[FRC] Possible issues with FL repeater coordination

Fri Nov 11 10:57:42 EST 2016

The FRC or ARRL cannot prevent anyone from putting on a repeater.  This is FCC rule.  ARRL has zero authority and FRC's authority only comes from FCC stepping in only if there is an interference issue.  All repeaters I know of are coordinated.  One can easily see by looking at the ARRL Repeater Directory, it contains the list of coordinated repeaters submitted by FRC.

My issue with all this now we have a bean counter showing up at Ham Radio organizations with attorneys.  Some FRC issues need to be addressed, but FRC issues are technical and not having to make sure all the Is are dotted or Ts crossed.  This is Ham Radio.

The FRC has for years tried to address paper repeaters.  They have had to deal with lack of pairs and try to make sure paper repeaters do not keep coordination.  But it can be difficult issue, but FRC has responded when proper info had been provided.

I see little in the complaining dealing with technical issues and this worries me.  The time issue can be improved although I have had little problem with delays.  FRC has always responded to me taking only a week or so to get preliminary coordinations.  But some non-technical expect FRC to do all the work.

73, ron, n9ee/r a know code Extra

Ron Wright, N9EE/R
BSEE
Micro Computer Concepts
352-683-4476
mccrpt at tampabay.rr.com

________________________________
From: FRC-Info <frc-info-bounces at lists.keekles.org> on behalf of kg4ugk <kg4ugk at kg4ugk.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Florida Repeater Council Discussion
Cc: kf4jas at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [FRC] Possible issues with FL repeater coordination

And this is why.. we have people operating repeaters without coordination in this state.

If we cant protect our frequency pairs via the FRC and the ARRL doesnt want to get involved... I guess everything inevitability breaks down, and we are told to just accept it.

Why do we encourage younger generations to partake in the wonderful world of ham radio.

Just wow.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------
From: David Krauss <nx4y at verizon.net>
Date: 11/11/16 12:00 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Florida Repeater Council Discussion <frc-info at lists.keekles.org>
Subject: Re: [FRC] Possible issues with FL repeater coordination

The issue is resolved. do we want to continue to argue or move on, folks ? it's not like this is a presidential election or something :)

Sent from an iPhone 6

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 11:57 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan at bryanfields.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/16 11:32 PM, kg4ugk wrote:
>> Was this board and the FRC made aware that you in fact helped spread the
>> leaked database? Was the ARRL brought in to provide support?
>
> The ARRL was made aware of these issues.  They have chosen to stay out of it.
>
>> I personally, dont like the idea of Bryan being apart of this committee.
>
> I don't like that idea either.
>
>> We
>> are all not just hams. We live other lives, have other jobs. We should be
>> able to personally choose if we want information available and our home
>> phone numbers and addresses being immediately exposed with a quick google
>> search of your own name now, everyone on this list should in some way feel
>> violated.
>
> You have all this information listed in the FCC database.
>
>> Theres a reason even QRZ requires registration and log ins prior
>> to the address you want listed on there viewable to other HAMs, not the
>> entire free world.
>
> Again, FCC database has this.  I'm not sure why QRZ doesn't show it, perhaps
> to encourage account creation as they are an advertisement platform.
>
>> I don't want every person I hand my business card to be
>> able to call me at home or stop by my house because I didnt call them back
>> before close of day, as I'd imagine some of you may feel. As soon as this
>> database was made viewable, and he facilitated the distribution of said
>> hacked database, he officially made himself an accomplice to the original
>> crime.
>
> There was no crime and this is publicly available information. The FRC cannot
> promise to keep your information private legally.
>
> At the end of the day more information is on your voter registration than
> what's in some repeater records.
>
>> I do like the idea of the PDC, but as to the interactions and
>> confrontational approach he has, would not be conducive to the survival of
>> the FRC. Yes he has made some valid points, and a plan was put in motion,
>> great.
>
> Then get involved.  What do you want to see change?
>
>
>> Bryan himself previously stated that it takes the FRC too long to provide
>> updates, and we've been waiting quietly for his update.. his first order of
>> being appointed to a newly formed committee is to state he hasnt had much
>> time to devote to FRC issues. It usually rolls downhill.
>
> I've been waiting for replies to emails and things I've sent out.  We've had
> no movement yet.  As you said "We are all not just hams. We live other lives,
> have other jobs."
>
>> Theres a reason
>> that a chain of command exists. I am now CC'ing the NFCC board members, as
>> the ARRL should probably provide additional support, after all.. they are
>> the ones who govern whos ultimately the coordinating body for each state,
>> but after the extensive actions taken on Bryans side. When we are already
>> vunerable to hacks in the computer day and age, Bryan in fact is going to
>> set us back and harm the FL ham community. I am also going to talk to the
>> local hams in broward county that have a bigger reach into our local
>> repeater owners than I do.
>
> The ARRL does not want to be involved, I've contacted them.
>
>> IMPORTANT.To appoint someone to a committee to stop his legal attempts was
>> not a wise decision, contacting the FCC or ARRL for assistance in this
>> dispute should help resolve this.
>
> To make a contract contingent on a party forgoing legal representation is not
> legal.  I only was asking for a members roster and the results of the past
> four elections from the board.  The fact they refused to provide this to a
> member is disgusting.  At that point, what option does one have other than to
> retain counsel?
> --
> Bryan Fields
>
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net
> _______________________________________________
> FRC-Info mailing list
> FRC-Info at lists.keekles.org
> http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/frc-info
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:frc-info-unsubscribe at lists.keekles.org>

_______________________________________________
FRC-Info mailing list
FRC-Info at lists.keekles.org
http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/frc-info
Unsubscribe: <mailto:frc-info-unsubscribe at lists.keekles.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.keekles.org/pipermail/frc-info/attachments/20161111/488e41e5/attachment-0001.html>