I don't know if this coordination problem is only in the USA. Here, it seems some regions are finding solutions and others aren't. As a fan of DStar, and knowing that some regions have slowly and diplomatically refarmed portions of 2 meters, then taken advantage of DStar's narrower bandwidth, I'm disappointed that isn't happening everywhere. But, we are all human, and people normally don't like change.
Our coordination group does a very good job of avoiding interference. It allows only repeater owners or trustees of coordinated repeaters to vote. That makes sense, but of course it means the majority vote against any change that would make them move frequency, or loose coordination due to virtual non-use or being a paper repeater. The Committee's official policy is to made coordination decisions considering: (1) The best use of the amateur radio frequency spectrum, taking into account the public interest, convenience and necessity and the best interests of the amateur radio community; (2) Number of users; etc... But in practice, the best use of the spectrum and interests of the amateur community do not appear to be factors in these decisions. Many frequency pairs are held by low-use coordinated repeaters, but there is no policy to periodically review coordination decisions to see the spectrum continues to be used in the best way. And the existing members are unlikely to vote in a change to the policies to do that. These are not easy issues, and I respect our coordinators for the excellent technical work they are doing. Repeaters that exist for emergencies and emergency training exercises probably should stay coordinated even though the repeater is hardly every used. Finding the best solution is really hard. So I am impressed when some places in the US seem to be finding solutions to these difficult problems. Jim - K6JM ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel G. Thompson To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication Some coordinators have in some areas have taken out either simplex or packet channels or a combination of both to accomodate the new growth in new repeaters that was brought on by the introduction of D-Star. The problem with the "paper" repeaters is that people are not helping the coordinators find them. In most cases there are not even rules in the by-laws or operating standards of most coordinating bodies to deal with these paper repeaters because when the by-laws were written it was assumed that hams would be honest and professional in their dealings and there were plenty of pairs to go around. Things have changed though, and this paper repeater issue is a sore spot with coordination bodies everywhere, but until these people holding them are embarrased and become the "bad guys" they will not give them up. Unfortunately other than refusing a coordination the coorination groups do not have any legal authority to tell anyone what they may or may not do. In the event that these people at some point begin to cause harmful interference and the matter must be taken to the FCC. In that case the FCC will side with the repeater that is sanctioned by the coordinating group. I agree with going after the paper repeaters, but I also have been involved in creative organization to accomodate all the new repeaters that have been established in the last three or four years. Dan Thompson [email protected]
