QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/infoham/940630.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 29.5 KB

Date: Sun,  5 Jun 94 14:32:01 PDT
From: Info-Hams Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Info-Hams Digest V94 #630
To: Info-Hams


Info-Hams Digest            Sun,  5 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  630

Today's Topics:
                           440 in So. Cal.
                    <<<Help--Mosley 40m add-on>>>
       Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 04 June
                         Hallicrafters SX-28?
                      Willamette Valley DX Club

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Info-Hams Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/info-hams".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 14:08:31 -0600
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

In article <2sr3vb$[e-mail]>,
Cecil A. Moore -FT-~ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Hi Jay, welcome to democratic socialism.

Tell that to Greg Bullough. He thinks I'm a '50s Red-baiter when I call a
communist idea a communist idea.

>The great majority of hams believe that the federal government should and
>does own all radio frequencies. If one accepts that idea, then if the FCC
>says "all amateur repeaters shall be open", the Great OZ has spoken.

The FCC has said exactly the opposite: "all amateur repeaters shall be
closed". The Great OZ has spoken. They're not listening.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 17:08:03 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!udel!news.udel.edu!brahms.udel.edu![e-mail]
Subject: <<<Help--Mosley 40m add-on>>>
To: [e-mail]

I have a TA-33 up which must be about 20 years old but works fine.
I just ran into a TA-40-KR 40 meter add on kit. When we put it on, the
antenna analyzer showed that the SWR was way out of line on all the bands.
40 was nowhere to be seen, 20 was way off, others not quite so bad. This is
measuring on the ground.

Any ideas?   Tnx Bob


--
Bob Penneys, WN3K   Frankford Radio Club  Internet: [e-mail]
Work: Ham Radio Outlet (Delaware) [phone];  fax [phone]
Mail at home:  12 East Mill Station Drive   Newark, DE 19711  USA

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 09:05:49 MDT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!psgrain!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!alberta!ve6mgs![e-mail]
Subject: Daily Summary of Solar Geophysical Activity for 04 June
To: [e-mail]

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                 DAILY SUMMARY OF SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY

                                  04 JUNE, 1994

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

                  (Based In-Part On SESC Observational Data)


SOLAR AND GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITY INDICES FOR 04 JUNE, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Electron fluence at greater than 2 MeV was at high levels today.
      The background x-ray flux remained below the class A1.0 level.

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 155, 06/04/94
10.7 FLUX=067.6  90-AVG=082        SSN=000      BKI=4333 3333  BAI=016
BGND-XRAY=A1.0     FLU1=1.7E+06  FLU10=1.1E+04  PKI=4444 3334  PAI=022
  BOU-DEV=050,031,025,032,027,030,021,038   DEV-AVG=031 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= A3.7   @ 1603UT    XRAY-MIN= A1.0   @ 1733UT   XRAY-AVG= A1.8
NEUTN-MAX= +002%  @ 1025UT   NEUTN-MIN= -003%  @ 1550UT  NEUTN-AVG= -0.3%
  PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 2140UT     PCA-MIN= -0.4DB @ 0015UT    PCA-AVG= +0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=55347NT @ 0037UT   BOUTF-MIN=55296NT @ 1653UT  BOUTF-AVG=55315NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+000NT@ 0000UT   GOES7-MIN=N:+000NT@ 0000UT  G7-AVG=+077,+000,+000
GOES6-MAX=P:+148NT@ 1844UT   GOES6-MIN=N:-082NT@ 0242UT  G6-AVG=+104,+032,-031
 FLUXFCST=STD:070,070,075;SESC:070,070,075 BAI/PAI-FCST=020,020,015/020,020,020
    KFCST=3334 4332 3334 4332  27DAY-AP=036,024   27DAY-KP=5565 4344 4545 3333
 WARNINGS=*GSTRM;*AURMIDWCH
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!

NOTE: The Effective Sunspot Number for 03 JUN 94 is not available.
      The Full Kp Indices for 03 JUN 94 are: 4o 4o 3o 3o   3+ 3- 3+ 4-
      The 3-Hr Ap Indices for 03 JUN 94 are:  26  30  17  15  18  14  18  24
      Greater than 2 MeV Electron Fluence for 04 JUN is: 9.6E+08


SYNOPSIS OF ACTIVITY
--------------------

             Solar activity was very low.  A six degree long filament,
       centered at N23E04, disappeared at approximately 04/1500UT this
       period.  Otherwise, the disk remains spotless and quiet.

            Solar activity forecast:  solar activity is expected to be
       very low.

            The geomagnetic field has been at mostly unsettled to
       active levels for the past 24 hours.  High latitude stations
       did experience some minor to severe storm conditions during the
       04/06-12UT time frame.  Energetic electron flux (GT 2 MeV)
       ranged from normal to high levels over the past 24 hours.

            Geophysical activity forecast:  the geomagnetic field is
       expected to be mostly quiet to active for the next two days.
       High latitude stations can expect some minor to major storm
       conditions during local nighttime.  By day three, overall
       activity is expected to decrease to mostly quiet to unsettled
       with some active conditions expected during local nighttime.

            Event probabilities 05 jun-07 jun

                             Class M    01/01/01
                             Class X    01/01/01
                             Proton     01/01/01
                             PCAF       Green

            Geomagnetic activity probabilities 05 jun-07 jun

                        A.  Middle Latitudes
                        Active                25/25/25
                        Minor Storm           20/20/15
                        Major-Severe Storm    10/10/10

                        B.  High Latitudes
                        Active                20/25/20
                        Minor Storm           25/20/20
                        Major-Severe Storm    15/15/15

            HF propagation conditions improved only slightly today.
       High and polar latitude paths continued to see periods of
       signal degradation, mostly during the local night and morning
       sectors.  All other regions were near-normal.  Similar
       conditions are expected over the next 3 days, through 07 June
       inclusive.


COPIES OF JOINT USAF/NOAA SESC SOLAR GEOPHYSICAL REPORTS
========================================================

REGIONS WITH SUNSPOTS. LOCATIONS VALID AT 04/2400Z JUNE
-------------------------------------------------------
NMBR LOCATION  LO  AREA  Z   LL   NN MAG TYPE
7728  S07W79  321                    PLAGE
REGIONS DUE TO RETURN 05 JUNE TO 07 JUNE
NMBR LAT    LO
7722 N09   122


LISTING OF SOLAR ENERGETIC EVENTS FOR 04 JUNE, 1994
---------------------------------------------------
BEGIN  MAX  END  RGN   LOC   XRAY  OP 245MHZ 10CM   SWEEP
NONE


POSSIBLE CORONAL MASS EJECTION EVENTS FOR 04 JUNE, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------
 BEGIN        MAX      END     LOCATION   TYPE   SIZE  DUR  II IV
04/ 1504              1511       N23E04   DSF


INFERRED CORONAL HOLES. LOCATIONS VALID AT 04/2400Z
---------------------------------------------------
               ISOLATED HOLES AND POLAR EXTENSIONS
      EAST   SOUTH  WEST   NORTH  CAR  TYPE  POL  AREA   OBSN
83   S44W08 S60W59 S32W90 S22W12  290  EXT   NEG   050 10830A
84   N38W36 N36W48 N46W54 N50W44  285  ISO   POS   004 10830A
85   N20E66 S25E56 N05E26 N24E66  195  ISO   POS   017 10830A


SUMMARY OF FLARE EVENTS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------

 Date   Begin  Max   End  Xray  Op Region  Locn    2695 MHz  8800 MHz  15.4 GHz
------  ----  ----  ----  ----  -- ------ ------  --------- --------- ---------
03 Jun: 1544  1548  1557  B1.0


REGION FLARE STATISTICS FOR THE PREVIOUS UTC DAY
------------------------------------------------

                C   M   X     S   1   2   3   4   Total   (%)
               --  --  --    --  --  --  --  --    ---  ------
Uncorrellated: 0   0   0     0   0   0   0   0    001  (100.0)

 Total Events: 001 optical and x-ray.


EVENTS WITH SWEEPS AND/OR OPTICAL PHENOMENA FOR THE LAST UTC DAY
----------------------------------------------------------------

 Date   Begin  Max   End  Xray  Op Region  Locn    Sweeps/Optical Observations
------  ----  ----  ----  ----  -- ------ ------   ---------------------------
                            NO EVENTS OBSERVED.

NOTES:
     All times are in Universal Time (UT).  Characters preceding begin, max,
     and end times are defined as:  B = Before,  U = Uncertain,  A = After.
     All times associated with x-ray flares (ex. flares which produce
     associated x-ray bursts) refer to the begin, max, and end times of the
     x-rays.  Flares which are not associated with x-ray signatures use the
     optical observations to determine the begin, max, and end times.

     Acronyms used to identify sweeps and optical phenomena include:

          II        = Type II Sweep Frequency Event
          III       = Type III Sweep
          IV        = Type IV Sweep
          V         = Type V Sweep
          Continuum = Continuum Radio Event
          Loop      = Loop Prominence System,
          Spray     = Limb Spray,
          Surge     = Bright Limb Surge,
          EPL       = Eruptive Prominence on the Limb.


**  End of Daily Report  **

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 22:55:07 GMT
From: sli!ravel![e-mail]
Subject: Hallicrafters SX-28?
To: [e-mail]

I've come into possession of an antique Hallicrafters SX-28 "Super Skyrider"
receiver.  Not being a ham, I'm looking for advice on what to do with it.

For the uninitiated, the SX-28 is an antique receiver with enough dials on the
front to run a nuclear power plant singlehandedly.  Its construction is sturdy
enough to do a tank proud, and it's in good shape as far as I can tell.

I don't know exactly when it was manufactured, but the manual (which includes
full schematics) is dated November 1, 1943.  The front cover says "frequency
range - .55 to 43. megacycles (!)".

This receiver is obviously obsolete by today's standards, but may provide hours
of fascination for the right hobbyist.  It's so old, it may even be worth
money.

Questions:

1.  Is there a market for antique receivers like this?
2.  About how much might it be worth?
3.  Where might I advertise it if I wanted to sell it (other than this group)?
4.  If it's not worth selling, how might I go about finding it a good home?

I never read this newsgroup, so please e-mail responses to me: [e-mail]
If I get any good advice, I'll post a summary...

Thanks,

Mike Gilbert    [e-mail]
Software Leverage, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 14:22:19 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!mailer.acns.fsu.edu!freenet3.scri.fsu.edu!freenet3.scri.fsu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Willamette Valley DX Club
To: [e-mail]

Yes [at least it was two weeks ago when I last wrote them]. Double
check it, but I recall WVDXC, POB 555, Portland, OR 97207. 73,

Michael Christie, K7RLS
Crawfordville, Florida

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 19:45:23 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!mailer.acns.fsu.edu!freenet3.scri.fsu.edu!freenet2.scri.fsu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2s5sl8$[e-mail]>, <2s5uma$[e-mail]>, <1994May31.114556.3379@eisner>ⁿ
Subject : Re: IDing

Michael D Brown ([e-mail]) wrote:

: My favorite lately is not the guy who says "....monitoring 145.xx", it's the
: guy who says "this is ..... monitoring the k9... repeater located in .....".
: Nice to know that I have a talking repeater directory on the air.

: 73
: KF9VC
: Mike

Or worse, the guy who says he's monitoring the input frequency of the
repeater, instead of giving the output frequency.
--
Steven J. King     KC6WCH/4     EL89tq         "SURF, KITTY, SURF!"
SFCC:     [e-mail]
Free-Net: [e-mail]
Packet:   KC6WCH @ K4DPZ.#GNVFL.FL.USA.NA

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 19:23:33 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2st6jd$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

Bob Wilkins  n6fri ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Roger Buffington ([e-mail]) wrote:

: : Sorry if the facts are confusing you, Mike, but my above recounting of
: : the facts stands.  Clara was advised by its very expensive legal counsel
: : that they would be on much stronger grounds trying to bar certain
: : individuals from the repeater if the repeater were coordinated as closed.

: : They consequently applied to the coordinating body to re-coordinate their
: : pair as closed.  The application, in recognition of the above, was granted.

: How does your local coordinating body define Closed? How does this
: re-coordination action affect future coordinations on the same frequency?
: Is there a period of time for all interested parties to comment on the
: action?

: I am aware that the southern california 2meter coordinators have listened
: to the general user base and made recommendations that some would consider
: detrimental toward the repeater trustee. How is it that you and the
: community let a high level Open 2meter repeater change its status to
: Closed?

: Every region of the country has a different set of guidelines for
: coordination. How about sharing the sections of your local guidelines as
: they relate to open vs closed coordination. Does southern california
: allow private 2meter repeaters?

: I would think that more repeaters can be packed into a given area using
: the closed format by trustee agreements alowing for greater overlap. Open
: repeaters have a more diffacult time with overlapping coverage with other
: open repeaters as they must take all users including those in overlapping
: areas. The closed repeater trustee can ask his users to be aware of the
: overlaps and use consideration or find an other repeater in that area.

: Bob

Rather than turn this response into a massive research project which
could, conceivably, eat into my beer drinking time, let me answer your
question simply.  The group in question let it be known that despite the
"closed" coordination of the repeater, all good operators would be
welcome, and would not be asked to leave. (On many/most closed repeaters
around here, even good operators are often asked to leave, which is why
there are hard feelings in the area.)

This is my understanding of why the "closed" status was granted.  The
repeater had turned into a crud-magnet, and they needed to beef up their
grounds for asking certain operators to leave.

Hope this answers your question.

