From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:43:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C1HLvo.5Js@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>I disagree with the implication (maybe misread from you, but stated by 
>others in this argument) that no one used 440 until recently except the closed 
>rptr crowd. The "what is this 2nd band on my new HT... Gee these guys don't
>like me!" argument for closed repeaters. (Repeatedly quoted by a certain
>Usenet/ham in San Diego.)

440 didn't see much activity at all, at least here, until the proliferation of
dual-band radios. Once upon a time not long after they were introduced, I
bought one each of the IC2/3/4AT series, and got far more use out of the 2 and
220 radios than the one on 440. 440 was the province of a few diehards who
wanted to get away from the crowds on 2; 220 was populated in the Houston area
mainly by a bunch of folks who got together and bought Clegg FM76s in group
purchases because they thought 220 was a neat idea. (The first 220 repeater in
the Houston area went on originally under my repeater callsign, WR5ATG.) (I
still have my old call letter license plates with that call, too.)

>Both locally and in surrounding states, the majority of 440 repeaters
>were pioneers, but remained open. (I *know* about Fla and Ga.)
>Note that PL does not automatically mean closed.

I understand that, though others may not. There were only a few open 440
repeaters here in the Houston area when I first got on the band. It is my
understanding that 440 started out mainly with closed repeaters in California
and Texas; that was due to the owners being told that that was where closed
repeaters should go.

>My first 440 operations were in the 70's (when I was licensed) on 444.5
>here in Atlanta. I have been on 440 pretty much since then, and is my
>band of choice. 

It is my band of choice as well, although it is losing a lot of its charm as
dual-band radios become more prevalent and the lids I got off of 2 meters to
get away from buy them. (Flame retardant: I'm not saying that all 2 meter
operators are lids by any means.)

>The way the large group mentioned earlier avoids congestion is by
>promoting new bands, having local qso rptrs, using simplex when
>appropriate, etc. (One "feature" could only be obtained by getting
>active on 220, to help promote band usage, and prevent crowding)

How many repeaters does that group _have_? How much overlapping coverage can
they count on to let them have different repeaters for different purposes? How
did they get that many frequency pairs?

You're describing a completely different situation than the one we have here:
we don't _want_ to hassle with running a large club/group/whatever. That
merely introduces politics and headaches.

>I still think trunking technology could be modified, and useful to hams.
>I will take many players to make a go of it, but until we have a
>technical revolution (spread spectrum?), we may have to get smarter in
>our designs. 

I agree that trunking technology would be neat, but to be effective, you're
talking about an order of magnitude more resources than the current system.
That gets either into large groups (see above) or getting many smaller groups
to work together, when the smaller groups happened in a lot of cases because
they didn't like the folks in the other groups.

>Again, is a full duplex NBFM repeater (regardless of links, remote bases, etc) 
>that much to be proud of? In the days of DSP's, AMSAT, cheap CODEC's, etc, I 
>think we can do better.

I do, too; I think that spread spectrum has real possibilities. Even so, you
still need a place to talk until the whiz-bang technology reaches production
status. As for AMSAT, there's a significant body of opinion that it's not
ready for prime time communications until you can point the antenna, bolt
it in place, and get 24-hour communications.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy