NFCC votes to ask FCC to treat all repeaters

[g4tut]

NFCC votes to ask FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters

The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted:

That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.
#
Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members.
#
For the Council,
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
President





Daily Amateur Radio News Service: (http://www.southgatearc.org/)
Updated every day - 365 days per year

Get our News Headlines for your Website:
http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm

Send Us Your News Items:
http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

[ka5piu]

Hello.

Why the exemption for a "message forwarding system"?

[k5zc]

Because the goal was not to extend the definition of "repeater" past what was already in 97.3(a)(39).

[w5qc]

What does that mean when your using you dual band mobile to crossband and dual band ht when your away from your car? Do I have to license my mobile rig as a repeater?

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (w5qc @ Sep. 21 2007,13:32)]What does that mean when your using you dual band mobile to crossband and dual band ht when your away from your car? #Do I have to license my mobile rig as a repeater?
You don't have to license it as a repeater, but you are operating as a repeater and must operate within the repeater subbands and under the repeater rules. This has been the case for a long time.

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,13:39)]Quote[/b] (w5qc @ Sep. 21 2007,13:32)]What does that mean when your using you dual band mobile to crossband and dual band ht when your away from your car? Do I have to license my mobile rig as a repeater?
You don't have to license it as a repeater, but you are operating as a repeater and must operate within the repeater subbands and under the repeater rules. This has been the case for a long time.
I have never heard this before, and I do not believe that it is in the rules.

Common practice is to monitor the output of a VHF repeater on the portable, transmit and receive from the mobile on the repeater input, and use a simplex UHF channel as the portable transmit/receive frequency.

This arrangement permits monitoring of the repeater output while limiting "repeat backs" to strong/close stations.

[K7JEM]

What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?

They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.

I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.

Joe

[K0RGR]

This may be a response to DSTAR and other digital voice repeaters. There is some question on the part of some repeater councils about whether a DSTAR repeater falls in the current definition of a repeater.

This would also seem to apply to EchoLink and other IRLP stations. I'm not sure what they'd be trying to gain from that - EchoLink would benefit if it were a repeater under the repeater rules.

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,16:06)]What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?
This is in reply to a decision by Bill Cross a year or so ago to define D-Star DV systems as not being repeaters.

Quote[/b] ]They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.
The FCC does. The licensee doesn't. He can say he's not operating a repeater, but that doesn't mean the FCC will necessarily take his word for it.

Quote[/b] ]I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.
Is it a point-to-point link, as required by the definition of "auxiliary station"?

(BTW, in case anyone cares, the first post in this topic was made in my capacity as president of the NFCC; the remaining ones are my personal opinion.)

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Sep. 21 2007,15:14)]Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,13:39)]Quote[/b] (w5qc @ Sep. 21 2007,13:32)]What does that mean when your using you dual band mobile to crossband and dual band ht when your away from your car? #Do I have to license my mobile rig as a repeater?
You don't have to license it as a repeater, but you are operating as a repeater and must operate within the repeater subbands and under the repeater rules. This has been the case for a long time.
I have never heard this before, and I do not believe that it is in the rules.
Actually, looking at it again, you are correct: a crossband repeater operated as you describe can be operated as an auxiliary station. Until recently, this didn't make much difference, since the repeater and auxiliary subbands were identical above 222.15 MHz; with the expansion of auxiliary operation to 2 meters, and specifically 145.5-145.8, it does, now.

[N2RJ]

This is the last thing we need, more bureaucracy from repeater coordinators.

Around here the coordinators put their FRIENDS as priority on the list for coordination.

We also have repeaters around here that are co-channel with others, resulting in regular interference. No one seems to care.

I'd rather just abolish the whole coordination system. It's of no use.

And I'd rather keep it OUT of D-STAR. These people (the coordinators) are power hungry maniacs. Why let them ruin a good thing?

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 21 2007,19:14)]And I'd rather keep it OUT of D-STAR. #These people (the coordinators) are power hungry maniacs. #Why let them ruin a good thing?
Speaking strictly for myself...

If I thought coordination would ruin D-Star, I'd have done everything I could to make sure it wasn't involved. I believe D-Star is nothing less than the future of ham radio. I own a full D-Star stack, on the gateway network, and all of the user radios needed to work it. I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot that spectacularly, or that expensively.

The coordination system may have its problems, but it's a lot better than the utter chaos that would result if it were abolished. Ask someone who was around then about FM and repeater wars in the late 60s.

Regardless of what you may think, the FCC thinks coordinators do an essential job. That's why the rules recognize them. Far from being power-hungry maniacs, coordinators are just average hams doing a thankless job because someone has to.

D-Star DV systems are repeaters, and acting otherwise makes a mockery of part 97. The NFCC's decision recognizes that.

[N5FOG]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 20 2007,21:14)]Around here the coordinators put their FRIENDS as priority on the list for coordination.
Ryan we have the same problem down here with our state coordinating body.

There is a private closed statewide repeater system who's members took over the freq coordination body and run it for their own benefit.

They care nothing about paper repeaters or any other issues all they are concerned with is protecting their private system and getting a pair when they want to expand.

Members tired to get the rules changed so all member didn't have to drive across the state to the annual meeting to cast their vote for officers and coordinators.

But the coordination groups officers threw out the vote because it threated their control which caused a law suit to be filed


Vice President of the NFCC on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKatyuKwm8)


FOG

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,16:06)]What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?

They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.

I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.

Joe
Not long ago, in answering a question posed by a person wanting to put up a D-Star repeater in an area with no channel pairs available in any of the repeater subbands, that person asked the FCC if -- based on the time delay inherent in analog to digital and then digital to analog conversions inherent to a digital voice repeating system -- if such a sysytem was no longer a repeater and therefore not subject to the repeater subband restrictiuons. Unfortunately, the FCC official issued an opinion in agreement with the guy wanting the new repeater, thus opening the door to invasion of all other segments of 2 meters, 70 cm and 1.2 Ghz by anyone who wanted a digital voice repeater but could not find channels in designated repeater subbands.

To protect non-FM and non relay mode users spectrum from an onslought of digital voice repeaters, the NFCC is asking the FCC to restrict all repeaters to the repeater subbands. If the FCC acts positively on the NFCC request, then all voice repeaters -- digital and analog -- would be rightly restricted to designated repeater subbands and all other modes will there-by be protected from incursion by digital voice repeaters

The request will nave no impact on store and forward digipeters nor will it impact use of your mobile radio with an HT as a range extender. The latter falls under remote and aux station operation -- not the repeater rules.

I have to say that its good to see the nationa; representative group for repeaters taking action to protect noon-repeater interests from incursion by repeating devioces. I wont say that it is a "first," but it does not happen often. I think that the NFCC deserves our collective thanks for doing this -- especially from the weak signal community.

de
WA6ITF

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,20:16)]Members tired to get the rules changed so all member didn't have to drive across the state to the annual meeting to cast their vote for officers and coordinators.

But the coordination groups officers threw out the vote because it threated their control which caused a law suit to be filed
I'm not going to get dragged into this one again. My only comment on the above pack of distortions will be to point interested readers to the website at http://www.gangofthree.info where I thoroughly debunked it all, and to note that the lawsuit was thrown out of court.


Quote[/b] ] Vice President of the NFCC on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKatyuKwm8)
Yes, I'm the Tron Guy (http://www.tronguy.net). If I was inclined to hide the fact, I wouldn't have chosen the avatar I did. This is relevant to the discussion how?

[N5FOG]

Jay if you recall the lawsuit wasn't thrown out on merit. It was thrown out because the judge didn't want to mess it and it was dismissedwithout prejudice meaning it CAN be re-filed.

But I'm not going to drag up any more old biz

As far as the link goes I thought everyone would like to get a better idea who is representing them in the NFCC.

Is there anything wrong with that ??





FOG

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,20:31)]As far as the link goes I thought everyone would like to get a better idea who is representing them in the NFCC.

Is there anything wrong with that ??
The implication is that I should be ashamed of being the Tron Guy. I'm not. I'm proud of it.

That said, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to serve as president of the NFCC, and for you to bring it up is nothing more than an attempt to distract people from the bankruptcy of your argument.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,17:55)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,16:06)]What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?
This is in reply to a decision by Bill Cross a year or so ago to define D-Star DV systems as not being repeaters.

I must have missed that. Is there a link to such a thing?


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.
The FCC does. The licensee doesn't. He can say he's not operating a repeater, but that doesn't mean the FCC will necessarily take his word for it.

The licensee will define his operation. It will either fit the definition of what he is doing, or not. The FCC may or may not agree with him, but some co-ordinating council has no authority to define his operation.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.
Is it a point-to-point link, as required by the definition of "auxiliary station"?



The problem is that YOUR definition now says:

Quote[/b] ]any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

So, an auxiliary station would now be a repeater, since it could be an amateur station that automatically retransmits on a different frequency. A radio controlled remote base would also be a repeater under this new definition that is being bantered about. The problem comes with using the word ANY. That excludes all other forms of operation, if the radio is transmitting at the same time, on a different frequency.

THAT is the problem. This group has not thought out their response, and it looks pathetic. A total rewrite of what would be legal, or not, if the FCC decides to follow this path.

Joe

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,20:31)]Jay if you recall the lawsuit wasn't thrown out on merit. It was thrown out because the judge didn't want to mess it and it was dismissedwithout prejudice meaning it CAN be re-filed.

But I'm not going to drag up any more old biz

As far as the link goes I thought everyone would like to get a better idea who is representing them in the NFCC.

Is there anything wrong with that ??





FOG
So, you have political problems with coordination in Texas. We have them in SoCal too. So, what else is new?

That said, the isolated political problems of any geographic region have nothing to do with the national overview and thats the topic we need to be discussing! Nothing else is of any import.

How about -- just for once -- every one of us stick to the proverbial "big picture" and leave it to each region to solve its home turf coordination battles. Thats because this situation transcends all geographic boundaries and most definitely its more important than the repeater and coordination politics of Texas, SoCal, or any other spot on the map you can name.

We have a choice here folks: We can let digital voice repeaters roam free all across our various VHF and UHF spectrum -- unconfined to repeater subbands as analog systems are. Or we can join together to restrict all repeaters to where repeaters belong: In the spectrum called repeater subbands.

I lived through the "Repeater Wars" of the 1960's and 1970's. I saw the results of having no coordination. I bear witness to the results of ham vs. ham and repeater vs. repeater RF "slugfests". I saw the literal combat between simplex users who were abruptly run off the air because a repeater decided it was going to use that frequency -- but did not want that group of simplex ops being re[peated. I saw the cars that were vandalized. I saw the repeater antennas that were torn down. I saw the Motorola "Green Boxes" being installed.

Truthfully, I saw enough of folks who were by chronoligic age "adults" all acting like spoiled brat kids over the game of "who owns this frequency!" And it was enough to disgust me to a point where I began to wonder if this was really a hobby or a lot of maniacs vying for power over all the others.

I don't want to have to live through those awful days ever again!!! I do not want many of you to have to live through it for a first time!!!

If you think that none of what I describe ever took place, then I strongly urge you to read "The Chronicles of .76" by the late Kendall Webster Sessions, K6MVH. While he shares on the Southern California story of that earlky 1960's era, its a good way for those of you who came to the VHF bands in the 1980's and later to catch a glimpse of what those who came before you faced. Its all in .pdf format: http://www.palisadesarc.com/downloads/ChroniclesPDF/

And remember: History has a way of repeating itself.

de
WA6ITF

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,22:14)]Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,17:55)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,16:06)]What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?
This is in reply to a decision by Bill Cross a year or so ago to define D-Star DV systems as not being repeaters.

I must have missed that. Is there a link to such a thing?


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.
The FCC does. The licensee doesn't. He can say he's not operating a repeater, but that doesn't mean the FCC will necessarily take his word for it.

The licensee will define his operation. It will either fit the definition of what he is doing, or not. The FCC may or may not agree with him, but some co-ordinating council has no authority to define his operation.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.
Is it a point-to-point link, as required by the definition of "auxiliary station"?



The problem is that YOUR definition now says:

Quote[/b] ]any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

So, an auxiliary station would now be a repeater, since it could be an amateur station that automatically retransmits on a different frequency. A radio controlled remote base would also be a repeater under this new definition that is being bantered about. The problem comes with using the word ANY. That excludes all other forms of operation, if the radio is transmitting at the same time, on a different frequency.

THAT is the problem. This group has not thought out their response, and it looks pathetic. A total rewrite of what would be legal, or not, if the FCC decides to follow this path.

Joe
With all due respect, you are arguing over minutia that is totally irrelevant.

There is only one question being debated: Should digital voice repeaters be permitted to set up shop anywhere in a given ham band that they choose or should they be restricted to the exact same repeater subbands that analog repeaters are forced to operate in?

I for one believe that they must be restricted so as to protect all other users of a given band from the encroachment by these devices. How that is accomplished is by the FCC stating it will be that way. The mechanics of implementation will be left to the ham radio community and are not germain to this discourse.

de
WA6ITF

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Sep. 21 2007,22:39)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,22:14)]Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,17:55)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,16:06)]What is their point? What are they trying to accomplish?
This is in reply to a decision by Bill Cross a year or so ago to define D-Star DV systems as not being repeaters.

I must have missed that. Is there a link to such a thing?


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]They do not get to define what a repeater is. The licensee and the FCC do that.
The FCC does. The licensee doesn't. He can say he's not operating a repeater, but that doesn't mean the FCC will necessarily take his word for it.

The licensee will define his operation. It will either fit the definition of what he is doing, or not. The FCC may or may not agree with him, but some co-ordinating council has no authority to define his operation.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]I may have something that fits the definition of a "repeater", but it may actually be an auxiliary station.
Is it a point-to-point link, as required by the definition of "auxiliary station"?



The problem is that YOUR definition now says:

Quote[/b] ]any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

So, an auxiliary station would now be a repeater, since it could be an amateur station that automatically retransmits on a different frequency. A radio controlled remote base would also be a repeater under this new definition that is being bantered about. The problem comes with using the word ANY. That excludes all other forms of operation, if the radio is transmitting at the same time, on a different frequency.

THAT is the problem. This group has not thought out their response, and it looks pathetic. A total rewrite of what would be legal, or not, if the FCC decides to follow this path.

Joe
With all due respect, you are arguing over minutia that is totally irrelevant.

There is only one question being debated: Should digital voice repeaters be permitted to set up shop anywhere in a given ham band that they choose or should they be restricted to the exact same repeater subbands that analog repeaters are forced to operate in?

I for one believe that they must be restricted so as to protect all other users of a given band from the encroachment by these devices. How that is accomplished is by the FCC stating it will be that way. The mechanics of implementation will be left to the ham radio community and are not germain to this discourse.

de
WA6ITF
I don't disagree with that. But that is not what the letter says. When it says "ANY" I have to assume that it means "any".

So, if a station fits this definition, it would be classified as a repeater, correct? Even if it was a remote base, or an aux station. IF it is repeating ham traffic on a different frequency, at the same time, it IS a repeater, at least according to this new proposal.

Why don't people think through their proposals before issuing them? What is wrong with saying exactly what you said? That is more clear.

If these people (repeater ops) think that the don't have a repeater, simply because the input and output do not exactly match, time wise, then ANY repeater that has a time delay board installed would also not be a repeater. Most sane people do realize that it is still a repeater.

The definition doesn't have to be changed. All that needs to be done is for the FCC to recognize that "simultaneously" does not have to mean "exactly the same time". For that matter, no repeater will repeat at exactly the same time, due to several nanoseconds of delay that are inherent in any physical connection.

Why screw up the definition of a repeater simply to make something comply?

Also, does ANYONE have a link to the FCC quote that is being referenced? I have a hard time buying that the FCC is that stupid.

Joe

[wa6itf]

K7JEM: If these people (repeater ops) think that the don't have a repeater "simply because the input and output do not exactly match, time wise, then ANY repeater that has a time delay board installed would also not be a repeater. Most sane people do realize that it is still a repeater."

Its NOT the repeater owners who think this -- it is the FCC! And its the FCC's whose mind MUST be changed to prevent a repeat of 1959 to 1970. Believe me -- you do NOT want that!

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Sep. 21 2007,23:50)]K7JEM: If these people (repeater ops) think that the don't have a repeater "simply because the input and output do not exactly match, time wise, then ANY repeater that has a time delay board installed would also not be a repeater. Most sane people do realize that it is still a repeater."

Its NOT the repeater owners who think this -- it is the FCC! And its the FCC's whose mind MUST be changed to prevent a repeat of 1959 to 1970. Believe me -- you do NOT want that!
Can you supply a quote of this? I have yet to find anything that remotely resembles this. I don't think it's occurring, either.

I'm sure there are people putting up repeaters and claiming that they're not. But what has the FCC said about these things to elicit such a poorly worded letter?

Joe

[k2gsp]

Why does everyone working the newer modes think it's 'The Future Of Ham Radio?"

what is the difference between a translator and repeater, we have a translator on our emergency frequency,

[N9WB]

Amateur Radio Operators and Amateur Radio clubs invest a great deal of time and money to provide repeaters for the Amateur Radio Community. It is well established that these repeaters are an important asset in times of emergency.

The Amateur Radio community has established a system of Repeater Coordination. This is necessary to prevent interference to and from repeaters. Without coordination, people would establish repeaters that interfere with existing repeaters and “repeater wars” will develop. The repeater with the most power and the foulest mouth users would prevail. #There would then be little incentive for individual Amateurs or Amateur Radio clubs to invest the money and time to establish and maintain repeaters because they would be plagued with interference. #The repeaters that did exist would be of little use in times of emergency.

Often Radio Amateurs who do not understand repeater coordination issues find it easy to criticize repeater coordinators because they or a friend may have not been granted a coordination for a repeater. When coordinating a repeater there are many issues to consider. The most important consideration is not the repeaters output power as much as the user area. #A user signal intended for one repeater could capture the receiver of another repeater on the same frequency disrupting ongoing communications. Another consideration is co-channel spacing. #If a repeater is located on an adjacent channel from a repeater that is within its user coverage area. Interference to the user of the adjacent repeater will occur as well as interference to the adjacent repeater receiver itself. #These are just a couple of the many issues involved in repeater coordination.

In most areas, a repeater coordinator devotes around 20 hours per week to repeater coordination. These are highly devoted individuals that realize the importance of an orderly system of establishing repeaters. It is easy for people who are not familiar with repeater coordination to accuse coordinators of using the “buddy system” or the “friends and family program”. In most cases this is sour grapes because the person starting these rumors was denied a coordination because their proposed system would result in interference to existing systems.

Without repeater coordination, our repeater sub-bands would be anarchy. The inmates would be running the asylum. Amateur radio repeaters would be of little use in an emergency. Would you invest in a repeater that would assuredly be plagued with interference?

Now about the D-star issue:

D-star repeaters function as any repeater but use a digital format instead of analog. They require a separate input and output frequency just as any repeater does. They can operate with slightly less bandwidth than analog repeaters.

Some individuals have taken a back door brig lawyer approach to claim that these are not repeaters. They base this on the fact that there is a very slight time delay between the input and output. Many analog repeaters have a time delay to accommodate smart processing for equalization and voting between receivers. Nobody ever questioned that these are repeaters. Both these repeaters and the new D-star repeaters, for all practical purposes operate in real time.

It would be easy for repeater coordinators to have tunnel vision and develop a mindset that repeaters are paramount over all other Amateur Radio operations in a given band. But responsible repeater coordination MUST consider non-repeater Amateur operations. This is why the FCC has established repeater sub-bands.

To use a brig lawyer approach to claim that a repeater is something other than a repeater because the FCC rules seem inconvenient to a particular agenda is irresponsible. As coordinators we cannot create a situation that allows repeaters to run roughshod over other Amateur modes because it is convenient.

This is why the NFCC, the umbrella organization for repeater coordinators has taken a responsible position on this issue. Amateurs who operate non-repeater digital modes, satellite, weak signal and any other mode outside of the repeater sub-bands should take note. Would your operation survive if your frequency suddenly had a coordinated repeater on it?

Vy 73, Walt N9WB
Chairman, Indiana Repeater Council

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,23:56)]Can you supply a quote of this? I have yet to find anything that remotely resembles this. I don't think it's occurring, either.

I'm sure there are people putting up repeaters and claiming that they're not. But what has the FCC said about these things to elicit such a poorly worded letter?
Here's the email Cross sent to John Burningham, W2XAB. If you'd like, I can forward you the entire 52K exchange.


