|
Fifth pillar
On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:33:52 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
The "leadership" of our ARES/RACES group are D-Star fanatics. They claim, though, that the ICOM equipment does have an FM mode to pass FM signals through. I have no idea how that works (dual detection channels?). I've looked to see if such a thing (fm voice) exists within D-Star. Could these folks steer us to some documentation? Here are the RF modules I've found: The FM voice is not part of the D-Star specs. It is built into the ICOM hardware. The IC-2820 dual-band dual-channel mobile comes "D-Star ready" for $600 and the add-on D-Star module is another $200+. I'd just as soon wait for the prices to come down. Do you know of any coordination or frequency placement issues involved with opening a presumptive FM side? No, the local coordinator handles that as any other frequency coordination matter. You know that whole D-Star "repeater" is not a repeater issue, so frequencies are opened up for it in repeater crowded areas. Those frequencies would not be proper repeater frequencies for an FM repeater. Do you know a reference for that action Phil? I've looked a bit on the FCC site, but haven't found it yet. I think it was in 2006. According to what I've heard, that's a "hot button" topic, but Bill Cross of the FCC (an active ham) said at Dayton that he applies the "duck test" to the D-Star repeaters (making them eligible for automatic control). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: You know that whole D-Star "repeater" is not a repeater issue, so frequencies are opened up for it in repeater crowded areas. Those frequencies would not be proper repeater frequencies for an FM repeater. Do you know a reference for that action Phil? I've looked a bit on the FCC site, but haven't found it yet. I think it was in 2006. According to what I've heard, that's a "hot button" topic, but Bill Cross of the FCC (an active ham) said at Dayton that he applies the "duck test" to the D-Star repeaters (making them eligible for automatic control). That makes good sense to me. As I understand it, some D-Star advocates are claiming that a D-Star repeater isn't a repeater, because the regs state that a repeater retransmits the incoming signal "instantaneously", and the packet delay in a D-Star system makes it not-instantaneous... that it's fundamentally a store-and-forward system, more like a BBS (albeit with a very short storage time). That same line of thought (if valid) would seem to apply to a fairly high percentage of ham-radio analog repeaters on the air today. It's quite common to have a digital or bucket-brigate delay device in the receiver audio path, with the analog audio being presented to the repeater controller and transmitter some time (up to tens of milliseconds) after it was actually demodulated by the receiver. This can help reduce the chopping-off of the first part of the first syllable, and allows the transmitter to be un-keyed at the end of the transmission before the beginning of the squelch-tail noise burst gets out of the delay pipeline. I can't recall hearing anyone argue that an FM analog repeater with an analog bucket-brigade (or even ADPCM digital) audio delay circuit was magically "not a repeater" because the audio retransmission was not "instantaneous". If the D-Star not-a-repeater proponents were to win their case, it might be a *very* pyrrhic victory, as analog repeater owners might also qualify to move into non-repeater frequency segments. Sauce for the goose... -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Fifth pillar
Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008 09:33:52 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote: The "leadership" of our ARES/RACES group are D-Star fanatics. They claim, though, that the ICOM equipment does have an FM mode to pass FM signals through. I have no idea how that works (dual detection channels?). I've looked to see if such a thing (fm voice) exists within D-Star. Could these folks steer us to some documentation? Here are the RF modules I've found: The FM voice is not part of the D-Star specs. It is built into the ICOM hardware. The IC-2820 dual-band dual-channel mobile comes "D-Star ready" for $600 and the add-on D-Star module is another $200+. Right. My thoughts on the whole thing are that with the Bizarre "repeater that isn't a repeater" argument they couldn't run FM analog because it would turn the "repeater that isn't a repeater into a repeater that is a repeater." Now repeat that ten times real fast! ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Phil Kane wrote: According to what I've heard, that's a "hot button" topic, but Bill Cross of the FCC (an active ham) said at Dayton that he applies the "duck test" to the D-Star repeaters (making them eligible for automatic control). That makes good sense to me. As I understand it, some D-Star advocates are claiming that a D-Star repeater isn't a repeater, because the regs state that a repeater retransmits the incoming signal "instantaneously", and the packet delay in a D-Star system makes it not-instantaneous... that it's fundamentally a store-and-forward system, more like a BBS (albeit with a very short storage time). One B too many IMO! ;^) That same line of thought (if valid) would seem to apply to a fairly high percentage of ham-radio analog repeaters on the air today. It's quite common to have a digital or bucket-brigate delay device in the receiver audio path, with the analog audio being presented to the repeater controller and transmitter some time (up to tens of milliseconds) after it was actually demodulated by the receiver. This can help reduce the chopping-off of the first part of the first syllable, and allows the transmitter to be un-keyed at the end of the transmission before the beginning of the squelch-tail noise burst gets out of the delay pipeline. Our repeater system uses several polling receivers at different sites. (6 or 7 IIRC) The recievers transmit their received signals to the main site. The main repeater site determines which is the strongest signal, and sends that one through to the main repeater transmitter. As you can imagine, there is some delay there too. Maybe 250 milliseconds. I can't recall hearing anyone argue that an FM analog repeater with an analog bucket-brigade (or even ADPCM digital) audio delay circuit was magically "not a repeater" because the audio retransmission was not "instantaneous". If the D-Star not-a-repeater proponents were to win their case, it might be a *very* pyrrhic victory, as analog repeater owners might also qualify to move into non-repeater frequency segments. Sauce for the goose... One of the biggest problems putting up a repeater these days is that many areas are just full. There's no room at the Inn. And the area in which a D-Star is likely to do best is in those crowded areas. So they tried to do an end run around the issue. Without a lot of thought. Seems like we have a nice patch of bandwidth between 2 meters and 440 that is a bit underutilized? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
... One of the biggest problems putting up a repeater these days is that many areas are just full. There's no room at the Inn. And the area in which a D-Star is likely to do best is in those crowded areas. . Depends on the definition of "full" or the definition of "crowded". I live in a metropolitan area in which there are no VHF pairs available for assignment. By some definition that might mean that the spectrum is "full" or "crowded". But you could shoot off a cannon on 2M most of the time and it wouldn't hit a soul. Nobody. Not a signal to be heard. Some days you can scan every channel in sequence for hours on end with not a peep heard. Then go to each QRG in sequence and transmit "K0HB LISTENING". Nobody home. I travel a lot, to large cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Tucson, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, OKC, DFW, Tucson, Phoenix, Denver, El Paso/Las Cruces. It's the same everywhere. Just a scattering of signals on the bands, but EVERY PAIR spoken for. The NFCC needs to quit being the lapdog of the repeater owners, and do some spectrum management housecleaning. Before Bill Cross does. |
Fifth pillar
In article "KØHB" writes:
But you could shoot off a cannon on 2M most of the time and it wouldn't hit a soul. Nobody. Not a signal to be heard. Some days you can scan every channel in sequence for hours on end with not a peep heard. Then go to each QRG in sequence and transmit "K0HB LISTENING". Nobody home. Well, "listening" generally is taken by an increasing number of folks as meaning you are listening, not that you are soliciting a call. If I hear it, and I also have some reason to talk to you, I may call. Of course, if I had something to call you about, the cellphone in my pocket probably already took care of that. If you want to talk to someone, call them, or call cq. I travel a lot, to large cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Tucson, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, OKC, DFW, Tucson, Phoenix, Denver, El Paso/Las Cruces. It's the same everywhere. Just a scattering of signals on the bands, but EVERY PAIR spoken for. True. 10 - 15 years ago, they were busy. Now --- silent. It seems that way everywhere. I know that for me, I now have a small car with no good place for a rig, and park in places where one might not want to leave one in the car. At home, being married sort of cuts in to sitting in front of the radio all evening. I don't know what took the interest away for everyone else. However, with nobody on to talk to, I am less interested in solving the problems in the car to get on, so if others are in the same boat, we all contribute to the silence. Alan wa6azp |
Fifth pillar
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... One of the biggest problems putting up a repeater these days is that many areas are just full. There's no room at the Inn. And the area in which a D-Star is likely to do best is in those crowded areas. . Depends on the definition of "full" or the definition of "crowded". I live in a metropolitan area in which there are no VHF pairs available for assignment. By some definition that might mean that the spectrum is "full" or "crowded". But you could shoot off a cannon on 2M most of the time and it wouldn't hit a soul. Nobody. Not a signal to be heard. Some days you can scan every channel in sequence for hours on end with not a peep heard. Then go to each QRG in sequence and transmit "K0HB LISTENING". Nobody home. It is possible that I live in an anomalous area, but in Central PA, the repeaters are pretty busy. And State College is the smallest metropolitan area in the country. We have 5 repeaters, although one is down for maintenance right now. Altoona to the southwest has a number of repeaters that have traffic on them also. naive mode on: One of the most interesting aspects of Amateur radio is that we kind of expect someone to be waiting there to talk to us. While we can't control what happens in other areas, we can control our own. If we want to generate traffic on the repeaters, the simplest way is to generate some traffic on them. Get a friend and talk on the thing. Next thing you know, others will join you. If enough places do that, there will be plenty of traffic. naive mode off: That is what we did in our area. Traffic was down, and the obligatory bemoaning of the problem was up. We just had people get on the air and yak it up. Could be coincidence, but more and more people joined the party, and a few years later the repeater is in constant use. This is one that Hams themselves have to bootstrap. The NFCC needs to quit being the lapdog of the repeater owners, and do some spectrum management housecleaning. Interesting concept, but how to determine use or lack of use? (sounds easy, but in practice it isn't. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Activity on 2 meters
Alan wrote:
"KØHB" writes: I travel a lot, to large cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Tu cson, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, OKC, DFW, Tucson, Phoenix, Denver, El Paso/Las Cruces. It's the same everywhere. Just a scattering of sign als on the bands, but EVERY PAIR spoken for. True. 10 - 15 years ago, they were busy. Now --- silent. It seems that way everywhere. It's certainly that way in rural Minnesota. There are repeaters in many of the small towns, and they're alive in the sense of being technically there, but they're dead in the sense of anyone using them on a regular basis. Sometimes there's a regular group who gets together in the morning, but for our local repeater even that custom has faded away. We lost our UHF repeater almost a year ago when the elevator it was on was destroyed by lightning. [For you city slickers, the word "elevator" out here in the sticks is used to describe a large structure in which grain is stored.] That repeater is still silent. A new location was secured, and funding for it was provided by the local emergency management agency, but the antenna still hasn't been erected. So I have to wonder, in metro areas where all the slots are "full", how many of those repeaters actually exist and would respond if presented with a correctly-toned signal on their published input frequency. Perhaps more important, how many of them are used regularly? It might actually make more sense to shut down several repeaters that don't have a critical mass of users and move those small groups to the remaining repeaters so that there was actually someone there to talk to. Better to have two or three active repeaters in a metro area than a dozen dead ones. I don't know what took the interest away for everyone else. However, with nobody on to talk to, I am less interested in solving the problems in t he car to get on, so if others are in the same boat, we all contribute to the silence. It's a chicken and egg problem. I know that I'm contributing to the problem; my 2-meter equipment consists of an HT, and I've considered that I need to buy a "real" 2-meter rig and put up an antenna . . . but it's difficult for me to justify the time and expense to do so when there's no activity. 73, Steve KB9X |
Activity on 2 meters
In article ,
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. |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
KØHB wrote: Then go to each QRG Please speak english. in sequence and transmit "K0HB LISTENING". Nobody home. When I hear someone say "listening", I think, "that's nice, they're listening". I'm listening, too. If I don't know them or have some reason to talk to them, I don't call them. The NFCC needs to quit being the lapdog of the repeater owners, and do some spectrum management housecleaning. So now it is also the responsibility of the repeater owner to protect his investment in equipment by seeking people to use his repeater all the time? Otherwise, it will be "housecleaned" out from under him? Do we have enough people to use all the possible repeaters all the time? If not, then "housecleaning" to open spectrum up for other people to install repeaters will just result in more empty repeaters. If you say you just want to houseclean out all the unused repeaters and replace them with nothing, what value is the housecleaning? You'll remove valuable resources and replace them with nothing. The only "gain" (in the former case) will be that new people who want the status of owning a repeater will own repeaters that are empty. No gain at all in the latter. I'll point out the opposite opinion: a repeater that is filled with chit-chat all the time is unlistenable. It just drones on and on and becomes background noise. Couple that with people who think they need to be cute and entertaining on the air and it's no longer just noise, it's painful. We have a "lunch bunch" on a local system every day. The net control seems to think a sing-song delivery and "creative phonetics" for everyone checking in is mandatory. I know some people like it. I find it difficult to understand what he's saying most of the time. Is he saying something important, or is he just spouting words with the right first letters for the callsign he just heard? I turn it off. |
Fifth pillar
In ,
Alan typed, for some strange, unexplained reason: [snip] : Well, "listening" generally is taken by an increasing number of : folks as meaning you are listening, not that you are soliciting a call. : If I hear it, and I also have some reason to talk to you, I may call. : Of course, if I had something to call you about, the cellphone in my : pocket probably already took care of that. : : If you want to talk to someone, call them, or call cq. Now that's an interesting thought. When I was studying for my licence back in 1982 we were told quite categorically that one didn't "call CQ" on repeaters, but that we should announce that we were "listening through" the repeater. Even now, someone calling CQ via a repeater makes me wince ever so slightly..! 73 Ivor G6URP |
Fifth pillar
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... If we want to generate traffic on the repeaters, the simplest way is to generate some traffic on them. Get a friend and talk on the thing. Next thing you know, others will join you. If enough places do that, there will be plenty of traffic. I didn't make my point very well. We don't need to "generate traffic", we simply need to clean out the dead "legacy" assignments and free up room for things like DStar and other emerging technologies. I just had a look at our local (Minneapolis/St Paul) pair assignments. In the 2M and 75CM bands there are 108 repeater pairs assigned. You read right --- ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT! Yet I can scan both bands for hours on end and hear nothing. Since this thread is about the "5th Pillar" of ARRL emphasis, "technology", perhaps ARRK and NFCC could jointly sponsor a Skimmer-like technology initiative which would put up a broadband receiver on a local highrise (we're in flatland country out here) and count squelch-tails per QRG for three months. Then approach the low 10% and suggest they might reconsider their needs. Especially those clubs who sponsor multiple quiet repeaters all covering an identical footprint. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Fifth pillar
Ivor Jones wrote:
In , Alan typed, for some strange, unexplained reason: [snip] : Well, "listening" generally is taken by an increasing number of : folks as meaning you are listening, not that you are soliciting a call. : If I hear it, and I also have some reason to talk to you, I may call. : Of course, if I had something to call you about, the cellphone in my : pocket probably already took care of that. : : If you want to talk to someone, call them, or call cq. Now that's an interesting thought. When I was studying for my licence back in 1982 we were told quite categorically that one didn't "call CQ" on repeaters, but that we should announce that we were "listening through" the repeater. Even now, someone calling CQ via a repeater makes me wince ever so slightly..! 73 Ivor G6URP Ivor; Amazing, that is what I was taught back in the mid 70's. Times they are a changing.... Dave WD9BDZ |
Activity on 2 meters
"Steve Bonine" wrote
It's a chicken and egg problem. I know that I'm contributing to the problem; my 2-meter equipment consists of an HT, and I've considered that I need to buy a "real" 2-meter rig and put up an antenna . . . but it's difficult for me to justify the time and expense to do so when there's no activity. There used to be so much activity around here in Tucson a decade or more ago, and I was active in it, but I suppose everyone migrated to the internet... ? I thought about installing my 2m radio in my car so that I have something to occupy part of my cross-country drive next year (I hope), but maybe it's not worth it. If I knew there were folks along the way regularly monitoring .52, I'd do it. If repeaters didn't have all these different tone accesses, I'd do it. I'm not going to spend each night of the trip programming the radio to accommodate what repeaters I may encounter for any given upcoming 500 mile stretch. Howard |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
KØHB wrote: I didn't make my point very well. We don't need to "generate traffic", we simply need to clean out the dead "legacy" assignments and free up room for things like DStar and other emerging technologies. If you know a "dead" frequency pair, what interference do you imagine you will create by using it for Dstar or other emerging technology? If you aren't creating interference for a coordinated repeater, what prevents you from using that pair? which would put up a broadband receiver on a local highrise (we're in flatland country out here) and count squelch-tails per QRG for three months. I'm not sure how you count "squelch tails", but that's such a simple system to game that it would mean nothing. If I wanted my pair kept "active", I'd simply make a dozen calls a day on the output frequency. (Is THAT what this QRG thing you keep talking about is? I don't speak CW on Usenet.) Heck, I'd just set up an APRS beacon on the output. They have squelch tails too. Then approach the low 10% and suggest they might reconsider their needs. Especially those clubs who sponsor multiple quiet repeaters all covering an identical footprint. And then the stuff hits the fan and the groups that were going to support the local hospital and power company and red cross and cop shop and road department find themselves all trying to use the one or two repeaters you'd like them to be limited to, while the DStar systems sit silent because nobody could afford the radios to use them. |
Activity on 2 meters
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. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
Mark Kramer wrote:
So now it is also the responsibility of the repeater owner to protect his investment in equipment by seeking people to use his repeater all the time? Otherwise, it will be "housecleaned" out from under him? KØHB wrote: I just had a look at our local (Minneapolis/St Paul) pair assignments. In the 2M and 75CM bands there are 108 repeater pairs assigned. There must be a compromise between these two opinions. There cannot be 108 active repeaters in one urban area. Frequency coordinators need a way to reassign pairs that really are no longer being used. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
"Mark Kramer" wrote in message ... And then the stuff hits the fan and the groups that were going to support the local hospital and power company and red cross and cop shop and road department find themselves all trying to use the one or two repeaters you'd like them to be limited to, while the DStar systems sit silent because nobody could afford the radios to use them. Hi again Mark, Certainly there are places where there or only "one or two repeaters", but my hypothetical example was built from my own local area where there are 108 pairs assigned. If my PBI were implemented and the Repeater Council could harvest the arbitrary 10% I mentioned, then there'd still be 97 legacy machines to choose from, and 11 pairs opened for emerging technologies. QSL? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Activity on 2 meters
Howard Lester wrote:
There used to be so much activity around here in Tucson a decade or more ago, and I was active in it, but I suppose everyone migrated to the internet... ? I thought about installing my 2m radio in my car so that I have something to occupy part of my cross-country drive next year (I hope), but maybe it's not worth it. If I knew there were folks along the way regularly monitoring .52, I'd do it. If repeaters didn't have all these different tone accesses, I'd do it. I'm not going to spend each night of the trip programming the radio to accommodate what repeaters I may encounter for any given upcoming 500 mile stretch. Howard Hence, HF. You might hear more local activity on 10m. 80 or 40m during daylight hours should also be good for local/regional activity. Bryan WA7PRC |
Activity on 2 meters
"Bryan"
Hence, HF. You might hear more local activity on 10m. 80 or 40m during daylight hours should also be good for local/regional activity. Bryan WA7PRC Mr. Bryan, I have neither the room in my car for my IC-735, nor the willingness to put up a 4BTV on my car's plastic bumper. (You'll find them in the back by the shipping area.) ;-) |
Activity on 2 meters
"Howard Lester" wrote in message acomip... I thought about installing my 2m radio in my car so that I have something to occupy part of my cross-country drive next year (I hope), but maybe it's not worth it. If I knew there were folks along the way regularly monitoring .52, I'd do it. Fugetaboutit! K0CKB and I travel many thousands of miles a year in a coach with "K0HB & K0CKB monitoring 146.52" prominently displayed on the back. We also frequently announce our presence on .52. In the past 5 years we've had precisely 2 QSO's on .52 as a result. Don't bother. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Activity on 2 meters
"KØHB" wrote
K0CKB and I travel many thousands of miles a year in a coach with "K0HB & K0CKB monitoring 146.52" prominently displayed on the back. We also frequently announce our presence on .52. In the past 5 years we've had precisely 2 QSO's on .52 as a result. Don't bother. Thanks, Hans. That'll save me from making a bunch of unnecessary holes in my nice car.... and the price of a fancy new repeater directory. *sigh* I'll wait until I get to 1-land and get to know my new neighbors. N7SO |
Fifth pillar
|
Activity on 2 meters
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:05:49 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:
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. You assume that those repeaters do not have backup power. I found that this was not the case in the ham communities of San Francisco and Portland (OR) areas, the two places that I have had extensive experience with VHF/UHF repeaters. Backup power is relatively easy to get at those sites where ham and commercial facilities are co-located, which are most of the places where the ham repeaters are. Similarly, you assume that because a repeater is silent that "the maintenance is hit-and-miss and there's no one who really cares whether they are up or not". Again, my experience does not bear this out. Most of the repeaters that are reported "silent" are because they are kept alive by a small group of people whose activity is not always observed by the casual ham. I'm the trustee of two club repeaters maintained by one of the other members who is a 2-way radio tech. Our 2 meter machine is used all the time by ham-licensed truckers driving up and down the Interstate. The other is used only by the few club members who have the 223 MHz band in their radios. The casual listener would consider that one "unused", which is not the case. Similarly, during the many hours each day that I spend in my Comm Center at home - a cross between a home office, a library, and a ham shack - I maintain a speaker watch on the UHF repeater that my other local club uses for commute-hour rag chews and is available for use for hospital disaster communications. Except for the commute hours, it is "silent" but I'm there to answer any calls and to join in the rag chews. That seems to be the norm for the "silent" repeaters in this "no pairs available" area. We do have several where there's pretty frequent use, though. Repeater-based ham radio is alive and well in Webfoot Country. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Activity on 2 meters
KØHB wrote:
"Howard Lester" wrote in message acomip... I thought about installing my 2m radio in my car so that I have something to occupy part of my cross-country drive next year (I hope), but maybe it's not worth it. If I knew there were folks along the way regularly monitoring .52, I'd do it. Fugetaboutit! K0CKB and I travel many thousands of miles a year in a coach with "K0HB & K0CKB monitoring 146.52" prominently displayed on the back. We also frequently announce our presence on .52. In the past 5 years we've had precisely 2 QSO's on .52 as a result. Don't bother. 73, de Hans, K0HB The last time I tried to have a QSO on .52 the other guy didn't have a radio in his car. Hard to communicate that way. Dave WD9BDZ |
Activity on 2 meters
KØHB wrote:
K0CKB and I travel many thousands of miles a year in a coach with "K0HB & K0CKB monitoring 146.52" prominently displayed on the back. We also frequently announce our presence on .52. In the past 5 years we've had precisely 2 QSO's on .52 as a result. Hans, reminds me of a story about a person I knew complaining that he called several times and I didn't answer (the cell phone.) I just looked at him and said, "I know. That's why I have caller ID." Do I need to put a smiley face here so every ones I'm just teasing Hans a teensie bit? Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi |
Activity on 2 meters
Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:05:49 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote: 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. You assume that those repeaters do not have backup power. I found that this was not the case in the ham communities of San Francisco and Portland (OR) areas, the two places that I have had extensive experience with VHF/UHF repeaters. Backup power is relatively easy to get at those sites where ham and commercial facilities are co-located, which are most of the places where the ham repeaters are. I am assuming that a repeater with ZERO activity is a repeater with no one who cares about it. In one of your previous posts you mentioned a repeater in your area which is "only" used during commute times and FD; this is not zero activity and indicates that there is a core group of people who care about the repeater. The kind of repeater I'm talking about is one that might have been quite active a decade ago, but has been running on inertia for several years. Maybe it still responds to a signal on the input frequency, but the chance of it having usable backup power is extremely low. Another issue is potential damage during the disaster; if there is not a group of people who use the repeater, no one will be there to make the perhaps-trivial repairs necessary to get it back on the air. Similarly, you assume that because a repeater is silent that "the maintenance is hit-and-miss and there's no one who really cares whether they are up or not". Again, my experience does not bear this out. Most of the repeaters that are reported "silent" are because they are kept alive by a small group of people whose activity is not always observed by the casual ham. I'm the trustee of two club repeaters maintained by one of the other members who is a 2-way radio tech. Our 2 meter machine is used all the time by ham-licensed truckers driving up and down the Interstate. The other is used only by the few club members who have the 223 MHz band in their radios. The casual listener would consider that one "unused", which is not the case. The key word in your sentence is "used". "Zero activity" is incompatible with "used". I said, "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." I did not imply that if a repeater is silent that the maintenance is hit-and-miss. What I said is that if there is not a group of people who care about the repeater, it's likely to be useless in a disaster, and I stand by that statement. Similarly, during the many hours each day that I spend in my Comm Center at home - a cross between a home office, a library, and a ham shack - I maintain a speaker watch on the UHF repeater that my other local club uses for commute-hour rag chews and is available for use for hospital disaster communications. Except for the commute hours, it is "silent" but I'm there to answer any calls and to join in the rag chews. That seems to be the norm for the "silent" repeaters in this "no pairs available" area. We do have several where there's pretty frequent use, though. Any repeater that has a regular group that uses it during commute does not fall under the category of "zero activity", and obviously there is a group of people who care about it. Repeater-based ham radio is alive and well in Webfoot Country. Good. I think that perhaps you misinterpreted my initial comment to be that a repeater needs to have constant activity to be viable, and that's not what I was trying to say. I do stand by my initial statement that, given the choice of a dozen zero-use repeaters or a couple of busy ones, I'll take the lower number of busy ones because they will be more likely to survive a disaster. And again let me point out the difference between urban and rural environments. The simple fact that you have a higher population density almost guarantees that you have more people using the repeater(s). Of course, if you have many repeaters, the person-per-repeater number may be as low as ours. Our situation here in rural Minnesota is rather marginal. We do have a local club with a core group of people who care enough about the repeater to keep it going. On the other hand, our UHF repeater has been down for almost a year now, and somehow the group has not been able to get it back on the air, primarily because one person has promised to provide a new site for the repeater and has not followed through on that commitment. We had an actual disaster a few months ago, not in this immediate area but in rural Minnesota. There was a need for ham radio communications because the incident was "down in a hole" where cellphones wouldn't work. (Floods often happen in river valleys.) The response was not what it should have been. Part of this is due to the low number of hams, and part is due to the lack of organization. 73, Steve KB9X |
Fifth pillar
"KØHB" wrote in
: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... If we want to generate traffic on the repeaters, the simplest way is to generate some traffic on them. Get a friend and talk on the thing. Next thing you know, others will join you. If enough places do that, there will be plenty of traffic. I didn't make my point very well. We don't need to "generate traffic", we simply need to clean out the dead "legacy" assignments and free up room for things like DStar and other emerging technologies. I just had a look at our local (Minneapolis/St Paul) pair assignments. In the 2M and 75CM bands there are 108 repeater pairs assigned. You read right --- ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT! Yet I can scan both bands for hours on end and hear nothing. I'm not sure that the idea of getting rid of analog repeaters so that D- Star repeaters can be given those frequencies is really going to do much. If your area has 108 repeater pairs coordinated, and no activity, I suspect that a D-Star repeater will be likewise not have much activity. At this time you would probably just have one more repeater that isn't used. Your area's problem is lack of interest, not too many repeaters. My point is if Hams start using the repeaters, they might bootstrap interest. After interest is generated, then the possible next conversation might be "Hey, we have that old repeater on the south side of town, maybe a group of us can get together and go digital.... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Fifth pillar
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... I'm not sure that the idea of getting rid of analog repeaters so that D- Star repeaters can be given those frequencies is really going to do much. If your area has 108 repeater pairs coordinated, and no activity, I suspect that a D-Star repeater will be likewise not have much activity. At this time you would probably just have one more repeater that isn't used. Your area's problem is lack of interest, not too many repeaters. My point is if Hams start using the repeaters, they might bootstrap interest. After interest is generated, then the possible next conversation might be "Hey, we have that old repeater on the south side of town, maybe a group of us can get together and go digital.... Condensing that, could we say "You guys can't have a pair for your newfangled technology until you busy up all the silent analog repeaters." ? 73, de Hans, K0HB Still listening. |
Fifth pillar
KØHB wrote:
Condensing that, could we say "You guys can't have a pair for your newfangled technology until you busy up all the silent analog repeaters." ? Respectfully no. my lack of communication skills is showing sorely. What I am saying is that if the sum total of communications is Zero, no one will use a new repeater, D-Star or analog. Further, I am saying that if no one is interested, who among the disinterested is going to put up that repeater? Finally, if interest is generated, perhaps some of the interested will remove that unused analog repeater, and put a digital one in it's place. Or the condensed version: An unused digital repeater sounds the same as an unused analog one. ;^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Activity on 2 meters
In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote: I am assuming that a repeater with ZERO activity is a repeater with no one who cares about it. Your assumption is just that, an assumption. Similarly, you assume that because a repeater is silent that "the maintenance is hit-and-miss and there's no one who really cares whether they are up or not". Again, my experience does not bear this out. Ditto. The key word in your sentence is "used". "Zero activity" is incompatible with "used". Unless you monitor a frequency 24/7/365, it is impossible to claim "zero use". When most people say "zero use", they mean "I never hear anything on it". There is a BIG difference. I did not imply that if a repeater is silent that the maintenance is hit-and-miss. "I am assuming that a repeater with ZERO activity is a repeater with no one who cares about it." Define the difference between "silent" and "zero activity". What I said is that if there is not a group of people who care about the repeater, it's likely to be useless in a disaster, and I stand by that statement. |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
KØHB wrote: "Mark Kramer" wrote in message ... And then the stuff hits the fan and the groups that were going to support the local hospital and power company and red cross and cop shop and road department find themselves all trying to use the one or two repeaters you'd like them to be limited to, while the DStar systems sit silent because nobody could afford the radios to use them. Hi again Mark, Certainly there are places where there or only "one or two repeaters", I wasn't talking about a place where there are only one or two repeaters. I was talking about a place where there are a large number of repeaters, but only one or two have a lot of activity. If you want to got through and shut down the "inactive" repeaters so you can harvest the assigned pairs, then you will wind up with not enough infrastructure when it is really needed. If my PBI were implemented and the Repeater Council could harvest the arbitrary 10% I mentioned, then there'd still be 97 legacy machines to choose from, and 11 pairs opened for emerging technologies. If there are 10% of those pairs truly unused, there doesn't need to be any harvesting. Just use them. Who will you be interfering with? QSL? I verify this conversation took place. |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
KØHB wrote: Condensing that, could we say "You guys can't have a pair for your newfangled technology until you busy up all the silent analog repeaters." ? No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfangled technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?" How did we ever have repeaters before coordinating agencies were formed? |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote: There must be a compromise between these two opinions. There cannot be 108 active repeaters in one urban area. Frequency coordinators need a way to reassign pairs that really are no longer being used. Ummm, they already have it. If the pair really is unused, who is going to tell you to stop using it? |
Fifth pillar
"Mark Kramer" wrote in message ... No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfangled technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?" 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". If I lived in Resume Speed, Montana that might work, at least for awhile, if I had the bad manners and grapes to try. But if you commandeer a pair in an already wait-listed/saturated environment, you can kiss off EVER getting a coordinated pair (and for good reason). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Activity on 2 meters
|
Activity on 2 meters
Howard Lester wrote:
"Bryan" Hence, HF. You might hear more local activity on 10m. 80 or 40m during daylight hours should also be good for local/regional activity. Bryan WA7PRC Mr. Bryan, I have neither the room in my car for my IC-735, nor the willingness to put up a 4BTV on my car's plastic bumper. (You'll find them in the back by the shipping area.) ;-) Ja sure you betcha. B'sides, you'd have to plan your route to avoid overpasses! g Note to others: Howard and I used to "work" together back "when dirt was new". Bryan ;-) |
Fifth pillar
In article ,
KØHB wrote: "Mark Kramer" wrote in message ... No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfangled technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?" 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". No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was said, nor was it said directly. 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. If a coordinated user complains that you are interfering with a repeater that does not exist, you are free to laugh at him. Tell me, just how DO you interfere with a non-existant system? Do you think the FCC is going to listen to him? If I lived in Resume Speed, Montana that might work, at least for awhile, if I had the bad manners and grapes to try. You think it is bad manners to use a frequency that is not being used? You only join conversations already in progress? You never make a call on an unused frequency? But if you commandeer a pair in an already wait-listed/saturated environment, The the pair is wait-listed and saturated, then it isn't unused, now is it? |
Fifth pillar
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article , KØHB wrote: "Mark Kramer" wrote in message ... No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfangled technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?" 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". No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was said, nor was it said directly. 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. If a coordinated user complains that you are interfering with a repeater that does not exist, you are free to laugh at him. Tell me, just how DO you interfere with a non-existant system? Do you think the FCC is going to listen to him? If I lived in Resume Speed, Montana that might work, at least for awhile, if I had the bad manners and grapes to try. You think it is bad manners to use a frequency that is not being used? You only join conversations already in progress? You never make a call on an unused frequency? But if you commandeer a pair in an already wait-listed/saturated environment, The the pair is wait-listed and saturated, then it isn't unused, now is it? Gentlemen; The point to remember is that NO repeat NO one has a right to any particular radio frequency. Even coordination does not grand any right to a particular radio frequency, only license to use the frequency. The repeater coordinator has a responsibility to insure that an applicant really does intend to utilize the assigned radio frequency. If the applicant does not do so after a reasonable time then the coordination is or should be null and void. No, I am not going to define reasonable. It's like cell phone companies getting assignment to a block of 10,000 numbers and not using them causing the creation of a new area code to free up new numbers. The FCC, I believe, has baned this practice. Repeater Coordinators have a responsibility to allocate an extremely scarce resource in a fair and reasonable manner. Those who get a coordination just to have one and don't place equipment on the air, even if they use it in a limited manner, do not deserve to retain the coordination and the frequency should go to a new applicant. Remember the FCC gives precedence to a valid coordinated applicant over a claim jumper. But the coordinated applicant must be using the coordination. Maybe applicants should report back to the coordinator when the repeater is placed into service and when it is removed from service for reasons other than routine maintenance to include damage due to natural causes. This will keep applicants on their toes to keep their repeater on the air and active. Dave WD9BDZ |
Fifth pillar
David G. Nagel wrote:
The point to remember is that NO repeat NO one has a right to any particular radio frequency. Even coordination does not grand any right to a particular radio frequency, only license to use the frequency. 97.205(c).Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless the operation of one station is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the operation of the other station is not. In that case, the licensee of the noncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. So does 97.205(c) give the licensee of the coordinated repeater any rights? Seems to me that it does. We can go on and on with "could of" and "should of", and with discussion of what "harmful interference" means. The bottom line is that frequency coordination is recognized in the regulations and thus it's not a prudent idea to simply ignore it and pick a pair for your new repeater. 73, Steve KB9X |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com