Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Who do repeater coordinators represent?
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 14:29:13 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Robert Smits

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.
>  
It probably depends on your local situation. In some areas, coordinators 
are elected, some are appointed, etc. Some coordinating bodies are open 
to membership from any ham, others may represent repeater operators, 
clubs, etc. 

> 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.
>  

You may see something nefarious in this, I don't. Even in areas where 
coordination group membership IS open to any amateur, you rarely see 
anyone but representatives of repeater operators at coordination 
meetings. Why is this? Because repeater operators, in my experience, are 
almost the only hams interested in attending coordination meetings. After 
all, coordination policies directly affect them. Most hams can't be 
bothered to find out anything about coordination organizations or to 
attend meetings. And in many cases, repeaters were operating well BEFORE
any national band plans had evolved. There are a number of local and 
regional band plan variations from national band plans, and even the ARRL 
recognizes this in the Repeater Directory.

> 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
>  

Well, it's hardly the coordinator's fault that 2M repeaters are popular, 
and that in many areas, all available repeater frequencies were assigned 
BEFORE Packet became popular. There are several possible solutions here. 
1. Persuade some local group to "give-up" a voice repeater frequency so
   you can put up a packet repeater.
2. Try to get national bandplans to set aside spectrum for 2M duplex 
   packet.
3. Try to get the FCC to relax the regs so that you can use the spectrum
   from 145.50 to 145.70 as repeater inputs (or outputs), pairing these
   frequencies with 144.9 to 145.10 so that you can use them as duplex
   packet frequencies. (We HAVE done this in B.C. where U.S. rules don't 
   apply, and have for example, a wide coverage full duplex packet 
   repeater - VE7LAN - on a 3,000 ft mountain in Vancouver on 145.67/07).

> 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.
>  
You've got to remember the history of how 'closed' systems came to be 
popular in some areas. In many cases, hams who wanted to experiment with 
technically sophisticated remote bases, linked systems, etc, were told to 
go to 440 to play because there was hardly anyone there, and because 
closed systems weren't wanted on 2M. So they did. Now, when the lower 
bands, and 440 are all full, other hams are seeing what they see as 
underutilized spectrum, and want to re-assign it. And they're going to 
have a hard time convincing those already there that they should vacate 
the spectrum they occupied 'cause no one else wanted it in the first 
place.

That said, I think this is a problem that ALL coordinating bodies are 
having to face - some sooner than others. When all the repeater spectrum 
is assigned, how do you fit in more repeaters? And when you figure it out 
technically, how do you force people already there to move, or acquire 
new equipment to allow the co-existence of one or more repeaters on the 
same channel? Or do you just say - sorry, there's no room left.

Coordinating bodies that impose such requirements on repeater operators 
WILL get sued. Coordinators are volunteers, and spend an enormous amount 
of time on what is essentially a thankless task. No coordinator is going 
to voluntarilly put himself in the way of a lawsuit that may wipe him, 
and his family, out financially. Thus coordinators usually operate on the 
first come, first served basis that allows them to avoid making any kind 
of comparative judgement of the worthiness of applicants for repeater 
spectrum.

And don't assume that the coordinators are the CAUSE of the policies that 
you don't like. It's extremely difficult to persuade anyone that they 
should give up something they've enjoyed for years (like exclusive access
to a repeater pair). In many cases, the coordinators would be VERY 
willing to make changes in how repeater pairs are assigned, if only they 
could figure out how to get the amateur community interested enough in 
the idea to support them.

Some six years ago, when I was still the B.C. VHF coordinator, we did a 
study to determine how we could fit in more repeaters. We came to the 
conclusion that it was possible technically by monitoring all the 
channels to determine uage levels, requiring all repeaters to use PL 
access, to fit in quite a few more repeaters. It certainly wasn't 
possible politically, however, as users of all the existing repeaters 
made it impossible to pass such a motion. I still have the scars :-)

Please talk to your local coordinators if you are unhappy with methods 
used in your area. Find out when meetings are held, and attend. I'm sure 
they'll be happy to have informed assistance from anyone.

> 


Robert Smits  VE7EMD Ladysmith B.C. 
Ph (604) 245-2553 e-mail: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca 
PACKET VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NA