Quote[/b] ]
From: William Cross [mailto:William.Cross@fcc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:20 AM
To: John Burningham
Cc: Riley Hollingsworth; Tim Barrett
Subject: RE: D-Star System

Mr. Burningham:

Thank you for the explanation. The word "simultaneously" does not have a special definition within Part 97. Therefore, it is used with the meaning that you found in the dictionary. Because the system as you describe it "does not simultaneously re-transmit the transmissions of another amateur station" but rather, "there is a noticeable time lag on the down link data stream which is caused by the decoding, processing, and encoding by the D-STAR system," and the system is a "store-and-forward type system just like existing amateur packet radio," it apparently is not a repeater within the meaning of Part 97 and a repeater coordinator should not coordinate the system. In fact, a repeater coordinator does not have authority under Part 97 to coordinator non-repeater systems. Therefore, it should deny or return your application for coordination.

The NFCC wrangled over the wording for two months before voting on the motion. You may think it's poorly worded, but it says exactly what needs saying.

Bill's concern is exactly what the NFCC addressed: that some bright spark would conclude that his voice repeater with an RC-850 did not "simultaneously" retransmit the incoming signal because it has a voice delay, and therefore isn't a repeater - and therefore doesn't have to be in the repeater subbands. The coordination community is acutely aware that repeaters aren't the only occupants of the bands, and that other modes need protection. To allow a gaping loophole like that to stand would allow the entire band to be overrun.

[n5ark]

Coordination is the excat reason why my pretty new 2 meter repeater never went on the air. It is nearly like trying to play solitaire with a deck of 21. I wrote, emailed, called and never did I get anywhere. I was simply told the coordinator did not have the time to assign me a frequency. So I did my own research, listening, driving around with multiple radios and antennas. I then sent in my findings and suggested 4 freq pairs with the closest one being 175 miles away. Denied! I dont think my 30 watt 50 ft repeater was going to do a bunch of damage. Or was it that I was going to leave it as a "Open" repeater while the majority is closed? So everyone that came thru my "coverage area" loss. I think if someone wants to spend thier own money on something go for it. As long as it does not cause harm to others. I often hear more people "keying" the repeater without identifying than the repeater itself causing interference. I once say a guy at a hamfest go thru every ht on the table and bring up the repeater just to make sure the ht worked..all without saying a word. When I tried to talk to the older ham about it I got " I have been a ham for 40 or 50's years I can do what I want! I only have to identify every 15 mins...hmmmm But anyways there is too many coordinators that really dont care and not enough of the ones who do. Coordinators should not belong to any club if they are going to show favortism to that club. Afterall they are suppose to help us "HAMS" right?

Troy
N5ARK-Voice of Possum Waller
:0

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Sep. 22 2007,00:32)]Why does everyone working the newer modes think it's 'The Future Of Ham Radio?"
I can't speak to other modes. As for D-Star, I think it's indeed the future for three reasons:
1) Spectrum efficiency. Repeater channels on 2 and 440 are becoming scarce in many more places than the big cities. Being able to put two repeaters on where only one would fit before is a major advantage.
2) Integrated, transparent networking. This allows a signal to find me wherever I am. The user doesn't have to do anything different, or even know where I've gotten off to; he just tells his radio to send to K5ZC.
3) Integrated voice and data. You don't have to dedicate a radio to data transmission (at packet speeds, anyway). You can send data and voice at the same time.

D-Star offers ham radio some pretty major advantages. That's why I've jumped into it.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 22 2007,05:40)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 21 2007,23:56)]Can you supply a quote of this? I have yet to find anything that remotely resembles this. I don't think it's occurring, either.

I'm sure there are people putting up repeaters and claiming that they're not. But what has the FCC said about these things to elicit such a poorly worded letter?
Here's the email Cross sent to John Burningham, W2XAB. If you'd like, I can forward you the entire 52K exchange.


Quote[/b] ]
From: William Cross [mailto:William.Cross@fcc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:20 AM
To: John Burningham
Cc: Riley Hollingsworth; Tim Barrett
Subject: RE: D-Star System

Mr. Burningham:

Thank you for the explanation. The word "simultaneously" does not have a special definition within Part 97. Therefore, it is used with the meaning that you found in the dictionary. Because the system as you describe it "does not simultaneously re-transmit the transmissions of another amateur station" but rather, "there is a noticeable time lag on the down link data stream which is caused by the decoding, processing, and encoding by the D-STAR system," and the system is a "store-and-forward type system just like existing amateur packet radio," it apparently is not a repeater within the meaning of Part 97 and a repeater coordinator should not coordinate the system. In fact, a repeater coordinator does not have authority under Part 97 to coordinator non-repeater systems. Therefore, it should deny or return your application for coordination.

The NFCC wrangled over the wording for two months before voting on the motion. You may think it's poorly worded, but it says exactly what needs saying.

Bill's concern is exactly what the NFCC addressed: that some bright spark would conclude that his voice repeater with an RC-850 did not "simultaneously" retransmit the incoming signal because it has a voice delay, and therefore isn't a repeater - and therefore doesn't have to be in the repeater subbands. The coordination community is acutely aware that repeaters aren't the only occupants of the bands, and that other modes need protection. To allow a gaping loophole like that to stand would allow the entire band to be overrun.
Well I guess the FCC is that stupid then.

A couple of problems that I see are that:

1. Any repeater with a time delay module or digital signal processing would now be able to claim that they do not meet the simultaneous rule, and

2. The FCC is apparently taking away the authority of frequency coordinators to coordinate aux stations.

Maybe number 2 is not true. Maybe, in true FCC fashion, they think this could be an aux station, and subject to coordination under aux station rules. But since it was attempted to be coordinated as a repeater, they felt this was incorrect.

I see a lot of potential problems for aux operators here. If the FCC indeed thinks that aux operations need to be coordinated, just like repeaters (as indicated in part 97), then this system, or any other D star or P25, etc, system, still needs to be coordinated. The co-ordinating body has the ability to deny coordination on a specific channel, and instead assign it to another system, or usage.

IF the FCC is indicating that aux stations don't need coordination at all, then this is a reversal of a long standing policy. That would be bad.

The only problem I see with the FCC decision is their definition of the word "simultaneously". Although their definition could be considered correct, so could any use of the term where both the TX and RX are running at the same time. They just need to revisit their decision, and reconsider the way they look at the current definition. A new definition for "repeater" doesn't need to be written, especially one that would encompass ALL or ANY transmitters that "repeat" on a different frequency. That is my main objection.

Otherwise, I'm with you on this.

Joe

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 21 2007,22:16)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 21 2007,19:14)]And I'd rather keep it OUT of D-STAR. #These people (the coordinators) are power hungry maniacs. #Why let them ruin a good thing?
Speaking strictly for myself...

If I thought coordination would ruin D-Star, I'd have done everything I could to make sure it wasn't involved. I believe D-Star is nothing less than the future of ham radio. I own a full D-Star stack, on the gateway network, and all of the user radios needed to work it. I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot that spectacularly, or that expensively.

The coordination system may have its problems, but it's a lot better than the utter chaos that would result if it were abolished. Ask someone who was around then about FM and repeater wars in the late 60s.

Regardless of what you may think, the FCC thinks coordinators do an essential job. That's why the rules recognize them. Far from being power-hungry maniacs, coordinators are just average hams doing a thankless job because someone has to.

D-Star DV systems are repeaters, and acting otherwise makes a mockery of part 97. The NFCC's decision recognizes that.
Honestly, it's the lesser of two evils here.

I don't think D-STAR will be the future of ham radio. The equipment is too expensive and average hams are still buying FM radios.

The coordination bodies should clean up their collective act first before being given more power.

As of now, many of them are handing out pairs to their friends and pushing other people further down the list.

The FCC has made many wrong assumptions and decisions in the past. And while coordinators do an essential job, they are NOT fair. Friends come first, screw everyone else. That's not how it should be.

There should be more oversight into coordinators. As it is they are given too much free reign.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (N9WB @ Sep. 22 2007,06:29)]In most areas, a repeater coordinator devotes around 20 hours per week to repeater coordination. These are highly devoted individuals that realize the importance of an orderly system of establishing repeaters. It is easy for people who are not familiar with repeater coordination to accuse coordinators of using the “buddy system” or the “friends and family program”. In most cases this is sour grapes because the person starting these rumors was denied a coordination because their proposed system would result in interference to existing systems.

Without repeater coordination, our repeater sub-bands would be anarchy. The inmates would be running the asylum. Amateur radio repeaters would be of little use in an emergency. Would you invest in a repeater that would assuredly be plagued with interference?
First of all, Amateur Radio's primary purpose is not to be of any use in an emergency. That is only secondary. So please don't throw that BS excuse our way.

Secondly, I've sen the "buddy system" first hand.

I've seen the ineptness of coordinators who have coordinated repeaters without adequate studies.

Example? Our club's repeater is on the same pair with another repeater only 65 miles away. Both are coordinated. Even with the squelch turned up, we can hear them. It gets worse when conditions improve.

Our repeater has been coordinated for many years now. Theirs, I am not so sure. But yet the fiasco still goes on.

Another example - one guy here was talking about a repeater he wanted to set up. A frequency coordinator then jumped in (on a mailing list) and said that the pair was reserved for another repeater - and guess what! The repeater was linked into HIS repeater system! The coordinator has his own repeater system and has linked it up all over the place, IMO, unneccessarily. Why does one person need so many linked repeaters? To stroke his ego? Don't tell me about emergency communications. During an emergency the repeater infrastructure will likely be gone as well. Many repeaters on the WTC were lost on 9/11.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 22 2007,08:39)]

I've seen the ineptness of coordinators who have coordinated repeaters without adequate studies.

Example? Our club's repeater is on the same pair with another repeater only 65 miles away. Both are coordinated. Even with the squelch turned up, we can hear them. It gets worse when conditions improve.

Our repeater has been coordinated for many years now. Theirs, I am not so sure. But yet the fiasco still goes on.

Another example - one guy here was talking about a repeater he wanted to set up. A frequency coordinator then jumped in (on a mailing list) and said that the pair was reserved for another repeater - and guess what! The repeater was linked into HIS repeater system! The coordinator has his own repeater system and has linked it up all over the place, IMO, unneccessarily. Why does one person need so many linked repeaters? To stroke his ego? Don't tell me about emergency communications. During an emergency the repeater infrastructure will likely be gone as well. Many repeaters on the WTC were lost on 9/11.
Every time I see or hear someone make this type of statement I tell that person the following:

"If you feel you can do a better job than the coordinator now doing the job, then jump in and offer your services to the ham radio community. Otherwise, you have no basis to complain."

What you and a lot of others do not realize is that a frequency coordinator derives his or her "power" from the community which he/she serves. If the community is unhappy with the coordinator or coordination body in a given region, then that entity is gone!

In your area -- "2 Land" it has happened twice. The first coordination body to serve your area was the NorthEast Repeater Association. It was formed in 1967 to coordinate repeater operations in NY, NJ, CT, MA, RI, ME, and several other states. My first repeater -- WA2ZWP -- the nations and worlds first 15 KHz tertiary channel repeater (146.205 / 146.805) was coordinated by NERA in mid-1969 at a meeting in Boston. By 1972 -- when I departed NYC -- NERA was all but gone because its work had not pleased the masses.

NERA gave way to numerous "by-state" and "by-region" coordination councils. New York State wound up with four -- UNYREPCO for "upstate." Western NY / Souuthern Ontario Repeater oiuncil for that area, the St. Lawrence Valley Repeater Assn. for the common border between NY state and Canada and the Tri-State Repeater Council serving NYC, N. NJ and CT. And back around 1996 (I believe) the folks served by TSARC came toi the conclusion that it was not serving their needs and -- like NERA -- it was abandoned. And guess what? Within a year there was chaos -- mainly on 2 meters -- where anyone who felt like doing so put up a repeater on an y channel pair he/she felt like. I have lots of tapes sent to me of what a lot of folks called the "second NY repeater war."

The folks in CT wised up and formed their own repeater council -- the Connecticut Spectrum Management Association -- which was immediately a success, Primerally -- in my opinion -- because it was not carrying the "baggage" of NYC and New Jersey.

Now, NYC and N. NJ are trying once again. About 3 years ago MetroCor Inc.was formed. It limits its work to Northern New Jersey, New York City/Long Island and Westchester County portion of the downstate New York region. This is the third -- and so far most successful attempt at voluntary coordination in the region where you reside.

So how about this. How about YOU becoming a part of the solution rather than ridiculing those who are trying. Why don't you find out who is running MetroCor, send him/her an e-mail and volunteer your 20 to 30 hours a week of your free time to making certain that no nepotism is permitted in the coordination process in your area.

Sitting at a keyboard on QRZ.com and complaining about the way things are done, does nothing. If you actually believe your own words, then it really becomes your duty to your local ham radio community to become involved. To join the coordination council and be the one who has to tell Jack, Joe or Jane that there is no room on any band for the new repeater that they want. Or to sit on a hilltop to test activity on every repeater coordinated by your associates. Or to go out to find a venue -- free of charge if possible -- to hold an open membership meeting. And, eventually, when you have gained the necessary technical skill -- to serve as an actual coordinator or member of a Coordination Technical Committee.

I've been there and done that. So have a lot of others posting here on this topic. So, how about you? Isn't it your turn yet to volunteer and to get involved?

Regarding your clubs repeater sharing frequency with another system 65 miles away? Thats about the right geographic separation. Besides which, why do both groups that close together need separate repeaters? If the interference is as bad as you claim, why don't the two groups get together, relocate one repeater to serve everybody and take the other one off the air! Think of how much RF air pollution you will be taking away! That would be a true public service.

The facts of life are these. We are hams, and putting up with some level of mutual interference is a fact of life. Be it on HF SSB/ CW or on VHF/UHF repeaters.

If both repeaters are coordinated and both licensees have done what they can to mitigate the situation, then thats what you are going to have to live with. Nothing in life is 100% perfect -- not even ham radio.

As to the repeater infrastructure not surviving a disaster? In reality, on 911 and in the days immediately after -- the repeaters on NYC and N. NJ WERE the communications. It was the city of NY's commercial communications infrastructure that was destroyed. (Only 3 ham repeaters were on the WTC -- two on FM plus an ATV repeater.) Every other repeater in the NYC and N.NJ region was unharmed. That cannot be said of the city of NY's emergency communications system -- hubbed at the WTC -- which was destroyed. And it was written into the Congressional Record in 2002 that it was ham radio and only ham radio that was the surviving key link into and out of the disaster zone for several days. Congress and the White House both praised ham radio for what it did for the nation. And it was able to do what it did because by its very nature of decentralization -- HAM RADIO CANNOT BE DESTROYED!!!

Lastly, ham radio is very quickly evolving into the nations most important back-up emergency communications network. That change was not planned. But on 9/11/2001 the mission of Amateur Radio changed. Maybe you do not see it -- or maybe you see it and do not like it -- but there is nothing you can do to change the direction it is headed because hams are among the nations greatest patriots and the decentralized nature of the service makes it impervious to total destruction. Ham radio will be there -- on the air -- providing emergency communications -- long after every other means of communications has failed!!!

Nobody is going to force you or anyone to become an emergency communications volunteer. You can make of the hobby what you want and enjoy the parts you want.

But at the same time you and others are going to have to recognize that more and more hams are abandoning the "hobby aspect" to learn the skills they will need the next time there is a major disaster like 911 or Katrina. Emergency communications is the renewed role that many hams see. Thankfully they are becoming a part of the giant corps of volunteer communications personnel that this nation so desperately needs. 911 and Katrina proved that to the world.

de
WA6ITF

[n5rfx]

The use of the word simultaneous in 97.3(a)(39) is the issue. It looks like there was a search for a loophole, and the word simultaneous provided that loop hole. The email from Bill Cross is interesting. I don't think Bill is an engineer.

I find that when I am working on the commercial side of the R.F. telecommunications business, the FCC is very competent. I have worked with some very good FCC field engineers in the Atlanta area.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[n5rfx]

Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Sep. 21 2007,01:32)]Why does everyone working the newer modes think it's 'The Future Of Ham Radio?"
Its because they are excited. There is a fine line between an enthusiast and a zealot, but I give most early adopters the benefit of the doubt and understand their enthusiasm, but I do agree that the "future of Ham radio" statement in many cases is not warranted.

I was excited to see a very affordable digital voice system that has routing capability. The feature set is limited now, but we are still in the basic elements of the protocol. When Ham minds start requesting features, and the Ham community can provide them, then you will see the next phase of the protocol and system.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ Sep. 22 2007,10:41)]I've been there and done that. #So have a lot of others posting here on this topic. #So, how about you? #Isn't it your turn yet to volunteer and to get involved?
One note: If you're serious about getting involved, don't just go to your local coordinator and say "You're screwing up! Go away and let me do it!" If you go in with an avowed intention of taking over the organization, chances are that you're going to get roundly ignored - and it'll be your own doing. If, OTOH, you go in and offer help, whatever needs doing, they'll likely take you up on it. As WA6ITF points out, it's a labor-intensive job.

It's also much more political, and much less technical, a job than most hams think. Yes, there's definitely a technical aspect to it - but there's also a political aspect, too. Don't forget that coordinators only have the power that the community they serve gives them. In particular, they have no enforcement power at all. None. They can't tell someone to get off the air, or change frequencies, or not get on the air in the first place. Only the FCC can do that. Whatever they accomplish has to be done through the exercise of persuasion. Those that forget this basic truth don't last long.

[AC5WO]

I think that amateur radio station with an elevation advantage that automatically retransmits an amateur radio conversation for the purpose of extending range is a repeater independent of modulation method or time delay. Repeaters allow mobile and portable stations to share use of an antenna site with better coverage due to height. Special rules for repeaters are all about height, range, and automatic operation.

The current method of frequency coordination needs some method to remove exclusive use of spectrum if that spectrum isn't actually being used. When I scan across the 2m and 70cm repeater subbands here in the Dallas suburbs, I only find a few hams actually communicating and that activity only occurs on a small subset of active repeaters. I'm a member of PARK and frequently talk to other hams on the very active 147.18 repeater. However, a rational ham would wonder how their new repeater would cause interference to non-existent communication on the unused repeater pairs. Why can't multiple rarely used ego boxes share the same repeater pair, letting actual users vote with their tone setting as to which repeater is used at one time?

While I have some sympathy for the level of work frequency coordinators do, I think it's time the process of frequency coordination became more open to the efforts of the wider ham community. Perhaps set up an interactive website where repeater users could report inactive pairs. (example below) Another idea would be to set up receivers in cities that receive entire ham bands and record signal level vs. time. Do an FFT on the whole band with special interest in repeater input frequency activity vs. time.

One example of an interactive website with user content is www.dallasgasprices.com where inputs from many, many users gives one a very good picture of where to get a better pump price for gasoline. One person working full time couldn't possibly put together this much up to date information. Maybe repeater coordination also needs to be a more open distributed process.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] ]Sitting at a keyboard on QRZ.com and complaining about the way things are done, does nothing. #.....

Wrong. #It stimulates debate. #And, in many cases, is the only way an individual has to speak up/out and be heard about issues publicized by ham media, such as ARRL's collections or what you place in your Newsline.

Quote[/b] ]Lastly, ham radio is very quickly evolving into the nations most important back-up emergency communications network. #That change was not planned.

That change indeed was not planned. #It is, however, becoming true thanks to the exemplified gross failures of public safety radio systems both in NYC following 9/11 and in New Orleans, following Katrina. #Both were the result, in large part, of use of cellular-tlephone-like trunked radio systems. #And, instead of learning from those failures and abandoning plans to replace perfectly good, redundant, conventional repeater systems with trunked albatrosses across the country, the FCC and Congress continue to cut the Achilles of our public safety radio network. (700MHz rollout)

Quote[/b] ]But at the same time you and others are going to have to recognize that more and more hams are abandoning the "hobby aspect" to learn the skills they will need the next time there is a major disaster like 911 or Katrina.

The skills they need are how to deploy and set up, hastily, a small, portable HF or mobile station. #And, how to modify their HTs or mobiles to be able to talk to the Coast Guard, Navy or AF on Marine frequencies or on other VHF frequencies above two meters. #Why? #Interoperability.

41CFR97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

In other words, yes, amateur radio operators will be needed, but they must have the technical skills and flexibility to fulfill the need.

New hams who are led to believe that all they need is an off the shelf HT, an orange vest and a CERT card won't save the day.

What is needed is a recognition of the vast public safety problem created by the use and widespread conversion to trunked radio systems. #The FCC hasn't listened to or learned from the lessons of 9/11 or Katrina in this respect. #So, yes, amateur radio will be needed to a greater extent, thanks to an intransigent, corporatist government that places profiteering of mobile radio manufacturers above the safety and welfare of United States citizens.

The first lesson from Katrina and 9/11 was that robust conventional communications concepts worked and trunked did not.

Second, interoperability between responders and amateur radio needs improvement. #The most dramatic example was that of a National Guard helo having to drop a note in a bottle to a volunteer on the ground. #If a ham had the ability to transmit on a frequency above 2M or, convesely, the helo the ability to come down to 2M, that would be a solution. #Another example that stood out was a ham using his modified HT to talk with a Coast Guard helo on maritime channels. #Again, either establish mutual frequencies that both amateurs and military/Coast Guard can operate on, or somehow, bring them together.

Is your 2M HT modded for MARS/CAP out of band operation? If not, it should be. Does it have a mobile charger? If not, get one.

Hopefully, the FCC and FEMA will somehow be 'awakened' to see what should be obvious.

73.

[N7YA]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ Sep. 22 2007,11:44)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Sep. 21 2007,01:32)]Why does everyone working the newer modes think it's 'The Future Of Ham Radio?"
Its because they are excited. #There is a fine line between an enthusiast and a zealot, but I give most early adopters the benefit of the doubt and understand their enthusiasm, but I do agree that the "future of Ham radio" statement in many cases is not warranted. #


73,
Mark N5RFX
Keep in mind, the "future of ham radio" doesnt neccessarily mean a complete replacement of traditional means...good luck getting THAT done! its merely an addition of some options available to us. unless im mistaken, we are not required to use these modes.

Im sure if it were desribed in that manner, it may not be 'warmly embraced', but it also wouldnt generate ire in the older hams who fear change. Im excluding, of course, older hams who hung on to some of that excitement about the very basic practice of ham radio communication...i.e. ...fun and friendship, not getting too worked up over what other hams do in their shack.

When you lose that, take solace in the fact that gardening has changed very little in many thousands of years and perhaps its time for a change of hobby. im not done with this one yet and i look forward to new modes of operating, im probably not going to use them all but what do i care if you do?

The day i start to shun mere modes of operation and let them upset me, i WILL let my license lapse and grab the trowel and spade. hopefully the tomatoes dont piss me off!

73...Adam, N7YA

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Sep. 21 2007,06:19)]Hello.

Why the exemption for a "message forwarding system"?
Hey I run a Packet BBS a Message forwarding System...


I do not and we do not need anyone telling us where to operate.. Other then the FCC Rules and bandplans.. Never have and do not want to start now...
Repeater coordinators could not coordinate a good trip to the restroom... Let alone repeaters//

Jerry

[ka9uce]

Quote[/b] (N0BLM @ Sep. 21 2007,19:45)]what is the difference between a translator and repeater, we have a translator on our emergency frequency,
The difference between translators and repeaters is the bandwidth of the receiver/transmitter.

A repeater is normally 10Khz. 'wide' to accompany the +/- 5 Khz. FM signal, whereas a translator has a far wider bandwidth so as it can rebroadcast video and audio without clipping or distortion.

Take a look into some of the satellites in orbit, many are SSB/CW that can accommodate several SSB/CW signals at the same time, but the more users that occupy the entire bandwidth also SHARE the SAME downlink power of that satellite, so the higher power stations rob transmit downlink power from the remainder of the users within the specified bandwidth of that satellite (bird).

These receivers are on the order of 40+ Khz. wide so several users can access the satellite at the same time, otherwise, you'd have a single user or two at the most IF the bandwidth was limited to the standard repeater/FM usage of +/- 5 Khz.

[K9ROD]

How about this:
Sec. 97.305 Authorized emission types.

© A station may transmit the following emission types on the
frequencies indicated, as authorized to the control operator, subject to
the standards specified in Sec. 97.307(f) of this part.

VHF:
6 m 50.1-51.0 MHz........ MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data..... (2), (5).
Do 51.0-54.0 MHz........ MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, (2), (5), (8).
test.
2 m 144.1-148.0 MHz...... MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, (2), (5), (8).
test.
1.25 m 219-220 MHz.......... Data.............................. (13).
Do 222-225 MHz.......... MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, (2), (6), (8).
test.
UHF:
70 cm Entire band.......... MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, SS, (6), (8).
test.
33 cm Entire band.......... MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, SS, (7), (8), and (12).
test, pulse.
23 cm Entire band.......... MCW, phone, image, RTTY, data, SS, (7), (8), and (12).
test.
Rod:0

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 22 2007,05:49)]Quote[/b] (KI4SXC @ Sep. 22 2007,00:32)]Why does everyone working the newer modes think it's 'The Future Of Ham Radio?"
I can't speak to other modes. As for D-Star, I think it's indeed the future for three reasons:
1) Spectrum efficiency. Repeater channels on 2 and 440 are becoming scarce in many more places than the big cities. Being able to put two repeaters on where only one would fit before is a major advantage.
2) Integrated, transparent networking. This allows a signal to find me wherever I am. The user doesn't have to do anything different, or even know where I've gotten off to; he just tells his radio to send to K5ZC.
3) Integrated voice and data. You don't have to dedicate a radio to data transmission (at packet speeds, anyway). You can send data and voice at the same time.

D-Star offers ham radio some pretty major advantages. That's why I've jumped into it.
DSTAR is not a substitute for other, more robust, modes. Consider this quote:

"Low speed D-Star does not provide an error free low speed channel like AX.25 or other air protocols. The actual throughput is less than 900 bits per second with a rather significant latency. According to the Icom rep there is no computer controlled channel setup implemented so each connection has to be set up manually and closed when you are done. While it might be possible to build error control into the computer the latency would make things pretty slow and we would still have the problem of how to set up a channel when traffic was pending. I don’t think WL2K users would want to revert to purely manual operation. It might be OK for keyboard-to-keyboard but not much else.

I have corresponded with Icom regarding the issues but the only response has been “thank you for your interest; we’ll get back to you”.

If anyone has any better information I would be very pleased to hear it.

73, Vic, W5SMM"

[n1jbs]

NERA gave way to numerous "by-state" and "by-region" coordination councils. New York State wound up with four -- UNYREPCO for "upstate." Western NY / Souuthern Ontario Repeater oiuncil for that area, the St. Lawrence Valley Repeater Assn. for the common border between NY state and Canada and the Tri-State Repeater Council serving NYC, N. NJ and CT. And back around 1996 (I believe) the folks served by TSARC came toi the conclusion that it was not serving their needs and -- like NERA -- it was abandoned. And guess what? Within a year there was chaos -- mainly on 2 meters -- where anyone who felt like doing so put up a repeater on an y channel pair he/she felt like. I have lots of tapes sent to me of what a lot of folks called the "second NY repeater war."

The folks in CT wised up and formed their own repeater council -- the Connecticut Spectrum Management Association -- which was immediately a success, Primerally -- in my opinion -- because it was not carrying the "baggage" of NYC and New Jersey.

I can fill you in on a little secret. TSARC went out of business when it was found out that it was no longer incorporated and most of the board members resigned when they were told of a pending lawsuit that involved them. The Connecticut repeater owners saw that TSARC
was not going anywhere and stopped going to meetings.

And you are right about the baggage- thats why we had our own voting rights during those meetings

[w5jck]

Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,22:16)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 20 2007,21:14)]Around here the coordinators put their FRIENDS as priority on the list for coordination.
Ryan we have the same problem down here with our state coordinating body.

There is a private closed statewide repeater system who's members took over the freq coordination body and run it for their own benefit.

They care nothing about paper repeaters or any other issues all they are concerned with is protecting their private system and getting a pair when they want to expand.

Members tired to get the rules changed so all member didn't have to drive across the state to the annual meeting to cast their vote for officers and coordinators.

But the coordination groups officers threw out the vote because it threated their control which caused a law suit to be filed


Vice President of the NFCC on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKatyuKwm8)


FOG
Let's give their name: It is the Armadillo Network. The sleazy bastards who control the Texas VHF FM Society. To belong to the Dillo Network you have to have an invitation to join. In other words, they don't accept applications. It is as close to being a commercial network of amatuer radio repeaters as you can get. As such the FCC should shut them down.

Yes, I believe in repeater coordination. There has to be coordination or there will be chaos. But coordination by a corrupt group is not good for Texas HAMs. The recent actions by these sleazy bastards is as far from democracy as you can get.

[N9EJS]

The original post talks about "within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39)" #I don't find anything in (39) about repeaters! #A repeater is defined in 97.3(a) (37) as "An amateur station that simultaneously transmits the transmission of another amateur station on a different channel or channels."
I don't understand the problem with that definition.

[n3ghx]

I can appreciate both sides of this arguement. I don't think it fair to make proposals that would put words into the mouths of the FCC, but simply ask the FCC to classify this new mode and how they would look at this dilema. Now the Japanese invented it and I'm quite sure it has been up and running there for quite some time so why doesn't somebody take a look at how they've handled it? I am in agreement that the coordinators are quite biased too often and to give those same coordinators regulatory ability over dstar will make it the edsel of the future. Also, if there is such little room to be had now then there isn't any room for dstar either even if smaller bandwidths are needed for dstar. Which repeaters will you take off of the air now to allow a couple of dstars to operate? Most dstar operations are going high to 'get away from it all' and that includes those coordinating and their bs as they try to stay away from it altogether. Some places I realize this is difficult and coordination should also encompass cooperation with others in their ham radio endevors, which it usually doesn't. The example, which wasn't addressed, was an automatic denial when no interference would occur and there is tone encoding as well so there is no excuse imho for the mishandling of the coordinations. But I'm no expert as I am only an amateur.

[kd4e]

Someone mentioned what may best be described as "Sunset"
coordination of repeaters. It makes *excellent* sense.

We all recognize that in many areas the spectrum available for
repeaters is inadequate and lots of coordinated repeater pairs are
inactive.

We need to implement an intelligent solution that recognizes
inactive repeater pairs and return them to the pool.

Also, we need to take politics out by using a "lottery" system
for available pairs. No human or group of humans should
be choosing *who* gets a coordinated pair, only that the pair *is*
coordinated.

We also need limits as to how many pairs any individual or group
may control. It is absurd in a hobby that is supposed to encourage
many to be involved that we often see monopolies over available
repeater pairs.

I have no dog in this fight as I have no interest in owning or controlling
a repeater but as a repeater user it is obvious that the system is not
working well as currently designed.

As for D-Star it is a costly limited proprietary technology. There are
alternatives and likely more coming. YES, we *must* prevent them
from over-running spectrum outside of the repeater subbands the
same as digital modes need to be limited on HF. NO, we have no
reason to line Icom's pockets by accepting their technology without
first considering less-costly and more-robust alternatives. And NO,
in our increasingly literal society the choice of words in the proposal
are troublesome as they *do* leave room for over-reaching abuse
re. controlling more than traditional repeaters and D-Star repeater-
like systems far beyond the stated intent.

IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc KD4E

[KE4IKY]

D-STAR isn't a proprietary technology.

Please also (anyone) just clarify this discussion for me.

Is this a problem with the NFCC because ICOM says that you can fit four D-STAR repeaters in the same bandwidth as two FM repeaters, so one co-ordinated frequency pair might support more than one repeater?

Why is the NFCC concerned about content?

Thanks
Joel

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (n1jbs @ Sep. 25 2007,18:26)]I can fill you in on a little secret. TSARC went out of business when it was found out that it was no longer incorporated and most of the board members resigned when they were told of a pending lawsuit that involved them. The Connecticut repeater owners saw that TSARC
was not going anywhere and stopped going to meetings.

And you are right about the baggage- thats why we had our own voting rights during those meetings
Was not aware that TSARC let its inc. expire nor that it was being threatened with a law suit. But that easily explains why -- at least in part -- it went away.

I was out here in LaLa Land when that transpired but began to learn some of the details from audio tapes of on-the-air repeater fights by those trying to grab channels from existing machines by "RF force." Very similar to the "Green Box" repeater wars in that area of the late '60's and early 70's. Same tactics -- later series call signs.

[kd4e]

Quote[/b] (KE4IKY @ Sep. 26 2007,07:02)]D-STAR isn't a proprietary technology.

Please also (anyone) just clarify this discussion for me.

Is this a problem with the NFCC because ICOM says that you can fit four D-STAR repeaters in the same bandwidth as two FM repeaters, so one co-ordinated frequency pair might support more than one repeater?

Why is the NFCC concerned about content?

Thanks
Joel
> D-STAR isn't a proprietary technology.

Really? So 100% of D-Star code is freely available, may be modified
by anyone, and is not dependent in any critical way on Icom-only
hardware? (And it doesn't mandate any other proprietary
associated software or OS or other manufacturer's hardware?)

If any element of this is not true then it is *by definition* a proprietary
technology. Just because Icom's marketing dept. says otherwise
does not make it so.

> Is this a problem with the NFCC because ICOM says that you can fit
> four D-STAR repeaters in the same bandwidth as two FM repeaters,
> so one co-ordinated frequency pair might support more than one
> repeater?

It is a problem for all Hams when D-Star repeaters (they *are*
repeaters) begin to occupy spectrum respected for weak signal and
other Ham activities incompatible with high density digital QRM.

> Why is the NFCC concerned about content?

All Hams are concerned about content because the FCC says we
are a self-policing hobby and the FCC limits Ham content.

73, doc KD4E

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (w5jck @ Sep. 25 2007,21:03)]Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,22:16)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 20 2007,21:14)]Around here the coordinators put their FRIENDS as priority on the list for coordination.
Ryan we have the same problem down here with our state coordinating body.

There is a private closed statewide repeater system who's members took over the freq coordination body and run it for their own benefit.

They care nothing about paper repeaters or any other issues all they are concerned with is protecting their private system and getting a pair when they want to expand.

Members tired to get the rules changed so all member didn't have to drive across the state to the annual meeting to cast their vote for officers and coordinators.

But the coordination groups officers threw out the vote because it threated their control which caused a law suit to be filed


Vice President of the NFCC on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKatyuKwm8)


FOG
Let's give their name: It is the Armadillo Network. The sleazy bastards who control the Texas VHF FM Society. To belong to the Dillo Network you have to have an invitation to join. In other words, they don't accept applications. It is as close to being a commercial network of amatuer radio repeaters as you can get. As such the FCC should shut them down.

Yes, I believe in repeater coordination. There has to be coordination or there will be chaos. But coordination by a corrupt group is not good for Texas HAMs. The recent actions by these sleazy bastards is as far from democracy as you can get.
I happen to know a lot of the guys and gals on the Armadillo Link, and they are some of the most upstanding people around. One is free to attend their functions to get to know them, and that often leads to an invitation to join.

The Armadillo Link is one of the best EMCOMM resources that we have. It is made available to disaster responders and emergency managers quite regularly. It was used in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita to provide communications for several groups as we transited through various parts of Texas.

The Texas plan provides Designated Non-Coordinated Pairs for "backyard repeaters" / deployable repeaters. You need nobody's permission to build one. Other than that, the 144 MHz and 440 MHz bands are pretty much used up in most major metro areas, and along the major highways.

I know of many people and clubs who have fully coordinated repeaters but have no other involvement with the coordinator. I also know of some who demanded to have "their" repeater, but who could not find a frequency pair that the coordinator would approve.

We commonly receive repeaters that are 60 - 80 miles distant. We often get interference from some that are over 100 miles away -- and from the guy with the 100 foot tower and the 300 Watt amplifier feeding an omnidirectional antenna who is talking on a repeater that is within 30 miles of his location.

I have seen no evidence of anything but "sour grapes" from some who were not first in line, but believe that they have a "right" to have "their" repeater. Newsflash: They don't!

The coordinators must ensure that ALL amateurs are served in the best possible way from a limited resource of frequencies in any geographic area. The guy who wants to put a repeater up 100 feet offers little help to someone 20 miles away. The group that can put a repeater at 500 or 1000 feet offers help to many.

[KE4IKY]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Peace, just pointing out some things.===deep breath====

All of the information needed to implement your own equipment is published, if you want to use individual logic gates on a giant breadboard to do it, you can, if you want to write your own code for a microcontroller to implement it, you can, if you want ICOM to do it for you, you'll have to pay them, and they wont tell you how.

The spectrum efficiency (which I'm not sure about, but that’s the claim.) seems important since everyone seemed to go NUTS with the ?PACTOR III? modems on HF (that did use proprietary techniques that are not shared so you can't make your own system.)

The complaint at the time was partially about how much it was a spectrum hog. Kind of seems reasonable that if something reduces the required bandwidth for the same amount of information, that it should get a break, maybe a spectrum efficient only sub band of the repeater areas.


The comment made about content is senseless when taken in context.

I do like the sunset idea though.

and a few pairs for non-coordinated backyard repeaters

Hopefully at some point someone will figure out a way to isolate antenna systems enough physically to allow simultaneous reception and transmission on the same frequency. It would probably only happen at 1.2ghz, if ever, and only good for local operations since the rx antenna would have to be something like a rubber duck pointed down with an 8 foot disk between it and a transmit ducky.

If I ever get time I'll try something like that just to prove that it can't be done.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[k5zc]

Quote[/b] (kd4e @ Sep. 26 2007,12:17)]Really? #So 100% of D-Star code is freely available, may be modified
by anyone, and is not dependent in any critical way on Icom-only
hardware? # (And it doesn't mandate any other proprietary
associated software or OS or other manufacturer's hardware?)
Ask Moe Wheatley, AE4JY...he built a D-Star radio (http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/) from scratch.

Quote[/b] ]It is a problem for all Hams when D-Star repeaters (they *are*
repeaters) begin to occupy spectrum respected for weak signal and
other Ham activities incompatible with high density digital QRM.
This is exactly right. The NFCC acted to keep repeaters in the repeater subbands, instead of proliferating all over the 2-meter band.

[kd4e]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 26 2007,14:19)]Quote[/b] (kd4e @ Sep. 26 2007,12:17)]Really? So 100% of D-Star code is freely available, may be modified
by anyone, and is not dependent in any critical way on Icom-only
hardware? (And it doesn't mandate any other proprietary
associated software or OS or other manufacturer's hardware?)
Ask Moe Wheatley, AE4JY...he built a D-Star radio (http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/) from scratch.

Quote[/b] ]It is a problem for all Hams when D-Star repeaters (they *are*
repeaters) begin to occupy spectrum respected for weak signal and
other Ham activities incompatible with high density digital QRM.
This is exactly right. The NFCC acted to keep repeaters in the repeater subbands, instead of proliferating all over the 2-meter band.
FULL DISCLOSURE re. "Ask Moe Wheatley, AE4JY...he *TRIED TO* (edit) built a D-Star radio from scratch."

His comments included:
" ...turned into yet another adventure trying to fill in the many holes in the published "Open" D-Star Specification."

"Note: This project was a proof of concept project and as such *is not useful as a dstar radio.* There are several problems with the design, the biggest is the inability of the Analog Devices RF transceiver chip to lock onto the data in time to get the header packet. *So far no resolution of the issue has been found.* "

AND

"Another output from this project *will be* a more detailed low level D-Star format description and open source code that others can use or build upon for their own projects."

All of which means that D-Star has not provided the information
nor support necessary to access their system with anything other
than Icom hardware and software.

ERGO, it is *not* an open protocol by any generally accepted
definition and or useful meaning of that term.

73, doc KD4E

[k5zc]

The radio works well enough to talk on. I've seen it demonstrated.

The protocol is certainly open enough for other manufacturers to build from, the FUD being spread by Kenwood and Yaesu's USA reps notwithstanding. No royalties need to be paid to Icom. The protocol was developed and is owned by JARL, not Icom.

[n5qzt]

Quote[/b] (w5jck @ Sep. 25 2007,21:03)]Quote[/b] (n5fog @ Sep. 21 2007,22:16)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 20 2007,21:14)]Around here the coordinators put their FRIENDS as priority on the list for coordination.
Ryan we have the same problem down here with our state coordinating body.

There is a private closed statewide repeater system who's members took over the freq coordination body and run it for their own benefit.

They care nothing about paper repeaters or any other issues all they are concerned with is protecting their private system and getting a pair when they want to expand.

Members tired to get the rules changed so all member didn't have to drive across the state to the annual meeting to cast their vote for officers and coordinators.

But the coordination groups officers threw out the vote because it threated their control which caused a law suit to be filed


Vice President of the NFCC on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKatyuKwm8)


FOG
Let's give their name: It is the Armadillo Network. The sleazy bastards who control the Texas VHF FM Society. To belong to the Dillo Network you have to have an invitation to join. In other words, they don't accept applications. It is as close to being a commercial network of amatuer radio repeaters as you can get. As such the FCC should shut them down.

