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

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 ,
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

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

In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote:
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?

That is not what K0HB wrote. In
what he actually
said was:

]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".

That is also what appears in the article you replied to.

What YOU claim he wrote was something I wrote in a different
sub-thread. Yes, when what he actually wrote is replaced with something
I wrote, then what I wrote will look exactly like what you claim he said.

So, when I wrote:
No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was
said, nor was it said directly.

I was replying to the actual statement made by K0HB. I did not say
"convenient", nor "just stroke up", nor "wait to see" if anyone complains.
I said that there WILL be nobody to complain about the use of an unused
coordinated pair, because there will be no interference to complain about.

A coordination owner can complain that someone is using "his" frequency,
but all I have to do is ask what interference I am causing. And then
I'll ask him what rule makes that "his" frequency. When he answers "none"
and "none", the complaint will have been dealt with.

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?

An unused pair is one where there IS NO REPEATER. That's how it's
different. A pair with an active repeater on it is not unused. I've
said that before.

It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused.

First of all, I did not say "because I think it's unused". I said a known,
unused pair. That's not "think", that's KNOW. There is a difference.

Second, yes, the FCC gives ALL of us the prerogative of picking the
frequency we operate on. With the restriction that I may not cause
malicious or deliberate interference to another operator, and must operate
within the CFR allocations, I am free to pick any frequency I wish, just
as you are. Since I cannot possibly cause any kind of interference to a
repeater that does not exist, I have met the limitation of "no malicious
or deliberate". Since there is no repeater to interfere with, there is no
action I am required to take under the section that deals with coordination,
since the only required act is for the uncoordinated operator to solve any
interference issues. There are none to solve.

If you think there is a rule that says I don't get to pick my own
frequency to operate on, other than the limits I've already mentioned,
please quote it. The one about coordination isn't it.

That's what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists.

No. Frequency coordination is intended to mitigate interference issues. It
can't solve them (because they sometimes create the problem themselves
by coordinating two systems on the same pair too close together -- even
professional coordinators sometimes do that.) They are there to identify
the station who must act to solve interference issues. They do not grant
exclusive rights to a frequency. They cannot. The rules do not allow it,
and every 605 contains a statement that nobody owns a frequency. That
applies to repeater ops, too.

Of
course you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the law. And yes, it is "the law".

Please quote the law that says I may not use an unused repeater pair.
I cannot ignore a law that does not exist. In the meantime, I am obeying
the "uncoordinated must solve interference" law fully, in both spirit
and letter. I am ignoring or breaking no law.

Yes, the FCC is going to listen to him, because he has the right to use
that pair, while you do not.

Please quote the law that says THAT.

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

Yes, I do, and that insult was unwarranted.

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.

I said "known unused". I did not say "in my eyes appears".

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.

This paragraph is a deliberate insult. I have never caused interference
to a coordinated (or uncoordinated) system, and never plan to, despite
your implication.

"This case" is not about the need for coordination because it is
not about interference. It is about the use of an UNUSED pair without
coordination. Since there is nobody using the pair, there is nothing
to interfere with. Since there is no interference, the law dealing with
who has to solve interference issues is moot. Even were the law to say
that the uncoordinated use must change frequency (which it does not)
there is no interference issue to force a change.