Nate, I agree with most everything in your note, but I'd like to extend it a little. Main message -- hopefully coordinators are interested in the needs and ideas of repeater users.
I'm not a repeater owner or trustee, just a "user." And I've come to appreciate how difficult the coordination job is. Most hams also don't realize the technical knowledge needed to be a good repeater operator, and this is even more true for the coordinators. Usually, these coordinators are quite active Hams, so they are aware of usage patterns and issues in their region. On the other hand, typically coordinator organizations are made up of repeater operators, and the Bylaws and policies target repeater people, not "users" like me. But I hope these coordinators also think of themselves as providing a "service" to all Hams in their region, and through them, to the greater community. A key success factor for any service provider is a willingness to listen to those they serve. So yes, since I'm not one of them and haven't done the job, I can understand why my ideas would hold " far less weight than those actively working on the problems". At the same time, I hope they'd be interested in the needs of their Ham community, and not automatically reject any idea unless it comes from someone who does or has done coordination. Note: I live in an area where there are no available 2 meter pairs available, and requests are queued up for years. At the same time, there are coordinated repeaters with extremely low use,and not all of them are associated with active EmComm groups who need the repeaters for occasional training exercises and real emergencies. Undoubtedly there are also some paper repeaters. Last year, the coordination organization voted for no change to the current channel plan for at least three years. I hope that during these three years, the organization will look at various ways to reduce channel spacing in parts of the repeater portions, and possibly to set some small areas aside for narrow-band modes. I've seen no stated interest in "de-coordinating" repeaters that experience little or no use. I do not envy their job. Jim - K6JM ----- Original Message ----- From: Nate Duehr To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: ARRL Field Day Rules - 145.67 simplex On 4/20/2010 2:26 PM, David wrote: D-STAR is FM isn't it. So "FM digital" simply means d-star. No, it's GMSK. Start speaking in the much more detailed emission types, that the FCC uses, and all of this "confusion" about marketing jargon goes away... "8K0F1D" gets the point across better, when planning spectrum utilization. (If you're trying to COPY the signal, that's a completely different specification than how much spectrum it requires and where it belongs in a bandplan... although there are still issues like not putting square-wave modulation types up against analog... Nextel vs. Public Safety, anyone?) Our local frequency coordinators are VERY clear, and use the emission mask/type designators on our local bandplans. One can pull up the PDF's and see exactly where 8K0F1D belongs in our spectrum here locally. And, for all the frequency coordination group "bashing" that goes on, most coordinators welcome input and volunteers to do the real, and sometimes difficult work, of coming up with reasonable plans. Treading the minefield of how to properly de-coordinate paper repeaters when past GENERATIONS of coordinators didn't put the rules into the local by-laws, means YEARS of changes, votes, and cooperation between spectrum users. Unless someone has shown up at every meeting for years, volunteered for the job, and done it... their opinions can be heard, but hold far less weight than those actively working on the problems, in my not-so-humble opinion. With some (retards) being willing to file lawsuits at the drop of a hat, and putting your PERSONAL assets at risk when you're volunteering in leadership organizations these days, (thus the expense of carrying your own umbrella liability policy besides the group having such, and they'd BETTER have it... lawsuits and lawyers are expensive), and the possibility always there of a major disruption to your life by a (dumb-ass's) lawsuit... finding qualified people who'll work the HARD and/or controversial issues is a difficult sell, at best. There's also virtually zero guidance from any national organization (Thanks for nothing ARRL -- ever think about updating your bandplans and backing the recommendations with reasonable arguments that would help sway the mess of different bandplans at VHF and above back to a national STANDARD?!). Only the brightest and most stubborn need apply. And there's plenty of stubborn folks out there who refuse to help, too... and make all SORTS of excuses about it. In other words, anyone can be a "whiner in their recliner" or they can get involved. This stuff doesn't work on, or fix, itself. Generally coordination body complaints can be filed directly in File 13 unless you're willing to help out. My opinion, anyway... Nate WY0X
