locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with Frank’s assessment of this issue for the most part. Ideally, it would be great to work with all the groups to some common direction, but there are some barriers. California make some interesting decisions, I’ve yet to find anyone down there that is ‘pleased’ with the way things came out on VHF.
Our terrain is significantly different than much of the WWARA coverage area, our user base is also often of a different mindset. Not that either user base is right or wrong, but they may not have the same interests or priorities. However, it seems very reasonable for us to be talking to each other about our thoughts and plans, particularly long term band plan changes that would require some planning and good marketing to deliver.
We wrestled with this years ago when Dstar came up. There was a substantial grant for a lot of digital equipment, and no VHF pairs in the metro area to place new repeaters on. I’ll never forget the push from the ARES section leader that they simply must have digital pairs made available for this equipment or ‘people were going to die’. The only workable solution we could agree on was that they could eliminate an analog repeater, and create a digital splinter frequency on each side of the former analog channel, occupy one with their digital repeater and the other splinter would be used elsewhere where it could fit. To date, I believe only one repeater changed in that manner to accommodate it, and as we found out the 6.25khz signal wasn’t that narrow all the way down. During that time when we posed the option of creating some digital pairs out of some lightly used packet and simplex area, the feedback from the membership and the ARES groups was brutal. To date my VHF Dstar repeater runs on an uncoordinated pair, as nothing is available for VHF coordination on a good sized hilltop.
Perhaps looking more long term at narrow banding would be an easy starting point to work between two or three groups.
Thanks for the dialog, I’m certain that working together even if we end up with different solutions is bound to be better than the alternatives.
Chairman, ORRC, Inc.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted
That is a nice idea, but in the past it has proven not so easy to realize. California is cut off from Oregon by mountains (and sparse population) along the border very effectively for VHF/UHF. In the past, California has danced to its own drummer, for example, using 15 kHz steps on 2-meters versus 20-kHz steps in the Pacific Northwest. If you want to try to lead such a discussion, you are welcome to try. I don't think you could get agreement between the various groups within California, just to start with.
With respect to V/UHF user communities, There are at least three in Washington State (Puget Sound, Eastern WA, and the southwestern corner of WA). Oregon is mostly divided by the Cascades as well, although the western region south of Eugene is also different from that north of that city, and the coast tends to march to a different drummer.
Each region has different needs and solutions. Any single solution that tried to satisfy the preferences and needs of all these regions would end up satisfying none of them. That was the driving force behind regional coordination organizations in the first place.
Channel bandwidth is driven by technology. Co-channel cooperation, and therefore the number of viable repeaters possible within a given area, is driven by users (population density, skills, habits and demands). This varies greatly between regions.
Please join the discussion, though.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 11:00:04 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:
Following this with interest...
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote: