Chaos on NYC/LI ham repeaters, whats going on?

[Danny37]

It's starting to sound like cb on these repeater as jammers are using fake or stolen callsigns and are jamming, cussing and playing music. I remember scanning these bands a couple years back and it wasn't like this now i locked this band on my scanner as its disappointing to hear. It's the hams as well saying racist remarks, demeaning women and arguing with each other. what's going on?

 

[svfd17]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.4; en-us; C5170 Build/IML77) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

What repeaters are you referring to?

 

[w2xq]

Wirelessly posted (Moto Droid Bionic: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.1.2; en-us; DROID BIONIC Build/9.8.2O-72_VZW-22) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

There has been conflict and chaos on a bunch of NYC/LI repeaters for decades. Best to stay out of the gunfights. Lack of FCC resources, badly cut from the 1970s foward, makes enforcement difficult. There are numerous older threads discussing the gory details, if one wants to be tortured.

 

[w2xq]

Wirelessly posted (Moto Droid Bionic: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.1.2; en-us; DROID BIONIC Build/9.8.2O-72_VZW-22) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

There has been conflict and chaos on a bunch of NYC/LI repeaters for decades. Best to stay out of the gunfights. Lack of FCC resources, badly cut from the 1970s foward, makes enforcement difficult. There are numerous older threads discussing the gory details, if one wants to be tortured.

 

[Danny37]

From my scanner it's the wb2hww, n2row, k2mak, w2vl, n2bei, w2vl there's probably more but these are the repeaters that I hear chaos on. also on the GMRS side the 462.675 in manhattan. There's a guy almost always cussing usually during the night hours. I've locked out all these channels on my scanner.

 

[svfd17]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.4; en-us; C5170 Build/IML77) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

Is k2mak still on the air? I haven't heard them on there in a few days and I always heard them 5x5 from my location.

 

[Danny37]

There's this one guy who sounds like he has COPD that has a mouth of a truck driver and according to other hams cussing him out, he's actually a ham too.

 

[JPSan]

Why surprised?

I think that this situation is going to get worse. as time goes by.

With all these $50. Chinese HT's flooding the market and those easily buying amateur equipment with no proof of license via Craigslist and eBay and such I only see it getting ridiculous.

I recently came across a man and woman talking in the 446.050 and he was talking about there landscaping business and he was warning her never answer or talk to anyone but him. He told her to let him know if she hears anyone on there channel let him know and they have a lot more channels to choose from. These channels were free for the choosing.
I actually confronted a yard care company using 4 Yaesu 2 meter portables doing work at a large apartment complex using 147.670.

I've seen people show up at the last shop I worked with amateur gear wanting the best antenna's to talk far and help trying to figure out the radio they just bought, what channels are the best to use and how much power the radio has.........

Now a day nothing surprises me. That's why I only see it getting more out of hand.

The internets will help em.

 

[Danny37]

I don't get it, why not make it law that only licensed individuals can buy radios in their legal spectrum. it's almost as if you give your 13 year old a car but tell him not to drive it, we'll guess what he is going to go drive it somehow without a license. just doesnt make sense.

 

[Jimru]

Part of the problem is that repeater owners aren't living up to their responsibilities.

These repeaters should be shut down.

 

[FrankRaffa]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.4; en-us; C5170 Build/IML77) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

Is k2mak still on the air? I haven't heard them on there in a few days and I always heard them 5x5 from my location.

His power supply bit the dust. He'll be back.

 

[Jimru]

So, don't repeater owners/operators have some sort of responsibility to control their domain?

If so, what, if anything, can they be expected to do? The situation in NYC is quite out of control. If the ham community can not control the situation through self-policing, then doesn't the FCC step in?

I know that with budget cuts, that may be a tall order, but I have been led to believe that "there is nothing that can be done".

I find that hard to believe. We all read about errant hams or non-hams having action taken against them for willful interference, so why has NYC been seemingly exempt from these kinds of enforcement actions?

I don't get it and it is really a shame to see things going the way it is.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I'm betting that nobody in the affected area has bothered to complain in some time. The FCC might believe that the problems have been solved.

 

[Danny37]

Why not minimize interference by taking steps?

It seems they're ways to minimize interference. Why not do like the GMRS repeaters and take down all the pl publish on websites, make the input different than the output and have licensed individuals emailing their callsigns and information to the repeater owner for access. making sure that they provide a phone number and an email address that is relevant to the callsign or name of the person. I really don't think this would be a problem for Individual repeater owners as nearly everyone has Internet access. I can understand emergency repeaters don't want to do this but that's fine but the individual repeater owners should. Repeater owners should also make sure that users do not give other access to repeater that must contact the owner directly and no one should publish pl info online. wouldn't this minimize the chaos?

 

[SteveC0625]

It seems they're ways to minimize interference. Why not do like the GMRS repeaters and take down all the pl publish on websites, make the input different than the output and have licensed individuals emailing their callsigns and information to the repeater owner for access. making sure that they provide a phone number and an email address that is relevant to the callsign or name of the person. I really don't think this would be a problem for Individual repeater owners as nearly everyone has Internet access. I can understand emergency repeaters don't want to do this but that's fine but the individual repeater owners should. Repeater owners should also make sure that users do not give other access to repeater that must contact the owner directly and no one should publish pl info online. wouldn't this minimize the chaos?

Anybody with a scanner that can determine PL's and DPL's can find the new PL within a few seconds. Admirable thought, but sadly, not a solution.

 

[Danny37]

Anybody with a scanner that can determine PL's and DPL's can find the new PL within a few seconds. Admirable thought, but sadly, not a solution.

Not if the input pl/dpl is different than the output pl/dpl and they would need to be fairly close to listen to the uplink frequency. I'm not saying it will diminish interference but will most likely minimize interference. I don't hear any garbage on the private GMRS repeaters but I do hear garbage on the publicly access ones.

 

[SteveC0625]

Not if the input pl/dpl is different than the output pl/dpl and they would need to be fairly close to listen to the uplink frequency. I'm not saying it will diminish interference but will most likely minimize interference. I don't hear any garbage on the private GMRS repeaters but I do hear garbage on the publicly access ones.

Huh? How in the world would having a different input PL matter? Those that want it will figure it out pronto. This is not a solution.

Sadly, I am beginning to understand why some folks on other forums are less than complimentary about some of the discussions that happen here on RR.

 

[Danny37]

Ok don't want this is get out of hand but let me clarify what I said. I said it would "minimize" interference not clear interference. Plus in order to determine the input pl/dpl of a repeater, You would need to be fairly close to the transmitter. So before you call me stupid indirectly, listen to what I have to say and keep an open mind. Please let's keep this civilized.

 

[SteveC0625]

Ok don't want this is get out of hand but let me clarify what I said. I said it would "minimize" interference not clear interference. Plus in order to determine the input pl/dpl of a repeater, You would need to be fairly close to the transmitter. So before you call me stupid indirectly, listen to what I have to say and keep an open mind. Please let's keep this civilized.

OK, it will "minimize" interference for a day or two at most. More likely just a few hours, though.

All it takes is one person with the new pl to transmit with a mobile, and nobody is going to have to be close to the repeater to hear it and determine it.

You are presuming that the trouble makers are not smart enough to figure out new PL's rapidly regardless of distance from the transmitter. That is a very false premise.

I hear what you say, and my mind is far more open to new ideas than you can ever know. But 50 years in the radio business tells me that a new PL is not the answer to this problem.

 

[GTR8000]

Ok don't want this is get out of hand but let me clarify what I said. I said it would "minimize" interference not clear interference. Plus in order to determine the input pl/dpl of a repeater, You would need to be fairly close to the transmitter. So before you call me stupid indirectly, listen to what I have to say and keep an open mind. Please let's keep this civilized.

You seem to be assuming that everyone is using a low power portable and only getting out for a mile or two. Many hams use relatively high powered base stations or mobiles, which can propagate for quite a number of miles. I can often receive hams from their base/mobiles 10+ miles away without breaking a sweat.

Not only would it not minimize the issue, but it would almost certainly make these guys that much more determined to screw with ham repeaters by proving they can get around extremely feeble attempts to "secure" the repeater.

As Steve said, security by obscurity doesn't work. Not publishing input tones and/or making the input/output tones unique is ineffective, that's the bottom line.