Threaded... Nate Duehr wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Paul Plack wrote: > > > Joe, > > > > You say (1) "never works"...where has it been tried?
The FCC has imposed exactly the same thing on two repeaters that tried to share a frequency but where there was mutual interference. It's never lasted. One of the repeaters has always got fed up and gone off the air. > > 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. You're putting the coordinator in the position of being the court. Most may accept a mutual waiver of any spacing requirements, but would likely not want to become the judge should any violation occur. Put another way, I'm sure most coordinators would just let the "FCC handle it" (which means let the owners fight it out if both are coordinated) > > If "SNP" pairs work, why not "SVP"? (Shared with Voluntary Protection) Same thing as SNP. No need to debate what the meaning of "is" is. There is nothing keeping SNP repeaters from voluntary agreements of operation. > > 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! Why should a repeater go off the air simply because it's a PROVEN machine? What next? "Oh - you've had your license for 30 years. It's time to make room on the bands for less experienced operators"? > 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. Exactly. > 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. I've had a 440 repeater for more than 30 years. (same controller, yet) > > 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. You want to experiment, fine. There is no reason why you should feel existing repeaters should yield to your desire to build something. How about building a repeater on a band with fewer repeaters on? > Priority for open repeaters vs. closed. That's one that is pretty > obvious. But would cause a huge outcry from private machine owners. In my area, all repeaters are open. I know this is not the case for many areas, but I would agree that if the owner of a repeater only has it on the air for use by a few people, that should yield to one that is available for more users or make theirs available to anyone who wants to use it. Private repeaters should be prohibited by Part 97, as they are contrary to the spirit of ham radio. If someone gives you trouble, ban them. But don't make that decision unless you have good reason. > 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. Yep. One club near me has a nut job who until recently has never even USED the repeater let alone build one, but was in favor of spending $1500 on a new repeater simply because it WAS NEW, and in HIS OPINION was better. I quickly called him on what in his experience says a new repeater would be any better than the alternative. Of course, he could not come up with an answer. Meanwhile, a perfectly good MSR2000 sat in the corner. Well, the 2000 is on the air today - pending favorable performance while the money is tied up "in case" the majority still wants the "new repeater". Oh, and the new one isn't going to be a Motorola. BTW, the TOTAL cost of the MSR2000 was less than $100! That's why he feels it must be a (HIS EXACT WORDS) "Old piece of junk". This same person CONTINUALLY complains about the costs associated with the repeater! You know - pesky things like the means of control that he thinks should be done by driving to the site rather than via Remote Cotnrol! (Yes, he is the reason I asked about the control question before - he wants to eliminate the "costly" control.) Joe M.
