"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