Losing 2 meter simplex frequencies in Texas and maybe nationwide

[N5FOG]

Yesterday I received letter from the Texas VHF FM Society (the repeater frequency coordinating group/body of Texas).

In the letter they said they are going to take 146.450-146.490 and 147.450-147.490mhz and make them repeater pairs for D-STAR repeaters with a 1 mhz split 12.5khz spacing.

Why should a D-STAR repeater be given a its own sub-band at the cost of simplex when it occupies the same bandwidth as a FM repeater and serves the same purpose.

The main reason for this from what I understand is several people at the TXVHFFM society want to put up D-STAR repeaters in the metro area they live in and since no normal pairs are open are deciding to create some.

If you live in Texas or just want to express your upset for this you can email the president and board of the society. http://www.txvhffm.org/


FOG

[KB3LIX]

According to the ARRL repeater directory,
they are already repeater frequencies in Western Pennsylvania.

No great loss !

[K6BTM]

Yesterday I received letter from the Texas VHF FM Society (the repeater frequency coordinating group/body of Texas).

In the letter they said they are going to take 146.450-146.490 and 147.450-147.490mhz and make them repeater pairs for D-STAR repeaters with a 1 mhz split 12.5khz spacing.

Why should a D-STAR repeater be given a its own sub-band at the cost of simplex when it occupies the same bandwidth as a FM repeater and serves the same purpose.

The main reason for this from what I understand is several people at the TXVHFFM society want to put up D-STAR repeaters in the metro area they live in and since no normal pairs are open are deciding to create some.

If you live in Texas or just want to express your upset for this you can email the president and board of the society. http://www.txvhffm.org/


FOG
Since the FCC has chosen to rely on local frequency coordinators and backs them up, your stuck with the change. :( Time to move on. ;)

[N2RJ]

I got news for ya FOG - those frequencies are already repeater pairs in many places, including NY/NJ.

In fact our club's repeater is on 146.49

[n8yx]

I got news for ya FOG - those frequencies are already repeater pairs in many places, including NY/NJ.

In fact our club's repeater is on 146.49

Around here (NEOH) they're dead air space...like the rest of the 2M band... :(

[N2RJ]

Around here (NEOH) they're dead air space...like the rest of the 2M band... :(

Well they're that too here.

[N5FOG]

I got news for ya FOG - those frequencies are already repeater pairs in many places, including NY/NJ.

In fact our club's repeater is on 146.49

1 MHz shift or 600khz and up or down split ?


FOG

[n8yx]

Well they're that too here.

Seriously?

I would think the opposite to be true, especially as close as you folks are to NYC.

A while back, there was so much contention for our 2M pairs that fights literally broke out over their coordination. Grown men tussling over an allocation like two spoiled little girls tugging at a rag doll; such was the norm.

EVERYBODY wanted a repeater. Those persons who weren't connected to a club in some form or another wanted one for remote control of their very own Technician-class 'Stepford Wife', as it were. A goodly number of the on-the-air command-and-control sessions provided for some amusing listening!

Almost all the area clubs whose membership endorsed that sort of behavior are now gone; their members passed on or scattered to the wind when the industries which sponsored the clubs shuttered their doors and moved away...and the repeaters went with them.

[ai4ep]

Y'all dont find us folks over here in Alabama arguing and a'fussing like that, espcially over 2 meter frequencies.

We 'uns behave our selves over here.

We dont go and agitate / harass the FCC into nothing at all...some of us just consider the source of any problems that come along.

simple ...cheap...easy for even YOU to understand .

[ky5u]

Yesterday I received letter from the Texas VHF FM Society (the repeater frequency coordinating group/body of Texas).

In the letter they said they are going to take 146.450-146.490 and 147.450-147.490mhz and make them repeater pairs for D-STAR repeaters with a 1 mhz split 12.5khz spacing.

Why should a D-STAR repeater be given a its own sub-band at the cost of simplex when it occupies the same bandwidth as a FM repeater and serves the same purpose.

The main reason for this from what I understand is several people at the TXVHFFM society want to put up D-STAR repeaters in the metro area they live in and since no normal pairs are open are deciding to create some.

If you live in Texas or just want to express your upset for this you can email the president and board of the society. http://www.txvhffm.org/

FOG
I left a comment supporting your position, Eric. Many repeaters lay unused while they take MORE spectrum?

[WA9SVD]

Didn't the FCC sort of "suggest" that the coordination groups weed out some of the "paper" repeaters, rather than looking for MORE space for repeaters?
Maybe it's time for the FCC to require a documented minimum activity level for repeaters...

At one time, Amateurs had to operate for a certain amount of time (as shown in their log) within a year to renew their license. They could require the same for repeaters. Might not eliminate the "used once a year" repeaters, but certainly would kick out the repeaters that don't physically exist.

[K7JEM]

I think it's a good idea. It keeps the digital and analog repeaters on separate frequencies. There are lots of simplex channels available on 2M. Also, any out of range repeater input or output can be used for simplex, as well as lots of space where repeaters cannot locate.

This is a better idea than the CA guys that are running the D* repeaters above 145.50.

Joe

[aa3re]

In fact our club's repeater is on 146.49

:mad: Yea I know. Killed a BIG simplex group here years ago. Nothing like neighboring councils choices on new repeater frequencies with no regard to the next state over that has a different plan and kill all the simplex.

[KB1KIX]

Here's a simple solution that would work in most parts of the country..... get rid of the damn paper repeaters and coordinate them there!

When I travel around the country, I find far too many repeaters listed, that simply just aren't there.

****

As far as the original intent of the thread....... with so many repeaters with so little activity, why not try something that will actually get some use? I'd assume it would get used as I can't see anyone wanting to buy almost ten grand of repeater and have noone to talk to.

I understand the simplex frequencies argument, but man...... some places are just dead!

I was surprised to find a lot of 52 activity when I'm in NYC. I usually find a bunch of guys when I'm stuck on one of the bridges.

Jonathan

[wr5aw]

Here's a simple solution that would work in most parts of the country..... get rid of the damn paper repeaters and coordinate them there!
Exactly. I can tell you for a FACT that there are probably a dozen or more paper 2m repeaters in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a 2m pair here because of that. Ok, maybe not impossible, but who wants to wait 5 years.

Here's the way I look at it - ignoring a "band plan" because your coordinators are inept at policing the repeater pairs equates to one thing - poor engineering and amateur practices. See 47CFR97.101:(a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice.

[N5FOG]

Exactly. I can tell you for a FACT that there are probably a dozen or more paper 2m repeaters in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a 2m pair here because of that. Ok, maybe not impossible, but who wants to wait 5 years

Well if your a member of the Armadillo group which is a private repeater club that has repeaters all over teaxas and has seized control of the freq. coordinating body you don't have to wait five years.

Paper repeaters are of no concern to the TXVHFFM society unless a armadillo member wants a to put up a repeater THEN they will clean house.



FOG

[wa3vjb]

Time to start building more power.

[KI4ITV]

Here's the way I look at it - ignoring a "band plan" because your coordinators are inept at policing the repeater pairs equates to one thing - poor engineering and amateur practices. See 47CFR97.101:

That seems to be a fair assessment of repeater coordination these days.

[wr5aw]

Well if your a member of the Armadillo group...
Don't even get me started on that. Their master plan is to saturate the state with their repeaters to the point where they can talk HT to HT anywhere in Texas. Which, logistically, means they will essentially own every square mile. I don't have a problem with private repeaters and link systems. But, when it starts to infringe on the rights of others, then it becomes a detriment to AR.

[KB3PXR]

I think this whole thing is going to wash out. While these seem to be for digital repeaters I think that 12.5 kHz spacing is going to cause interference. I also think if the simplex space is taken somebody is going to move their FM operations to where people operate SSB or worse newbies that don't know any better may go to the space between 144.0 and 144.1 where CW is only permitted. Either of these cases may result in rules violations, the first case may involve people stepping on SSB as FM receivers may not hear anything. The second case of course is an obvious rule violation. On 70 cm simplex frequencies are local coordinators option as of right now. Not many people have six meter HTs and if the band is open the few simplex channels could be crowded. I think we need to petition the ARRL to prevent local coordinators from taking our simplex frequencies. If we don't everyone is going to crowd on 146.52. In our area 146.505 and 146.535 are used for emergencies if the local repeater is not working and in Washington county, Maryland RACES uses two frequencies in the first block above for simplex communications. http://2ni2.com/emoticon/special/botando.gif

[KD6NIG]

Been like this in CA for years. I believe recently they wanted to take even more for "D-Star" or take part of it and make it exclusive.

The reason? There is a waiting list a mile long. Create a "D-Star" exclusive space and the people with those get coordination before other people who have been waiting for ages.

Supposedly the local authority checks every month. But they only check if the repeater is still there and operating. If it is, it is fine.

From what I've been told, if I ever wanted a repeater (I don't) the best way is to buy one off of someone who doesn't want it anymore and assume the coordination. Otherwise, you're going to be waiting a long time.

If the Pave-Paws 400 MHZ thing in N Ca results in a quiet zone, that list is only going to get longer. The main reason many repeaters are affected is because there is a lot of 440 around here-people got tired of waiting for a 2m opening. Tone squelch here has been basically mandatory for a long time, not in writing, but if you want a coordination, you're going to be on the same frequency as one a hundred miles away-you need it to not kerchunk the other one when tropo is going on.

They must not have a waiting list for 2m. If they do, you'll hear cries of foul from people who have been waiting to put analogs up.

There have been screams here too from D-Star guys who want to have new pairs created between the analog pairs so they can put repeaters up. Thus far, they haven't decided to do so.

[W7WV]

VHF?
What's that?? :rolleyes:

[ka3hsw]

Exactly. I can tell you for a FACT that there are probably a dozen or more paper 2m repeaters in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a 2m pair here because of that. Ok, maybe not impossible, but who wants to wait 5 years.


There is NOTHING stopping you from putting up a repeater on a frequency coordinated to a "paper" repeater, and NOTHING the coordinating body can do about it if you do, unless you actually cause interference to someone. A "paper" repeater is a non-entity: only a real repeater that emits RF has any rights under coordination, in the FCC's eyes.

There is no FCC requirement that you obtain coordination, and the coordinating body has no power to force you off an otherwise unoccupied repeater pair.

Unfortunately, you WON'T have any protection if the coordinated repeater suddenly DOES fire up...

[wr5aw]

VHF?
What's that?? :rolleyes:
It's what the OFs use because they're too cheap to buy a dual-bander. Speaking from personal experience of course. :cool:

[K7JEM]

[QUOTE=wr5aw;1276813]Exactly. I can tell you for a FACT that there are probably a dozen or more paper 2m repeaters in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a 2m pair here because of that. Ok, maybe not impossible, but who wants to wait 5 years.
/QUOTE]

There is NOTHING stopping you from putting up a repeater on a frequency coordinated to a "paper" repeater, and NOTHING the coordinating body can do about it if you do, unless you actually cause interference to someone. A "paper" repeater is a non-entity: only a real repeater that emits RF has any rights under coordination, in the FCC's eyes.

There is no FCC requirement that you obtain coordination, and the coordinating body has no power to force you off an otherwise unoccupied repeater pair.

Unfortunately, you WON'T have any protection if the coordinated repeater suddenly DOES fire up...

That's something to remember. Paper repeaters have no rights at all. You can't interfere with a paper repeater. There is nothing that anyone can do to you for putting one up on any repeater channel that doesn't actually cause interference.

This might actually cause you to get your foot in the door for co-ordination. If the "paper repeater" doesn't go on the air within a certain time frame, most coordinators can remove that authority. They usually won't, unless someone is clamoring for the freq. The best way to clamor is to actually put up a repeater on a channel that is otherwise unoccupied, and show that you can do it.

Joe

[N2RJ]

:mad: Yea I know. Killed a BIG simplex group here years ago. Nothing like neighboring councils choices on new repeater frequencies with no regard to the next state over that has a different plan and kill all the simplex.

That's not us. YOu must be thinking of the guys down in brick twp. Their machine is more powerful than ours and covers a much wider area.

Our repeater barely reaches to Kinnelon, NJ in Morris county. Only reason I can get it from home is because my antenna height is 900' ASL and I am on a ridge. I can also talk on repeaters in NYC (~50mi) and staten island, no problems.

The other 146.49 repeater also upgraded their antenna recently and have been causing QRM problems with us.

So much for "coordination."

[N2RJ]

1 MHz shift or 600khz and up or down split ?


FOG

1MHz shift

[N2RJ]

Seriously?

I would think the opposite to be true, especially as close as you folks are to NYC.

A while back, there was so much contention for our 2M pairs that fights literally broke out over their coordination. Grown men tussling over an allocation like two spoiled little girls tugging at a rag doll; such was the norm.

EVERYBODY wanted a repeater. Those persons who weren't connected to a club in some form or another wanted one for remote control of their very own Technician-class 'Stepford Wife', as it were. A goodly number of the on-the-air command-and-control sessions provided for some amusing listening!

Almost all the area clubs whose membership endorsed that sort of behavior are now gone; their members passed on or scattered to the wind when the industries which sponsored the clubs shuttered their doors and moved away...and the repeaters went with them.

Oh the pairs are occupied, but most repeaters are akin to kww's customers. There are a few active machines such as W2ABC, KC2RA and N2ROW but those are the exception rather than the rule.

I heard that one popular repeater in the area was recently cleared of all its users by the owner. No idea why.

Our club repeater is dead too. I get on and call and almost no one answers. All times of the day, no one answers.

It appears no one wants to talk. No wonder NCTs were bored with VHF/UHF.

[w3wn]

There are a couple of issues involved here.

One is that D-Star repeaters, or more generically digital repeaters, need space to operate.

Another is that there are many paper repeaters or inactive repeaters that the repeater councils & coordinators refuse to do anything about. Often because they belong to a "buddy;" often because of threats of lawsuits.

But the biggest one is that the repeater councils & coordinators are essentially snatching control of frequencies. And they do this often without the knowledge of area amateurs, especially those who don't operate repeaters.

My club runs a short (4 hour) 2 meter simplex contest every year -- FM, SSB, & CW modes at present. We have essentially be ordered by the WPA Frequency Coordinator that we are not permitted by the WPRC to use certain simplex frequencies (those that are listed as "local option" or "dual use"). Period. They are "reserved" for 1 MHz repeater splits. Even though most of them are not in use -- we're not allowed to use them, according to the WPRC, because they are "reserved" for future repeaters. (The contest rules, incidentally, specify that operators in the contest should not interfere with existing repeaters using these frequencies -- or non-contest QSO's taking place and so forth -- and should an operator be notifed of interference, they should vacate the frequency immediately. Since I wrote that rule 4 years ago, there has been exactly ONE reported incident of accidental interference to a repeater output. But I digress)

I wonder what would happen if amateurs in the coverage area of a repeater council/coordinating body decided to make a lot of noise... yeah, I know, won't happen... over the reassignment of locally used simplex frequencies to current or future analog or digital repeater use?

[ai4ep]

I just do not understand why so many folks want to put a repeater on 2 meter, which " no body uses " any way.

Go check in YOUR local area and see how many 2 meter repeaters are currently in use right now, or later on this evening to prove ( if any ) point that you may have about how BUSY your individual area is.

So many licensed amateurs in YOUR area, yet so many " dead " repeaters.

Gee, how COULD that happen ??

[k0cmh]

What happened to the golden ARRL Band Plan? I thought that not following the ARRL Band Plan was poor operating practices. Why isn't the ARRL out there defending their Band Plan?

Since I am a member of the ARRL, I am also sending these questions there.

[WA9SVD]

It's what the OFs use because they're too cheap to buy a dual-bander. Speaking from personal experience of course. :cool:

REAL Hams work weak signal.:p:D

[WA9SVD]

There are a couple of issues involved here.

One is that D-Star repeaters, or more generically digital repeaters, need space to operate.

Another is that there are many paper repeaters or inactive repeaters that the repeater councils & coordinators refuse to do anything about. Often because they belong to a "buddy;" often because of threats of lawsuits.

But the biggest one is that the repeater councils & coordinators are essentially snatching control of frequencies. And they do this often without the knowledge of area amateurs, especially those who don't operate repeaters.

My club runs a short (4 hour) 2 meter simplex contest every year -- FM, SSB, & CW modes at present. We have essentially be ordered by the WPA Frequency Coordinator that we are not permitted by the WPRC to use certain simplex frequencies (those that are listed as "local option" or "dual use"). Period. They are "reserved" for 1 MHz repeater splits. Even though most of them are not in use -- we're not allowed to use them, according to the WPRC, because they are "reserved" for future repeaters. (The contest rules, incidentally, specify that operators in the contest should not interfere with existing repeaters using these frequencies -- or non-contest QSO's taking place and so forth -- and should an operator be notifed of interference, they should vacate the frequency immediately. Since I wrote that rule 4 years ago, there has been exactly ONE reported incident of accidental interference to a repeater output. But I digress)

I wonder what would happen if amateurs in the coverage area of a repeater council/coordinating body decided to make a lot of noise... yeah, I know, won't happen... over the reassignment of locally used simplex frequencies to current or future analog or digital repeater use?

Frankly, "reserved" means diddly. If the frequency(s) is not actively used, there's NO legal way they can tell you or your group NOT to use it. You can't cause intentional interference to a station (repeater or not) that isn't there, and as the FCC has said time and again, "nobody owns a frequency."

Which is why the FCC should have exercised and authorized coordination groups rather than allowing willy-nilly groups grabbing more and more frequencies, and overlapping coordination groups causing more problems than they solve.

[w3wn]

Frankly, "reserved" means diddly. If the frequency(s) is not actively used, there's NO legal way they can tell you or your group NOT to use it. You can't cause intentional interference to a station (repeater or not) that isn't there, and as the FCC has said time and again, "nobody owns a frequency."

Which is why the FCC should have exercised and authorized coordination groups rather than allowing willy-nilly groups grabbing more and more frequencies, and overlapping coordination groups causing more problems than they solve. I know. And we go ahead and use the frequencies anyway.

Last year, the Coordinator made a lot of less than nice comments about my club -- on his club's reflector (not the WPRC's). Which, of course, almost none of my club's members belonged too -- almost. And which he, by strange coincidence, was the owner of. So he was able to block any of our people from joining to respond.

He's had a standing invitation to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion with my club's officers for years. Which he ignores.

And I understand that he takes offence to our explanation in the rules as to WHY we are using these frequencies. Seems we have a lot of nerve, to actually name the WPRC in our comments on why we defy him & them.

The bottom line is that while the ARRL Band Plan suggests that these simplex frequencies may be used by "local option" for repeater inputs & outputs, this doesn't give the repeater council the arbitrary power to withdraw the use of these frequencies from all "local" amateurs, simply because they decided to "reserve" them.

[K7JEM]

I know. And we go ahead and use the frequencies anyway.

Last year, the Coordinator made a lot of less than nice comments about my club -- on his club's reflector (not the WPRC's). Which, of course, almost none of my club's members belonged too -- almost. And which he, by strange coincidence, was the owner of. So he was able to block any of our people from joining to respond.

He's had a standing invitation to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion with my club's officers for years. Which he ignores.

And I understand that he takes offence to our explanation in the rules as to WHY we are using these frequencies. Seems we have a lot of nerve, to actually name the WPRC in our comments on why we defy him & them.

The bottom line is that while the ARRL Band Plan suggests that these simplex frequencies may be used by "local option" for repeater inputs & outputs, this doesn't give the repeater council the arbitrary power to withdraw the use of these frequencies from all "local" amateurs, simply because they decided to "reserve" them.

Coordinators have no power to remove any frequency from simplex use. If simplex use becomes a problem to a particular repeater, it is up to them to complain about it to the offending parties, and to the FCC if needed. If simplex use of any frequency doesn't bother a repeater, either because it is out of range, or the repeater is "coordinated" but doesn't exist, then there is no problem.

Joe

[w3wn]

Coordinators have no power to remove any frequency from simplex use. If simplex use becomes a problem to a particular repeater, it is up to them to complain about it to the offending parties, and to the FCC if needed. If simplex use of any frequency doesn't bother a repeater, either because it is out of range, or the repeater is "coordinated" but doesn't exist, then there is no problem.

Joe
Precisely, and thank you for the concise summary. I may just quote you when he starts giving us grief in December & January!

[k0cmh]

I would suggest getting a group together and start using those frequencies, simplex, on a regular basis. That way, you establish a regular use of them. Then if a repeater comes up on those frequencies, a letter goes to the FCC claiming harmful interference with YOUR operations.

