Date   

Re: Certificates of Coordinations sent

Rich Salter
 

Hi Kenny,
900 Mhz? Also links to the copies of the other machines...
And there was another one you wanted me to amend, and I forget which one it is...

I hope to have the  220 machine back up, and actually connected to the rest of the system. A couple more weeks I suspect. What a novel idea huh? we have the controller issue fixed, just playing with resistor values now trying to make the audio better. 

Also, did you get your dstar machine running again? Just curious... 

Last tidbit of info... I know you don’t have anything to do with GMRS, but we are putting one on E. Tiger... I’ll give you the specs when I know them just for your info. Put it to work if you have the funky 4x3 callsign lol

73
Rich KF7BJI

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 3:56 PM Kenny Richards <richark@...> wrote:
Stan,

Peter just put it up for a board vote last night or this morning....

Thanks
Kenny

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:14 PM stan nelson <k7dkk1@...> wrote:
Kenny
Just wondering about 146.640 in Edgewood? Could be I'm pushing things some, I've lost track of time.

Thanks again


Stan
K7DKK
PC DEC
253 381 5230


On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
I just sent out 24 certificates of coordination, these are for all the renewals and new coordinations issued in the last three months.

If you were expecting one and don't have an e-mail from me, please reach out.

Thanks
Kenny

--
--... ...--
-.. .   -.- ..-. --... -... .--- ..
-- . --. .-   ...- .. -.-. . .-. --- -.--  -..-. ... -.-. .-. .. -... .
..-. --- .-.   ----. ----- ----- -- .... --..


Member comment period open 440.600 W7ACS Lake Forest.

Howard Wilhelm
 

 Following an uneventful test period, the comment period is open for the W7ACS repeater 440.600  Lake Forest. If no negative comments are received the repeater will be considered coordinated July 2.


Member comment period open 441.375 WA7DOB Lake Youngs.

Howard Wilhelm
 

  Following an uneventful test period, the comment period is open for the WA7DOB repeater 441.375 near Lake Youngs. If no negative comments are received the repeater will be considered coordinated July 2.


Re: Certificates of Coordinations sent

Kenny Richards
 

Stan,

Peter just put it up for a board vote last night or this morning....

Thanks
Kenny

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 6:14 PM stan nelson <k7dkk1@...> wrote:
Kenny
Just wondering about 146.640 in Edgewood? Could be I'm pushing things some, I've lost track of time.

Thanks again


Stan
K7DKK
PC DEC
253 381 5230


On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
I just sent out 24 certificates of coordination, these are for all the renewals and new coordinations issued in the last three months.

If you were expecting one and don't have an e-mail from me, please reach out.

Thanks
Kenny


Re: Certificates of Coordinations sent

stan nelson
 

Kenny
Just wondering about 146.640 in Edgewood? Could be I'm pushing things some, I've lost track of time.

Thanks again


Stan
K7DKK
PC DEC
253 381 5230


On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:
I just sent out 24 certificates of coordination, these are for all the renewals and new coordinations issued in the last three months.

If you were expecting one and don't have an e-mail from me, please reach out.

Thanks
Kenny


Certificates of Coordinations sent

Kenny Richards
 

I just sent out 24 certificates of coordination, these are for all the renewals and new coordinations issued in the last three months.

If you were expecting one and don't have an e-mail from me, please reach out.

Thanks
Kenny


Member comment period open 440.175 WA7ACS Everett.

Howard Wilhelm
 

Following an uneventful test period the comment period is open for the WA7ACS repeater 440.175 just south of Everett. If no negative comments are received the repeater will be considered coordinated June 30.


Member comment period open 444.825 WW7MST Seattle.

Howard Wilhelm
 

Following an uneventful test period the comment period is open for the  444.825 in Seattle. If no negative comments are received the repeater will be considered coordinated June 30.


Cancelled Event: Q2 - General Membership Meeting - Saturday, 15 June 2019 #cal-cancelled

wwara@groups.io Calendar <wwara@...>
 

Cancelled: Q2 - General Membership Meeting

This event has been cancelled.

When:
Saturday, 15 June 2019
10:00am to 12:00pm
(GMT-07:00) America/Los Angeles

Where:
Tukwila Fire Station #51

Organizer:
kenny@...

Description:
Quarterly Membership Meeting


Upcoming Event: Q2 - General Membership Meeting - Sat, 06/15/2019 10:00am-12:00pm #cal-reminder

wwara@groups.io Calendar <wwara@...>
 

Reminder: Q2 - General Membership Meeting

When: Saturday, 15 June 2019, 10:00am to 12:00pm, (GMT-07:00) America/Los Angeles

Where:Tukwila Fire Station #51

View Event

Organizer: Kenny Richards - KU7M kenny@...

Description: Quarterly Membership Meeting


Re: Cancelling June 15, 2019 General Membership meeting

stan nelson
 

Thanks Kenny


On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

After reviewing the agenda (or lack of) and the busyness of the month (Seaside a couple weeks ago and Field Day in a couple weeks) the board has decided to cancel the general membership meeting this Saturday, June 15.

The next schedule membership meeting is September 28, 2019.

73,
Kenny, KU7M
Secretary


Cancelling June 15, 2019 General Membership meeting

Kenny Richards
 

After reviewing the agenda (or lack of) and the busyness of the month (Seaside a couple weeks ago and Field Day in a couple weeks) the board has decided to cancel the general membership meeting this Saturday, June 15.

The next schedule membership meeting is September 28, 2019.

73,
Kenny, KU7M
Secretary


WWARA Session at Seaside Hamfest

Kenny Richards
 

Just a reminder for anybody attending the hamfest in Seaside this weekend that the WWARA has a presentation slot on Saturday, 12:00-12:50 in the Riverside C room. We have invited some of the other coordination groups like the ORCC to come take part and help answer questions about how repeater coordination works and some of the challenges we are facing.

73,
Kenny, KU7M


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Kenny Richards
 

Gentlemen,

I am really excited to see so much interest in advancing the WWARA (and neighbor coordinating bodies) policies. I'm going to suggest that those who want to contribute to the narrow-banding project, reach out to me. (And thank you to those who have already!) For those with other ideas, I look forward to seeing your participation and proposals at future WWARA meetings. 

But this thread has wondered off from the original subject, so I'm going to lock it at this point.

Thanks
Kenny


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 

Hi Frank,

If WWARA is unwilling to change, or be different than it has been, with your emails as good evidence that you have not much interest in adapting or change, then there really isn’t much point of having a dialog about change to allow more coordinations.

Where’s the dialog about “what can be done”?

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:24 AM Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io <nm7r=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Randy,

WWARA does have a monitoring program. We periodically check to see that coordinated repeaters are "still on the air". This is a semi-automated process (computer-controlled radio interrogator/logger) conducted on an approximately semi-annual basis, and it does a good job of finding "paper repeaters". That is one thing we are very sensitive to, a "repeater on paper, but not on the air". At one time in the distant past, there were lots of these. Some were machines that the owner hadn't actually built yet, and wanted to "hold his spot" until then. In order to maintain a coordination, a repeater has to actually function. WWARA policy is that a repeater that is off-air for more than 6-months is in danger of loosing it's coordination.

As for setting a minimum level of activity, I don't really see how that's our business. I get your idea that in a perfect world the repeaters that are on the air would be constantly active, such that you'd have to stand in line to use them. That might describe the repeater world of the 1970's or 1980's, but not today. Why? Cell phones.

In the 1980's Hams used repeaters to chat, because we could. There wasn't another option available. You could certainly call someone up on the phone, but that meant you were tethered to a wire. The idea of carrying an HT on your belt with which you could actually make a phone call (while walking or driving around!) was a very big deal. Many repeaters charged a monthly (typically $25) fee for autopatch use, which funded the entire project. I used to use the autopatch on the Scottsdale repeater to call my wife and let her know I was heading home. From my vehicle! In motion! This was almost science fiction to the lay person.

Now everyone has a cell phone. Where we used to chat on repeaters, now we do that on Verizon. If you want to understand why our repeaters get so little use, that is the salient fact. It's not 1980 any more.

I don't understand your concept of "Enhanced Coordination". According to Part 97, a repeater is either "recommended" by us, or it is not. Putting a designation on our frequency list that "picks favorites" seems like a "teacher's pet", and just as dangerous. How does a coordination body focus on coordination criteria and maintain an objective detachment while at the same time designating "teacher's pets"?  Just because a particular repeater is busy all the time doesn't mean it is any more or less valuable to the Amateur community than another. Drumming up business for repeaters is not our brief. 

I would suggest, extending your logic, if any group would get priority use of our repeater spectrum, it should be the ARES/ACS/ACES folks. When the phones/internet go down, that is exactly the time those repeaters will be invaluable. If those public service repeaters are replaced by the "constant idle chit-chat" machines, then they may not be well placed, or available, for the few times when they can be of most benefit to the general public at large.

Ultimately, our mission is to provide a service to the general public. That is why we have the use of a generous portion of the "publicly owned" radio spectrum. So, if there is a priority to be set, it could as easily be "service to the general public" rather than "service to the Amateur community". I know the Emergency Management Director here in Pacific County gets a warm-fuzzy feeling every time he talks about being able to contact Camp Murray over Ham Radio when nothing else is working.

Disclaimer: I should point out that I have been active in ARES/RACES as a county Emergency Volunteer Worker for over 38 years. I built the BeachNet repeater system (with lots of help) specifically for disaster relief communications in the "lower left corner" of the state. It has been successfully used in this regard several times. To mention only two (Nisqually earthquake in 2001 and major storm damage in 2007-8) when commercial communications went down for the count and we needed a way to connect with the State, each time it worked as intended. Now, as far as I'm concerned, those isolated but recurrent episodes are enough to justify the expense of maintaining the network and holding onto the frequencies. But, then, I'm biased. Is the system busy? Well, with a population of about 2% of Puget Sound, in an area about half the size, spread all over the Coast Range, it's about as you'd expect.

So, if we are going to set priorities for the use of the spectrum, I think we are getting very near a slippery slope. Each repeater owner has his/her own priorities and reasons for putting up a machine or machines. Those reasons may not make sense or resonate with others, and they don't have to. If someone has the license, and wants to strap on the expense and effort to put up a repeater, then it's our job to try to minimize interference. Making any sort of judgement call as to the relative merit of one project over another is not something we are equipped to properly address.

I think WWARA has done, and is doing, a good job of "fitting as many repeaters into the available spectrum" as any coordination body. This is an activity that is always spectrum-limited, particularly on the 2-meter band. There are historical reasons for this being the most popular band for repeater-based communications. It is interesting to me that, while we have a significant pressure to provide spectrum space for repeaters on 2-meters, there are open frequencies available on several other bands. I often mention to frustrated would-be repeater operators that they would have lots of possible places to go on 6-meters or the 220-band, with propagation as good or better. No interest.

I'm not trying to shoot you down. I'm just pointing out that this ground has been trodden previously.

The problem before us is to look for a way to transition in an orderly manner, from the present Band Plan to one where 20-kHz analog FM machines can continue to exist as long as their operators are willing to maintain them, while providing a way to efficiently accommodate narrow-band repeaters, possibly using a variety of digital modulation schemes, on frequency assignments that the equipment is actually able to tune to, and over time, promote an orderly shift from a predominance of the former to the latter, with the ultimate goal being an all digital landscape with as efficient a usage of spectrum as practicable.

73

Frank, NM7R





On Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:01:27 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:



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.

-Randy














--
Sent from mobile.


locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Frank Wolfe
 

Randy,

WWARA does have a monitoring program. We periodically check to see that coordinated repeaters are "still on the air". This is a semi-automated process (computer-controlled radio interrogator/logger) conducted on an approximately semi-annual basis, and it does a good job of finding "paper repeaters". That is one thing we are very sensitive to, a "repeater on paper, but not on the air". At one time in the distant past, there were lots of these. Some were machines that the owner hadn't actually built yet, and wanted to "hold his spot" until then. In order to maintain a coordination, a repeater has to actually function. WWARA policy is that a repeater that is off-air for more than 6-months is in danger of loosing it's coordination.

As for setting a minimum level of activity, I don't really see how that's our business. I get your idea that in a perfect world the repeaters that are on the air would be constantly active, such that you'd have to stand in line to use them. That might describe the repeater world of the 1970's or 1980's, but not today. Why? Cell phones.

In the 1980's Hams used repeaters to chat, because we could. There wasn't another option available. You could certainly call someone up on the phone, but that meant you were tethered to a wire. The idea of carrying an HT on your belt with which you could actually make a phone call (while walking or driving around!) was a very big deal. Many repeaters charged a monthly (typically $25) fee for autopatch use, which funded the entire project. I used to use the autopatch on the Scottsdale repeater to call my wife and let her know I was heading home. From my vehicle! In motion! This was almost science fiction to the lay person.

Now everyone has a cell phone. Where we used to chat on repeaters, now we do that on Verizon. If you want to understand why our repeaters get so little use, that is the salient fact. It's not 1980 any more.

I don't understand your concept of "Enhanced Coordination". According to Part 97, a repeater is either "recommended" by us, or it is not. Putting a designation on our frequency list that "picks favorites" seems like a "teacher's pet", and just as dangerous. How does a coordination body focus on coordination criteria and maintain an objective detachment while at the same time designating "teacher's pets"?  Just because a particular repeater is busy all the time doesn't mean it is any more or less valuable to the Amateur community than another. Drumming up business for repeaters is not our brief. 

I would suggest, extending your logic, if any group would get priority use of our repeater spectrum, it should be the ARES/ACS/ACES folks. When the phones/internet go down, that is exactly the time those repeaters will be invaluable. If those public service repeaters are replaced by the "constant idle chit-chat" machines, then they may not be well placed, or available, for the few times when they can be of most benefit to the general public at large.

Ultimately, our mission is to provide a service to the general public. That is why we have the use of a generous portion of the "publicly owned" radio spectrum. So, if there is a priority to be set, it could as easily be "service to the general public" rather than "service to the Amateur community". I know the Emergency Management Director here in Pacific County gets a warm-fuzzy feeling every time he talks about being able to contact Camp Murray over Ham Radio when nothing else is working.

Disclaimer: I should point out that I have been active in ARES/RACES as a county Emergency Volunteer Worker for over 38 years. I built the BeachNet repeater system (with lots of help) specifically for disaster relief communications in the "lower left corner" of the state. It has been successfully used in this regard several times. To mention only two (Nisqually earthquake in 2001 and major storm damage in 2007-8) when commercial communications went down for the count and we needed a way to connect with the State, each time it worked as intended. Now, as far as I'm concerned, those isolated but recurrent episodes are enough to justify the expense of maintaining the network and holding onto the frequencies. But, then, I'm biased. Is the system busy? Well, with a population of about 2% of Puget Sound, in an area about half the size, spread all over the Coast Range, it's about as you'd expect.

So, if we are going to set priorities for the use of the spectrum, I think we are getting very near a slippery slope. Each repeater owner has his/her own priorities and reasons for putting up a machine or machines. Those reasons may not make sense or resonate with others, and they don't have to. If someone has the license, and wants to strap on the expense and effort to put up a repeater, then it's our job to try to minimize interference. Making any sort of judgement call as to the relative merit of one project over another is not something we are equipped to properly address.

I think WWARA has done, and is doing, a good job of "fitting as many repeaters into the available spectrum" as any coordination body. This is an activity that is always spectrum-limited, particularly on the 2-meter band. There are historical reasons for this being the most popular band for repeater-based communications. It is interesting to me that, while we have a significant pressure to provide spectrum space for repeaters on 2-meters, there are open frequencies available on several other bands. I often mention to frustrated would-be repeater operators that they would have lots of possible places to go on 6-meters or the 220-band, with propagation as good or better. No interest.

I'm not trying to shoot you down. I'm just pointing out that this ground has been trodden previously.

The problem before us is to look for a way to transition in an orderly manner, from the present Band Plan to one where 20-kHz analog FM machines can continue to exist as long as their operators are willing to maintain them, while providing a way to efficiently accommodate narrow-band repeaters, possibly using a variety of digital modulation schemes, on frequency assignments that the equipment is actually able to tune to, and over time, promote an orderly shift from a predominance of the former to the latter, with the ultimate goal being an all digital landscape with as efficient a usage of spectrum as practicable.

73

Frank, NM7R





On Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 12:01:27 AM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:



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.

-Randy















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.

 

73


Daron

 

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.

-Randy














locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 


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.

-Randy















locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Frank Wolfe
 

Randy,

We are not the Band Police. WWARA is a Repeater Coordinator.

If you have a repeater on the air, and your license is valid, and you have sought and received coordination from us (in FCC-speak that means WWARA "recommended" your repeater) then you have the right to claim priority if another repeater owner comes along and causes you interference. The only advantage you have in this case is the FCC, if and when they get involved, and assuming the other guy is not coordinated, will side with you, and might order the other guy off the air. It has happened in the past, but not very often. Only the FCC has the authority to order anyone off the air.

A repeater coordinator has next to no authority beyond "recommending" a particular repeater, or not. A coordinator organization can set their own standards as to what they consider acceptable to earn their "recommendation". In most cases this includes things like, the operation must be legit under Part 97, and it might need to take certain steps to avoid interference with existing systems (power limits, antenna gain/orientation, use of CTCSS, whatever). They can issue a Band Plan that they expect applicants to honor. But, ultimately, the licensee is responsible. 

Part 97 gives any licensee (Technician or higher) the privilege of putting a repeater on the air, should they chose to do so. Frequency selection is up to them, as long as they use frequencies that are specifically allowed for repeaters. The repeater operates under their license, with their callsign. The licensee is responsible for all aspects of the repeater's operation.

There are a lot of misunderstandings regarding Repeater Coordinators. They cannot order a repeater off the air, for example. In fact, if a Coordinator decides to rescind someone's Coordination, they need to tread lightly. It had better be for a very good reason, and they'd better have a published policy that backs it up.

This brings us to refarming the spectrum, a topic opened for discussion at the last WWARA meeting, last Saturday (although the topic has been broached several times in the past).

Remember, there are a lot of analog "wide band" repeaters out there already, and a lot of FM radios that Hams use with them. There is no litmus test for how often a repeater has to be used to be "useful". Remember, the licensee is responsible, so it's really their call. There are a number of repeaters that are key players in various emergency plans that are only occasionally used most of the time. We don't judge the necessity of a fire extinguisher by how often it is used.

Judging from the Hams I know, it will be quite some time until we can "pry the FM HT from their cold dead fingers". As long as some organization, or individual, is willing to maintain and operate a repeater, they have the right to do so. That's more philosophy than law, but any repeater coordinator that starts ordering operable, but lightly used repeaters off the air will probably find themselves in court. I am not a lawyer, but Private Property is mentioned in Article One of the Constitution. That makes it pretty much a core issue.

The next logical step is not to force anyone to do anything, but rather to "enable" them to do so. Make it an easy change to go from an FM repeater to a digital one. That's the step we are looking at, and trying to get the biggest bang for the buck (in terms of spectrum efficiency) in the process. Forcing is not the answer. Enabling is.

The 2-meter repeater band is presently (in Western WA) mostly divided into 20-kHz segments. It would be nice to change this to some mix of 12.5-kHz and/or 6.25-kHz segments. If you do the math, this comes out a bit sloppy. Keep in mind also that the center frequencies have to end up as something a radio can actually be programmed to operate on.

If every time repeaters on two adjacent 20-kHz channels want to change from analog to digital, and you refarm them to two 12.5-kHz channels, centered in the old 20-kHz centers, that leaves 7.5-kHz between them, or a 6.25-kHz channel plus guard bands. Everything now is centered on a 10-kHz step. But a couple of kHz get lost in the shuffle. Worth it? I don't know. ---> Discussion.

The 7 "P's", a way of life onboard a ship:  Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. If the place we want to go is correctly determined, and we understand where we are now, adding a viable route to get there should be all that is needed. The assumption is, it will be a step-wise process, taking place over a decade or two. You can't force it. But you can't stop it either. All you can do is channel it and hope for the best.

