On Dec 26, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Paul Plack wrote: > Joe, > > You say (1) "never works"...where has it been tried? > > I'm proposing sharing frequency pairs, not sharing hardware. You > want to build a repeater, so do I, so we work out a plan to let > yours use the frequency weekdays 6am-6pm, mine nights and weekends, > with terms we include in the application, so it won't fall to the > coordinator to intervene. Each repeater is built by one person, > which I agree often makes for better repeaters.
Seems like something a reasonable coordination body might accept with a clause signed by both parties that if the "relationship" falls apart and interference between the machines starts happening, BOTH machines become uncoordinated and the pair heads back to the pool. (I think many coordinators would be leery of a conditional coordination unless the two parties were known to have worked together successfully before... otherwise such a setup could turn into a nightmare for the coordinators. Both machines would refuse to vacate, even if their coordinations were pulled, making the pair just as unusable for the next generation of "new" repeater builders as the last.) > If yours works way better than mine, and ARES needs the better > repeater when it's my "turn," let them have an override code to > bring yours back up when they need it. These things could all be > written into agreements between co-applicants. And would have to be, or the coordinator would not know when one repeater was "supposed" to be on the air and the other wasn't. > If "SNP" pairs work, why not "SVP"? (Shared with Voluntary Protection) Go for it. See how your local coordinator(s) respond. > Forcing existing repeater licensees to take on "partners" they > didn't choose would be a nightmare. Would you want a coordinator to > pick someone with a pocketfull of little green screwdrivers, and > give them your control codes and a copy of the rack cabinet key? > Didn't think so. The time to sort out these partnerships is pre- > coordination. Absolutely. > Good machines would not go off the air if there was no waiting list. > They'd only reach a point where they had to share a pair. If they've > held a pair for 30 years, maybe it's someone else's turn! Huh? I don't think I understand your first sentence there? As far as the 30-year comment: You'd need something more than just how long someone's held a pair as justification to ask for it to be taken away. More than that, pulling a pair for arbitrary reasons never works. You need something concrete. I'd bet the majority of folks running the "traditional" pairs in the 146 range have had their coordination for more than 20 years at this point in any medium to larger sized city. Coordinators (good ones anyway) already try to pack in co-channel and adjacent channel systems whenever possible, sometimes even with written permission to allow a machine closer-in than the normal distance criteria... I'm not sure what sharing the pair does for anything other than add confusion and break the KISS rule. > Electromagnetic spectrum is a shared resource. Or, it's supposed to > be. In the end, ham repeaters are about serving the public, and > providing the educational opportunity we all got building our first > repeaters and turning loose a bunch of users we didn't pick to > operate them. Now you're hitting the nail on the head. Priority for machines with written MOU's with emergency services agencies, seems a reasonable criteria. A pain in the ass, yes... but reasonable and measurable. It shows a certain size and commitment under perfect conditions. Under bad conditions, it shows who's buddy-buddy with the radio shop at the local PD or FD. Priority for open repeaters vs. closed. That's one that is pretty obvious. But would cause a huge outcry from private machine owners. There may be others that would work. I don't know. The biggest "education" I've gotten from getting involved in club repeaters is that there are a lot of nut-jobs out there, and a lot of nice people too. But the nut-jobs are amazing. Their "entitlement" attitudes about how repeater use isn't a priveledge it's their RIGHT (according to them) and blown up self-worth of how important they are, along with their complete disdain for any of the club or individual efforts to build the machine they're using (often on a regular basis) is depressing, if you let it get to you. I don't anymore. After dealing with jammers, crack-pots, and generally crazy people now for a few years as a club president, I think the spectrum is well- shared. Maybe too well, sometimes. (GRIN) Building good quality repeaters for these basket-cases to use isn't very fulfilling. (Recently a couple of hams took to complaining about ham radio itself on our club repeaters. Complaints about other clubs, other hams, yadda yadda yadda. What a joke. I was the only person willing to point out this to them on-air. "You're complaining about the hobby on a repeater provided for you by others in the hobby, and you're not even club members!" They don't get it at all. THIS is why lots of people who used to build club repeaters end up building private repeaters and tightly controlling access to the machine(s)... to shield themselves from having to deal with the "general public" as they're called. Some of my elmers actively avoid working on club systems anymore, but they'll still help me out when I'm in a technological jam. > This could be tried out, either in a place with 440 pairs still > available, or on newly-opening pairs where there's a waiting list. The people wishing to "cooperate" need to let the coordination body know far in advance if on a waiting list. Otherwise, it seems "do- able" anytime elsewhere in the bands... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