The role of coordinators is to prevent repeaters from interferring with eachother. I find no definition of "local option". I find no description or guidance on who makes the decisions regarding "local option". If I live in a locale, then I believe I have as much right to make those decisions as anyone else. The rules and regulations are very unclear on this issue.

Those coordinators seem to be stomping all through these gray areas. Well, we can stomp just as well.

[n4mxz]

snip
.....and as the FCC has said time and again, "nobody owns a frequency."
And yet, the FCC has time and again backed the legitimacy of "closed" repeaters, and limited access repeaters. How can a closed or limited access repeater not be not be anything but de facto ownership of a frequency(s)? And even on 'open' repeaters; so often you see the FCC sending a letter to a ham telling him/her that the owner of the repeater doesn't want them using the repeater so the FCC says that they MUST refrain. Very few times is this the result of a Part 97 rules violation. (they "say" it's a violation of the individual rules of the repeater owner him/herself). Ususally it's just a 'Jr High School' personality clash. Is this not effectively giving ownership?

Having said that, is there anywhere in the US besides So Cal where hams are actually using 2m??

[KD6NIG]

Which is why the FCC should have exercised and authorized coordination groups rather than allowing willy-nilly groups grabbing more and more frequencies, and overlapping coordination groups causing more problems than they solve.

The only thing I fear is they would have used the ARRL for that. Kind of like they are using them as a "go between" in the 440 issue near Marysville.

It would be a heck of a way for them to keep members. "You want to remain coordinated? You must be a member."

There was a club that a friend of mine was in that was begging members recently to re-up or they would lose their affiliation. I didn't know that 50% +1 members of the club had to be members to be ARRL affiliated.

The main issue is the fact the FCC did do this, and a lot of people who are coordinators know they have the power and they use it. To the Nth. Probably someone should propose a change, but it would be interesting to see what kind of commentary you'd get. I wouldn't be surprised if more power was wielded. "Submit comments against it or you might just lose your pair for some reason." Nice.

Course with this attitude, the repeater owners often do the same thing then to the users. It all just rolls downhill :)

[K7JEM]

snip

And yet, the FCC has time and again backed the legitimacy of "closed" repeaters, and limited access repeaters. How can a closed or limited access repeater not be not be anything but de facto ownership of a frequency(s)? And even on 'open' repeaters; so often you see the FCC sending a letter to a ham telling him/her that the owner of the repeater doesn't want them using the repeater so the FCC says that they MUST refrain. Very few times is this the result of a Part 97 rules violation. (they "say" it's a violation of the individual rules of the repeater owner him/herself). Ususally it's just a 'Jr High School' personality clash. Is this not effectively giving ownership?

Having said that, is there anywhere in the US besides So Cal where hams are actually using 2m??

We use 2M here in AZ. Not as much as 20 years ago, but still pretty active.

Without a "closed repeater" rule it would be impossible to keep anyone off your repeater. People don't have to violate the rules to be obnoxious and create ill will and hatred. If all repeaters had to be "open" it would spell the end to good, usable systems.

Repeaters can't easily move frequencies, so they need to be "assigned". Without the co-ordination and de-facto ownership of the channel, few groups or individuals would go through the hassle of putting one up.

On the other hand, if you do have a frequency assignment, you should be required to show that it is being used, especially if someone else is needing it. A "paper repeater" out in the boondocks, where there are lots of open channels, is not as much a problem as one in a heavily populated area. Tim has a pretty good idea with making underused frequencies "shared" channels.

Arizona made frequency coordination easier for low level or "backyard" repeaters in 1985. There are 4 shared channels reserved for this purpose, and the co-ordination is almost always guaranteed. This allows people that want to put up a repeater a place to do it. The channels are not expected to be heavy use:
The pairs 145.17/144.57, 145.19/144.59, 145.21/144.61 and 145.23/144.63 were designated as "Backyard" pairs by the repeater owners in Arizona in 1985. Portable operation was added in 2002. These pairs are intended for shared, local and portable operations. Some overlap is expected. Use of PL is mandatory. Operators agree to accept co-channel occupation and act to prevent inadvertent access by co-channel users. They are responsible for "PL" tone frequency coordination, but need to advise the coordinator of their choice. They agree not to operate in "beacon" mode, or intertie to other amateur frequencies that might monopolize the "channel". ERP is limited to a max of 100w with an antenna not to exceed 100 ft AGL and AAT, except that portable operation is limited to 10w transmitter power out. Repeaters must be on the air at their coordinated location when not deployed for portable use. To minimize conflicts and interference, the repeater owner must check the "Portable Ops" page at http://www.azfreqcoord.org before scheduling portable operations, and notify the coordinator as far in advance as possible so his/her operations can be added to the schedule. The schedule will include the date/time of portable operation, contact numbers and Email addresses so the owners can communicate any problems or concerns with each other.

Joe

[KG4RUL]

An excerpt from the Policies of the Arizona Repeater Owners Frequency Coordination Committee

........
Each Frequency Coordinator has the right to revoke a coordinated frequency under the following circumstances. Such revocations may be appealed to the Chairman. If no resolution, the appeal may be taken to the repeater owners meeting at Williams for a vote of the repeater owners:
........
3) If the existence of a working system cannot be confirmed; or, if the holder cannot comply with the request of the Frequency Coordinator to demonstrate the operation of such system within thirty days of a request to do so;
4) When research has been conducted (to be documented by the Frequency Coordinator) that indicates a frequency pair has not been in use for ninety days, the Frequency Coordinator will send an inquiry by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the trustee of record using the FCC
database address and the last address supplied to the ARCA-CC. Should no response be received within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter, or if the letter is returned as refused, or not delivered, the coordination of the frequency pair will be rescinded. If the trustee responds within thirty days requesting that the coordination be maintained, at the discretion of the Frequency Coordinator, any further action can be stayed.
........

It seems to me if ALL Frequency Coordinators had a similar and ENFORCED policy, "paper repeaters" would soon cease to exist thereby freeing up frequency pairs for analog and DSTAR repeaters. The key to this is ENFORCED!

[K7JEM]

An excerpt from the Policies of the Arizona Repeater Owners Frequency Coordination Committee

........
Each Frequency Coordinator has the right to revoke a coordinated frequency under the following circumstances. Such revocations may be appealed to the Chairman. If no resolution, the appeal may be taken to the repeater owners meeting at Williams for a vote of the repeater owners:
........
3) If the existence of a working system cannot be confirmed; or, if the holder cannot comply with the request of the Frequency Coordinator to demonstrate the operation of such system within thirty days of a request to do so;
4) When research has been conducted (to be documented by the Frequency Coordinator) that indicates a frequency pair has not been in use for ninety days, the Frequency Coordinator will send an inquiry by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the trustee of record using the FCC
database address and the last address supplied to the ARCA-CC. Should no response be received within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter, or if the letter is returned as refused, or not delivered, the coordination of the frequency pair will be rescinded. If the trustee responds within thirty days requesting that the coordination be maintained, at the discretion of the Frequency Coordinator, any further action can be stayed.
........

It seems to me if ALL Frequency Coordinators had a similar and ENFORCED policy, "paper repeaters" would soon cease to exist thereby freeing up frequency pairs for analog and DSTAR repeaters. The key to this is ENFORCED!

Freq coordinators are like the FCC. They are complaint driven. A person would have to be wanting that freq in order for the process to start. They don't go out verifying if repeaters are actually on the air, that's not really their job.

But if a person says "that channel hasn't been used in years, and the repeater isn't even there, I would like the channel", then the coordinator is obligated to take steps for de-coordination. This is never done without notice sent to the rpt owner, and it gives him a chance to put something on the air, if he can.

Joe

[KD6NIG]

Freq coordinators are like the FCC. They are complaint driven. A person would have to be wanting that freq in order for the process to start. They don't go out verifying if repeaters are actually on the air, that's not really their job.

But if a person says "that channel hasn't been used in years, and the repeater isn't even there, I would like the channel", then the coordinator is obligated to take steps for de-coordination. This is never done without notice sent to the rpt owner, and it gives him a chance to put something on the air, if he can.

Joe

Probably more than one complaint, because in all fairness, if there is a waiting list, the next person on the list should get the frequency.

So if you were 4th on the list, you'd have to get 4 disbarred. A stretch, but I suppose if you have the time you could.

It all comes down to the intregrity of the coordination itself. If its a good old boys club and the guy is in it, he may never get that coordination revoked.

The main issue is the FCC said coordinators would handle it. They didn't set any guidelines like this. And with the power they have now, good luck in getting any such standards added into the rules either.

[ai4ep]

:) A " good old boys club "...?? !!


Why that sounds like some Alabama politics.

If you be a 2nd cousin to Eugene or an old friend of Larry s, you can get just about any thing done in Alabama .

[K7JEM]

Probably more than one complaint, because in all fairness, if there is a waiting list, the next person on the list should get the frequency.

So if you were 4th on the list, you'd have to get 4 disbarred. A stretch, but I suppose if you have the time you could.

It all comes down to the intregrity of the coordination itself. If its a good old boys club and the guy is in it, he may never get that coordination revoked.

The main issue is the FCC said coordinators would handle it. They didn't set any guidelines like this. And with the power they have now, good luck in getting any such standards added into the rules either.

There shouldn't be a "list". The freq coordinator is not under obligation to find anyone a freq that can be used. He might recommend one, or let you find one. If you find a channel that is available due to a "paper repeater", operations discontinued, or repeater being moved, etc, then YOU have done the homework, and should be entitled to that coordination, not some person who just previously asked for a freq, and made no effort to determine what was being used.

A person that actually wants to put up a repeater will go out and do the leg work, and paperwork, to fit the repeater in. In some cases, this may involve moving a repeater off one channel, and onto another.

We had a situation about 10 years ago where we needed a specific frequency for a 2M repeater. That channel was being used by a repeater about 50 miles away, and couldn't be coordinated to us. Rather than give up, we made a deal with the owner to re-coordinate his machine to a new channel. We did all the paperwork, and absorbed all of the cost of the switch. Fortunately, the owner was good to deal with, and the change went smoothly.

Develop good working relationships with other repeater owners. It will go a long way to solving problems before they get big.

Joe

[k0cmh]

"a simplex frequency is a terrible thing to loose"

[WA9SVD]

I know. And we go ahead and use the frequencies anyway.

Last year, the Coordinator made a lot of less than nice comments about my club -- on his club's reflector (not the WPRC's). Which, of course, almost none of my club's members belonged too -- almost. And which he, by strange coincidence, was the owner of. So he was able to block any of our people from joining to respond.

He's had a standing invitation to discuss the matter in a reasonable fashion with my club's officers for years. Which he ignores.

And I understand that he takes offence to our explanation in the rules as to WHY we are using these frequencies. Seems we have a lot of nerve, to actually name the WPRC in our comments on why we defy him & them.

The bottom line is that while the ARRL Band Plan suggests that these simplex frequencies may be used by "local option" for repeater inputs & outputs, this doesn't give the repeater council the arbitrary power to withdraw the use of these frequencies from all "local" amateurs, simply because they decided to "reserve" them.



In general, the wording of the ARRL bandplan spoke of "local options" to accomadate (or grandfather) repeaters that already existed when the bandplan was drawn up, not as a way to condone use of the additional frequencies at the capricious desire of coordinators.
Of course, the ARRL bandplan is only a "Gentleman's agreement," so take that as you will...

[WA9SVD]

snip

And yet, the FCC has time and again backed the legitimacy of "closed" repeaters, and limited access repeaters. How can a closed or limited access repeater not be not be anything but de facto ownership of a frequency(s)? And even on 'open' repeaters; so often you see the FCC sending a letter to a ham telling him/her that the owner of the repeater doesn't want them using the repeater so the FCC says that they MUST refrain. Very few times is this the result of a Part 97 rules violation. (they "say" it's a violation of the individual rules of the repeater owner him/herself). Ususally it's just a 'Jr High School' personality clash. Is this not effectively giving ownership?

Having said that, is there anywhere in the US besides So Cal where hams are actually using 2m??

Well, in short, repeaters are technically "in operation" and CAN be interefered with. And coordination of a repeater does NOT preclude use of a frequency to others, if their use does not cause ACTUAL, HARMFUL interference.
Just saying a frequency is reserved for FUTURE use has no justification, as no interference (harmful or otherwise) can be demonstrated.

[n4mxz]

snip
We use 2M here in AZ. Not as much as 20 years ago, but still pretty active.

Without a "closed repeater" rule it would be impossible to keep anyone off your repeater. People don't have to violate the rules to be obnoxious and create ill will and hatred. If all repeaters had to be "open" it would spell the end to good, usable systems.

Joe

Granted that the FCC has broad administrative latitude over the privilege of amateur radio, specifically 97.205:

(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible.

However, this in fact places the FCC in the position of granting frequencies to individuals and making subjective judgements as to appropriate use; above and beyond the US code, and the Communications Act as ammended, and what has been decided by the Supreme Court; and even what is stated elsewhere in Part 97. I believe that this violates the 'spirit' of Amateur Radio as conceived and presented by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telcom Act of 1996.
Anytime that the government gets into the business of regulating morals and mores; particularly when it is above and beyond what has been established by the Supreme Court, it crosses the line in my opinion.

Someone or group might still successfully challenge the authority of the FCC to enforce 97.205 (e)

[wr5aw]

Here's the actual transcript of the decision by the Texas VHF FM society from page 10 of the Spring 2007 Newsletter:The Coordination Committee has been issuing on an interim basis, coordination for these systems in the
upper 50 kHz of the VHF simplex spectrum, using 1 MHz split with 10 kHz channel spacing. President Johnson asked if simplex channels were being used for this on UHF. Eric [Schmidt] responded there has not because spectrum has been available. Director Davis asked if it would be appropriate for the board to pass a temporary measure to approve this change to the band plan and asked for how long. Eric Schmidt suggested 2 years. Discussion followed. Director Davis made a motion to allow the Frequency Coordination Committee to coordinate digital repeater systems on the following five pairs:

146.450/147.450 MHz
146.460/147.460 MHz
146.470/147.470 MHz
146.480/147.480 MHz
146.490/147.490 MHz

On a 2 year interim basis while a formal band plan is proposed and ratified. These coordinations will protect existing analog systems with regard to interference and spacing issues and will not be used to coordinate analog systems. Digital systems will be coordinated on the traditional repeater channels where practical. Motion was seconded by Director Herman. Motion passed. Deadline for adopting formal changes to the band plan: October 7th 2008.

[kb1fjr]

I just do not understand why so many folks want to put a repeater on 2 meter, which " no body uses " any way.

Go check in YOUR local area and see how many 2 meter repeaters are currently in use right now, or later on this evening to prove ( if any ) point that you may have about how BUSY your individual area is.

So many licensed amateurs in YOUR area, yet so many " dead " repeaters.

Gee, how COULD that happen ??

In my area MA, there are at least 4 repeaters I can think of that are totally dead, its like talking to yourself. Everyone wants a repeater, its kind of silly. Especially when you can hear all the users on the input.

[AC0FP]

Freq coordinators are like the FCC. They are complaint driven. A person would have to be wanting that freq in order for the process to start. They don't go out verifying if repeaters are actually on the air, that's not really their job.

But if a person says "that channel hasn't been used in years, and the repeater isn't even there, I would like the channel", then the coordinator is obligated to take steps for de-coordination. This is never done without notice sent to the rpt owner, and it gives him a chance to put something on the air, if he can.

Joe

Apparently you have experience about how coordination works. Its amazing to me how many "vanity" repeaters there were 10 years ago. Things probably haven't changed much.

De-coordination, within just a few days of notification of de-coordination proceedings the repeater will be back up and operating, the range may only be a couple of miles when the de-sense doesn't wipe it out, but its up and operating for whatever time period is required. :eek:

Frank

[ad5fd]

ok back to the orihginal post on this...

im sorry but...you are a txvhffm member or repeater trustee. you had a chance, an obligation in fact, to VOTE on the issue within the society. use that privilege! the key to that letter was to VOTE. its not written in stone yet.

Yesterday I received letter from the Texas VHF FM Society (the repeater frequency coordinating group/body of Texas).

In the letter they said they are going to take 146.450-146.490 and 147.450-147.490mhz and make them repeater pairs for D-STAR repeaters with a 1 mhz split 12.5khz spacing.

Why should a D-STAR repeater be given a its own sub-band at the cost of simplex when it occupies the same bandwidth as a FM repeater and serves the same purpose.

The main reason for this from what I understand is several people at the TXVHFFM society want to put up D-STAR repeaters in the metro area they live in and since no normal pairs are open are deciding to create some.

If you live in Texas or just want to express your upset for this you can email the president and board of the society. http://www.txvhffm.org/


FOG

[wr5aw]

ok back to the orihginal post on this...

im sorry but...you are a txvhffm member or repeater trustee. you had a chance, an obligation in fact, to VOTE on the issue within the society. use that privilege! the key to that letter was to VOTE. its not written in stone yet.

Not everyone can drive 200-300 miles twice a year just to vote. The society's voting mechanism needs a serious overhaul.

And remember, a repeater trustee does not have a vote unless he/she is also a paid member.

[KI4NGN]

When I returned to ham radio in Jan 06, a friend asked if I was going to get on 2 meters. My reply was that I had no interest in all of the 'channelization', sounded too much like CB, and from what I've heard since I've been back on the air, that's not far off the mark.

Maybe it's time for AM and SSB to have a resurgence on that band....wouldn't need any stinkin repeaters. :)

Mike

[K3ACE]

I get the impression that there are not a lot of HAMS into DSTAR because of the expense and lack of equipment available. Seems like a bit of overkill to set aside a group of frequencies just so 5 guys can talk to one another.

[m0dcd]

Over here in the UK it takes years to get a repeater up and running, but they are all public access ones. Simplex operation is a bit a bit patchy, but being packed into this little island, we get by.

The UK repeaters are all public, as having private ones would actually go against the spirit and the regulations of amateur radio over here. The MoD and the RA have the last word.

We've only 2MHz to fit 2m into, you have 4MHz!

Given you could dump the British Isles onto Texas and still have plenty of room, surely by a bit of shuffling of frequencies there is no need to change the band plan to fit these in the existing allocations.

Doesn't the FCC have any control?

[W8NSI]

According to the ARRL repeater directory,
they are already repeater frequencies in Western Pennsylvania.

No great loss !

And here in Michigan they are still used as simplex frequencies.

There are already too many repeaters... adding more? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING!

They are vanity repeaters to stroke someones ego.

There are many repeaters that get used once or twice a day TOPS if even that often.

[kl7aj]

Around here (NEOH) they're dead air space...like the rest of the 2M band... :(

Yip....same here.

[K0RGR]

OK, so 146.42, 146.52. 146.55, 146.58, 147.54, 147.57, etc., are so fully occupied in Texas that this is really an issue? Man, I would love to move there - I miss hearing all that activity on 2 meters.

[K2WH]

Around here (NYC Area), just about any frequency pair can be a repeater pair. There is even one with a + 2.6mhz split and there are repeaters below 145.110 mhz.

K2WH

[wr5aw]

OK, so 146.42, 146.52. 146.55, 146.58, 147.54, 147.57, etc., are so fully occupied in Texas that this is really an issue? Man, I would love to move there - I miss hearing all that activity on 2 meters.

Haven't been on 2m in a few months but not too long ago, 2m simplex in North Texas (Dallas/Ft Worth Metro) was very active on a number of freqs.

[kc0zix]

There is NOTHING stopping you from putting up a repeater on a frequency coordinated to a "paper" repeater, and NOTHING the coordinating body can do about it if you do, unless you actually cause interference to someone. A "paper" repeater is a non-entity: only a real repeater that emits RF has any rights under coordination, in the FCC's eyes.

There is no FCC requirement that you obtain coordination, and the coordinating body has no power to force you off an otherwise unoccupied repeater pair.

Unfortunately, you WON'T have any protection if the coordinated repeater suddenly DOES fire up...

Well put KA3HSW. I'll try to hit it home again...

Despite what people might think, or at least how the "norm" is, the station with the coordinated repeater does not own that frequency. It is my understanding that one can put a repeater up as long as they obey all of the FCC rules. If your repeater conflicts with one that is coordinated, then the FCC will rule against you and order you to stop transmitting. That is the way things read last year for the exams given then. I don't see any issues really unless the entire band is polluted, I mean "Populated", with repeaters. In that case I would say "Put a tone on it Bub".