[CVARC] Re: Proposed changes to CVARC bylaws and repeater policy

  • From: Ed Hutchinson <ehutch@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cvarc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 07 May 2016 17:31:43 -0400

Decades ago when repeaters were so active and numerous that they were interfering with each other, Mitch was appointed as a section frequency coordinator (by some authority of ARRL, not FCC). The plan was to assure that repeaters would be separated sufficiently by distance or frequency to avoid interference. The rules for frequency pair and intermod interference at any particular site is, of course, the the primary obligation of any new site. But Mitch's role was to regulate the amateur repeater proliferation.

At about that time we either reduced power or skewed the radiation pattern of our 625 machine because our transmitter was either opening the squelch or overpowering the signal of a Boston area repeater to remote receivers. We got several complaints from a club that Tom, WA1YNU, used to belong to when he lived in that area before moving to Barre. The change limited our very valuable south east radiation pattern down I-89, that used to have a strong signal all the way to White River Jct and beyond.

Mitch was put in the position of being able to dictate what repeaters could do, in spite of the part 74 rule that allows any licensed operator to use remote operation. Knowing Mitch, you know that he took that role very seriously.

Ed, n1fmp



Other related posts: