lecture. ?They were
> obviously looking at me and talking about me. Finally a lady from this
> group came over and said, ?Are you the John Karlin who is responsible for
> all-number dialing?? ?
> Mr. Karlin drew himself up with quiet pride.
> ?Yes, I am,? he replied.
> ?How does it feel,? his inquisitor asked, ?to be the most hated man in
> America??
>    A version of this article appeared in print on February 9, 2013, on
> page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: His Studies of
> Behavior Eased Marriage of Man and Machine.
>
>
>

From n2gj at amsat.org  Tue Feb 19 15:12:19 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:12:19 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Fwd: [Dsrc] David Sarnoff Radio Club Meeting - Tue 19 Feb
	2013
In-Reply-To: <51210F45.1020804@gmail.com>
References: <51210F45.1020804@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO2dfspf+275Cj2VGFbKi7wRUD95f=udn9x7DHJJAv8LYcaipQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry this is last-minute - if anyone would like to join us this evening -
I'm planning to be there!  73,

GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John DeGood <jdegood at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Subject: [Dsrc] David Sarnoff Radio Club Meeting - Tue 19 Feb 2013
To: Radio Club <dsrc at lists.epiphanydesign.net>
Cc: n2ltq at arrl.net, kc2zjw at arrl.net, w2ob at arrl.net, N2EI <tjarey at gmail.com>,
n2csa at arrl.net, w3tom at arrl.org, w2gss at arrl.org, n2oo at arrl.net,
n3llr at arrl.org


                  DAVID SARNOFF RADIO CLUB
                    FEBRUARY 2013 MEETING

                     Cheap and Easy SDR
                      John DeGood NU3E

* Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 7:30 PM

* American Red Cross, 707 Alexander Road, Suite 101,
  Princeton, NJ 08540. See http://n2re.org/ for map and directions.

The wide availability of very inexpensive DVB-T (Digital Video
Broadcast-Terrestrial) USB dongles combined with free, open
source SDR software makes it possible to assemble a wide frequency
range (~50-1800 MHz) all-mode receiver for about $12. Adding a simple
HF upconverter that can be easily constructed for a few dollars in
parts extends the frequency coverage to include the amateur HF bands.

John NU3E will present how you can add this capability to your
shack. He will demonstrate a USB DVB-T dongle with SDR software
running on a 9 year old laptop.

All are invited to join in an informal pre-meeting dinner at the Super
Star East Buffet, 311 Nassau Park Blvd, Princeton, NJ 08540
(same location as our annual holiday party) at 6:15 PM.

MEETING SPEAKERS
Every one of our members has interesting skills and knowledge worth
sharing with others. Please contact Rebecca KA3IAX, John NU3E, or
Dennis KC2IMI with your ideas.

UPCOMING AREA HAMFESTS (from http://www.qsl.net/w2vtm/hamfest.html &
http://www.arrl.org/hamfests/)

UPCOMING DSRC EVENTS AND MEETINGS
* Tue 16 Mar - Monthly Meeting, 7:30 PM
* Tue 16 Apr - Monthly Meeting, 7:30 PM
* Tue 21 May - Monthly Meeting, 7:30 PM
* Tue 18 Jun - Field Day Planning, Dennis McClary, KC2IMI, 7:30 PM
* Sat 22 Jun and Sun 23 Jun - Field Day

DSRC WWW HOME PAGE - http://n2re.org/

DSRC REPEATER - N2RE, 146.46 output, 147.46 input (+1 MHz offset),
131.8 PL

DSRC 2 METER FM NET - First Tuesday of each month, 9 PM, DSRC repeater

DSRC 80 METER PSK31 NET - Second Tuesday of each month, 8:30 PM, BPSK,
3580.5 kHz ?

ARES/RACES - Members are encouraged to register themselves with Mercer
County ARES/RACES. To do so, just send an e-mail to the Mercer County
EC, Kip Burnett at kb2egi at arrl.net for more information.

Two local emergency stations are supported by DSRC. N2ARC is the
callsign at the American Red Cross of Central New Jersey, the lead
American Red Cross chapter in the event of a statewide emergency. W2MER
is the callsign at the Mercer County Emergency Operations Center,
located at the Dempster Fire Service Training School.

"Open houses" are held the last Monday of each month (except December
and May) at 7:15 PM at both the American Red Cross, 707 Alexander Rd
(2 blocks east of Rt 1, use rear entrance) and at the Mercer County EOC
located on Lawrence Station Road. Lawrence Station Road is a right turn
off of Quakerbridge Road about one half mile south of Quakerbridge Mall.
Just follow the signs to the fire school. The Mercer County EOC is in
the basement.

MEMBERSHIP - Club membership is open to anyone with an interest in
amateur radio. There are no dues. To become a member, simply attend a
club meeting and fill-out a membership application. If you would like
to receive club announcements via e-mail, please send your name,
callsign, and email address to mailto:nu3e at arrl.net.

_______________________________________________
Dsrc mailing list - David Sarnoff Radio Club -
Dsrc at lists.epiphanydesign.net
http://lists.epiphanydesign.net/listinfo.cgi/dsrc-epiphanydesign.net

From drumor at optonline.net  Tue Feb 19 17:45:29 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:45:29 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] RVRC Hamfest Planning Progress Report
Message-ID: <009b01ce0ef2$d1cbc530$75634f90$@optonline.net>

2013 W2QW Hamfest
Status Update, February 13, 2013

1.	Only 4 month to go!
2.	General
.	Member Job Assignments:   A successful hamfest is possible only if
there are enough members contributing there time and effort to make it a
success. Please confirm your work assignment with one of the Hamfest
Chairmen. Drew, W2OU has a spreadsheet of assignment by club members. Until
notified the assignment you had last year will be the same assignment for
the 2013 hamfest. If you will not be available for the 2013 hamfest please
let Drew know so we can make sure we have coverage for that area. The
greatest manpower need is before the hamfest officially starts. We were thin
on help with the parking task and setup task last year. Most buyers and
sellers li9ke to come early so we need to be able to accommodate the surge
at the beginning.  In addition to parking there areas to be set up to
include the concession area, PA table, Club tables and the VE testing area.
Any time you can put in would be greatly appreciated. Committee chairmen
should make sure they have sufficient manpower. If additional helpers are
needed please let the Hamfest Chairmen know as soon as possible. We have 3
draw vendors. They help to draw the crowd to our event. The venders are KJI
Electronics, Sauder Electronics and Cheapham. I need at least 3 individuals
to assist them to offload and load their products. If everyone helps
everyone will get to enjoy seeing what the vendors have to sell. 
Flyers Distribution Suggestions for NNJ
.	KC2OOP produced 2,000 flyers. These flyers need to be distributed to
ham related events and Hamfest 
.	2/22/13 NPARC Annual Auction-New Providence NJ
.	3/3/13 BARA Annual Auction- Washington NJ
.	$/6/13 Greater Baltimore Hamboree-Timonium, MG 
.	4/20/13 2013 North Jersey Hamfest
.	5/4/13 Garden State ARC - Tinton Falls, NJ
.	5/18/13 OMARC- Wall Township
.	5/25/13 BARA Spring Hamfest

.	VE Testing this year: If you are a VE please let Marty, KB2JSG, know
if you can assist in our VE session. In addition to VEs he needs a work crew
to setup/take down a portable garage to be used for the testing of the
candidates. We also need a portable garage or large shelter, HiHi.
.	Hamfest work frequency: please take the time to program your HT with
the club's work frequency. The frequency is 147.555 simplex with the 141.3
PL. If you have any problems please bring it to the a RVRC Business Meeting
and someone will be happy to assist you.
Committee Chairpersons
Accounting			WA2AM	Michael Schutz
Advance Registration	W2CA		Bill Labos
Cleanup Committee	KB2VRM	Mike Christiansen
Club Table			WA2F		John Manna, WA2C John Weber
Door Prize/PA			W2UDT	Bill Hudzik
Demonstrations		N2MPM	Brian Boccardi; KC2ZSX Alex Sack
Electric			KC2OOP	Kenny Lund
Flyer				K2TZ		Wes Wescott
First Aid			KC2VRJ	Paul Nannery
Hamfest			W2OU	Drew Moore
				W2PQ	Rich Pascale
Information			W2OU	Drew Moore
Parking			W2SJW	Scott Wilson
Publicity			W2IU		Dennis Kopecky
Restroom			AB2XH	John McAuley
Security				
Signs				WB2QIF	Bill Stephany
Tables			W2AEW	Alan Wolke
Talk-in			WB2BEW	Marty Friedman
Ticket Printing		W2IU		Dennis Kopecky
Ticket sales			W2CA		Bill Labos
VE Testing			KB2JSG	Marty Goldfarb	



From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 22:29:53 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:29:53 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] TCF 2013 Home Page
Message-ID: <1156696641.5013708.1361331005355.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp04>

     Greetings
      Big Trenton computer festival happening.You can take/upgrade your ham license exam here hosted by the Sarnoff radio club in Princeton..73..Pete KD2ARB 

http://tcf-nj.org/

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From drumor at optonline.net  Thu Feb 21 13:41:49 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:41:49 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] N2GJ and Connie N2ATJ in our thoughts
Message-ID: <008e01ce1063$1bb5a960$5320fc20$@optonline.net>

Members,

Gerry, N2GJ, lost his mother-in-law, Margaret, last night. Our deepest
condolences go out to her daughter, Connie- N2ATJ and Gerry.

73,
Drew


From kb2vrm at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 23:11:58 2013
From: kb2vrm at gmail.com (Mike Christiansen)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:11:58 -0500
Subject: [RVRC]  email change
Message-ID: <006801ce10b2$c28f08e0$47ad1aa0$@gmail.com>



Hello all, Hopefully this gets out to everyone who needs it. I recently
dropped the email address kb2vrm at embarqmail.com , this address does not work
anymore. I have moved over to my kb2vrm at gmail.com address.    73,   Mike,
KB2VRM


From cwsaums at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 08:16:05 2013
From: cwsaums at aol.com (Craig W Saums)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:16:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [RVRC] RVRC Technical Committee contact information
Message-ID: <8CFDF15E7427018-12F4-50E34@webmail-d203.sysops.aol.com>



Members,

The club will be making some changes to the way the Technical Committee should be
contacted for any issues or questions about the repeaters or our systems.

To reach the committee via e-mail, the address is: repeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org  
To reach the committee by phone, please call 1-848-229-1744.
 
This will streamline the process of contacting someone.  When you call in, please listen to the prompts and you will get a list of extensions to dial.  Your email or voice mail will be sent to all the people who can help with issues or questions.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter

The TECH. committee

Email    repeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org
Phone  1-848-229-1744




 

From drumor at optonline.net  Fri Feb 22 14:35:00 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:35:00 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
Message-ID: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>

Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
repeater?

73,
Drew


From drumor at optonline.net  Fri Feb 22 15:17:46 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:17:46 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
Message-ID: <006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>

Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for the
past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly more
and more to local traffic.

73
Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
To: drew Moore
Subject: Re: W3WAN

The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not a
user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
implemented. 

I hope this helps.

Craig
AC2FE

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:

> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
> repeater?
> 
> 73,
> Drew
> 


From marvbrons at verizon.net  Fri Feb 22 22:46:58 2013
From: marvbrons at verizon.net (Marvin Bronstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:46:58 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
Message-ID: <64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>

I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly 
linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely useless 
to us.
We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
system is in use!!!

We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so that 
we can use our own system locally!

73
Marvin, K2VHW
................................................................................................................................................
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN


> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for the
> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly more
> and more to local traffic.
>
> 73
> Drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
> To: drew Moore
> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>
> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not a
> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
> implemented.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Craig
> AC2FE
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>> repeater?
>>
>> 73,
>> Drew
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> 



From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 05:37:20 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:37:20 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
Message-ID: <84640331.5217371.1361615846019.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp04>

      Gentlemen
     Maybe we could disconnect whenever the WAN network has their nets.There is a schedule on the WAN website regarding said network.
       On the flip side,our 625 repeater will be up to full strength once we hire a climber&get a new antenna for our repeater.All of us want our 2 meter repeater up to full strength&we will do this soon&most of us are getting antsy regarding this&need to be a bit more patient,myself included.Work will begin in the spring.
       I think the goal here is to have the 2m repeater just for local work&the 440 on the WAN.Im seeing our 440 repeater being used&this is good.Even before the WAN,there was little use of it being utilized when I would listen in.(440) 
       I would like to also point out that everyone's input is valuable to the tech committee.If the vast majority of everyone wants our 440 off the WAN then fine,compliance would not be a problem.However,I do think its nice to experiment with some networks to see the value of expansion.Maybe this may be something new to all of us.But my thing is,there is nothing wrong with trying something new.If we have the attitude that says.."Well this is the way we have been doing this for the past 20 years",then we will always be in a rut,never trying anything new.The ham radio community is quite vast&growing all the time&its also exciting to see the immense talent prowess that many of us have.I think as a club we should continue with more experimentation to see what would be good for us&eventually something permanent if all agree.

                                                                                     73
                                                                                   Pete         
              


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Marvin Bronstein <marvbrons at verizon.net> wrote:

>I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly 
>linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely useless 
>to us.
>We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
>attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
>system is in use!!!
>
>We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so that 
>we can use our own system locally!
>
>73
>Marvin, K2VHW
>................................................................................................................................................
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>
>
>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for the
>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly more
>> and more to local traffic.
>>
>> 73
>> Drew
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>> To: drew Moore
>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>
>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not a
>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>> implemented.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Craig
>> AC2FE
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>> repeater?
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Drew
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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

From cwsaums at aol.com  Sat Feb 23 08:39:36 2013
From: cwsaums at aol.com (cwsaums at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:39:36 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>
Message-ID: <379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>

Marv
Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was it during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another frequency. Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and this action would be honored by any net control station.  

If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.  

That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD. 

The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at least.  

For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by email.  

Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, a user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee.  Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power Button.

This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous related mail was broadcast.

The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type of failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic and we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain.  Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org mailbox

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support

Craig Saums
AC2FE
Technical Committee Chairman

73

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net> wrote:

> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely useless to us.
> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the system is in use!!!
> 
> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so that we can use our own system locally!
> 
> 73
> Marvin, K2VHW
> ................................................................................................................................................
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> 
>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for the
>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly more
>> and more to local traffic.
>> 
>> 73
>> Drew
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>> To: drew Moore
>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>> 
>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not a
>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>> implemented.
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>> Craig
>> AC2FE
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>> repeater?
>>> 
>>> 73,
>>> Drew
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 

From n2gj at amsat.org  Sat Feb 23 08:52:15 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:52:15 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] So you wanna learn about software defined radio (SDR)?
Message-ID: <CAO2dfspKPoFijpbm4fdnR5T8cBz211RhAJKSp9Vb7C+=fy_cMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Nice interview with my cousin, Greg Jurrens K5GJ - Episode 6 of Ham Radio
Now!

http://arvideonews.com/hrn/HRN_Episode_0061.html

Enjoy!  73,

GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org

From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 10:00:56 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (Pete Fierro)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:00:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [RVRC] Fw:  W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <84640331.5217371.1361615846019.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp04>
References: <84640331.5217371.1361615846019.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp04>
Message-ID: <1361631656.97134.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

???????? Greetings
?????? Sorry if my email below implied this was from the tech committee in its entirety.As a new member,I get excited&overstep my bounds.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 73
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Pete








----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "overthetop52 at yahoo.com" <overthetop52 at yahoo.com>
To: Marvin Bronstein <marvbrons at verizon.net> 
Cc: RVRC <rvrc at mailman.qth.net> 
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
 
? ? ? Gentlemen
? ?  Maybe we could disconnect whenever the WAN network has their nets.There is a schedule on the WAN website regarding said network.
? ? ?  On the flip side,our 625 repeater will be up to full strength once we hire a climber&get a new antenna for our repeater.All of us want our 2 meter repeater up to full strength&we will do this soon&most of us are getting antsy regarding this&need to be a bit more patient,myself included.Work will begin in the spring.
? ? ?  I think the goal here is to have the 2m repeater just for local work&the 440 on the WAN.Im seeing our 440 repeater being used&this is good.Even before the WAN,there was little use of it being utilized when I would listen in.(440) 
? ? ?  I would like to also point out that everyone's input is valuable to the tech committee.If the vast majority of everyone wants our 440 off the WAN then fine,compliance would not be a problem.However,I do think its nice to experiment with some networks to see the value of expansion.Maybe this may be something new to all of us.But my thing is,there is nothing wrong with trying something new.If we have the attitude that says.."Well this is the way we have been doing this for the past 20 years",then we will always be in a rut,never trying anything new.The ham radio community is quite vast&growing all the time&its also exciting to see the immense talent prowess that many of us have.I think as a club we should continue with more experimentation to see what would be good for us&eventually something permanent if all agree.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  73
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  Pete? ? ? ? 
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

Marvin Bronstein <marvbrons at verizon.net> wrote:

>I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly 
>linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely useless 
>to us.
>We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
>attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
>system is in use!!!
>
>We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so that 
>we can use our own system locally!
>
>73
>Marvin, K2VHW
>................................................................................................................................................
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>
>
>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for the
>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly more
>> and more to local traffic.
>>
>> 73
>> Drew
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>> To: drew Moore
>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>
>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>> machine.? At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not a
>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>> implemented.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>>
>> Craig
>> AC2FE
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>> repeater?
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Drew
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
______________________________________________________________
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

From marvbrons at verizon.net  Sat Feb 23 10:19:07 2013
From: marvbrons at verizon.net (Marvin Bronstein)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:19:07 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>
	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>

Craig, members,

On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN 
system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a result 
of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and subscribe 
for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily usable 
because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN 
network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of 
barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' it 
totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we 
are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating'' 
with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their 
communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I know 
there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all 
''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not ''users 
of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our repeater 
for our ''local'' uses.

I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking into 
the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up at 
our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this 
issue.

Marvin, K2VHW
**Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all 
associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, inter-communicate.
    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those 
repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN


> Marv
> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was it 
> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I 
> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is 
> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the 
> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another frequency. 
> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and 
> this action would be honored by any net control station.
>
> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then 
> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the 
> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers 
> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals 
> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
>
> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a 
> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the 
> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the 
> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
>
> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of 
> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our 
> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at 
> least.
>
> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by 
> email.
>
> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using 
> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, a 
> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee. 
> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member 
> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power 
> Button.
>
> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous 
> related mail was broadcast.
>
> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general 
> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control 
> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type of 
> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not 
> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic and 
> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain. 
> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org 
> mailbox
>
> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
>
> Craig Saums
> AC2FE
> Technical Committee Chairman
>
> 73
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly 
>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely 
>> useless to us.
>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
>> system is in use!!!
>>
>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so 
>> that we can use our own system locally!
>>
>> 73
>> Marvin, K2VHW
>> ................................................................................................................................................
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>>
>>
>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for 
>>> the
>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly 
>>> more
>>> and more to local traffic.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Drew
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>>> To: drew Moore
>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>>
>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not 
>>> a
>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> AC2FE
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>>> repeater?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Drew
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> 



From kb2vrm at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 13:14:17 2013
From: kb2vrm at gmail.com (Mike Christiansen)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:14:17 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>
	<4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>
Message-ID: <000601ce11f1$98c7bb20$ca573160$@gmail.com>

RVRC ,
Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with this. It seems we
have a problem through the entire club when I read through the emails that
are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the problem or if there
is just a small group having issues with some area of our club.  My opinion
of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably favorable to the
club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it isn't for any of
the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I don't have 440 in my
car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my radios in the house
don't get used as I have too many other more important things going on. That
being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool repeater and
technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys (and I believe the
membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to make the club
better, increase membership (which means more money in the treasury), keep a
good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and purposes make the
club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If members really want
to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening and if there is
an issue that is carrying along with those good things then we can discuss
them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to continue with
said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great fund raising ideas
and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I believe the
bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good quality radio
repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is how we have
gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number of others were
on the air most of the day, every day our membership was busy taking in new
members at every meeting.
	On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected to the
WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this should be
discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a legitimate gripe
with what's happening in the club I believe they should actually get out to
a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front of the group.

From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Thu Feb 21 15:38:05 2013
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:38:05 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.13.1361643259.2532.rvrc@mailman.qth.net>

and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue we happen to be
talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are sent out with
facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings of the issues at
hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed decision on
these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email sender. I would ask
everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, etc. etc. for every
little thing that they want to personally change about the club, these
things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at the meetings.
Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before that but
generally they have been brought up in front of the body and voted on which
is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a weapon to cause
grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the club, this may
sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe it or not it is
the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the scenes for way to
long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and need to behave
that way.
On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system I think we all
know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up about a linked
system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I think the
decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the thoughts that
have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I know 2 meters is
very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be changing soon.
I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have it much busier
than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as many local calls
may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at its normal
standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area network will be a
good thing for the club.		 I think at this point we need to
step back and look at the big picture. What will make the club continue to
be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is what we're doing
the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe come up with new
fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do it together not
by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who are honestly
and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping everything running
up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things better for all of
us. 			Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to
hear any silly back-biting comments through this email forum. If there are
problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting and we will
discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from all sides of the
argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL want to do on
whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club who are always
right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying to). The bottom
line here is we have a great club with a smart capable membership with the
potential to do great things, let's all get behind each other to make things
better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.
73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC

-----Original Message-----
From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
To: cwsaums at aol.com
Cc: RVRC
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN

Craig, members,

On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN
system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a result
of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and subscribe
for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily usable
because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN
network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of
barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' it
totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we
are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating'' 
with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their
communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I know
there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all
''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not ''users
of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our repeater
for our ''local'' uses.

I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking into
the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up at
our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this
issue.

Marvin, K2VHW
**Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all
associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, inter-communicate.
    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those
repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.


----- Original Message -----
From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN


> Marv
> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was it

> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I 
> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is 
> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the 
> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another frequency.

> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and 
> this action would be honored by any net control station.
>
> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then 
> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the 
> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers 
> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals 
> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
>
> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a 
> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the 
> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the 
> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
>
> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of 
> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our 
> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at 
> least.
>
> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by 
> email.
>
> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using 
> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, a

> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee. 
> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member 
> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power 
> Button.
>
> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous 
> related mail was broadcast.
>
> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general 
> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control 
> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type of

> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not 
> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic and

> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain. 
> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org 
> mailbox
>
> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
>
> Craig Saums
> AC2FE
> Technical Committee Chairman
>
> 73
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly

>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely 
>> useless to us.
>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
>> system is in use!!!
>>
>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so 
>> that we can use our own system locally!
>>
>> 73
>> Marvin, K2VHW
>>
............................................................................
....................................................................
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>>
>>
>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for 
>>> the
>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly 
>>> more
>>> and more to local traffic.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Drew
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>>> To: drew Moore
>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>>
>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not

>>> a
>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> AC2FE
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>>> repeater?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Drew
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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


From drumor at optonline.net  Sat Feb 23 13:47:01 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:47:01 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] FW:  W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>
	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>
	<4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>
Message-ID: <003701ce11f6$2b0fdd10$812f9730$@optonline.net>

I initiated this thread by merely asking if there was a way to disengage
from the W3WAN network when they are running what seemed like a perpetual
net. This was not an extraordinary because our previous WAN partners (KB2EAR
and N2ZAV) always disengaged when RVRC and ETSNJ ran their weekly nets and
as we try to do with our nets so as to not interfere with normal operations
with the WANRS. There net list is very long.

As a courtesy ham operators will never interfere with an active net
(controlled by a NCS) unless in case of an emergency. That's just protocol.
However, when weather net for a particular remote area runs a net for a
specific audience that depends on that information we should have the option
to opt-out mainly because we have nothing of value to add. Our interest
could be satiated by just viewing the weather channel.

Even before I made that simple query I have been asked by members why we no
longer have access to the 440 repeater even if just to monitor. They have a
sense of no longer being able to listen to matters closer at hand involving
local users. I strongly feel the technical committee has also had to field
the same type of questions. I'm not saying we don't have access to the 440
repeater. At times some individuals do nothing but sit on the frequency all
day until they have exhausted all their friends in 3 land generating many
little social nets. That's fine and stations are interesting at times. It
doesn't promote our local interest or interaction between our local clubs.

I agree that we should discuss this at a club meeting. I think we should
have discussed this with the membership before making the commitment to be
semi-permanent agreement to stay connected. As it stands we were told we
were connected to the WANRS. Right after we were told hey we just bought a
new 440 repeater. Don't get bent out of shape Craig, I'm just saying we
could have been more transparent and let the membership know beforehand.

The repeater was shut down by a control operator. Probably because there
wasn't a specific user code to just disengage the WANRS link. I assume there
is an engage/disengage code now.

73,
Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin Bronstein [mailto:marvbrons at verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
To: cwsaums at aol.com
Cc: drew Moore; RVRC
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN

Craig, members,

On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN 
system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a result

of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and subscribe 
for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily usable 
because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN 
network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of 
barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' it

totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we 
are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating'' 
with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their 
communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I know 
there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all 
''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not ''users

of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our repeater 
for our ''local'' uses.

I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking into

the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up at 
our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this 
issue.

Marvin, K2VHW
**Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all 
associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, inter-communicate.
    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those 
repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN


> Marv
> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was it

> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I 
> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is 
> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the 
> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another frequency.

> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and 
> this action would be honored by any net control station.
>
> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then 
> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the 
> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers 
> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals 
> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
>
> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a 
> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the 
> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the 
> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
>
> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of 
> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our 
> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at 
> least.
>
> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by 
> email.
>
> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using 
> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, a

> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee. 
> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member 
> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power 
> Button.
>
> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous 
> related mail was broadcast.
>
> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general 
> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control 
> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type of

> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not 
> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic and

> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain. 
> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org 
> mailbox
>
> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
>
> Craig Saums
> AC2FE
> Technical Committee Chairman
>
> 73
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net> 
> wrote:
>
>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being constantly

>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely 
>> useless to us.
>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone 
>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the 
>> system is in use!!!
>>
>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so 
>> that we can use our own system locally!
>>
>> 73
>> Marvin, K2VHW
>>
............................................................................
....................................................................
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>>
>>
>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for 
>>> the
>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly 
>>> more
>>> and more to local traffic.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Drew
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>>> To: drew Moore
>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>>
>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and as
>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is not

>>> a
>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> AC2FE
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>>> repeater?
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Drew
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
> 



From marvbrons at verizon.net  Sun Feb 24 23:28:45 2013
From: marvbrons at verizon.net (Marvin Bronstein)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:28:45 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <000601ce11f1$98c7bb20$ca573160$@gmail.com>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>
	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>
	<4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>
	<000601ce11f1$98c7bb20$ca573160$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A94B10BD6E934255B69702B65052BBFE@marvbronsPC>

RVRC,
Let's include ALL the RVRC members in this ''discussion''.  We all know that 
it is not always possible for members to make a week-night meeting; people 
are out earning a living or caring for family and ham radio should NEVER 
take precedent over those other matters
  Many members who SHOULD have a voice are left out because we have chosen 
to ''discuss this ONLY at the meeting''.  Discussing this via this medium at 
least provides the rest of the members with a ''clue'' about what's 
happening in RVRC.

A significant problem is that, it seems, a few members who DO make the 
meetings and have weighed-in on these repeater projects are the primary ones 
desiring to have these features.

I am NOT proposing that these ''experiments'' must stop or that we simply 
MUST totally discontinue any ''linked-in'' operation BUT, that, a better 
method must be found to give RVRC members the ability to disconnect from the 
''link'' so those of us who PAY DUES and support these repeaters can have 
''FIRST CHOICE'' of use on our own schedules and not determined by heavy use 
from a system far removed from our area and membership.

How about having a ''normal'' mode not linked and those who want to be 
''linked'' for their period of use can do so by engaging that ''link''?
It seems that those with the ability to do the ''linking/unlinking'' are 
those who want this feature since not many others are making use of it.

The WAN system is very active and there is absolutely no value to the 
majority of RVRC members having to either listen to conversations between 
stations that our members have no reason nor common interest to talk to or 
must eliminate it from their ''scan'' list on their radios.

I don't appreciate the attitude that if we don't like it we can use the 
''off'' switch or VFO dial..........WE OWN THE REPEATER and we should be 
able to have access to it WHEN EVER WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO SO!


I can safely say that I am NOT the only RVRC member who feels 
''disenfranchised'' from use of our UHF repeater.  Let all the members 
weight-in on this issue, not just the few who are able to make the meetings.

73
Marvin K2VHW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Christiansen" <kb2vrm at gmail.com>
To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" <marvbrons at verizon.net>; <cwsaums at aol.com>
Cc: "'RVRC'" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN


> RVRC ,
> Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with this. It seems we
> have a problem through the entire club when I read through the emails that
> are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the problem or if there
> is just a small group having issues with some area of our club.  My 
> opinion
> of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably favorable to 
> the
> club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it isn't for any 
> of
> the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I don't have 440 in 
> my
> car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my radios in the house
> don't get used as I have too many other more important things going on. 
> That
> being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool repeater and
> technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys (and I believe 
> the
> membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to make the club
> better, increase membership (which means more money in the treasury), keep 
> a
> good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and purposes make the
> club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If members really 
> want
> to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening and if there is
> an issue that is carrying along with those good things then we can discuss
> them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to continue with
> said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great fund raising 
> ideas
> and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I believe the
> bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good quality radio
> repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is how we have
> gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number of others 
> were
> on the air most of the day, every day our membership was busy taking in 
> new
> members at every meeting.
> On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected to the
> WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this should be
> discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a legitimate gripe
> with what's happening in the club I believe they should actually get out 
> to
> a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front of the group.
> From that point we all can have the facts put onto the table in front of 
> us
> and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue we happen to be
> talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are sent out with
> facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings of the issues 
> at
> hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed decision on
> these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email sender. I would 
> ask
> everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, etc. etc. for 
> every
> little thing that they want to personally change about the club, these
> things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at the meetings.
> Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before that but
> generally they have been brought up in front of the body and voted on 
> which
> is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a weapon to 
> cause
> grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the club, this 
> may
> sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe it or not it is
> the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the scenes for way to
> long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and need to behave
> that way.
> On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system I think we 
> all
> know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up about a 
> linked
> system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I think the
> decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the thoughts that
> have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I know 2 meters is
> very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be changing soon.
> I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have it much 
> busier
> than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as many local 
> calls
> may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at its normal
> standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area network will be a
> good thing for the club. I think at this point we need to
> step back and look at the big picture. What will make the club continue to
> be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is what we're 
> doing
> the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe come up with new
> fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do it together 
> not
> by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who are honestly
> and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping everything 
> running
> up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things better for all of
> us. Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to
> hear any silly back-biting comments through this email forum. If there are
> problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting and we will
> discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from all sides of 
> the
> argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL want to do on
> whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club who are always
> right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying to). The bottom
> line here is we have a great club with a smart capable membership with the
> potential to do great things, let's all get behind each other to make 
> things
> better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.
> 73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> On
> Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
> To: cwsaums at aol.com
> Cc: RVRC
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>
> Craig, members,
>
> On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN
> system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a 
> result
> of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and 
> subscribe
> for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily 
> usable
> because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
> My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN
> network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
> I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of
> barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' 
> it
> totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
> Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we
> are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating''
> with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their
> communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I 
> know
> there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all
> ''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not 
> ''users
> of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our 
> repeater
> for our ''local'' uses.
>
> I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking 
> into
> the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up 
> at
> our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this
> issue.
>
> Marvin, K2VHW
> **Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all
> associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, 
> inter-communicate.
>    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those
> repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
> To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>
>
>> Marv
>> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was 
>> it
>
>> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I
>> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is
>> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the
>> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another 
>> frequency.
>
>> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and
>> this action would be honored by any net control station.
>>
>> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then
>> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the
>> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers
>> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals
>> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
>>
>> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a
>> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the
>> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the
>> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
>>
>> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of
>> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our
>> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at
>> least.
>>
>> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by
>> email.
>>
>> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using
>> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, 
>> a
>
>> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee.
>> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member
>> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power
>> Button.
>>
>> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous
>> related mail was broadcast.
>>
>> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general
>> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control
>> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type 
>> of
>
>> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not
>> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic 
>> and
>
>> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain.
>> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org
>> mailbox
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
>>
>> Craig Saums
>> AC2FE
>> Technical Committee Chairman
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being 
>>> constantly
>
>>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely
>>> useless to us.
>>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone
>>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the
>>> system is in use!!!
>>>
>>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so
>>> that we can use our own system locally!
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Marvin, K2VHW
>>>
> ............................................................................
> ....................................................................
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
>>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
>>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
>>>
>>>
>>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for
>>>> the
>>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly
>>>> more
>>>> and more to local traffic.
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>> Drew
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
>>>> To: drew Moore
>>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
>>>>
>>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
>>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and 
>>>> as
>>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
>>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is 
>>>> not
>
>>>> a
>>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
>>>> implemented.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>> AC2FE
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
>>>>> repeater?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Drew
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> 



From w2iu at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 11:42:09 2013
From: w2iu at hotmail.com (Dennis Kopecky)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:42:09 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] FW:  W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <BLU002-W184AB40BA121ABAAE47E2CA96F30@phx.gbl>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>,
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>,
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>,
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>,
	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>,
	<4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>,
	<000601ce11f1$98c7bb20$ca573160$@gmail.com>,
	<A94B10BD6E934255B69702B65052BBFE@marvbronsPC>,
	<BLU002-W184AB40BA121ABAAE47E2CA96F30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BLU002-W83003017AB6FDF0E7F83F796F30@phx.gbl>

I have edited my comments in reply to his posting, as there was some extraneous material, not pertinent to the discussion, but relevant to Marv and myself. 73 all,Dennis,W2IU
 From: w2iu at hotmail.com
To: marvbrons at verizon.net
Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:22:27 -0500




Marv, I have to agree that you are right, and that we need to keep all the channels of a discussion open. After all, its how I perceive we got into a financial bind, as far as I'm concerned, last Winter, with the shed issues. The club limited it to those who showed up to a meeting, and a Winter meeting at that, which would limit the possibilities of a large turnout, myself included, from attending back then. Crucial decisions were made that should've been put out to the entire membership. Later, it was apparent that there was a significant number of people who would've thought to find a new site, instead of going thru what has now turned out to be a somewhat slowed project.
 
 I am sorry to see that much of RVRC has become a rptr. club only, and no longer is a broadly-based radio club, as I think (I wasn't there in the beginning) it was once thought out to be. We spend so much time discussing rptr. problems, and hamfest needs and updates, that there is little time for anything else of a radio nature, whether it be dx, or code learning/practice (as an extreme example), or even anything HF, and VHF/UHF, outside of the rptrs., being discussed. I've lost my "verv" to listen to  just rptr. issues, and especially in Winter, that drive home in the dark and cold, after a meeting, maybe I just got too old for it (sic.).
 
Anyhow, keep pushing beyond those who want to limit the discussion, by requiring one to be present at a meeting, and that's the only way its going to be decided: that's wrong ! Small issues, even with the financial limits put into the revised Const. and By-Laws, can, and should be decided at a meeting: beyond that it ought to go to the full membership. Its unfortunate if that is perceived as slowing things down too much, and the club might miss out on a "needed" opportunity, but those who wish to use email as their forum, should not lose out on that opportunity either.
 
73, always,
Dennis

 
> From: marvbrons at verizon.net
> To: kb2vrm at gmail.com; cwsaums at aol.com
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:28:45 -0500
> CC: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> RVRC,
> Let's include ALL the RVRC members in this ''discussion''.  We all know that 
> it is not always possible for members to make a week-night meeting; people 
> are out earning a living or caring for family and ham radio should NEVER 
> take precedent over those other matters
>   Many members who SHOULD have a voice are left out because we have chosen 
> to ''discuss this ONLY at the meeting''.  Discussing this via this medium at 
> least provides the rest of the members with a ''clue'' about what's 
> happening in RVRC.
> 
> A significant problem is that, it seems, a few members who DO make the 
> meetings and have weighed-in on these repeater projects are the primary ones 
> desiring to have these features.
> 
> I am NOT proposing that these ''experiments'' must stop or that we simply 
> MUST totally discontinue any ''linked-in'' operation BUT, that, a better 
> method must be found to give RVRC members the ability to disconnect from the 
> ''link'' so those of us who PAY DUES and support these repeaters can have 
> ''FIRST CHOICE'' of use on our own schedules and not determined by heavy use 
> from a system far removed from our area and membership.
> 
> How about having a ''normal'' mode not linked and those who want to be 
> ''linked'' for their period of use can do so by engaging that ''link''?
> It seems that those with the ability to do the ''linking/unlinking'' are 
> those who want this feature since not many others are making use of it.
> 
> The WAN system is very active and there is absolutely no value to the 
> majority of RVRC members having to either listen to conversations between 
> stations that our members have no reason nor common interest to talk to or 
> must eliminate it from their ''scan'' list on their radios.
> 
> I don't appreciate the attitude that if we don't like it we can use the 
> ''off'' switch or VFO dial..........WE OWN THE REPEATER and we should be 
> able to have access to it WHEN EVER WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO SO!
> 
> 
> I can safely say that I am NOT the only RVRC member who feels 
> ''disenfranchised'' from use of our UHF repeater.  Let all the members 
> weight-in on this issue, not just the few who are able to make the meetings.
> 
> 73
> Marvin K2VHW
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Christiansen" <kb2vrm at gmail.com>
> To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" <marvbrons at verizon.net>; <cwsaums at aol.com>
> Cc: "'RVRC'" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> 
> > RVRC ,
> > Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with this. It seems we
> > have a problem through the entire club when I read through the emails that
> > are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the problem or if there
> > is just a small group having issues with some area of our club.  My 
> > opinion
> > of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably favorable to 
> > the
> > club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it isn't for any 
> > of
> > the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I don't have 440 in 
> > my
> > car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my radios in the house
> > don't get used as I have too many other more important things going on. 
> > That
> > being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool repeater and
> > technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys (and I believe 
> > the
> > membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to make the club
> > better, increase membership (which means more money in the treasury), keep 
> > a
> > good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and purposes make the
> > club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If members really 
> > want
> > to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening and if there is
> > an issue that is carrying along with those good things then we can discuss
> > them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to continue with
> > said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great fund raising 
> > ideas
> > and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I believe the
> > bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good quality radio
> > repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is how we have
> > gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number of others 
> > were
> > on the air most of the day, every day our membership was busy taking in 
> > new
> > members at every meeting.
> > On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected to the
> > WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this should be
> > discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a legitimate gripe
> > with what's happening in the club I believe they should actually get out 
> > to
> > a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front of the group.
> > From that point we all can have the facts put onto the table in front of 
> > us
> > and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue we happen to be
> > talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are sent out with
> > facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings of the issues 
> > at
> > hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed decision on
> > these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email sender. I would 
> > ask
> > everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, etc. etc. for 
> > every
> > little thing that they want to personally change about the club, these
> > things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at the meetings.
> > Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before that but
> > generally they have been brought up in front of the body and voted on 
> > which
> > is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a weapon to 
> > cause
> > grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the club, this 
> > may
> > sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe it or not it is
> > the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the scenes for way to
> > long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and need to behave
> > that way.
> > On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system I think we 
> > all
> > know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up about a 
> > linked
> > system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I think the
> > decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the thoughts that
> > have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I know 2 meters is
> > very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be changing soon.
> > I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have it much 
> > busier
> > than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as many local 
> > calls
> > may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at its normal
> > standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area network will be a
> > good thing for the club. I think at this point we need to
> > step back and look at the big picture. What will make the club continue to
> > be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is what we're 
> > doing
> > the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe come up with new
> > fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do it together 
> > not
> > by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who are honestly
> > and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping everything 
> > running
> > up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things better for all of
> > us. Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to
> > hear any silly back-biting comments through this email forum. If there are
> > problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting and we will
> > discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from all sides of 
> > the
> > argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL want to do on
> > whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club who are always
> > right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying to). The bottom
> > line here is we have a great club with a smart capable membership with the
> > potential to do great things, let's all get behind each other to make 
> > things
> > better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.
> > 73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> > On
> > Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
> > To: cwsaums at aol.com
> > Cc: RVRC
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> > Craig, members,
> >
> > On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN
> > system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a 
> > result
> > of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and 
> > subscribe
> > for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily 
> > usable
> > because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
> > My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN
> > network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
> > I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of
> > barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' 
> > it
> > totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
> > Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we
> > are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating''
> > with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their
> > communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I 
> > know
> > there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all
> > ''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not 
> > ''users
> > of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our 
> > repeater
> > for our ''local'' uses.
> >
> > I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking 
> > into
> > the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up 
> > at
> > our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this
> > issue.
> >
> > Marvin, K2VHW
> > **Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all
> > associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, 
> > inter-communicate.
> >    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those
> > repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
> > To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> > Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> >
> >> Marv
> >> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was 
> >> it
> >
> >> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I
> >> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is
> >> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the
> >> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another 
> >> frequency.
> >
> >> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and
> >> this action would be honored by any net control station.
> >>
> >> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then
> >> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the
> >> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers
> >> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals
> >> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
> >>
> >> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a
> >> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the
> >> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the
> >> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
> >>
> >> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of
> >> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our
> >> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at
> >> least.
> >>
> >> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by
> >> email.
> >>
> >> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using
> >> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, 
> >> a
> >
> >> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee.
> >> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member
> >> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power
> >> Button.
> >>
> >> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous
> >> related mail was broadcast.
> >>
> >> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general
> >> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control
> >> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type 
> >> of
> >
> >> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not
> >> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic 
> >> and
> >
> >> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain.
> >> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org
> >> mailbox
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
> >>
> >> Craig Saums
> >> AC2FE
> >> Technical Committee Chairman
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being 
> >>> constantly
> >
> >>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely
> >>> useless to us.
> >>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone
> >>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the
> >>> system is in use!!!
> >>>
> >>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so
> >>> that we can use our own system locally!
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Marvin, K2VHW
> >>>
> > ............................................................................
> > ....................................................................
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
> >>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
> >>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for
> >>>> the
> >>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly
> >>>> more
> >>>> and more to local traffic.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
> >>>> To: drew Moore
> >>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
> >>>>
> >>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
> >>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and 
> >>>> as
> >>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
> >>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is 
> >>>> not
> >
> >>>> a
> >>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
> >>>> implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Craig
> >>>> AC2FE
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
> >>>>> repeater?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73,
> >>>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
 		 	   		   		 	   		  

From radiomf at comcast.net  Mon Feb 25 19:13:30 2013
From: radiomf at comcast.net (Martin Friedman)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:13:30 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] FW:  W3WAN
In-Reply-To: <BLU002-W83003017AB6FDF0E7F83F796F30@phx.gbl>
References: <006201ce1133$b41df6f0$1c59e4d0$@optonline.net>,
	<F4A76F6B-08F4-49A1-BC88-5CDADA081752@aol.com>,
	<006f01ce1139$addfdaa0$099f8fe0$@optonline.net>,
	<64529BD9022A40C1B614BED8A75C6D0C@marvbronsPC>,
	<379FAA8F-B0C5-4E6F-B9E1-210EC8031EA5@aol.com>,
	<4349C9EB10B04FA79DB47EE8BE809695@marvbronsPC>,
	<000601ce11f1$98c7bb20$ca573160$@gmail.com>,
	<A94B10BD6E934255B69702B65052BBFE@marvbronsPC>,
	<BLU002-W184AB40BA121ABAAE47E2CA96F30@phx.gbl>
	<BLU002-W83003017AB6FDF0E7F83F796F30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <000001ce13b6$1b771e10$52655a30$@comcast.net>

The Somerset County (NJ) OEM monthly net was just held on the 440 machine.
The net control was obviously miffed about the WAN link connection stating
he hopes it will be corrected by next month.


From marvbrons at verizon.net  Tue Feb 26 01:22:26 2013
From: marvbrons at verizon.net (marvin bronstein)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:22:26 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Fw:   W3WAN linking discussion and other items
Message-ID: <8948D95770B04E138B9FB0618F87531A@marvbronsPC>

RVRC members,

Please understand that this ''discussion'' is not meant to be a personal attack upon any members.  

I am a chartering member when we re-established  the Raritan Valley Radio Club back around 1973.  That makes me a member of approximately 40 years!

In that span of time I also served as club President for some period of that time.  In the re-chartering of RVRC the purpose of the club was to have fun with a very exciting hobby, Ham Radio! 

 To that end we fostered many activities such as HF contesting, field day, picnics, field trips of interest (visits to meaningful places like ARRL Hqs. and Salem Nuclear

 generating facility as it was being constructed). We had accomplished hams deliver technical presentations and our own technical ''sessions'' to spread knowledge among our

 members.  It was camaraderie, fellowship, learning, common interest activities because we included all members in the discussions and plans.  There was and still remains only

 a minimum requirement to attend meetings because not everyone can attend mid-week/night meetings that start late (to allow members travelling in from afar) and ended late.
But we always included all active members in the discussions and planning of activities.
  
This medium, the internet, gives RVRC members the opportunity to ''weigh-in'' on club matters and activities and we always should include the comments and wishes of members even for those when it is not possible for them to attend.  We are a club, the purpose for which is inclusive not exclusive.  The mere fact that those who can not be present at our monthly business meetings have no means nor are given the opportunity to voice their opinions; this presents disenfranchisement.  Decisions are made, then, at sparsely attended meetings by only a small portion of the membership exclusive of the opinions and suggestions of the majority.

If the majority of members voice their opinion that they do not want this or that, why then push the matter against those wishes?  Why allow a simple quorum at our business meeting ''hijack'' the wishes of a majority?  But we can only discern what the wishes really are unless we include all the members in good standing into that discussion.  This can not be accomplished if limited to the one meeting each month unless, before commencing on any bold project, we discuss it first and this forum is a great way to do this.

Once again, my thrust on this subject is inclusion by addressing all members.  Does it slow down the process? YES it does but that is part and parcel to what ham radio is all about; we are not some business/corporation or utility..........we formed a club for mutual enjoyment of a hobby and it should never become an over-bearing obligation!  Once again, we all have jobs, family and important obligations outside of this activity which should never, ever be impaired by club activities.

I have been part of many projects and activities involving RVRC over my 40+ year involvement but I have never witnessed such a lack-luster period.  We really need to involve all our members and return to that spark of interest in ham radio activities. There's a great deal to ''discuss'' on that issue as well but it can not be limited to the one meeting each month; discuss it via this medium which will give every member their opportunity.

What ever has transpired to this point is done and finished but it is imperative that going forward includes every member's opportunity to weigh-in on how the club should go forward.  After all, the ''club'' is it's membership, the club is not an entity in and of itself!

As for our UHF repeater, since having been linked-in full time to the WAN network, that repeater is all but unavailable to RVRC member's local use.  If there is any hope of generating local RVRC club use it will not develop while there is so much ''traffic'' on the WAN network.*  There simply has to be some way to unlink for local rag-chew!

Marvin, K2VHW
* ''traffic'' does not imply form messages but voice communications.  Net operations where form messages are ''handled'' is termed........''message traffic''.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: w2iu at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN linking discussion and other items
From: cwsaums at aol.com
CC: kb2vrm at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:28:01 -0500


Dennis
With all due respect to you and Marv and Drew and others.

My point that we will need to discuss this topic at a meeting is because that is where we can vote on issues such as this.  Discussing this in a civil manner via email is OK but the ultimate decision is at a business meeting per our by-laws.  We do not currently have provisions for email voting except in the case of membership and general officer elections. At least that is my understanding from reading the posted version of our by-laws on the W2QW.org website.

There is no intent to disenfranchise anybody but the by-laws call for business votes at a regular or special meeting.  
If that rule constitutes a disenfranchisement, then that is also the club membership's rule - not mine or any other individual's.  

Unfortunately this has gotten personal again.  I don't feel it is good email etiquette to send full mailing list emails to specific concerns.  I don't agree that responding to emails in large bold type (email yelling) is appropriate in any context.  I would be fired at work for responding in this manner.

I responded directly to Drew's original query about linking control codes but it was then re-broadcast to everyone.  Anybody can call me or email me directly if they want to discuss a concern or suggest an idea.  Anybody in the club can email the tech committee using the repeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org email address if there is a repeater problem.  I tried to respond in a professional and open manner.  If others take offense to my approach I will apologize to the group if so directed by the president.  I have spent significant time presenting things about our update and repair projects at meetings as well as on the weekly social nets.  I am trying to provide information in an open manner - not hide anything or disenfranchise anybody

By the way, all of these changes (linking, budgeted purchases that are immediate opportunities etc) are first discussed with the executive board members and then implemented if things need to happen between regular meetings.  Nobody is going 'rogue' here.

Distribution of the control operator codes is not a good idea for many reasons and I would hope the membership understands that.  
Not everybody can be the control operator without causing chaos.  That was my initial response to Drew.

I guess we (referring to the technical committee here) may be trying to make things better when not everyone sees it that way.  As I responded to several earlier posts, if the club as a body votes to change the linking with the other network or if the club decides they would rather have no traffic at all on the machine then that is what the technical committee will implement.  Unfortunately this will happen at a meeting - according to the by-laws.  The shed topic or relocating somewhere else is in the past and I prefer to move forward trying to complete the project.  If that is a sore point, it is probably something I cannot fix.  Votes go the way they go.  The technical committee is just trying move the initiatives forward.

One final item.  The comment that I made to Marv about using the power switch or the VFO was not meant as a wise guy remark.  It was in the context of people that use a scan function to monitor all day long.  I know that I put out my call everyday on the 440 machine, including multiple times this morning, between 0815 and 0900 on the way to work.  No contact from anybody either on WAN or from our own members monitoring all day long by various means.  If people don't want to talk to me or they think I am a jerk, that is there right to not respond.  I use a scanner too for fire department monitoring.  If there is a channel that is not interesting because it it busy or transmitting stuff I don't care about, I lock it out, skip it over or power off.  Is that so offensive?  If it is then I am sorry and I will say so to Marv when I see him.

Bottom line, if the club members wish to have me removed as technical committee chair, for whatever reason, then please submit the recommendation to the president as he controls all committees and I will respectfully step down.

Thank you

Craig Saums
AC2FE

Please note: copy to the president



-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kopecky <w2iu at hotmail.com>
To: RVRC Mailman <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 11:42 am
Subject: [RVRC] FW: W3WAN


I have edited my comments in reply to his posting, as there was some extraneous 
material, not pertinent to the discussion, but relevant to Marv and myself. 73 
all,Dennis,W2IU
 From: w2iu at hotmail.com
To: marvbrons at verizon.net
Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:22:27 -0500




Marv, I have to agree that you are right, and that we need to keep all the 
channels of a discussion open. After all, its how I perceive we got into a 
financial bind, as far as I'm concerned, last Winter, with the shed issues. The 
club limited it to those who showed up to a meeting, and a Winter meeting at 
that, which would limit the possibilities of a large turnout, myself included, 
from attending back then. Crucial decisions were made that should've been put 
out to the entire membership. Later, it was apparent that there was a 
significant number of people who would've thought to find a new site, instead of 
going thru what has now turned out to be a somewhat slowed project.
 
 I am sorry to see that much of RVRC has become a rptr. club only, and no longer 
is a broadly-based radio club, as I think (I wasn't there in the beginning) it 
was once thought out to be. We spend so much time discussing rptr. problems, and 
hamfest needs and updates, that there is little time for anything else of a 
radio nature, whether it be dx, or code learning/practice (as an extreme 
example), or even anything HF, and VHF/UHF, outside of the rptrs., being 
discussed. I've lost my "verv" to listen to  just rptr. issues, and especially 
in Winter, that drive home in the dark and cold, after a meeting, maybe I just 
got too old for it (sic.).
 
Anyhow, keep pushing beyond those who want to limit the discussion, by requiring 
one to be present at a meeting, and that's the only way its going to be decided: 
that's wrong ! Small issues, even with the financial limits put into the revised 
Const. and By-Laws, can, and should be decided at a meeting: beyond that it 
ought to go to the full membership. Its unfortunate if that is perceived as 
slowing things down too much, and the club might miss out on a "needed" 
opportunity, but those who wish to use email as their forum, should not lose out 
on that opportunity either.
 
73, always,
Dennis

 
> From: marvbrons at verizon.net
> To: kb2vrm at gmail.com; cwsaums at aol.com
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:28:45 -0500
> CC: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> RVRC,
> Let's include ALL the RVRC members in this ''discussion''.  We all know that 
> it is not always possible for members to make a week-night meeting; people 
> are out earning a living or caring for family and ham radio should NEVER 
> take precedent over those other matters
>   Many members who SHOULD have a voice are left out because we have chosen 
> to ''discuss this ONLY at the meeting''.  Discussing this via this medium at 
> least provides the rest of the members with a ''clue'' about what's 
> happening in RVRC.
> 
> A significant problem is that, it seems, a few members who DO make the 
> meetings and have weighed-in on these repeater projects are the primary ones 
> desiring to have these features.
> 
> I am NOT proposing that these ''experiments'' must stop or that we simply 
> MUST totally discontinue any ''linked-in'' operation BUT, that, a better 
> method must be found to give RVRC members the ability to disconnect from the 
> ''link'' so those of us who PAY DUES and support these repeaters can have 
> ''FIRST CHOICE'' of use on our own schedules and not determined by heavy use 
> from a system far removed from our area and membership.
> 
> How about having a ''normal'' mode not linked and those who want to be 
> ''linked'' for their period of use can do so by engaging that ''link''?
> It seems that those with the ability to do the ''linking/unlinking'' are 
> those who want this feature since not many others are making use of it.
> 
> The WAN system is very active and there is absolutely no value to the 
> majority of RVRC members having to either listen to conversations between 
> stations that our members have no reason nor common interest to talk to or 
> must eliminate it from their ''scan'' list on their radios.
> 
> I don't appreciate the attitude that if we don't like it we can use the 
> ''off'' switch or VFO dial..........WE OWN THE REPEATER and we should be 
> able to have access to it WHEN EVER WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO SO!
> 
> 
> I can safely say that I am NOT the only RVRC member who feels 
> ''disenfranchised'' from use of our UHF repeater.  Let all the members 
> weight-in on this issue, not just the few who are able to make the meetings.
> 
> 73
> Marvin K2VHW
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mike Christiansen" <kb2vrm at gmail.com>
> To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" <marvbrons at verizon.net>; <cwsaums at aol.com>
> Cc: "'RVRC'" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN
> 
> 
> > RVRC ,
> > Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with this. It seems we
> > have a problem through the entire club when I read through the emails that
> > are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the problem or if there
> > is just a small group having issues with some area of our club.  My 
> > opinion
> > of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably favorable to 
> > the
> > club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it isn't for any 
> > of
> > the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I don't have 440 in 
> > my
> > car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my radios in the house
> > don't get used as I have too many other more important things going on. 
> > That
> > being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool repeater and
> > technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys (and I believe 
> > the
> > membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to make the club
> > better, increase membership (which means more money in the treasury), keep 
> > a
> > good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and purposes make the
> > club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If members really 
> > want
> > to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening and if there is
> > an issue that is carrying along with those good things then we can discuss
> > them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to continue with
> > said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great fund raising 
> > ideas
> > and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I believe the
> > bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good quality radio
> > repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is how we have
> > gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number of others 
> > were
> > on the air most of the day, every day our membership was busy taking in 
> > new
> > members at every meeting.
> > On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected to the
> > WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this should be
> > discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a legitimate gripe
> > with what's happening in the club I believe they should actually get out 
> > to
> > a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front of the group.
> > From that point we all can have the facts put onto the table in front of 
> > us
> > and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue we happen to be
> > talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are sent out with
> > facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings of the issues 
> > at
> > hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed decision on
> > these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email sender. I would 
> > ask
> > everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, etc. etc. for 
> > every
> > little thing that they want to personally change about the club, these
> > things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at the meetings.
> > Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before that but
> > generally they have been brought up in front of the body and voted on 
> > which
> > is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a weapon to 
> > cause
> > grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the club, this 
> > may
> > sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe it or not it is
> > the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the scenes for way to
> > long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and need to behave
> > that way.
> > On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system I think we 
> > all
> > know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up about a 
> > linked
> > system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I think the
> > decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the thoughts that
> > have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I know 2 meters is
> > very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be changing soon.
> > I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have it much 
> > busier
> > than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as many local 
> > calls
> > may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at its normal
> > standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area network will be a
> > good thing for the club. I think at this point we need to
> > step back and look at the big picture. What will make the club continue to
> > be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is what we're 
> > doing
> > the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe come up with new
> > fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do it together 
> > not
> > by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who are honestly
> > and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping everything 
> > running
> > up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things better for all of
> > us. Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to
> > hear any silly back-biting comments through this email forum. If there are
> > problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting and we will
> > discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from all sides of 
> > the
> > argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL want to do on
> > whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club who are always
> > right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying to). The bottom
> > line here is we have a great club with a smart capable membership with the
> > potential to do great things, let's all get behind each other to make 
> > things
> > better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.
> > 73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] 
> > On
> > Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM
> > To: cwsaums at aol.com
> > Cc: RVRC
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> > Craig, members,
> >
> > On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users on the WAN
> > system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  We, as a 
> > result
> > of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we own and 
> > subscribe
> > for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not readily 
> > usable
> > because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.
> > My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension of the WAN
> > network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?
> > I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not a question of
> > barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating their ''net'' 
> > it
> > totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!
> > Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into WAN system we
> > are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way ''communicating''
> > with the users of the WAN system yet we are ''broadcasting'' their
> > communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 rules.  I 
> > know
> > there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but those are all
> > ''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, are not 
> > ''users
> > of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from accessing our 
> > repeater
> > for our ''local'' uses.
> >
> > I feel we should be including all members in this discussion of linking 
> > into
> > the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum that shows up 
> > at
> > our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members feel about this
> > issue.
> >
> > Marvin, K2VHW
> > **Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but they are all
> > associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, 
> > inter-communicate.
> >    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey where all those
> > repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <cwsaums at aol.com>
> > To: "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> > Cc: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>; "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >
> >
> >> Marv
> >> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an organized net or was 
> >> it
> >
> >> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in net then I
> >> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, it is
> >> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment and the
> >> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use another 
> >> frequency.
> >
> >> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is appropriate and
> >> this action would be honored by any net control station.
> >>
> >> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small group QSO then
> >> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the station making the
> >> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The net managers
> >> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with the individuals
> >> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.
> >>
> >> That said, our members have to recognize that we are working in a
> >> networked environment now and courtesy should always be shown even if the
> >> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to know what the
> >> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.
> >>
> >> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  The purpose of
> >> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to give our
> >> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next meeting at
> >> least.
> >>
> >> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to resolve this by
> >> email.
> >>
> >> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily shut down using
> >> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some reason then OK, 
> >> a
> >
> >> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech committee.
> >> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not "hung up".  If a member
> >> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or the Power
> >> Button.
> >>
> >> This message is being sent to the full email list since the previous
> >> related mail was broadcast.
> >>
> >> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for these general
> >> discussions but instead to handle specific problems requiring a control
> >> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency or some type 
> >> of
> >
> >> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee notifications are not
> >> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too much traffic 
> >> and
> >
> >> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the email chain.
> >> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org
> >> mailbox
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support
> >>
> >> Craig Saums
> >> AC2FE
> >> Technical Committee Chairman
> >>
> >> 73
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" <marvbrons at verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by being 
> >>> constantly
> >
> >>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is absolutely
> >>> useless to us.
> >>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several times when someone
> >>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN users that the
> >>> system is in use!!!
> >>>
> >>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily disconnecting so
> >>> that we can use our own system locally!
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> Marvin, K2VHW
> >>>
> > ............................................................................
> > ....................................................................
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" <drumor at optonline.net>
> >>> To: "'Craig Saums'" <cwsaums at aol.com>
> >>> Cc: "RVRC" <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a Skywarn net for
> >>>> the
> >>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available increasingly
> >>>> more
> >>>> and more to local traffic.
> >>>>
> >>>> 73
> >>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM
> >>>> To: drew Moore
> >>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN
> >>>>
> >>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we would be a
> >>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, maintenance and 
> >>>> as
> >>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere with our 440
> >>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to W3WAN but it is 
> >>>> not
> >
> >>>> a
> >>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it is currently
> >>>> implemented.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Craig
> >>>> AC2FE
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore <drumor at optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from the 442.250
> >>>>> repeater?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 73,
> >>>>> Drew
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

From asajm at optimum.net  Tue Feb 26 10:12:57 2013
From: asajm at optimum.net (asajm at optimum.net)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:12:57 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [RVRC] Fw:   W3WAN linking discussion and other items
In-Reply-To: <8948D95770B04E138B9FB0618F87531A@marvbronsPC>
References: <8948D95770B04E138B9FB0618F87531A@marvbronsPC>
Message-ID: <e65ac01512d5c.512cd0f9@optonline.net>

Lets cut out all this crap....Technical Com. get it fixed.==============================================================----- Original Message -----From: marvin bronstein Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:22 amSubject: [RVRC] Fw:   W3WAN linking discussion and other itemsTo: RVRC Distribution > RVRC members,> > Please understand that this ''discussion'' is not meant to be a > personal attack upon any members.  > > I am a chartering member when we re-established  the Raritan > Valley Radio Club back around 1973.  That makes me a member of > approximately 40 years!> > In that span of time I also served as club President for some > period of that time.  In the re-chartering of RVRC the purpose > of the club was to have fun with a very exciting hobby, Ham > Radio! > > To that end we fostered many activities such as HF contesting, > field day, picnics, field trips of interest (visits to > meaningful places like ARRL Hqs. and Salem Nuclear> > generating facility as it was being constructed). We had > accomplished hams deliver technical presentations and our own > technical ''sessions'' to spread knowledge among our> > members.  It was camaraderie, fellowship, learning, common > interest activities because we included all members in the > discussions and plans.  There was and still remains only> > a minimum requirement to attend meetings because not everyone > can attend mid-week/night meetings that start late (to allow > members travelling in from afar) and ended late.> But we always included all active members in the discussions and > planning of activities.>  > This medium, the internet, gives RVRC members the opportunity to > ''weigh-in'' on club matters and activities and we always should > include the comments and wishes of members even for those when > it is not possible for them to attend.  We are a club, the > purpose for which is inclusive not exclusive.  The mere fact > that those who can not be present at our monthly business > meetings have no means nor are given the opportunity to voice > their opinions; this presents disenfranchisement.  Decisions are > made, then, at sparsely attended meetings by only a small > portion of the membership exclusive of the opinions and > suggestions of the majority.> > If the majority of members voice their opinion that they do not > want this or that, why then push the matter against those > wishes?  Why allow a simple quorum at our business meeting > ''hijack'' the wishes of a majority?  But we can only discern > what the wishes really are unless we include all the members in > good standing into that discussion.  This can not be > accomplished if limited to the one meeting each month unless, > before commencing on any bold project, we discuss it first and > this forum is a great way to do this.> > Once again, my thrust on this subject is inclusion by addressing > all members.  Does it slow down the process? YES it does but > that is part and parcel to what ham radio is all about; we are > not some business/corporation or utility..........we formed a > club for mutual enjoyment of a hobby and it should never become > an over-bearing obligation!  Once again, we all have jobs, > family and important obligations outside of this activity which > should never, ever be impaired by club activities.> > I have been part of many projects and activities involving RVRC > over my 40+ year involvement but I have never witnessed such a > lack-luster period.  We really need to involve all our members > and return to that spark of interest in ham radio activities. > There's a great deal to ''discuss'' on that issue as well but it > can not be limited to the one meeting each month; discuss it via > this medium which will give every member their opportunity.> > What ever has transpired to this point is done and finished but > it is imperative that going forward includes every member's > opportunity to weigh-in on how the club should go forward.  > After all, the ''club'' is it's membership, the club is not an > entity in and of itself!> > As for our UHF repeater, since having been linked-in full time > to the WAN network, that repeater is all but unavailable to RVRC > member's local use.  If there is any hope of generating local > RVRC club use it will not develop while there is so much > ''traffic'' on the WAN network.*  There simply has to be some > way to unlink for local rag-chew!> > Marvin, K2VHW> * ''traffic'' does not imply form messages but voice > communications.  Net operations where form messages are > ''handled'' is termed........''message traffic''.> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------> ---------------> To: w2iu at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN linking discussion and other items> From: cwsaums at aol.com> CC: kb2vrm at gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:28:01 -0500> > > Dennis> With all due respect to you and Marv and Drew and others.> > My point that we will need to discuss this topic at a meeting is > because that is where we can vote on issues such as this.  > Discussing this in a civil manner via email is OK but the > ultimate decision is at a business meeting per our by-laws.  We > do not currently have provisions for email voting except in the > case of membership and general officer elections. At least that > is my understanding from reading the posted version of our by-> laws on the W2QW.org website.> > There is no intent to disenfranchise anybody but the by-laws > call for business votes at a regular or special meeting.  > If that rule constitutes a disenfranchisement, then that is also > the club membership's rule - not mine or any other individual's. > > > Unfortunately this has gotten personal again.  I don't feel it > is good email etiquette to send full mailing list emails to > specific concerns.  I don't agree that responding to emails in > large bold type (email yelling) is appropriate in any context.  > I would be fired at work for responding in this manner.> > I responded directly to Drew's original query about linking > control codes but it was then re-broadcast to everyone.  Anybody > can call me or email me directly if they want to discuss a > concern or suggest an idea.  Anybody in the club can email the > tech committee using the repeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org email > address if there is a repeater problem.  I tried to respond in a > professional and open manner.  If others take offense to my > approach I will apologize to the group if so directed by the > president.  I have spent significant time presenting things > about our update and repair projects at meetings as well as on > the weekly social nets.  I am trying to provide information in > an open manner - not hide anything or disenfranchise anybody> > By the way, all of these changes (linking, budgeted purchases > that are immediate opportunities etc) are first discussed with > the executive board members and then implemented if things need > to happen between regular meetings.  Nobody is going 'rogue' here.> > Distribution of the control operator codes is not a good idea > for many reasons and I would hope the membership understands > that.  > Not everybody can be the control operator without causing chaos. > That was my initial response to Drew.> > I guess we (referring to the technical committee here) may be > trying to make things better when not everyone sees it that way. > As I responded to several earlier posts, if the club as a body > votes to change the linking with the other network or if the > club decides they would rather have no traffic at all on the > machine then that is what the technical committee will > implement.  Unfortunately this will happen at a meeting - > according to the by-laws.  The shed topic or relocating > somewhere else is in the past and I prefer to move forward > trying to complete the project.  If that is a sore point, it is > probably something I cannot fix.  Votes go the way they go.  The > technical committee is just trying move the initiatives forward.> > One final item.  The comment that I made to Marv about using the > power switch or the VFO was not meant as a wise guy remark.  It > was in the context of people that use a scan function to monitor > all day long.  I know that I put out my call everyday on the 440 > machine, including multiple times this morning, between 0815 and > 0900 on the way to work.  No contact from anybody either on WAN > or from our own members monitoring all day long by various > means.  If people don't want to talk to me or they think I am a > jerk, that is there right to not respond.  I use a scanner too > for fire department monitoring.  If there is a channel that is > not interesting because it it busy or transmitting stuff I don't > care about, I lock it out, skip it over or power off.  Is that > so offensive?  If it is then I am sorry and I will say so to > Marv when I see him.> > Bottom line, if the club members wish to have me removed as > technical committee chair, for whatever reason, then please > submit the recommendation to the president as he controls all > committees and I will respectfully step down.> > Thank you> > Craig Saums> AC2FE> > Please note: copy to the president> > > > -----Original Message-----> From: Dennis Kopecky > To: RVRC Mailman > Sent: Mon, Feb 25, 2013 11:42 am> Subject: [RVRC] FW: W3WAN> > > I have edited my comments in reply to his posting, as there was > some extraneous > material, not pertinent to the discussion, but relevant to Marv > and myself. 73 > all,Dennis,W2IU> From: w2iu at hotmail.com> To: marvbrons at verizon.net> Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:22:27 -0500> > > > > Marv, I have to agree that you are right, and that we need to > keep all the > channels of a discussion open. After all, its how I perceive we > got into a > financial bind, as far as I'm concerned, last Winter, with the > shed issues. The > club limited it to those who showed up to a meeting, and a > Winter meeting at > that, which would limit the possibilities of a large turnout, > myself included, > from attending back then. Crucial decisions were made that > should've been put > out to the entire membership. Later, it was apparent that there > was a > significant number of people who would've thought to find a new > site, instead of > going thru what has now turned out to be a somewhat slowed project.> > I am sorry to see that much of RVRC has become a rptr. club > only, and no longer > is a broadly-based radio club, as I think (I wasn't there in the > beginning) it > was once thought out to be. We spend so much time discussing > rptr. problems, and > hamfest needs and updates, that there is little time for > anything else of a > radio nature, whether it be dx, or code learning/practice (as an > extreme > example), or even anything HF, and VHF/UHF, outside of the > rptrs., being > discussed. I've lost my "verv" to listen to  just rptr. issues, > and especially > in Winter, that drive home in the dark and cold, after a > meeting, maybe I just > got too old for it (sic.).> > Anyhow, keep pushing beyond those who want to limit the > discussion, by requiring > one to be present at a meeting, and that's the only way its > going to be decided: > that's wrong ! Small issues, even with the financial limits put > into the revised > Const. and By-Laws, can, and should be decided at a meeting: > beyond that it > ought to go to the full membership. Its unfortunate if that is > perceived as > slowing things down too much, and the club might miss out on a > "needed" > opportunity, but those who wish to use email as their forum, > should not lose out > on that opportunity either.> > 73, always,> Dennis> > > > From: marvbrons at verizon.net> > To: kb2vrm at gmail.com; cwsaums at aol.com> > Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:28:45 -0500> > CC: rvrc at mailman.qth.net> > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN> > > > RVRC,> > Let's include ALL the RVRC members in this ''discussion''.  We > all know that > > it is not always possible for members to make a week-night > meeting; people > > are out earning a living or caring for family and ham radio > should NEVER > > take precedent over those other matters> >   Many members who SHOULD have a voice are left out because we > have chosen > > to ''discuss this ONLY at the meeting''.  Discussing this via > this medium at > > least provides the rest of the members with a ''clue'' about > what's > > happening in RVRC.> > > > A significant problem is that, it seems, a few members who DO > make the > > meetings and have weighed-in on these repeater projects are > the primary ones > > desiring to have these features.> > > > I am NOT proposing that these ''experiments'' must stop or > that we simply > > MUST totally discontinue any ''linked-in'' operation BUT, > that, a better > > method must be found to give RVRC members the ability to > disconnect from the > > ''link'' so those of us who PAY DUES and support these > repeaters can have > > ''FIRST CHOICE'' of use on our own schedules and not > determined by heavy use > > from a system far removed from our area and membership.> > > > How about having a ''normal'' mode not linked and those who > want to be > > ''linked'' for their period of use can do so by engaging that > ''link''?> It seems that those with the ability to do the > ''linking/unlinking'' are > > those who want this feature since not many others are making > use of it.> > > > The WAN system is very active and there is absolutely no value > to the > > majority of RVRC members having to either listen to > conversations between > > stations that our members have no reason nor common interest > to talk to or > > must eliminate it from their ''scan'' list on their radios.> > > > I don't appreciate the attitude that if we don't like it we > can use the > > ''off'' switch or VFO dial..........WE OWN THE REPEATER and we > should be > > able to have access to it WHEN EVER WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO DO SO!> > > > > > I can safely say that I am NOT the only RVRC member who feels > > ''disenfranchised'' from use of our UHF repeater.  Let all the > members > > weight-in on this issue, not just the few who are able to make > the meetings.