TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band

[WA6ARC]

A storm is brewing in Southern California as TASMA makes a move to
take over coordinating responsibilities for the 440 band. In what one
repeater owner referred to as a “turf war”, others believe the move
will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and cut costs of
services by eliminating SCRRBA.

Multiple complaints have been heard over the years about the lack of
cooperation with repeater owners and SCRRBA leadership. A group of
repeater owners recently approached TASMA and requested that TASMA
assume the role of coordinator of the 440 band and the new board at
TASMA agreed in principle to move ahead with the idea.

TASMA established a working group at the December meeting and the
group has issued a recommendation to the members to change the bylaws
of TASMA to become the 440 band coordinator.
Below are the proposed changes that will be voted on by TASMA
membership at the next general meeting.


1. Meeting began with a discussion of the proposed bylaw changes
necessary to enable 440 coordination. The bylaw changes had been
revised based on the discussions in the April 25 meeting. Two set of
changes were presented. The first marked “Vote 1” consisted of three
bylaw changes that needed to be made to enable 440 coordination. The
second marked “Vote 2” was a bylaw change to change the organizations
name. The bylaws were reviewed and were accepted without any changes.

2. The draft motion to be presented to the membership to enable 440
coordination was reviewed and discussed. There was a discussion about
wording changes Bob NO6B wanted to see in the second paragraph. All
attendees agreed to change the motion to incorporate the changes Bob
proposed to the committee. The discussion also touched on how 70
centimeter functional standards might differ from 2 Meter standards.
All attendees agreed to start the process using the 2 meter standards
and to have the Technical Committee decide the functional standard
changes necessary for 70 centimeters using standard TASMA procedures.

3. The section of the motion to provide grandfathered coordination was
discussed. The discussion centered around the length of time of the
“transition period” in which grandfathered coordinations would be
allowed. The discussion was about how much time was reasonable to
submit a RFC for grandfathered coordination and how fast the Technical
Committee could respond to grandfather RFCs. There was concern that
the Technical Committee may be overwhelmed by the volume of
grandfathered coordination requests. There was also concern that lack
of a deadline would create problems for the Technical Committee in the
long run. After considerable discussion, the attendees decided to set
the grandfather RFC time limit to expire 12/31/11. The time period was
set for six months to inform the amateur community about the changes
and for eighteen months to submit the grandfather RFC. The attendees
also decided that the deadline applied to the submission of the
grandfather RFC to the Technical Committee not to action by the
Technical Committee.

4. There was a discussion about potential conflicts between two
stations requesting grandfather coordination’s who would interfere
with each other. The attendees decided to allow the Technical
Committee to resolve such disputes with appeal rights to the Board of
Directors as provided under current TASMA bylaws and policies.

5. There was a discussion as to the best way to proceed to present the
motion and bylaws changes to the membership. The attendees agreed to
publish the bylaw changes and the proposed motion in the July
newsletter and to have a discussion about it at the August 8 meeting.
They also agreed to publish it in the November newsletter with a vote
scheduled for the December 5 meeting. Dave KA6TBF agreed to write the
newsletter for July. The attendees agreed that the proposed changes
needed to be discussed in the Chairman’s Message column and by a
separate article as well. Howard KG6GI suggested that a FAQ be
prepared by the committee of likely questions to asked by the
membership of the effects of the change with the committee’s answers
to those questions. The attendees agreed that preparation of a FAQ
would be very helpful and decided to have each committee member
develop questions and answers which would then be reviewed and
discussed by the committee. Howard agreed to prepare a power point
presentation of the FAQ for discussion at the August 8 meeting. There
was a discussion about including the FAQ in the July newsletter which
was not resolved.

6. There was a discussion about how the ARRL would react to our
proposal and to how we should deal with them. The attendees agreed
that Bob NO6B should talk with Dick Norton N6AA very soon and explain
to him what we are doing and why we are doing it.

7. There was a discussion about the need to recruit assistance for the
Technical Committee for the increased workload to implement 70
centimeter coordination. The attendees agreed that whatever changes
the Technical Committee decided on to implement 70 centimeter
coordination, they had to be done in a manner that would not disrupt 2
meter coordination. The attendees decided to leave it up to the
Technical Committee to decide the method of recruiting additional
help.

[larryw6lar]

Beware: Be very careful what you wish for folks. The 2 meter band in
Southern California is a ZOO. 440 is not much better but I've had much
better response from SCRRBA over the years than TASMA. I have been
virtually ignored when filing concerns with TASMA over a coordination of
a repeater on the same frequency I am on. Even though it can almost and
sometimes does capture my receive when I am listening to my own
repeater. When I voiced my concerns to that repeaters owner, who by the
way got on to the TASMA tech committee about the time he asked for
coordination, he told me to go to you know where. He was going to get
his frequency no matter who had to suffer his interference. I asked the
TASMA board members via e-mail to require at least a directional antenna
for that coordination but was totally ignored. Now I hear his users
complaining about the "Strong" signal on my repeater causing them grief.
All of my 25 watts and a directional antenna. I spent a number of years
prior to this trying to get a livable frequency from TASMA and finally
did but only for a year or so.

