locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

daron wilson

That is an interesting approach.  At some point, we likely need to define and agree on what constitutes good use of the spectrum.  I’ve got repeater owners that try to keep the chatter down on their machines so they are ‘available’ if needed.  On the other hand, we’ve got ARES folks who have permission to use the repeater for 30 minutes a week so they conduct their net, then read articles from scientific America for the balance of the 30 minutes to make sure that the repeater is ‘in use’.  Add the ability to link to a busy reflector, and your repeater can be ‘active’ a large portion of the time…yet not really providing much of a service.


What actually constitutes good use of the spectrum?  Is it better to have one repeater that blankets a coverage area, or 6 lower level repeaters that border on each other and overlap slightly?  Is it better to have 20 very good repeaters for a region, or is it better to allow everyone who wants to build a repeater and have 40 overlapping, struggling repeaters in the same region?  Is it better to wedge the 80% analog users on to narrow channels and deal with the overlap so that 20% can operate DMR/Dstar  without being affected?


I guess, we need to evaluate a bit what is the best use of the spectrum.  I’m not quite sold on narrower channels and more repeaters just because someone wants their own repeater.  However, I do understand that if we don’t find a way to try the new modes and systems, we won’t grow.


Again I think we need a clear definition of what we consider the good use of the spectrum to be so we can strive towards a goal.





From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Randy Neals
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 12:01 AM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted



Hi Frank,

I believe what I proposed was a monitoring tool that provides data which highlights well utilized and under-utilized repeaters, and provides data to the community to inform a dialog/next steps.

"Taking away" is always difficult, so flip this around and use activity monitoring to hand out a higher level of coordination recognition - Let's call it "Enhanced Coordination" for the sake of this paragraph.
The council sets a standard of average monthly activity, and any repeater that exceeds that X monthly over Y months is deemed to receive an "Enhanced Coordination"

The benefits of Enhanced Coordination could be as minimal as a special designator on the frequency list, but it could also (Through a policy change) reflect a higher priority for interference protection because of the activity level, and associated service to the amateur community from that use.

I can't see too many negatives with recognizing highly utilized repeaters, and potentially holding their coordinations at a higher priority.


Join wwara@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.