toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Your story is very similar to what I've heard from other locations.
I'm originally from the Western New York Southern Ontario Repeater Council (WNYSORC) area. (Toronto, Buffalo and Southern Ontario from Detroit to north of Rochester)
There hasn't been a VHF pair available there in 15 or maybe 20 years. Most new repeaters on VHF are uncoordinated.
Our neighboring council, the Saint Lawrence Valley Repeater Council (SLVRC) has a similar problem anywhere along the US/Canada border from Lake Ontario/Rochester/Syracuse etc.
Combine that with difficult relationship with UNYREPCO, the coordinator in Rochester and Upstate , NY. UNYREPCO coordinates private repeaters, and will hold a coordination for years, even if the repeater is long off the air.
Both WNYSORC and SLVRC are struggling to remain relevant. They have no new VHF coordinations to offer. UHF is a long wait list.
Because Repeater Book has become the defacto Repeater Guide and because people are putting up many uncoordinated repeaters, WNYSORC and SLVRC are not a solution to the problem, so they tend to be ignored.
If there is a lesson in that experience that I can pass on, it would be that Repeater Councils can only remain relevant and have some respect/authority if they solve problems for their patrons which are both old and new repeater owners.
When we fail to solve problems, such as the lack of frequency pairs for new technology, over some period of time the users will just stop paying attention to the Repeater Council and put things on the air anyway.
Our Repeater Councils back east were primarily run by long-term / well established repeater owners who had no incentive to make it easy for new repeater owners, or new technology.
In contrast, what I see here in W Washington is quite civilized - But it would be fair to note the obvious differences in population - 10+ Million population in WNYSORC area, and about half that here in Western Washington.
If you doubled the ham population in Western Washington, it would be quite a bit harder to coordinate a new pair than it is today.
W3RWN / VE3RWN
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM daron wilson <daron@...
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.
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...
Wondering if this should not be an entire West Coast consultation and plan development as topography more than state lines affect VHF/UHF propagation.
Everyone west of the mountains / the I-5 Corridor is in the same VHF/UHF propagation region and is interrelated north-south.
To that extent, a consistent standard across the west that harmonizes the approach to channel bandwidth, assignment and policies could well be in the best interest of amateur radio.
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
Please share, just remind people that it was a proposal and meant to kick start the discussion, not the final plan. :-) There were two critical missing points brought up during the meeting and will be the focus of the working group to address over the next couple months. (The exact channel plan being one of them) Another point that came up during the meeting that I didn't call out was trying to align our neighbor coordination bodies with the plan once we have a proposal that seems to work. ORCC and BC were specifically called out, but IACC would certainly be invited as well. So I'm glad you are reaching out pro-actively. :-)
Having regular sync up of WWARA and ORCC working groups would be great.