"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?

"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

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

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.

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