"Bryan" wrote

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 ;-)

"Line one for the counter..."

- RIP, Dick

(Bryan and I worked behind the counter of a ham radio store. The owner's
name was Dick.)

Howard

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 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?

No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was
said, nor was it said directly.

Your actual words in were "Ummm,
they already have it. If the pair really is unused, who is going to tell
you to stop using it?". That looks exactly like, "Ummm, they already
have it. If the pair really is unused, who is going to tell you to stop
using it?"

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? It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused.
That's what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists. Of
course you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the law. And yes, it is "the law".

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?

Yes, the FCC is going to listen to him, because he has the right to use
that pair, while you do not. The FCC does recognize the work of
frequency coordinators.

If I lived in Resume Speed, Montana that might work, at least for awhi
le, 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?

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

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?

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.

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.

73, Steve KB9X

"How is this different than picking a pair where there's an active
repeater, or a repeater that is temporarily down? It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused. That's
what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists. Of course
you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to ignore
the law. And yes, it is "the law".


Could you please remind us where the work of the frequency coordinator is
enshrined in law?

Sure there is a legal duty not to cause interference, but as the OP said it
is not possible to interfere with a non-existent system.

Jeff

Steve Bonine wrote:
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.

I used to be involved in packet radio coordination, a subset of
frequency coordination. As I explained to people, "If you're not
getting any death threats, you're not doing your job."

On frequency coordinators. They are necessary because people
have shown repeatedly that they can not all work together.
From the very beginnings in the early '70s out here in Los
Angeles people have shown a propensity for acting like fools.

Not that the frequency coordinators "do it right" all the
time. Notably the 220 disaster. How do you reallocate all
the repeaters when you lose a big chunk of spectrum? Easy,
You tell everyone at the low end of the band, "You lose."
That actually required the FCC to step in and force band
plans on the coordinators.

The bottom line, frequency coordination is necessary. As
they say, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

Jeff wrote:
"How is this different than picking a pair where there's an active
repeater, or a repeater that is temporarily down? It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused. That's
what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists. Of course
you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to ignore
the law. And yes, it is "the law".


Could you please remind us where the work of the frequency coordinator is
enshrined in law?

Try going without one. Who wins the frequency? the one with th e
strongest signal, I suppose.

Sure there is a legal duty not to cause interference, but as the OP said it
is not possible to interfere with a non-existent system.


Squatting is just bad manners, and not terribly civilized. Hams are
supposed to be civilized. Let's say that you put up an uncoordinated
repeater on a frequency that someone else has coordinated. Then le't
suppose another uncoordinated repeater goes up on the frequency you
picked. Who controls that frequency? You or the second squatter? Who moves?

I looked up the repeater coordination in Hans' area. Although I didn't
come up with 108 allocations, I might not be using the same total area
he is. I used Minneapolis/St Paul, and came up with a hundred - 76 in
Minneapolis and 24 in St Paul. Fairly close at any rate.

On Artscipub.com, they have listed 21 repeaters for Minneapolis, and 1
for St Paul.

Note that 3 of those are in the 6 meter band, and 4 are on 222 MHz band.

That leaves us with 8 on 144 MHz and 7 on 440 MHz. Less than 10 percent
utilization.

There is no reason that application can not be made to acquire one of
those unused pairs. I don't know if it is universal, but in at least
some repeater councils, after 6 months of no use, and no extenuating
circumstances, a repeater pair can come up for re-coordination.

But looking at the disparity between the assigned numbers, the repeaters
in use, and what Hans has to say about the situation, adding a new
repeater is not going to cure what appears to be a severe lack of
interest in V/UHF repeater use in his area. Seriously, that needs fixed
first.

Has anyone tried re-coordination, Hans?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

In article ,
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.

Umm, no, the FCC grants the license, not the coordinating body.

The coordinating body picks who gets preference when there is an
interfering use.

If there is no interference, coordination doesn't come into play.

If I use the output frequency of the local repeater in simple mode,
I am not interfering with that repeater. The repeater won't even know
I am there. The users of the repeater who can't hear me won't know. The
users who do hear me hear nothing different than if I was using it. If
someone keys up the repeater on top of me, they interfere with me, but
that's life. If they are coordinated and I am not, I have to put up with
them. If they are not coordinated, we have to work to solve the problem.

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.

Of course.

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
Could you please remind us where the work of the frequency coordinator is
enshrined in law?

Try going without one. Who wins the frequency? the one with th e
strongest signal, I suppose.

What, exactly, is the signal strength coming from a repeater that does not
exist? I suspect 0 is a correct answer.

Sure there is a legal duty not to cause interference, but as the OP said it
is not possible to interfere with a non-existent system.

Squatting is just bad manners,

Using an unused frequency is not squatting. It's done every day.

Hams are
supposed to be civilized. Let's say that you put up an uncoordinated
repeater on a frequency that someone else has coordinated.

Ok. He's the coordinted user, but hasn't installed any hardware in the three
years that he's had that coordination. That frequency pair is coordinated
but unused.

Then le't
suppose another uncoordinated repeater goes up on the frequency you
picked.

Ok. Someone else puts up a repeater on the frequency you put yours on.
Good so far.

Who controls that frequency? You or the second squatter? Who moves?

Nobody controls it. The law says that you are both responsible for
solving the interference issues. Nobody has to move. You might solve
it by putting different tones on the inputs. You might solve it by
lowering power, or in any number of other ways. But nobody "controls"
the frequency. You are both on the hook. That's part of the privilege
of being able to select one's operating frequency.

On Artscipub.com, they have listed 21 repeaters for Minneapolis, and 1
for St Paul.

Repeater directories are really good for telling you where the repeater
is, but notoriously bad for telling you what they cover. To know a pair
is unused, you need much more than a repeater directory.

That leaves us with 8 on 144 MHz and 7 on 440 MHz. Less than 10 percent
utilization.

There is no reason that application can not be made to acquire one of
those unused pairs.

How do you know they are unused? In my state, you ask for a pair but you
don't ask for a specific one. They tell you what you get.

I don't know if it is universal, but in at least
some repeater councils, after 6 months of no use, and no extenuating
circumstances, a repeater pair can come up for re-coordination.

So the coordinators have a means of reallocating unused pairs.

But looking at the disparity between the assigned numbers, the repeaters
in use, and what Hans has to say about the situation, adding a new
repeater is not going to cure what appears to be a severe lack of
interest in V/UHF repeater use in his area. Seriously, that needs fixed
first.

Yep.

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

I looked up the repeater coordination in Hans' area. Although I didn't come up
with 108 allocations, I might not be using the same total area he is. I used
Minneapolis/St Paul, and came up with a hundred - 76 in Minneapolis and 24 in
St Paul. Fairly close at any rate.

On Artscipub.com, they have listed 21 repeaters for Minneapolis, and 1 for St
Paul.

Note that 3 of those are in the 6 meter band, and 4 are on 222 MHz band.

That leaves us with 8 on 144 MHz and 7 on 440 MHz. Less than 10 percent
utilization.

There is no reason that application can not be made to acquire one of those
unused pairs.

The pairs are all assigned, Mike, or are assigned in other nearby areas too
close for geographical sharing.

If you must check my numbers (why would I make something up?) the official
coordinated list is at http://www.mrc.gen.mn.us/MN_List.pdf ... scroll down to
about page 10 under the heading METRO

Now where did I lay my Skimmer......

Sheeeeeesh!

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
news

If ARRL will put enough weight into this idea that it can gain traction, I
feel this may be the key to a renewed health for our hobby.


ARRL IS putting some weight into this idea! See this great site!

--- http://www.wedothat-radio.org/wedothat/

Good stuff!

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Blue Electric Smoke

"Mark Kramer" wrote in message
...


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.


The notion I advanced wasn't an arbitrary and heavy-handed "mass extinction",
but a deliberate cooperative "needs assessment" process. Here is what I
suggested:

Since this thread is about the "5th Pillar" of ARRL emphasis,
"technology", perhaps ARRL 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.

An obvious part of that needs assessment process would be to identify (and
protect) critical infrastructure. The desired end result (not well stated,
perhaps), would be a small pool of QRGs set aside as an "emerging technology
corridor" (DStar mentioned only as an example) where tinkering and
experimentation were encouraged.

Mike suggests that there would be very few users of such a "technology
reservation". That's almost certainly true, but I don't think that makes it a
"bad thing". It's no secret that homebrewing and "radio for the sake of
advancing the art of radio" (in Mikes terms "technology for it's own sake") is a
minority share of our hobby. But I think that it's an important minority,
critical to our future, and that we can afford to set aside "incubation
spectrum" to nurture it.

73, de Hans, K0HB