> > > > 73> > Marvin K2VHW> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Christiansen" > > To: "'Marvin Bronstein'" ; > > Cc: "'RVRC'" > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 PM> > Subject: RE: [RVRC] W3WAN> > > > > > > RVRC ,> > > Hello everyone, I don't really know where to start with > this. It seems we> > > have a problem through the entire club when I read through > the emails that> > > are going back and forth. I'm wondering if that is the > problem or if there> > > is just a small group having issues with some area of our > club.  My > > > opinion> > > of being connected to the WAN system is that it is probably > favorable to > > > the> > > club in general, do I personally use it? No I don't but it > isn't for any > > > of> > > the reasons in any of these emails, my reason is that I > don't have 440 in > > > my> > > car and besides getting on the RVRC net once a week my > radios in the house> > > don't get used as I have too many other more important > things going on. > > > That> > > being said, the reasons we have all of these really cool > repeater and> > > technical things going on is that our Tech Committee guys > (and I believe > > > the> > > membership in general) are trying to come up with ways to > make the club> > > better, increase membership (which means more money in the > treasury), keep > > > a> > > good user base on the repeaters, and for all intents and > purposes make the> > > club grow and thrive in a horribly depressed economy. If > members really > > > want> > > to "help" the club let's look at the good things happening > and if there is> > > an issue that is carrying along with those good things then > we can discuss> > > them at a meeting and decide there whether or not we want to > continue with> > > said "good things". We keep trying to come up with great > fund raising > > > ideas> > > and different ways to make our club more fun and solvent. I > believe the> > > bottom line in a radio club (such as ours) is to have good > quality radio> > > repeaters and members who get on them and use them, that is > how we have> > > gotten to this point so far. I know when myself and a number > of others > > > were> > > on the air most of the day, every day our membership was > busy taking in > > > new> > > members at every meeting.> > > On a completely different note, do we want to stay connected > to the> > > WAN? Well let's discuss it at a meeting. Yes, I think this > should be> > > discussed at a meeting, if the other "70 members" have a > legitimate gripe> > > with what's happening in the club I believe they should > actually get out > > > to> > > a meeting once a month and bring up their thoughts in front > of the group.> > > From that point we all can have the facts put onto the table > in front of > > > us> > > and make a logical and informed decision on whatever issue > we happen to be> > > talking about at that time. When a barrage of emails are > sent out with> > > facts, half facts, and sometimes complete misunderstandings > of the issues > > > at> > > hand members who would otherwise make a logical and informed > decision on> > > these items are then swayed to the opinion of the email > sender. I would > > > ask> > > everyone not to start emailing the club, tech committee, > etc. etc. for > > > every> > > little thing that they want to personally change about the > club, these> > > things (for the most part) are decided by the membership at > the meetings.> > > Maybe it wasn't decided last meeting or the meeting before > that but> > > generally they have been brought up in front of the body and > voted on > > > which> > > is why they happen. Let's not use this email reflector as a > weapon to > > > cause> > > grief and strife to the governing body and committees of the > club, this > > > may> > > sound like a terrible thing to say but whether you believe > it or not it is> > > the truth because I've been dealing with this behind the > scenes for way to> > > long and am getting weary of it. We're all friends here and > need to behave> > > that way.> > > On the issues that have been brought up about the WAN system > I think we > > > all> > > know that broadcasting is not permitted and to bring that up > about a > > > linked> > > system is just trying to throw gasoline onto a small fire. I > think the> > > decisions should be made at the meeting; but to look at the > thoughts that> > > have been brought up here without getting too in depth, I > know 2 meters is> > > very limited in its coverage at this time and that will be > changing soon.> > > I'm aware that 440 is our main machine right now and to have > it much > > > busier> > > than it has been in the past and "not available" to make as > many local > > > calls> > > may be an issue. That being said, 2 meters will be online at > its normal> > > standard soon and maybe having that AND a nice wide area > network will be a> > > good thing for the club. I think at this point we need to> > > step back and look at the big picture. What will make the > club continue to> > > be a viable, fun, and informative place to be a member? Is > what we're > > > doing> > > the way?, go back to old ways that didn't work?, or maybe > come up with new> > > fresh ideas. Whatever the direction should be we need to do > it together > > > not> > > by trying to undermine the efforts of others in the club who > are honestly> > > and diligently working (very hard I might add) at keeping > everything > > > running> > > up to speed and coming up with new ideas to make things > better for all of> > > us. Finally, I'm going to repeat myself, I don't want to> > > hear any silly back-biting comments through this email > forum. If there are> > > problems with what I am saying, bring them to the meeting > and we will> > > discuss them calmly, looking at the facts good or bad from > all sides of > > > the> > > argument. Then... we will make a decision as to what we ALL > want to do on> > > whatever the topic is. There aren't any of us in the club > who are always> > > right about everything, so let's remember that (I'm trying > to). The bottom> > > line here is we have a great club with a smart capable > membership with the> > > potential to do great things, let's all get behind each > other to make > > > things> > > better, not tear things down. Please think about these things.> > > 73,   Mike, KB2VRM  President RVRC> > >> > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-> bounces at mailman.qth.net] > > > On> > > Behalf Of Marvin Bronstein> > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:19 AM> > > To: cwsaums at aol.com> > > Cc: RVRC> > > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN> > >> > > Craig, members,> > >> > > On the first ''issue'' the 'complaint' was from casual users > on the WAN> > > system.  But this goes far beyond ''breaking-in'' to a net.  > We, as a > > > result> > > of being full-time linked, cannot utilize the repeater we > own and > > > subscribe> > > for.  Here we have a wide-area coverage repeater that is not > readily > > > usable> > > because of casual use from an area far removed from our user area.> > > My question would be, should we be subsidizing an extension > of the WAN> > > network or is this repeater we own and operate there for our uses?> > > I am fully cognizant of net operation protocol and it is not > a question of> > > barging in on a working ''net''; but when they're operating > their ''net'' > > > it> > > totally removes the use of our repeater from our membership use!> > > Another, but lesser, factor is that while we are linked into > WAN system we> > > are literally ''broadcasting''.  We are not in any way > ''communicating''> > with the users of the WAN system yet we are > ''broadcasting'' their> > > communications!  Broadcasting is in violation of FCC part 97 > rules.  I > > > know> > > there are many repeaters that are ''linked'' full time but > those are all> > > ''users'' of those ''systems''**; we, here in our N.J. area, > are not > > > ''users> > > of the WAN system''.  Instead, we are prevented from > accessing our > > > repeater> > > for our ''local'' uses.> > >> > > I feel we should be including all members in this discussion > of linking > > > into> > > the WAN system and not limit it to only the minimum quorum > that shows up > > > at> > > our monthly meetings!  Let's hear how the other 70 members > feel about this> > > issue.> > >> > > Marvin, K2VHW> > > **Example; W2ABC is linked to many repeaters full-time but > they are all> > > associated clubs of the DISNEY family and we do, indeed, > > > inter-communicate.> > >    another example is the NJ NET system within New Jersey > where all those> > > repeaters are used by their members to inter-communicate.> > >> > >> > > ----- Original Message -----> > > From: > > > To: "Marvin Bronstein" > > > Cc: "drew Moore" ; "RVRC" > > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:39 AM> > > Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN> > >> > >> > >> Marv> > >> Did the "system in use" complaint happen during an > organized net or was > > >> it> > >> > >> during a personal QSO?  If this happened during a check-in > net then I> > >> could understand the comment.  If there is a net running, > it is> > >> appropriate for the net control station to make the comment > and the> > >> breaking station should wait for a check-in call or use > another > > >> frequency.> > >> > >> Of course if there is an emergency, then a break in is > appropriate and> > >> this action would be honored by any net control station.> > >>> > >> If this situation occurs again during a personal or small > group QSO then> > >> you need to record the date, time and call sign of the > station making the> > >> "system in use" comment.   W3WAN traffic is recorded.  The > net managers> > >> will handle inappropriate monopolizing of the system with > the individuals> > >> involved and may go as far as blocking their use of the system.> > >>> > >> That said, our members have to recognize that we are > working in a> > >> networked environment now and courtesy should always be > shown even if the> > >> station is far away.  Personally, I find it is kinda fun to > know what the> > >> weather is doing in Pittsburgh or Emmitsburgh MD.> > >>> > >> The club can discuss this further at one of our meetings.  > The purpose of> > >> joining W3WAN was to replace our previous local net and to > give our> > >> members broader exposure.  Lets try this out until the next > meeting at> > >> least.> > >>> > >> For now, lets put this on hold.  It isn't practical to > resolve this by> > >> email.> > >>> > >> Please note that the repeaters should not be arbitrarily > shut down using> > >> the user controls.  If the machines are hung up for some > reason then OK, > > >> a> > >> > >> user can shut it down and then immediately notify the tech > committee.> >> Busy traffic or a distant irrelevant QSO is not > "hung up".  If a member> > >> doesn't want to hear the busy machine then use the VFO or > the Power> > >> Button.> > >>> > >> This message is being sent to the full email list since the > previous> >> related mail was broadcast.> > >>> > >> The purpose of the tech committee email contact is not for > these general> > >> discussions but instead to handle specific problems > requiring a control> > >> operator's intervention.  If there is a repeater emergency > or some type > > >> of> > >> > >> failure then we want to be notified. Tech committee > notifications are not> > >> intended for the full mailing list.  It will generate too > much traffic > > >> and> > >> > >> we cannot possibly respond to every comment added to the > email chain.> > >> Please do not rebroadcast mail to the > reapeater at w2qw.njpaasterisk.org> >> mailbox> > >>> > >> Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support> > >>> > >> Craig Saums> > >> AC2FE> > >> Technical Committee Chairman> > >>> > >> 73> > >>> > >> Sent from my iPad> > >>> > >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "Marvin Bronstein" > > >> wrote:> > >>> > >>> I also feel that our UHF repeater has been ''hijacked by > being > > >>> constantly> > >> > >>> linked and constantly active with W3WAN traffic that is > absolutely> >>> useless to us.> > >>> We have very limited use of our UHF repeater, several > times when someone> > >>> attempts to use our repeater we get complaints from W3WAN > users that the> > >>> system is in use!!!> > >>>> > >>> We really should have some USER method of temporarily > disconnecting so> > >>> that we can use our own system locally!> > >>>> > >>> 73> > >>> Marvin, K2VHW> > >>>> > > > ............................................................................> > ....................................................................> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "drew Moore" > > >>> To: "'Craig Saums'" > > >>> Cc: "RVRC" > > >>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:17 PM> > >>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] W3WAN> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Craig that's fine. Today the W3WAN has been running a > Skywarn net for> > >>>> the> > >>>> past 5 hours. Subsequently the repeater is not available > increasingly> >>>> more> > >>>> and more to local traffic.> > >>>>> > >>>> 73> > >>>> Drew> > >>>>> > >>>> -----Original Message-----> > >>>> From: Craig Saums [mailto:cwsaums at aol.com]> > >>>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:07 PM> > >>>> To: drew Moore> > >>>> Subject: Re: W3WAN> > >>>>> > >>>> The agreement with the net manager from W3WAN was that we > would be a> > >>>> semi permanent link. We are unlinked during our nets, > maintenance and > > >>>> as> > >>>> needed if the WAN side has long nets that might interfere > with our 440> > >>>> machine.  At this point, we can unlink and relink to > W3WAN but it is > > >>>> not> > >> > >>>> a> > >>>> user function. This is a control operator function as it > is currently> > >>>> implemented.> > >>>>> > >>>> I hope this helps.> > >>>>> > >>>> Craig> > >>>> AC2FE> > >>>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone> > >>>>> > >>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:35 PM, drew Moore >  wrote:> > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there a user code to disengage/engage the W3WAN from > the 442.250> > >>>>> repeater?> > >>>>>> > >>>>> 73,> > >>>>> Drew> > >>>>> > >>>> ______________________________________________________________> > >>>> 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> >> > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________> > 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> ______________________________________________________________> 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> 

