[RVRC] W3WAN

[cwsaums at 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
> 
>