From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Who do repeater coordinators represent?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 14:46:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.184109.13079@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
> 
>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.  

A great football coach once said... "you dance with the ones what brung you"

It's true.  In many areas the coordinators are picked by the repeater 
trustees, but not everywhere.  In Texas, for example, membership in the
Texas VHF-FM Society is open to anyone who wishes to join.  Many of the 
members are not repeater trustees.

>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.  

This is usually because they represent democratic bodies whose members are
primarily repeater owners.

The _really_ important thing to recall about frequency coordinators is that
frequency coordination grew out of a need to manage the explosion of
repeaters.

I know of no area where the frequency coordination group pre-dated the advent
of repeaters.  Many of the "local" band plans developed long before the need
for frequeny coordination was apparent.  

The reality of the situation is this:  Not everyone is interested in repeaters.
The frequency coordination organizations are primarily made up by repeater
owners not because of some dark communist plot, but because it's natural for
persons of simmilar interest to form groups to manage resources.  It's the
90-10 rule in action... 10% of the people do 90% of the work.

>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

...limiting this option to other bands.

The frequency coordinators have to respond to the needs of the day.  That's
how democracies work.  If you have 300 people saying "we want frequencies", 
it's not very easy to tell them "no, we're saving these frequencies for
some unknown future use".  The Texas VHF-FM Society actually tried this.
They set aside three 2 meter repeater frequencies for "other than FM use".

These frequencies sat idle for many years, but nobody came forward with 
any "new technologies"...this was before packet radio existed...

Then, people started putting uncoordinated FM repeaters on these frequencies
in the congested areas, so the Texas VHF-FM Society decided to respond to the
demand by allowing these frequencies to be used by FM repeaters.

In today's congested world, it's impossible to plan for every possibility.
You have to make decisions based on the best information and if you screw
up, say "we were wrong...how do we fix it".

 
>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. 

...and if the general ham population were interested enough to participate
in the process, this might come about, but the reality of the situation is
most hams just want to talk on the radio...they're not interested in making
policy.

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc