Toledo Oregon Police Department

[kd7zd]

The police in Toledo Oregon must consider themselves above the law in that they knowingly are interfering with a local Ham repeater. #They have known about it for several weeks and have yet to take action other than to schedule a service call for next week. #I know, because I have serviced radios in this county for 25 years, that public service agencies would cry long and loud if the Ham repeater was causing interference to the police radio system.

Read more about the continuing saga at:

http://kd7zd.us/Toledo.htm

Phil
www.kd7zd.us

[KG4RUL]

I suspect that there is a lot of information not presented in this post.

For instance:

How close is the PD transmitter to the Amateur Repeater?

Has the coax/hardline on the Amateur Repeater been inspected?

Has the Amateur Repeater input duplexer been tested lately?

What about the receiver condition?

We could go on like this.

The bottom line is - When choosing between operating Public Service radios or shutting them down to accomodate an Amateur repeater, the PS radios will win out EVERY time!

[kd7zd]

Quote[/b] (KG4RUL @ July 01 2006,19:19)]I suspect that there is a lot of information not presented in this post. #

For instance: #

How close is the PD transmitter to the Amateur Repeater?

Has the coax/hardline on the Amateur Repeater been inspected?

Has the Amateur Repeater input duplexer been tested lately?

What about the receiver condition?

We could go on like this.

The bottom line is - When choosing between operating Public Service radios or shutting them down to accomodate an Amateur repeater, the PS radios will win out EVERY time!
The Ham repeater is over 15 miles from the PD repeater. #The PD repeater in transmit is generating a signal on 147.600 Mhz, the input to the ham repeater, strong enough to read 20-30 db over S-9 two miles from that repeater.

Considering that the PD is generating that strong a signal on the input to the ham repeater every time it is keyed, the condition of the coax/hardline, the duplexer and etc. is irrelevant. #

Phil
www.kd7zd.us

[VE7NOT]

Oh I know Oregon. I know the state well. Oregon is a "live for today.. work tommorow state... in the meantime we get our money."

Nice way to live... until this happens....

[WA9SVD]

Hmmm. I wonder why the first response is that there is something wrong with the Amateur equipment...

There just MIGHT be something wrong with the PD equipment? NO, THAT never happens!

Or is there an illegal "crossband repeater" that is putting the PD onto the Amateur repeater? If the signal is as strong into the affected repeater as stated, there's something amiss, and it's most likely not on the receive side of the Amateur repeater.

[WA9SVD]

BTW, WRONG approach! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Demanding that a PD "shut down operations" is just so (I can't use an apporpriate word here for fear of moderators) "foolish" it boggles the mind. And instantly gets a hostile response, and you personally labeled a "Nut case" or at least "trouble-maker." And you lose all credibility. It's no wonder the supervisor and Chief were "unavailable."

In any situation such as this, the proper, diplomatic approach is to report a perceived problem, and ask how you may HELP in solving the problem, not just be a complaining gadfly. The PD or even it's tech isn't going to monitor every Amateur repeater in the area to ensure there's no interference. But thius is a place where Public Relation for Amateur Radio COULD have shone through, by offering assistance in solving the problem.
After all, you do NOT know what is causing the problem. It COULD be some combination of signals mixed that get into the repeater. All sorts of possibilities exist; just ASSUMING it's only the PD's signal that's at fault is a dangerous assumption.

Even if it IS the PD transmitter or repeater "gone wild," they deserve a reasonable time to get the problem fixed. The dispatchers cannot "run out to the repeater site with a screwdriver" to fix things. Nor should they; they have a more important job.

If the problem is truly a faulty PD transmitter or repeater,and no attempt is made to solve an interference issue, THEN the proper procedure would be to file a complaint with the FCC. But merely going to the offending Public Service agency and demanding they "shut down" is never a good idea.

[KD6NIG]

Sounds like a good way to ensure that the "law" up there will have a new target for a while-any vehicle with a ham radio licence plate or more than a few antennas.

OK, now I know you're upset that the repeater you use (you say lightly) is having this issue, but coming towards a police department with a guns drawn, we're going to get you, how dare you attitude isn't going to garner you anything but an adverse response.

But I would, definetely, look into ALL aspects and possibilities before pointing fingers, and give them a chance to work things out. #I know of a local repeater that got interfered with by an uncoordinated machine, and after all of the posturing, going to the proper channels (coordinator) and the FCC, after about 9 months the issue was finally resolved. #NINE months. #I definetely wouldn't be complaining about a few weeks.

And the aspect of some person possibly retransmitting shouldn't be pushed off as bunk either. #I wouldn't be awfully surprised if someone was doing this. #Especially if your reaction towards the Toledo PD also occurs towards people you don't want on the repeater. #Have you recently tossed anyone off the machine or have there been any conflicts? #You need to do a bit of research to make sure its not someone within our ranks (or NOT!) that could be doing this.

And I hope you're ready if the tech comes out, checks out their system and finds nothing, and because of your attitude, the Toledo PD presents you with the bill for an unneeded call also. #Sure, its right to contact them and let them know, but since you came out guns blazing, don't be surprised if they come back with a bit of thier own.

Being a tough guy right out of the gate won't usually win you cooperation in any situation..... You seem to have this attitude on your website you refrence that because someone is interfering with your repeater they should immedietely terminate operations. If this was FBI or similar repeater, what kind of reaction you think would have occured?

You're lucky they didn't approach you much worse, definetely. Nothing like a little fire and venom to help with public relations. If you live within the jurisdiction of this police department, I wouldn't be awfully surprised if your response times increase a bit after your attitude towards them.

And reading your site, it doesn't even appear this repeater is yours. I wouldn't think that, in this case, its even proper for you to lodge the complaint. I think it would be the responsibility of the repeater owner or trustee to handle this situation. You stepping in and trying to handle this on thier behalf may not be something that they wanted. They could very well had been already working on it, cooperatively, and you just tossed all that cooperation out the window.

Oh, and as a final note: Demanding that a police department "IMMEDIETELY TERMINATE ALL USAGE OF THE FREQUENCY and I ADVISED THEM THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW" are two really good ways to get cooperation. Good job. Don't ever break the law in Toledo, you're going to have a heck of a time with them from here on out......

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

This sounds oh so familiar, a repeater in northern NJ was receiving similar interference but the approach and subsequent resolution were quite different. The short and sweet version is at first it appeared to be IBOC from an FM broadcast transmitter at fault but Amateurs working closely with the chief engineer discovered an odd bit about it. Seems that signals from a police transmitter were mixing with the digital FM causing intermod around the repeater's input frequency. Hams and the CE working with the PD's radio repair quickly resolved the problem, I'm now able to use the repeater again.

It seems to me that maybe somebody jumped the gun before doing his homework. It takes painstaking investigation before the actual cause is tracked down and it's obviously not always as easy as it looks at first glance. Maybe the key to success is teamwork?

[kd7zd]

Reading over my comments on the web, I think you are right in that it seems that I came on strong. #I think that's because I tried to condense the happenings.

There are some other things that need to be understood. I serviced radios for this police department for over 20 years up until a few years ago, so I know these people. #I didn't come on strong until it became apparent there was no action being taken and it appeared there was no intention of any immediate action. #Also, the police department was aware of the situation a week before I came on the scene. #Having worked on this system and having installed some of the radios still in service, I know that they need not continue using the offending repeater. #It's possible for them to use another radio in simplex, with the same antennas and coverage but when I tried to suggest this they would have nothing to do with it.

It is true that the Ham repeater is not mine however it does involve me in several ways. #I personally have been interfered with attempting to communicate using this repeater. #Also, there is a reason now making it desirable for me to monitor this repeater and because of their spurious signal on the input to this repeater I must listen to police dispatching.

I would not mind and I think it would be reasonable to put up with this interference if the police department, once becoming aware of the problem, had a technician #in route. #It might even be reasonable to live with it for a few days while a part was in route. #However no action on their part is not acceptable. #I also believe it's not acceptable under these circumstances to wait until it's convenient for the technician, like what is happening now.

I personally, in years past, have responded in the middle of the night when this police department was experiencing interference. #It's not acceptable that they hold one standard for themselves and a different one for #others, even considering the perceived difference in #importance of the two systems.

Phil
www.kd7zd.us

[WA9SVD]

Regardless of your purported credentials, and association with the forementioned Police Department, storming into the PD and demanding they "cease operations" was improper, and a public relations nightmare. As stated above, you do NOT have proof it was the PD transmitter or repeater that was producing the interference. There are many other possibilities, but your approach was obviously unproductive, and likely to remain so.
Even the FCC would say "work it out," which you seem unwilling to do.

[n0aim]

Other then needing a little more tack in his comm with the PD there is nothing wrong with the way he has handled this. These men and women are professionals and should be held to the same standard as anyone else that picks up a microphone. As for response times to any calls he might make taking a little longer or this crap about him not ever breaking a law in that town again, are you kidding me the street level cop will never hear about this and even if they did they wouldn't care! I don’t know about the cops where you live but they guys I work with are some of the most mature people I’ve ever had the pleaser of serving with.

[kd7zd]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2006,21:26)]Regardless of your purported credentials, and association with the forementioned Police Department, storming into the PD and demanding they "cease operations" was improper, and a public relations nightmare. #As stated above, you do NOT have proof it was the PD transmitter or repeater that was producing the interference. #There are many other possibilities, but your approach was obviously unproductive, and likely to remain so.
# #Even the FCC would say "work it out," #which you seem unwilling to do.
You Sir speak as an authority yet have no knowledge. #You are trying to second guess a man on the ground, so to speak, with 38 years experience in land mobile radio and 20 years with this police department. #You have no knowledge of the credibility or esteem held by local officials here about myself or the Ham community.

For your information, it has been verified, beyond a doubt, that the police repeater is the culprit. #It's not known why yet but there's no doubt it's them.

Also, give some credit here. #No one has gone into the PD and beat on the desk. #It is possible to be polite, diplomatic and still be assertive in communicating that a given action, or in this case inaction, is not acceptable.

Phil
www.kd7zd.us

[WA9SVD]

The point is no one should go to the PD and demand that the PD shut down their radio operation! THAT, Sirs, and Madames, is just plain BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS, and a sure way to get ignored. And it's certainly not up to the dispatchers to decide what repeater or other frequency they use.
Instead of telling the PD to shut down, why would it not have been better to say there was a problem and ask "How may I help?" Especially if one has a great deal of experience in the area? With his experience working with PD's radios for over 20 years, why not volunteer to help solve the problem? Now, THAT would be a major Public Relations benefit.

NO, none of us were there. We are just responding to the description of the action taken by the original poster in his own words.

"...I advised her once again that they were in violation of the law and that she should shut down until the trouble is repaired. She said she couldn’t do that. "

Of course a dispatcher can'rt decide to shut down PD communications.

Certainly, patience should be practiced. But I don't see it in the attitude displayed. It's unfortunate that the original poster has some personal interest involving the particular repeater.

[ka5s]

There's too little information and too much heat in this thread to be able to do anything with it. However, I can ask questions:

Does the repeater use tone access? If not, can it be set to? If it's the same tone as the police, can it be changed? If it's a different tone, how come it's responding?

In another state, a local repeater was rebroadcast maliciously by a third party. Our guys were able to determine the mechanics involved by playing with the access tones. I heard that after determining how it was being done, they were able to track down the interfering signal to a dwelling. What followed, I don't know, but the problem went away.

Have the repeater operators done anything along these lines?


Cortland
KA5S

[WA9SVD]

Cortland asks some good questions. Unless someone was actually at the PD repeater site, and checking emissions, just HOW do you know it's the PD repeater that's actually putting out the signal on the Amateur repeater frequency, and not some transmitter rebroadcasting nearby? And if someone was already AT the PD repeater site, and checking the repeater output, wouldn't they also have been able to identify and possibly fix, the problem?
Again, as stated, there's too little information and too many details that have been "left out for brevity." I sense there's more to the story than meets the eye. Or ear.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (kd7zd @ July 03 2006,09:59)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 02 2006,21:26)]Regardless of your purported credentials, and association with the forementioned Police Department, storming into the PD and demanding they "cease operations" was improper, and a public relations nightmare. As stated above, you do NOT have proof it was the PD transmitter or repeater that was producing the interference. There are many other possibilities, but your approach was obviously unproductive, and likely to remain so.
Even the FCC would say "work it out," which you seem unwilling to do.
You Sir speak as an authority yet have no knowledge. You are trying to second guess a man on the ground, so to speak, with 38 years experience in land mobile radio and 20 years with this police department. You have no knowledge of the credibility or esteem held by local officials here about myself or the Ham community.

For your information, it has been verified, beyond a doubt, that the police repeater is the culprit. It's not known why yet but there's no doubt it's them.

Also, give some credit here. No one has gone into the PD and beat on the desk. It is possible to be polite, diplomatic and still be assertive in communicating that a given action, or in this case inaction, is not acceptable.

Phil
www.kd7zd.us
No offense, but you post an article, (which, BTW, is only ONE side of the story) and when people make comments not completely to your liking say "they have no knowledge..." and then you begin to outline "details" of the opccurence.
What then was your purpose of submitting an article in which important details are lacking?
Comments are made in accordance with the information you provide. If there is additional information that you neglect to provide, then responses may NOT be you your liking.
If you want honest and thoughtful, helpful comments, then don't hold back part of the story. It seems there's a LOT more going on here than meets the eye. Or computer monitor.

But again, contacting the PD dispatchers or attempting to contact higher levels of the PD to tell them they have to "cease operations" is hardly a diplomatic route.

BTW, ISTM (it seems to me) this should have been in the "Talks and opinions" section rather than appearing as an "announcement." But that's merely IMHO.)

[kb2vxa]

Hi again,

OK, the horse died so let's sit tight and await the outcome, shall we?

Just to make a point and not delve into that can of worms again;

"Does the repeater use tone access? If not, can it be set to? If it's the same tone as the police, can it be changed? If it's a different tone, how come it's responding?"

CTCSS will not solve the problem as in the case of the afore mentioned IBOC interference. Any signal on or around the input frequency as you know will capture the receiver so that it will not respond to those with the proper tone. Case in point myself, although my signal is full quieting into the repeater in question I could not access it nor could many others as long as the offending signal was present.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ July 05 2006,07:35)]CTCSS will not solve the problem as in the case of the afore mentioned IBOC interference. Any signal on or around the input frequency as you know will capture the receiver so that it will not respond to those with the proper tone. Case in point myself, although my signal is full quieting into the repeater in question I could not access it nor could many others as long as the offending signal was present.
That's a valid point. If the signal IS strong enough, it will capture the receiver.
But just HOW does a PD repeater put out a signal, apparently a strong signal, on an Amateur repeater frequency? Without affecting the performance on the PD frequency? And though the statement was made that it's "definitely the PD repeater" that's causing the interference, there was no reply as to HOW that was determined. Just HOW, was it determined, beyond a doubt? (Could it NOT be a mixing problem by a combination of signals, even if they all eminate from the same location? Has any new service been installed at the repeater site, Amateur or not? Or on which frequency the PD repeater is (normally) operated. Obviously, if it is some sort of mixing problem, then it might occur on the Amateur repeater ONLY when the PD is transmitting. But THAT still doesn't prove the PD repeater is malfunctioning, or that the PD has to do anything to solve the problem.