From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 26 13:03:07 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:03:07 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Wireless Emergency Alerts on Your Mobile Device
Message-ID: <1121981929.5102537.1361901798897.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>

      Hello everyone
   I think this is a great resource regarding ARES RACES groups in times of Emergencies..73...Pete

http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/12082

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From kb2vrm at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 22:51:14 2013
From: kb2vrm at gmail.com (Mike Christiansen)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:51:14 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Wireless Emergency Alerts on Your Mobile Device
In-Reply-To: <1121981929.5102537.1361901798897.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>
References: <1121981929.5102537.1361901798897.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>
Message-ID: <005c01ce149d$b0e2fd10$12a8f730$@gmail.com>

Thanks Pete, This is what I want to see on my club email reflector.  Mike,
KB2VRM

-----Original Message-----
From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of overthetop52 at yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:03 PM
To: RVRC
Subject: [RVRC] Wireless Emergency Alerts on Your Mobile Device

      Hello everyone
   I think this is a great resource regarding ARES RACES groups in times of
Emergencies..73...Pete

http://www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/12082

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
______________________________________________________________
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


From asajm at optimum.net  Wed Feb 27 09:57:43 2013
From: asajm at optimum.net (asajm at optimum.net)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:57:43 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [RVRC] A  message from a cable company
Message-ID: <e665c93617136.512e1ee7@optonline.net>

Solar effects
          
          What are sun outages? 
Good question. They're caused twice a year by the sun's interference 
with satellites that deliver TV service.

Between February 28th and March 8th, you might notice an interruption in TV 
service that only lasts a few minutes, which may be caused by sun 
outages. Service will come back automatically. 

Want a complete schedule of anticipated times and affected channels? 

 Click here.
            
            Thanks in advance for your patience.

 

From n2gj at amsat.org  Wed Feb 27 13:34:21 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:34:21 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] We don't need no stinkin' licenses!
Message-ID: <CAO2dfsp3yArgWm-DE1TS_pVz4M9TunKbVmPuOYRYck0egiSdTQ@mail.gmail.com>

C. Crane offers this for your transmitting pleasure!

http://www.ccrane.com/radios/fm-transmitters/fm-transmitter-2.aspx#.US5RZDDCaSo


How much fun will it be to bother everyone within a 45 ft. radius of your
car?!  Cool!  73,


GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org

From n2gj at amsat.org  Wed Feb 27 14:32:05 2013
From: n2gj at amsat.org (N2GJ_AMSAT)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:32:05 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] Happy Birthday to "Jersey Joe" WA2QHA (2/26)
Message-ID: <CAO2dfspFdS6KuYJ+hRwbL-6RK66DBesbSjsW6HEudfoX05RjLA@mail.gmail.com>

How about I say I just wanted to make sure you got through your big
day unscathed!  <LOL>

Once again you cheated the fates, Joe, and we're glad for it!  <G>

All the best on your birthday and best wishes for many more to come!
See you on the radio.

Best 73,

GJ
Gerry Jurrens N2GJ
mailto:n2gj at amsat.org

From overthetop52 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 17:51:14 2013
From: overthetop52 at yahoo.com (overthetop52 at yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:51:14 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] CQ Newsroom
Message-ID: <1712019843.5180333.1362005495698.JavaMail.webspher@njbbicssmp03>

      Greetings
     CQ newsroom....73..Pete

http://cqnewsroom.blogspot.com/

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

From radiomf at comcast.net  Thu Feb 28 20:56:32 2013
From: radiomf at comcast.net (Martin Friedman)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:56:32 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] R.V.R.C. Membership Dues
Message-ID: <000301ce161f$ff6f8920$fe4e9b60$@comcast.net>

2013 dues were due in January. Now that February is finished, I must once
again remind those in arrears to Pay their dues. If you are not planning to
renew, please let me know. A reason is not needed. If you have a financial
hardship that the president is not aware of, please communicate that  for
consideration as well.

 

Dues ($36) should be sent to the treasurer (not me). The address is :

 
Mike Schutz (WA2AM)
88 Providence Blvd
Kendall Park NJ. 08824
Please put your call sign on the check.

 

73, Marty Friedman , WB2BEW (Membership Chairman)


From drumor at optonline.net  Thu Feb 28 21:49:44 2013
From: drumor at optonline.net (drew Moore)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:49:44 -0500
Subject: [RVRC] FW: It's time to apply for the Teachers Institute!
In-Reply-To: <20130228210138.C60FE24138@bmail.arrl.org>
References: <20130228210138.C60FE24138@bmail.arrl.org>
Message-ID: <002701ce1627$6deb5d00$49c21700$@optonline.net>

 

 

From: ARRL Education Services [mailto:memberlist at www.arrl.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:50 PM
To: drumor at optonline.net
Subject: It's time to apply for the Teachers Institute!

 

Greetings!

The ARRL Education & Technology Program has announced the schedule for two
sessions of our professional development workshop, the Teachers Institute on
Wireless Technology (TI-1) being offered during July 2013. 

 

We are also pleased to announce that Dayton Amateur Radio Association will
be supporting and hosting a new professional development opportunity, an
advanced Teachers Institute (TI-2) on Remote Sensing and Data Gathering, at
their new educational facility. A March
<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Teachers%20Institute/TI%20stories/Better%20E
ducated%20Teachers-%20QST-Mar-2013.pdf> QST article includes a description
of this new workshop.

 

Please visit the ARRL website at:
http://www.arrl.org/teachers-institute-on-wireless-technology for more
information about Teachers Institute curriculum content, participant
requirements, dates and locations and other details. Go to
www.arrl.org/teachers-institute-application  to download an application.

 

Tuition, resources and most expenses to attend the Teachers Institute are
paid by donations to the ARRL Education & Technology Fund. Donate
<http://www.arrl.org/education-and-technology-fund>  to support Wireless
Technology Literacy
<http://www.arrl.org/what-is-wireless-technology-literacy>  today!

 

 

Debra Johnson, K1DMJ

Education Services Manager

ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio(r)

225 Main Street

Newington, CT 06111-1494

 

Office:(860) 594-0296

Fax: (860) 594-0259

djohnson at arrl.org

 

To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/4dede46184ab27396a630e19aabf085f 


From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Thu Feb 21 15:38:05 2013
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:38:05 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.480.1371748733.2532.rvrc@mailman.qth.net>

Rules Change Sought to Permit Encryption of Sensitive Emergency =
Communications

The FCC is inviting public comments on a proposal from a Massachusetts =
ham to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to permit the encryption =
of certain amateur communications during emergency operations or related =
training exercises. On June 7 the FCC accepted for filing a Petition for =
Rulemaking (RM-11699) from Don Rolph, AB1PH, and put it on public =
notice. It will remain open for comment until July 8. Rolph petitioned =
the Commission in March to suggest an additional exception to =A797.113, =
which currently prohibits "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring =
their meaning."

"As such, encryption cannot be effectively supported by the Amateur =
Service," Rolph told the FCC in his PRM, "and this restriction has =
impacted the relationship of Amateur Radio volunteers and served =
agencies and significantly limited the effectiveness of amateurs in =
supporting emergency communications." He pointed out that Part 97 =
already relaxes its encryption prohibitions with respect to satellite =
control link communications and model craft radio control.

In his petition Rolph suggested excepting "intercommunications when =
participating in emergency services operations or related training =
exercises which may involve information covered by HIPAA [medical =
privacy requirements -- Ed] or other sensitive data, such as logistical =
information concerning medical supplies, personnel movement, other =
relief supplies or any other data designated by Federal authorities =
managing relief or training efforts."

Commenters may use the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) to =
comment on RM-11699 online.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Please get online or write paper comments opposing this really stupid =
proposal!

Why?

First, HIPAA does NOT cover two-way radio communications. There is no =
requirement for encryption to comply with HIPAA privacy regulations.

Second, few enough hams participate regularly in emcomm. Practically =
NONE of us have encryption capability in our ham equipment. This =
rulemaking would almost eliminate ham participation in emergency =
communications involving "sensitive" information.

Third, the amateur radio service does not need or want FEMA or any other =
authority telling us which messages may be sent using what modes, =
including encrypted vs. in the clear. This is a hobby, not another =
secret government radio network.

73 de Dave, NF2G
VP SMARA

(I agree, Marv, K2VHW)