--
                                             [e-mail]
                                             Glendale, CA
                                             AB6WR

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 14:26:17 -0600
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ne.cs.d
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

In article <[e-mail]>, Greg Bullough <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Michael is right on this... ...there are lots of reasons to leave
>the 'pioneers' to be proud of their 440 pioneering for the next
>quarter-century and head for 1.2Ghz. For that is the land where
>cellular systems begin to make sense, where antennas are tiny, and
>where, thanks to Motorola et. al. generating a bit of RF is no
>longer a major feat.

Absolutely. 1280 is the next frontier, and if you want to see it full of
"open" repeaters, get after it...and I won't stand in your way.

>And the Jay Maynards of this world can search out a good 75meter/440Mhz
>all-mode transceiver, to fit their world-view.

Actually, I don't own a radio that transmits below 144 MHz at the moment. I
do, however, own a 440/1200 HT.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 14:19:35 -0600
From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2sp2nb$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>du
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

In article <[e-mail]>, Greg Bullough <[e-mail]> wrote:
>What isn't yours can't be taken away from you. The airwaves are a public
>resource. The fact that you were in the park first doesn't mean that
>you have the right to pitch your tent and make it your home.

OTOH, you can't be deprived of the use of your property without compensation,
either. If the FCC were to change its mind and say that all repeaters should
be open, they'd most likely lose a suit charging they'd done exactly that.
Coordinating bodies are in a weaker position than the FCC.

>Red-Baiting as a form of intelligent argument disappeared in the 1950's.
>As a stupid diversionary tactic, it fell from favor in the 1970's.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Just as I am entitled to my
opinion: that you are determined to force repeater trustees to make their
hard-earned incomes and labor available for you to use and abuse for no
compensation and with no controls whatsoever.

>In this area, too, Mr. Maynard needs to catch up with reality.

I've been a coordinator. You obviously haven't.
I'm a director of the largest single coordinating body in the US. You aren't.

Who deals with reality here?

>Oh yes, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Red. As must be anyone who advocates
>the outrageous notion that pubic resources made so by Act of Congress
>(radio spectrum) ought to be made available to the public, and be utilized
>at the pleasure of the public.

OK...so go compete with your local TV station on their channel. I'll promise
to write you during your stay at Leavenworth.

>I might take your arguments seriously, Jay, if you didn't come across
>as a fringe lunatic who'd probably call Rush Limbaugh a pinko.

Rush is, overall, a kook - but he's right sometimes, too. Ralph Nader - who,
from the sound of your arguments, is your idol - is a kook, too, but even he's
right sometimes.

>...and you can salvage the site, the single most valuable commodity.

Not always. You have to get the site owner's approval for your system, and if
he won't approve a system on another frequency, you're SOL.

>Not necessarily. They may well be decent folks, like most hams. They
>may also realize that a working machine is worth a lot; you don't just
>run down to Sam's Used Repeater lot, after all.

OTOH, there'd be a lot of repeaters come available, by your argument, thus
driving down the market.

The trustee winds up getting screwed...and without even a kiss.

>With this point, we see that Jay agrees. 'Da comrade' translates to
>'I understand this to be true, and must concede you this point,' in
>his vernacular. It indicates that he has no response to the point,
>beyond his back-up Red-baiting.

Haw. It's really that I am rejecting your argument simply because that's not
the way our society works...but it IS the way you, and Karl Marx, would have
it work. That's a bug, not a feature.

>Steal what? The frequency? How can one steal what can't be owned? The gov't
>gave us 200 meters and down in 1912. Have they 'reneged' because they
>changed the rules a few times since then?

You've stolen the value f the system, because you've forced him to operate it
under your rules, not his. That's theft, pure and simple, because you control
it now.

>Nothing is forever, man. The deal really was 'you move to the upper end,'
>and leave us alone below.

The deal was "you move up there and leave us alone, and we'll leave you
alone". They did. You're proposing to go back on your part. That generates
lawsuits. Ones that usually win.

>Keep moving. Plenty of room, plenty of room.

Indeed. There's plenty of room for all...and without forcing folks off of
their homestead that they've occupied for 30 years and all its improvements,
with no compensation. Why don't you try 1280?

>>Are you prepared to defend that idea with your bank account, not to mention
>>your future livelihood? I sure as hell am not, and those are exactly the
>>stakes.
>Gee, what a great hobby.

Them's the facts, man. I don't like 'em either, but they won't go away no
matter how hard I wish.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
To Sarah Brady, Howard Metzenbaum, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer:
Thanks. Without you, I would be neither a gun owner nor an NRA life member.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 20:34:14 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!ace.mid.net!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!news.uiowa.edu!icaen![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2sngi3$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>r
Subject : Re: ** WAITING PERIOD FOR LICENSE ?? **

[e-mail] (Greg Bullough) writes:

>And remember, when you vote for your ARRL director, that the League opposed
>the plan that would have had you on the air as soon as you passed, instead
>of cooling your heels, losing interest and code speed (if the latter applies)
>in the mean-time.