[KM5GJ]

If the local police think they are above the law they had better think again. As for the comment that PS station will always win that is "hogwash". I'm a little shocked to see that quote from an ARRL official, in light of the ARRL's request for the FCC to shutdown a VA BPL system. I've received one of the "Remove the transmitter from service" letters many years ago. All the PS station was doing was getting into the local hospital's on site paging system and the co-located 2 meter repeater and only then if they were both keyed up at the same time.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KM5GJ @ July 09 2006,21:51)]If the local police think they are above the law they had better think again. As for the comment that PS station will always win that is "hogwash". I'm a little shocked to see that quote from an ARRL official, in light of the ARRL's request for the FCC to shutdown a VA BPL system. I've received one of the "Remove the transmitter from service" letters many years ago. All the PS station was doing was getting into the local hospital's on site paging system and the co-located 2 meter repeater and only then if they were both keyed up at the same time.
No offense, but you must be leaving out some crucial details.
ANY BPL system is subject to shutdown by the FCC if it is found to interfere with licensed communication services. It matters not whether it was at a VA or anywhere else; THAT is the letter and intent of the law for devices that operate (or claim to operate) under Part 15 as unlicensed transmitters.

If you somehow received a "cease and desist" order from the FCC because your operation somehow mixed with a (legally licensed) Amateur repeater, and caused interference to any communication system (whether RF based or not) then it WAS your responsibility.
WAS your operation a legally licensed operation? Or some sort of "Part 15" operation? In such a case, PS or whom/whatever, it was appropriate to receive such a notice.
Yes it's "hogwash" that a Public Service will always win. But if the PS is NOT operating within their license or violating ANY part of 47CFR, they will not win. (See Glen's response aboud a certain PD that thought they could use modified Amateur equipment becanst it was "cheaper" in some of the other threads about "mods.)

But if a Public Service IS operating within their license, (and can show that the output of their transmitter IS clean,) they won't be held responsible for interference that occurs beyond their equipment. (HAM similarity: If your neighbor complains about interference on their telephone. If your transmitted signal is clean, are YOU required to eliminate the interference???)

[KL1ZB]

Its now 7/10/07 any updates kd7zd?

My personal opinion is its crazy to expect them to turn off a public safety system after giving them 2 days verbal notice. Even if they are 100% in the wrong you should give them more then 2 days to fix a problem like this. I would say, Fully document the problem with as much hard data as possible then submit a public letter of notice and give them 30 days from the receipt of the letter to resolve the problem. Then start banging on desks and go to the FCC with your documentation and letter.

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (kd7zd @ July 03 2006,00:02)]There are some other things that need to be understood. I serviced radios for this police department for over 20 years up until a few years ago, so I know these people.
The word "disgruntled" comes to mind . . .

[kb2vxa]

Is this horse finally dead?

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 10 2006,19:48)]Quote[/b] (kd7zd @ July 03 2006,00:02)]There are some other things that need to be understood. I serviced radios for this police department for over 20 years up until a few years ago, so I know these people.
The word "disgruntled" comes to mind . . .
ZDY:

Does that imply that we are all "gruntled," and only by becoming "disgruntled" we tend to "mitch and bone?"

I'm curious as to how a "gruntlectomy" takes place. It must be a very painful surgical procedure, and apparently often occurs by surprise, sans anaesthesia... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

BTW, are deceased domesticated equines always disgruntled? Or merely bludgeoned with BA's beyond recognition due to violent homicidal (equicical?) attacks?

[KC2MLZ]

Hey...

Some time is passed..
is problem resolved..

i agree on one hand that it is wrong to interfer with ham repeater..
i agree even stronger that a police department should be given reasonable time and leway to address the problem..

to say if it were an ameteur repeater causing interference with a PD repeater..
well people......in regards to every day usage...PD is more importent..

how would one feel if they could not get help because of an issue such as this...that took off a needed transmitter of theirs..

is the issue still unsolved?

Later

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 18 2006,12:27)][quote=WA2ZDY,July 10 2006,19:48][quote=kd7zd,July 03 2006,00:02]ZDY:

# #Does that imply that we are all "gruntled," and only by becoming "disgruntled" we tend to "mitch and bone?"

# #I'm curious as to how a "gruntlectomy" takes place. #It must be a very painful surgical procedure, and apparently often occurs by surprise, sans anaesthesia... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

# #BTW, are deceased domesticated equines always disgruntled? #Or merely bludgeoned with BA's beyond recognition due to violent homicidal (equicical?) attacks?
Someone has been using their thesaurus!

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Aug. 19 2006,03:13)]Someone has been using their thesaurus!
I thought they (thesauri) became extinct in the late Cretaceous Period... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ka5piu]

Hello.

OK, to recap.
The police transmitter is being run by the police, not the party that is demanding action, yes?
The repeater is being run by some ham who for all we know may know nothing about this, correct so far?
Now, would it be more prudent to talk to the owner or control station operator of said repeater and explain the issue? after all it IS the responsible thing to do, is it not?
You could always put up your own repeater, most likely this new repeater would not suffer the same faith.

[kb2vxa]

Hi again,

I thought this turned into a discussion on Chris Roget's Thesaurus, paleontology, mashed equines, disgruntled pigs and ass orted hams with and without honey glaze and cloves.

Then a very pregnant pause (I'm wondering who the father is) and now a repeater suffering faith. Faithful suffering or is that sufferage of the faithful? Well, that depends on remote receivers and a voter I suppose so back to mashing that horse, I'm finished with the potatoes. Now what kind of gravy would you like with that?

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Sep. 22 2006,09:53)]Hi again,

I thought this turned into a discussion on Chris Roget's Thesaurus, paleontology, mashed equines, disgruntled pigs and ass orted hams with and without honey glaze and cloves.

Then a very pregnant pause (I'm wondering who the father is) and now a repeater suffering faith. Faithful suffering or is that sufferage of the faithful? Well, that depends on remote receivers and a voter I suppose so back to mashing that horse, I'm finished with the potatoes. Now what kind of gravy would you like with that?
You forgot to specify the preferred whine that goes with mashed horse...

[N6WK]

Just one more reason that Repeaters should be Outlawed...
Haw !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kb2vxa]

Don't outlaw repeaters, he never gets it right the first time so he needs a second chance.

"You forgot to specify the preferred whine that goes with mashed horse."

Boone's Farm

[W4CBJ]

Some morning when you have three weeks spare time to listening, I can tell you a story about a paging system on the West coast of Florida interfering with the marine VHF band and Coast Guard communications. Strange thing was that you could hardly hear in on the ground but the racket was terrific from about 300 ft AGL and higher, causing havoc to CG aircraft. To make the story short, #I talked to the civilian tech reps but they could not identify the errant transmitter. The reason? They could not read the Morse code CW identification (every 20 minutes). I found the station, called the chief engineer and they promptly repaired the problem. Seems like it was in the transmitter filter. # Yours truly, #73 #Joe # W4CBJ.

[kb2vxa]

"Seems like it was in the transmitter filter."

Uh, the CW filter or is it that CW in itself is a filter?

"the racket was terrific from about 300 ft AGL and higher"

Considering the USCG was involved don't you think AMSL would be more meaningful?

Now why did you wait so long to get this ridiculous banter going again?

Fifteen techs on a cavity filter, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

[W4CBJ]

Warren, I completely don't understand your reply. Firstly,the signal was radiated by the antenna on the tower. Since I flew for the Coast Guard and was present during all of these procedures, heard the interference, called the paging company and spoke to the chief engineer, I don't get your point. The "filter" was probably their duplexer. I also hold a GROL, Extra and worked at the USCG station as a watchstander. Tell me what I am doing or reporting wrong...The Motorola civilian techs didnt find the station...73 Joe W4CBJ

[kc5hqk]

Ok, I didnt read all the "garbage" here. #Simply put, there may be a safety issue if the Police system is being monitored, but telling the police they are "breaking the law" is like trying to put a fire out with gasoline. #Yes it can be done, but is it wise to try? #

The simple issue is this. #You should only have let them know thier transmissions are being retransmitted over the ham repeater and let them handle it.

ANY "demands" to the police are usually dealt with by overwhelming force on thier part. #Not a flaw of the individual officers, just an issue with how they are taught to react to situations, be it right or wrong is an issue for other discussions.

Have a nice day, Hope the issue is resolved soon

Ken

[W4CBJ]

O. K.. I get it now. Some no-nothings criticize your technical inputs and show their lack of knowldge.
"A LECTURE TO THE UNWISE IS INSUFFICIENT." 73 Joe W4CBJ