Yes, I believe in repeater coordination. There has to be coordination or there will be chaos. But coordination by a corrupt group is not good for Texas HAMs. The recent actions by these sleazy bastards is as far from democracy as you can get.
Jack you are correct, the Armadillo group does control the Texas VHF-FM Society. Let's not forget that Jay "Tronguy" Maynard K5ZC, Chairman of the NFCC, is not only an Armadillo Intertie member, but a former member of the Armadillo Intertie board of directors. He has drug his sleazy Armadillo baggage into NFCC and has poisoned all coordination democracy as we once knew it. Here is the whole horrid story about the Texas VHF-FM Society:

http://www.saveoursociety.info

[wa7nwp]

Quote[/b] (AC5WO @ Sep. 22 2007,13:41)]The current method of frequency coordination needs some method to remove exclusive use of spectrum if that spectrum isn't actually being used.

That's the key of the whole issue!!!

Activity appears to down across the board on the bands. I've personally noticed a significant difference here in the past year while scanning during my commute and that just extends an ongoing trend.

We have the technology to share the frequencies. There's no reason any new project shouldn't have a channel to use when so many existing "allocations" are underused.

It's time to look at the whole frequency usage picture differently with modern and more efficient techniques based on technology instead of bureaucracy.

Bill - WA7NWP

PS. Back to the original post. The problem with the NFCC statement is that it doesn't recognize the technology at hand. There's a big difference between dumb "I'm going to send exactly what I hear" and smart "This data goes to that channel" relaying stations. This is like the HUB vs SWITCH in LAN networking. The dumb hubs need control and management because they don't have the technology to make good use of the resources. The smart stations need less blind management since they're better stewards of the resource.

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (wa7nwp @ Sep. 28 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] (AC5WO @ Sep. 22 2007,13:41)]The current method of frequency coordination needs some method to remove exclusive use of spectrum if that spectrum isn't actually being used.

That's the key of the whole issue!!!

Activity appears to down across the board on the bands. #I've personally noticed a significant difference here in the past year while scanning during my commute and that just extends an ongoing trend.

We have the technology to share the frequencies. #There's no reason any new project shouldn't have a channel to use when so many existing "allocations" are underused.

It's time to look at the whole frequency usage picture differently with modern and more efficient techniques based on technology instead of bureaucracy.

Bill - WA7NWP

PS. #Back to the original post. #The problem with the NFCC statement is that it doesn't recognize the technology at hand. #There's a big difference between dumb "I'm going to send exactly what I hear" and smart "This data goes to that channel" relaying stations. # This is like the HUB vs SWITCH in LAN networking. #The dumb hubs need control and management because they don't have the technology to make good use of the resources. #The smart stations need less blind management since they're better stewards of the resource.
Repeaters with PL tones are 'smarter' than open repeaters, but that doesn't change the fact that they're shared-usage automated devices on shared amateur frequencies, and that we have a subband for repeaters to live in.

While I agree that the current system of allocation in most congested areas is crap, that doesn't mean that you start reclassifying repeaters as 'not-really-a-repeater-because-its-smarter-but-it-still-functions-as-a-repeater' because the allocation system is broken. What you're talking about is letting anyone who wants to buy a 'not-repeater' just plonk it down on whatever pair they feel is open, without any coordination whatsoever.

Just because it's digital doesn't mean it doesn't get into the frontend of the hospital radios, or the police, or that it doesn't mix with the TV stations VHF and do some wonderful additive mixing, or any of a hundred other different things that a properly-working coordinating body is supposed to be able to prevent by doing the research up front.

Now, all the politics and games, holding on to frequency pairs for years at a time and never putting up a working system, closed good-ol-boy methods of allocation, changing voting rules so that certain people can't cast votes, all that is crap. But that still doesn't mean you open up the bands to the chaos that would ensue if you could put a 'not-repeater' anywhere you wanted to.

It's still a repeater, no matter how smart it is.

[KE4IKY]

Maybe everyone using a trunked system would work better

(couldn't resist)

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ab8yy]

First, Repeater coordinators are overworked and underpaid. This doesn't mean there aren't horrible repeater coordinators however. There are bad people in every group or organization around. Look at the ARRL for a good example of this. Now, this thread wasn't started concerning the good and bad in coordination groups - it was started because someone wanted to inform the rest that NFCC was submitting a proposal to the FCC to classify all repeating transmitters as "repeaters". Hmmm. Repeating - repeater. Seems logical to me. Makes sense even.

I think the basis for this decision is because this Bill person had made a decision based on a simple word which doesn't have a defitinition from the FCC - "simultaneous". I think the word is defined by dictionaries all over the country. And it's definition would intend to exclude a system which has a time delay. BUT.... At the time which the rules were written, there were no digital voice repeaters available with this time delay. So, it is understandable that those repeaters were not considered at that time. Don't blame this on the FCC, they didn't have a crystal ball to gaze into on this subject.

What needs to be done is to eliminate the word from that part and I think everything will be on track again. DStar and other digital voice repeaters would then follow criteria of a repeater again. No need to redesign a rule which is sufficient, just outdated slightly. Does this make sense? Does this end the argument here?

As for the dual-band radios acting as repeaters - they ARE repeaters under current and future rules. But.... coordinating them - would be a pain the arse, as we can see from this thread - coordinating any of them has turned into the same thing. Most of the dual-band radios provide for very limited coverage and have never caused any interference that I have read or heard about - so they should be exempt provided they are using mobile antennas and/or rubber duckies and have no amplifiers attached to the output.

There was mention of "back-yard repeater" setups on pairs which are non-coordinated. This COULD work, but would have to be limited to ERP and antenna height. This would facilitate testing of controllers and such as well. This could be used for those dual-band HTs and mobiles which I spoke of earlier also. Frequency pairs could still be issued by the coordinators, but would be done in a way to reduce interference as much as possible.

As far as DStar and other digital voice repeaters, maybe they should be on their own sub-band. We could reorganize the repeater subbands and like on 2 meters, maybe, since digital uses less bandwidth and is able to place more repeaters into the same space, what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband. Change the split to something less than 600 and doubling the frequency pairs for digital repeaters. Then everyone can live in peace and harmony. If the bandwidth is lower, you could reduce the repeater split to something lower and have more pairs available. There aren't that many of the digital repeaters anyway - so there may be room for more as they want to setup in the future.

I think the comments concerning EMCOMM are mostly valid, however, in an emergency situation, most people use HTs on the scene and how many of us really have the money to purchase digital HTs? So, the emcomm will still mainly be FM anyway - so there does need to be plenty of room for FM repeaters and they will still need to be coordinated properly to ensure there are repeaters available for emergency comms.

Just my opinion.

Steve
AB8YY

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 30 2007,08:59)]Change the split to something less than 600 and doubling the frequency pairs for digital repeaters. Then everyone can live in peace and harmony. If the bandwidth is lower, you could reduce the repeater split to something lower and have more pairs available. There aren't that many of the digital repeaters anyway - so there may be room for more as they want to setup in the future.
Changing the split would really not be a good idea for several reasons. One is that is accomplishes nothing, since the same bandwidth is required at 600, 300, or 2MHz split. There are still two channels operating. This might also require a better duplexer, if the split is much less than 600KHz. Also, most hams are familiar with, and the radios designed for, 600KHz offset.

Joe

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 29 2007,09:59)]...what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband. #
The harm would be tons and tons of work for thousands of repeater owners and clubs to realign entire stacks of equipment, but for what gain? At this point I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I'm not usually one for mixing digital and analog, but in a coordinated environment it's different. Forcing all the analog repeater owners to move out of the "new kid's" space? Sorry, don't see that it's fair and I don't see the gain yet.

[wa6bjh]

It is unthinkable that a person named Bill Cross at the FCC would make such an interpretation of the rules without extensive internal discussion. #I've worked for government agencies for most of my career, and individuals just don't do that. #The change is proabably predicated on the FCC's statutory duty to encourage new technologies--D-Star. #

The FCC is well aware of all the complaints about frequency coordination. #They have been hearing them for as long as I have, and I've been hearing them since the original predecessor to the Southeast Repeater Association came into existence in North Carolina. #When the local frequency coordination people decided to make things difficult for D-Star, the FCC--which must encourage D-Star--sidestepped them. #

The NFCC is missing an opportunity. #The opportunity is to establish voluntary D-Star thing subbands outside the FM repeater subbands. #The NFCC could then begin to coordinate in those subbands, or perhaps interleave D-Star things into the FM repeater subbands. #This might be difficult, but after all, the NFCC is a group of experts. #And this should not be difficult for experts. #The NFCC should be providing leadership rather than whining to the government to bail them out of their predicament. #

The FCC did exactly what could be expected. #Their action is in the best interests of the ham radio community. #It will separate D-Star and FM--a good idea.

Finally, I need to point out that the past tense of drag is dragged.

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 30 2007,08:59)]First, Repeater coordinators are overworked and underpaid. This doesn't mean there aren't horrible repeater coordinators however. There are bad people in every group or organization around. Look at the ARRL for a good example of this. Now, this thread wasn't started concerning the good and bad in coordination groups - it was started because someone wanted to inform the rest that NFCC was submitting a proposal to the FCC to classify all repeating transmitters as "repeaters". Hmmm. Repeating - repeater. Seems logical to me. Makes sense even.

I think the basis for this decision is because this Bill person had made a decision based on a simple word which doesn't have a defitinition from the FCC - "simultaneous". I think the word is defined by dictionaries all over the country. And it's definition would intend to exclude a system which has a time delay. BUT.... At the time which the rules were written, there were no digital voice repeaters available with this time delay. So, it is understandable that those repeaters were not considered at that time. Don't blame this on the FCC, they didn't have a crystal ball to gaze into on this subject.

What needs to be done is to eliminate the word from that part and I think everything will be on track again. DStar and other digital voice repeaters would then follow criteria of a repeater again. No need to redesign a rule which is sufficient, just outdated slightly. Does this make sense? Does this end the argument here?

As for the dual-band radios acting as repeaters - they ARE repeaters under current and future rules. But.... coordinating them - would be a pain the arse, as we can see from this thread - coordinating any of them has turned into the same thing. Most of the dual-band radios provide for very limited coverage and have never caused any interference that I have read or heard about - so they should be exempt provided they are using mobile antennas and/or rubber duckies and have no amplifiers attached to the output.

