[RVRC] W3WAN

Sat Feb 23 10:19:07 EST 2013

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
>>
>>
> 