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.

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.

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?

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?

"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

(Mark Kramer) wrote:

[...]
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.
[...]


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.

--
Klystron

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 ;-)

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?

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

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