From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Who do repeater coordinators represent?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 16:58:18 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan2.184109.13079@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
>How valid is the claim of repeater owners right to exclusive use their
>frequency.  After all they claim that the repeater frequency
>coordinators assigned the frequency to them.  But do the repeater
>frequency coordinators represent the interests of the entire ham radio
>community or just the interests of the repeater owners.

In Texas, at least, the coordinators are, in fact, ultimately responsible to
the entire ham community. Texas is split up into six zones. (It's a big state.
:-) Each zone has one or more frequency coordinators; together, they make up
the Frequency Coordination Committee, which is appointed by the State
Frequency Coordinator (that post is currently held by Merle Taylor, WB5EPI).
The State Frequency Coordinator is appointed by the President of the Texas
VHF-FM Society, and confirmed by the Board of Directors. These folks are
elected by the membership at large, and membership in the Society is open to
any licensed amateur.
 
>It is important to recall that in many areas the repeater frequency
>coordinators have been appointed by the REPEATER owners.  And the
>represent the REPEATER owners views and interests not those of the
>average ham or repeater user.  The important thing to recall about
>frequency coordinators is they are more interested in making the
>repeater owners happy than the welfare of ham radio in general.  To
>this end they have assigned as many frequencies to repeaters as they
>had available.  In some cases they even assigned what are by the
>national band plan simplex frequencies as repeater input frequencies.

This paragraph does not apply to Texas.
 
>The local repeater coordinators have failed to save any frequencies
>for future use.  It is suggested that the most effective form of
>packet radio is to have packet repeater.  However in most areas there
>are no 2 m.  frequencies available limiting this option

Once upon a time, the 220 Spectrum Management Association, in southern
California, attempted to reserve frequencies for future use. When the time
came that all of the frequencies were allocated except for the reserved ones,
some folks wanted to get pairs. The coordinator at the time, Karl Pagel,
N6BVU, refused to release the reserved frequencies. The requestors got
together, formed a rival frequency coordination body, and proceeded to
coordinate themselves on those channels; they then sued 220SMA and Pagel.
Pagel gave in rather than face financial and personal ruin.

No, reserving frequencies for future use isn't practical.
 
>If repeater coordinators were chosen from ham radio in general rather
>than being creatures of the repeater owners there would be no problem
>with closed repeaters, there would be no members only closed repeaters
>on 2 m.  The only real reason for a closed repeaters is to keep the
>jerks who insists that they have the right to use improper language,
>or harass other hams off the repeater.

Right. There are closed repeaters on 2 in Texas. Coordinators are chosen by,
and from, the ham population in general. Next?
 
...Jay Maynard, K5ZC, director and past president, Texas VHF-FM Society
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_