When I asked for a frequency for a 440 repeater from SCRRBA they gave me
a number of them to try and listen to. I found one and they put me into
testing. After the coordination was complete they asked if another
repeater in test on the frequency I was on was causing any problems. We
let that go for a time and all worked out as they asked me if I thought
the other repeater could live on my frequency. I said OK and they got
their coordination. So there you go. I'm sure there are many other
stories out there. Some good and some bad about both groups. And many
repeater owners seem to want to build an empire and have an empire
builder attitude. They need to get a life.


Just my 2cents.

Larry / W6LAR

[Jeff]

Larry, In my personal opinion, I would not want a repeater trustee, or repeater owner to be heading up a coordinating committee. NO6B, as I recall, has been both while on various decision making positions at TASMA. Also, anyone on TASMA or SCRBBA should NOT be considered for any coordination of any kind while also engaged in coordination, and even after leaving a coordination group, should give up their rights to a new coordination for some period, say 5  years. There is probably a desire on the part of some 2-meter repeater owners to take over some of the 440 coordinations to further their "global" expansion plans, or linking plans, or whatever they have in mind for 440. Good luck. Jeff, W6FCC Formerly WA4EGT --- On Mon, 5/4/09, larryw6lar <larry...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Eric Lemmon]

This could get real interesting, real fast, since the big difference between
SCRRBA and TASMA band plans is whether the 70cm repeater inputs should be
above or below the outputs. They are opposite polarities!

73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY

[larryw6lar]

Jeff wrote:
> Larry,
>
> In my personal opinion, I would not want a repeater trustee, or repeater
> owner to be heading up a coordinating committee. NO6B, as I recall,
> has been both while on various decision making positions at TASMA.
>
> Also, anyone on TASMA or SCRBBA should NOT be considered for
> any coordination of any kind while also engaged in coordination, and
> even after leaving a coordination group, should give up their rights
> to a new coordination for some period, say 5 years.
>
> There is probably a desire on the part of some 2-meter repeater
> owners to take over some of the 440 coordinations to further their
> "global" expansion plans, or linking plans, or whatever they have in
> mind for 440.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Jeff, W6FCC
> Formerly WA4EGT
>
>
>

Jeff,
You make some good points there. I sat in front of the tech committee
for many meetings with the hopes of getting a better frequency to move
to on our first try. It took a long time and it did seem as though those
people had a big agenda of their own most of the time. It is something I
never want to go through again. I do support your idea of anyone in the
organization in those positions of decision making to not be involved
with their own coordination efforts.

My system is very small and relates to a small area of coverage. I and
my users have to run a receive PL decode so we don't have to listen to
the other repeater on frequency. Many of us are located a bit higher in
elevation than my repeaters but that is the nature of our area.

I took the responsibility on for the 2 meter repeater as owner when our
local school ROP program abandoned it. We had an Electronic technology
class that I was an advisor for and had a small group of kids at a
number of local schools that got their license. The ROP instructor and I
got the repeater going and fought the good battle to keep it. He has
since passed away and I was given the original equipment that I have
since replaced. I later put up a 440 repeater at the same location that
is supported by Redlands City Fire Department. They gave me the site and
in return they have a group of Hams that assist the Fire Department that
are the prime users of the repeaters. I also have the City of Colton
Fire Dept Ham group using it and our local Yucaipa Valley Amateur Radio
Club for its weekly nets and other functions.

I kind of inherited this thing. And I chose to make it the best it can
be. If I had a real choice of becoming a repeater owner or not I think
I just might decline the invitation. I just retired a few weeks ago and
may decide to leave the area in a few years. I am on the lookout for a
good ham to take charge of this thing if and when I do go. That is if
anyone is crazy enough.

Larry / W6LAR

[wolfbob]

I think you are naive with your position. Why would anyone want to take the
abuse and totally negative treatment of running or participating in a
repeater coordination group unless they had a lot of interest in
coordination. Of all the volunteering participation in amateur radio the
activity of coordination is the most demeaning and thankless job. I cannot
think of any previous participant that did not have some interest in a
specific repeater or special agenda (perhaps the exception is Bill
Pasternak).

Bob, WB6JPI

----- Original Message -----
From: "larryw6lar" <larry...@verizon.net>
To: <repeaterowne...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: TASMA makes a move to take over coordinating responsibilities
for the 440 band


>