Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91   Report Post  
Old June 11th 08, 08:08 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 300
Default Activity on 2 meters

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:51:04 EDT, Klystron wrote:

It would be far easier to connect a voice-activated tape recorder
(like a Sony TCM-37V recording walkman) to a scanner that was set to
scan just the frequencies that are suspected of being dead. Then, you
could document your results when claiming that the frequencies should be
reassigned.


I spent a good chunk of my career gathering info on use (and non-use)
of radio channels as evidence. It is easy to show something is used -
play the tape / show the printout. Showing that a channel is not used
is quite a bit more difficult - is the blank tape real or a sham?

We're going through that right now in a commercial channel reclamation
proceeding before the FCC where it's our word against theirs.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest

Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net


  #92   Report Post  
Old June 11th 08, 08:14 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 24
Default Fifth pillar

In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote:
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article ,
KHB wrote:
"Mark Kramer" wrote in message
...
No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfan

gled
technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?"
The tone of this (and other) responses seems to suggest Ummm, they alr

eady have it. If the pair really is unused, who is
going to tell you to stop using it?


That is not what K0HB wrote. In
what he actually
said was:

]The tone of this (and other) responses seems to suggest "just stroke up on a
]convenient pair, and wait to see if the coordinated person/club complains".

That is also what appears in the article you replied to.

What YOU claim he wrote was something I wrote in a different
sub-thread. Yes, when what he actually wrote is replaced with something
I wrote, then what I wrote will look exactly like what you claim he said.

So, when I wrote:
No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was
said, nor was it said directly.


I was replying to the actual statement made by K0HB. I did not say
"convenient", nor "just stroke up", nor "wait to see" if anyone complains.
I said that there WILL be nobody to complain about the use of an unused
coordinated pair, because there will be no interference to complain about.

A coordination owner can complain that someone is using "his" frequency,
but all I have to do is ask what interference I am causing. And then
I'll ask him what rule makes that "his" frequency. When he answers "none"
and "none", the complaint will have been dealt with.

If you know a pair where there is no active repeater, you are not just
"stok[ing] up on a convenient pair", you've picked the pair with an
explicit reason.


How is this different than picking a pair where there's an active
repeater, or a repeater that is temporarily down?


An unused pair is one where there IS NO REPEATER. That's how it's
different. A pair with an active repeater on it is not unused. I've
said that before.

It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused.


First of all, I did not say "because I think it's unused". I said a known,
unused pair. That's not "think", that's KNOW. There is a difference.

Second, yes, the FCC gives ALL of us the prerogative of picking the
frequency we operate on. With the restriction that I may not cause
malicious or deliberate interference to another operator, and must operate
within the CFR allocations, I am free to pick any frequency I wish, just
as you are. Since I cannot possibly cause any kind of interference to a
repeater that does not exist, I have met the limitation of "no malicious
or deliberate". Since there is no repeater to interfere with, there is no
action I am required to take under the section that deals with coordination,
since the only required act is for the uncoordinated operator to solve any
interference issues. There are none to solve.

If you think there is a rule that says I don't get to pick my own
frequency to operate on, other than the limits I've already mentioned,
please quote it. The one about coordination isn't it.

That's what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists.


No. Frequency coordination is intended to mitigate interference issues. It
can't solve them (because they sometimes create the problem themselves
by coordinating two systems on the same pair too close together -- even
professional coordinators sometimes do that.) They are there to identify
the station who must act to solve interference issues. They do not grant
exclusive rights to a frequency. They cannot. The rules do not allow it,
and every 605 contains a statement that nobody owns a frequency. That
applies to repeater ops, too.

Of
course you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the law. And yes, it is "the law".


Please quote the law that says I may not use an unused repeater pair.
I cannot ignore a law that does not exist. In the meantime, I am obeying
the "uncoordinated must solve interference" law fully, in both spirit
and letter. I am ignoring or breaking no law.

Yes, the FCC is going to listen to him, because he has the right to use
that pair, while you do not.


Please quote the law that says THAT.

You just don't understand the concept of formal frequency coordination,
do you?


Yes, I do, and that insult was unwarranted.

I am sure that in many areas there are repeater pairs that, in your
eyes, would appear unused. It is the charter of the frequency
coordinator to make that determination, not each individual ham.


I said "known unused". I did not say "in my eyes appears".

It's too bad that we need formal frequency coordination and can't go
with the concept of "no one owns any frequency". Experience has shown
that the formality is needed in this case, and I your explanation of how
you could just jump in and squat on any repeater pair because you want
it is a fine illustration of how we got to this point.


This paragraph is a deliberate insult. I have never caused interference
to a coordinated (or uncoordinated) system, and never plan to, despite
your implication.

"This case" is not about the need for coordination because it is
not about interference. It is about the use of an UNUSED pair without
coordination. Since there is nobody using the pair, there is nothing
to interfere with. Since there is no interference, the law dealing with
who has to solve interference issues is moot. Even were the law to say
that the uncoordinated use must change frequency (which it does not)
there is no interference issue to force a change.

  #93   Report Post  
Old June 14th 08, 01:01 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 58
Default Activity on 2 meters

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:05:49 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:

Mark Kramer wrote:
Steve Bonine wrote:
Better
to have two or three active repeaters in a metro area than a dozen dead
ones.


Until there is an emergency and those two or three repeaters aren't
sufficient to support the emergency services operations going on.


If there are a dozen repeaters with zero activity, most will go dead in
any disaster because it takes real human interest and work to provide
emergency power. I'd rather have two or three solid repeaters than a
dozen where the maintenance is hit-and-miss and there's no one who
really cares whether they are up or not.


An emergency service organization should put up and maintain their own
repeaters. For example, in the last 3 years, the Southern Nye County (NV) ARES
group put up and maintain four repeaters (2 on 2M and 2 on 70cm) so we will have
them in emergencies. We make a point to talk on them at least once a day to
make sure they work. But 99% of the time they are idle, and thus may appear to
the casual observer to be unused.

73 de Dick, AC7EL

  #94   Report Post  
Old July 17th 08, 01:43 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Default Activity on 2 meters

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:01:28 EDT, Dick Grady AC7EL
wrote:

An emergency service organization should put up and maintain their own
repeaters. For example, in the last 3 years, the Southern Nye County (NV) ARES
group put up and maintain four repeaters (2 on 2M and 2 on 70cm) so we will have
them in emergencies. We make a point to talk on them at least once a day to
make sure they work. But 99% of the time they are idle, and thus may appear to
the casual observer to be unused.


If the area is urban enough. In rural Alberta we don't have a lot of
overlap between repeaters. But it's clearly understood by everyone
that emergency service has complete priority over all other traffic.

In Edmonton, a city of about 1 million yes they do have a repeater
dedicated to ARES without a lot of other chatter on it.

Tony



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017