There was mention of "back-yard repeater" setups on pairs which are non-coordinated. This COULD work, but would have to be limited to ERP and antenna height. This would facilitate testing of controllers and such as well. This could be used for those dual-band HTs and mobiles which I spoke of earlier also. Frequency pairs could still be issued by the coordinators, but would be done in a way to reduce interference as much as possible.

As far as DStar and other digital voice repeaters, maybe they should be on their own sub-band. We could reorganize the repeater subbands and like on 2 meters, maybe, since digital uses less bandwidth and is able to place more repeaters into the same space, what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband. Change the split to something less than 600 and doubling the frequency pairs for digital repeaters. Then everyone can live in peace and harmony. If the bandwidth is lower, you could reduce the repeater split to something lower and have more pairs available. There aren't that many of the digital repeaters anyway - so there may be room for more as they want to setup in the future.

I think the comments concerning EMCOMM are mostly valid, however, in an emergency situation, most people use HTs on the scene and how many of us really have the money to purchase digital HTs? So, the emcomm will still mainly be FM anyway - so there does need to be plenty of room for FM repeaters and they will still need to be coordinated properly to ensure there are repeaters available for emergency comms.

Just my opinion.

Steve
AB8YY
This is a pretty danged well thought-out post ! (Those are quite rare....)

In Texas, the Non-Coordinated Pairs are "coordinated" by gentlemens' agreement -- generally on the tone for each repeater. Most are on low antennas to limit coverage, are little used, or not in service except for testing. They are tested, working assets that are available to be set up in a disaster area, for a public service event, or for other "temporary" use.

BTW, WACOM makes a really nice mobile duplexer that weighs only a couple of pounds for the 440/450 version. They also have really nice 24 pound rack-mount (single 5 U or 6 U panel) duplexers for 146 MHz. Not bad for a "car trunk" or portable repeater....

[K7ZZY]

null

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Sep. 30 2007,15:42)]BTW, WACOM makes a really nice mobile duplexer that weighs only a couple of pounds for the 440/450 version. They also have really nice 24 pound rack-mount (single 5 U or 6 U panel) duplexers for 146 MHz. Not bad for a "car trunk" or portable repeater....
Which would be good if Wacom were still in business.

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 30 2007,18:47)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Sep. 30 2007,15:42)]BTW, WACOM makes a really nice mobile duplexer that weighs only a couple of pounds for the 440/450 version. They also have really nice 24 pound rack-mount (single 5 U or 6 U panel) duplexers for 146 MHz. Not bad for a "car trunk" or portable repeater....
Which would be good if Wacom were still in business.
WACOM products remain available.

www.txrx.com

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Oct. 01 2007,15:14)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Sep. 30 2007,18:47)]Quote[/b] (WA5BEN @ Sep. 30 2007,15:42)]BTW, WACOM makes a really nice mobile duplexer that weighs only a couple of pounds for the 440/450 version. They also have really nice 24 pound rack-mount (single 5 U or 6 U panel) duplexers for 146 MHz. Not bad for a "car trunk" or portable repeater....
Which would be good if Wacom were still in business.
WACOM products remain available.

www.txrx.com
I can't find any kind of Wacom stuff on their site, maybe they hide it somewhere.

Certainly won't sell the stuff for the same prices Wacom used to charge, you just couldn't beat dealing with Kit Parsons.

Joe

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 30 2007,06:24)]Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 29 2007,09:59)]...what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband. #
The harm would be tons and tons of work for thousands of repeater owners and clubs to realign entire stacks of equipment, but for what gain? At this point I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I'm not usually one for mixing digital and analog, but in a coordinated environment it's different. Forcing all the analog repeater owners to move out of the "new kid's" space? Sorry, don't see that it's fair and I don't see the gain yet.
OK, I see your point and you are probably right, but I don't see taking more of the FM simplex and SSB/data weak signal band for another repeater subband either. And the only way to do it would be to set it up in the simplex territory which would severely limit the number of frequencies available for it anyway. The only other solution is to mix them with FM repeaters - but we already know there is a lack of pairs in some areas. And unfortunately it is in those areas where DStar would be wanting pairs to setup.

But on the other hand, saying they are not repeaters is rediculous - they are repeaters and need to be treated as such. In this instance NFCC is doing the right thing in getting the FCC to declare them as such.

If you let them setup anyplace, you might as well take away simplex and give them those frequencies. I don't see many being happy about that either.

I am all for eliminating the repeaters which are barely used or are declared private, if there is really such a thing. That brings up another question, the FCC rules state that we do not own a frequency - but a repeater which doesn't allow anyone to use it, is owning the frequency. It is coordinated and does not have to accept interference. This means noone can use that frequency - and they actually own the frequency. This is kind of a double standard isn't it?

Steve
AB8YY

[WA0LYK]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Oct. 02 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 30 2007,06:24)]Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 29 2007,09:59)]...what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband.
The harm would be tons and tons of work for thousands of repeater owners and clubs to realign entire stacks of equipment, but for what gain? At this point I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I'm not usually one for mixing digital and analog, but in a coordinated environment it's different. Forcing all the analog repeater owners to move out of the "new kid's" space? Sorry, don't see that it's fair and I don't see the gain yet.
OK, I see your point and you are probably right, but I don't see taking more of the FM simplex and SSB/data weak signal band for another repeater subband either. And the only way to do it would be to set it up in the simplex territory which would severely limit the number of frequencies available for it anyway. The only other solution is to mix them with FM repeaters - but we already know there is a lack of pairs in some areas. And unfortunately it is in those areas where DStar would be wanting pairs to setup.

But on the other hand, saying they are not repeaters is rediculous - they are repeaters and need to be treated as such. In this instance NFCC is doing the right thing in getting the FCC to declare them as such.

If you let them setup anyplace, you might as well take away simplex and give them those frequencies. I don't see many being happy about that either.

I am all for eliminating the repeaters which are barely used or are declared private, if there is really such a thing. That brings up another question, the FCC rules state that we do not own a frequency - but a repeater which doesn't allow anyone to use it, is owning the frequency. It is coordinated and does not have to accept interference. This means noone can use that frequency - and they actually own the frequency. This is kind of a double standard isn't it?

Steve
AB8YY
I agree with you, there is no need to expand the repeater subbands into areas already used by other hams.

It seems to me that either the coordinating councils should require keeping a log of usage on repeaters where there are no channels left. If, because the incumbents won't allow this to become a new rule, then other folks should file a petition with the FCC to make it a new rule.

The log can be something as simple as a timer on the transmitter and read only as often as needed. You could even let the timer accumulate over three, four, etc. months and simply divide the accumulated time by the number of days since it was last read. This would give you hours or minutes per day of usage on that repeater. Anyone who doesn't want to participate could simply be assigned a value of 0 hours per day.

Those with no usage (paper repeaters) or very, very low usage would have to share the frequency with a new digital repeater. Of course, this could start a war but it seems only reasonable that sharing of frequencies is the best way to move forward.

Jim
WA0LYK

[KE4IKY]

Maybe an official observer setup would work better than timers on the repeaters themselves.

I love the idea.Quote[/b] ]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


That brings up another question, the FCC rules state that we do not own a frequency - but a repeater which doesn't allow anyone to use it, is owning the frequency. #It is coordinated and does not have to accept interference. #This means noone can use that frequency - and they actually own the frequency. #This is kind of a double standard isn't it?



Kind of funny when you think about how on HF they expect a net to move to avoid a QSO in progress.

Joel

[kb7uxe]

if they just go back to CW we wouldn't have this problem...

3.565

[KG4RUL]

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ Sep. 26 2007,15:19)][quote=kd4e,Sep. 26 2007,12:17]
Ask Moe Wheatley, AE4JY...he built a D-Star radio (http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/) from scratch.
From the referenced site:

"Note: This project was a proof of concept project and as such is not useful as a dstar radio. There are several problems with the design, the biggest is the inability of the Analog Devices RF transceiver chip to lock onto the data in time to get the header packet. So far no resolution of the issue has been found."

Sounds like it was not a functional radio at all.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (WA0LYK @ Oct. 02 2007,17:10)]Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Oct. 02 2007,14:11)]Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Sep. 30 2007,06:24)]Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ Sep. 29 2007,09:59)]...what would be the harm in moving all current voice repeaters to 145 and 146 subband and restructuring the digital repeaters to 147 subband.
The harm would be tons and tons of work for thousands of repeater owners and clubs to realign entire stacks of equipment, but for what gain? At this point I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I'm not usually one for mixing digital and analog, but in a coordinated environment it's different. Forcing all the analog repeater owners to move out of the "new kid's" space? Sorry, don't see that it's fair and I don't see the gain yet.
OK, I see your point and you are probably right, but I don't see taking more of the FM simplex and SSB/data weak signal band for another repeater subband either. And the only way to do it would be to set it up in the simplex territory which would severely limit the number of frequencies available for it anyway. The only other solution is to mix them with FM repeaters - but we already know there is a lack of pairs in some areas. And unfortunately it is in those areas where DStar would be wanting pairs to setup.

But on the other hand, saying they are not repeaters is rediculous - they are repeaters and need to be treated as such. In this instance NFCC is doing the right thing in getting the FCC to declare them as such.

If you let them setup anyplace, you might as well take away simplex and give them those frequencies. I don't see many being happy about that either.

I am all for eliminating the repeaters which are barely used or are declared private, if there is really such a thing. That brings up another question, the FCC rules state that we do not own a frequency - but a repeater which doesn't allow anyone to use it, is owning the frequency. It is coordinated and does not have to accept interference. This means noone can use that frequency - and they actually own the frequency. This is kind of a double standard isn't it?

Steve
AB8YY
I agree with you, there is no need to expand the repeater subbands into areas already used by other hams.

It seems to me that either the coordinating councils should require keeping a log of usage on repeaters where there are no channels left. If, because the incumbents won't allow this to become a new rule, then other folks should file a petition with the FCC to make it a new rule.

The log can be something as simple as a timer on the transmitter and read only as often as needed. You could even let the timer accumulate over three, four, etc. months and simply divide the accumulated time by the number of days since it was last read. This would give you hours or minutes per day of usage on that repeater. Anyone who doesn't want to participate could simply be assigned a value of 0 hours per day.

Those with no usage (paper repeaters) or very, very low usage would have to share the frequency with a new digital repeater. Of course, this could start a war but it seems only reasonable that sharing of frequencies is the best way to mo