"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

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.

"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

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.

"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

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 23:04:55 EDT, (Mark Kramer)
wrote:

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.

One of the several radio clubs which I am a member of maintains a
rather extensive UHF repeater system which usually sits silent except
for about a half-dozen of us during commute hours or when we are doing
some exercise like Field Day. If this was to "go away" (fat chance of
that, knowing the reality of the situation and the folks involved) the
local medical center where I am the Disaster Communications Team
co-manager would be without required ham radio backup. We went to
that arrangement when we found out in a real disaster last December
that the local ARES groups could not accommodate the type of traffic
that we needed because of their own overloads.

Consider the trap that the FCC's first-generation automated Spectrum
Management System fell into some 30+ years ago. It sat on Fire Radio
Service frequencies and reported no activity. Of course not - if
there are no fires there is no radio traffic, and the vast majority of
fire radio activity is with 5-watt on-scene HTs. Similarly, it
reported almost no Railroad Radio Service traffic in New York City -
where the monitoring was done during daytime and the bulk of freight
movements are at night. And to cap it off, it reported continuous
occupancy of a lot of channels in Chicago 24/7, until one of the old
hands at the Field Office listened and found out that it was a
defective electrical device throwing RFI into the air.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

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

"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 -

"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.

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 -

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?