...and that's one reason I'd be supporting my ARRL director, if I were a
member.  Instant licensing is a bad idea.  BAD BAD BAD BAD!  Too much
potential for bootleggers to abuse it.  All I'd have to do is make up
a new "instant callsign" every few weeks and they'd have a heckuva
time catching me.  I'm very very glad they didn't support it.

--
         Doug Renze, N0YVW * [e-mail] * N0YVW @ W0IUQ.ia.usa.na
                         [e-mail] ** [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 21:15:30 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2stcs6$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: ** WAITING PERIOD FOR LICENSE ?? **

Douglas J Renze ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (Greg Bullough) writes:

: >And remember, when you vote for your ARRL director, that the League opposed
: >the plan that would have had you on the air as soon as you passed, instead
: >of cooling your heels, losing interest and code speed (if the latter applies)
: >in the mean-time.

: ...and that's one reason I'd be supporting my ARRL director, if I were a
: member.  Instant licensing is a bad idea.  BAD BAD BAD BAD!  Too much
: potential for bootleggers to abuse it.  All I'd have to do is make up
: a new "instant callsign" every few weeks and they'd have a heckuva
: time catching me.  I'm very very glad they didn't support it.

: --
:          Doug Renze, N0YVW * [e-mail] * N0YVW @ W0IUQ.ia.usa.na
:                          [e-mail] ** [e-mail]

I second that!  That crazy "use your initials for a callsign" proposal
was the worst idea I've ever heard come out of the FCC rulemaking
process!  Terrible!  We'd have been a** deep in bootleggers so fast it
wouldn't have been funny.

Sorry it takes 3 months.  It took about that long when I got my Novice
back in 66.  I didn't like waiting either.  But at least there is a
relatively clean, uncorrupted ham radio hobby waiting for you, for the
rest of your life, after your ticket does come in the mail.

73!
--
                                             [e-mail]
                                             Glendale, CA
                                             AB6WR

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 13:53:29 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2st6jd$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

Roger Buffington ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Rather than turn this response into a massive research project which
: could, conceivably, eat into my beer drinking time, let me answer your
: question simply.  The group in question let it be known that despite the
: "closed" coordination of the repeater, all good operators would be
: welcome, and would not be asked to leave. (On many/most closed repeaters
: around here, even good operators are often asked to leave, which is why
: there are hard feelings in the area.)

This does not appear to be a spectrum management issue. By allowing "good"
operators to use their closed repeater they have functioned on the crud
-magnet. Most closed groups only want the "fine business" operators or
they strive for true excellence.

: This is my understanding of why the "closed" status was granted.  The
: repeater had turned into a crud-magnet, and they needed to beef up their
: grounds for asking certain operators to leave.

What happens when coordinated closed status does not solve the problem?
Can the repeater trustee ask for coordinated private use of the frequencies?

: Hope this answers your question.

You will not be able to answer any questions until you take the time to
research all of the interrelated issues. Your general understandings are
only opinions. Why not back up your opinions with the documents from the
local coordinating body.


Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 1994 11:47:09 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

Roger Buffington ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Sorry if the facts are confusing you, Mike, but my above recounting of
: the facts stands.  Clara was advised by its very expensive legal counsel
: that they would be on much stronger grounds trying to bar certain
: individuals from the repeater if the repeater were coordinated as closed.

: They consequently applied to the coordinating body to re-coordinate their
: pair as closed.  The application, in recognition of the above, was granted.

How does your local coordinating body define Closed? How does this
re-coordination action affect future coordinations on the same frequency?
Is there a period of time for all interested parties to comment on the
action?

I am aware that the southern california 2meter coordinators have listened
to the general user base and made recommendations that some would consider
detrimental toward the repeater trustee. How is it that you and the
community let a high level Open 2meter repeater change its status to
Closed?

Every region of the country has a different set of guidelines for
coordination. How about sharing the sections of your local guidelines as
they relate to open vs closed coordination. Does southern california
allow private 2meter repeaters?

I would think that more repeaters can be packed into a given area using
the closed format by trustee agreements alowing for greater overlap. Open
repeaters have a more diffacult time with overlapping coverage with other
open repeaters as they must take all users including those in overlapping
areas. The closed repeater trustee can ask his users to be aware of the
overlaps and use consideration or find an other repeater in that area.

Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

End of Info-Hams Digest V94 #630
******************************