73

Frank, NM7R





On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 7:00:03 PM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:



Frank, you're exactly on point with the sack being full.

Spectrum Management technology is much cheaper than ever before - software defined receivers, software and network connectivity - It's not trivial, but it's now in the range of possible for a repeater council to have some tools.

In highly populated areas, such as Seattle, should we operate a VHF SDR monitoring station that scans all available VHF pairs, simplex and packet frequencies and records carrier/no carrier activity in a data base?
I suspect that every frequency could be sampled for activity a few times per hour, and that over weeks and months, we'd have some decent data about activity level on each VHF channel.

Publish the data. Stack rank repeaters by their activity level. Inform the dialog. Talk and decide what next steps are.
I'd be concerned if there are VHF assignments that over several weeks of monitoring have zero activity.

To use your analogy, the only way we make "more space in the sack" is to narrow band, but to do that, you have to make a contiguous space for re-farming.
I think some monitoring data might expose adjacent non-utilized pairs that could be refarmed.

Randy
W3RWN









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:25 PM Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io <nm7r=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Randy,

I completely agree with your assessment with regard to, "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."  This was exactly what led us to the 10 pairs we "created" for the new narrow-band equipment hitting the market (Kenny corrected me, it was about 8 years ago). Are 10 pairs enough to satisfy the demand? No, of course not, but this has acted like a relief valve on the pressure cooker, so we could move forward in an ordered, controlled way. It has also brought us to a point where we can talk about how to shape the future expansion of evolving technology.

From the Coordinator point of view, options are limited, but there are options, nonetheless. Given that there is no "new spectrum" available, and not wanting to force any existing system off the air (never mind that we have no such authority in the first place) the next steps need to be carefully looked at. This is an "all hands evolution" as we used to say. While there are no dumb ideas, even a lot of very good ideas probably won't solve our problems.

So, how do we take a sack that is already full, and add another load of repeaters to it?  The field is open for discussion.

73

Frank, NM7R

----



On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 5:43:43 PM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:


Daron,

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.

73,
Randy
W3RWN / VE3RWN
Burien, WA









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM daron wilson <daron@...> wrote:

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.

 

73

 

Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC, Inc.

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

Randy,

 

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.

 

73

 

Frank, NM7R

 

 

 

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.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

 

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Daron,

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. 

73,
Kenny




locked Re: Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

Randy Neals
 


Frank, you're exactly on point with the sack being full.

Spectrum Management technology is much cheaper than ever before - software defined receivers, software and network connectivity - It's not trivial, but it's now in the range of possible for a repeater council to have some tools.

In highly populated areas, such as Seattle, should we operate a VHF SDR monitoring station that scans all available VHF pairs, simplex and packet frequencies and records carrier/no carrier activity in a data base?
I suspect that every frequency could be sampled for activity a few times per hour, and that over weeks and months, we'd have some decent data about activity level on each VHF channel.

Publish the data. Stack rank repeaters by their activity level. Inform the dialog. Talk and decide what next steps are.
I'd be concerned if there are VHF assignments that over several weeks of monitoring have zero activity.

To use your analogy, the only way we make "more space in the sack" is to narrow band, but to do that, you have to make a contiguous space for re-farming.
I think some monitoring data might expose adjacent non-utilized pairs that could be refarmed.

Randy
W3RWN









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:25 PM Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io <nm7r=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Randy,

I completely agree with your assessment with regard to, "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."  This was exactly what led us to the 10 pairs we "created" for the new narrow-band equipment hitting the market (Kenny corrected me, it was about 8 years ago). Are 10 pairs enough to satisfy the demand? No, of course not, but this has acted like a relief valve on the pressure cooker, so we could move forward in an ordered, controlled way. It has also brought us to a point where we can talk about how to shape the future expansion of evolving technology.

From the Coordinator point of view, options are limited, but there are options, nonetheless. Given that there is no "new spectrum" available, and not wanting to force any existing system off the air (never mind that we have no such authority in the first place) the next steps need to be carefully looked at. This is an "all hands evolution" as we used to say. While there are no dumb ideas, even a lot of very good ideas probably won't solve our problems.

So, how do we take a sack that is already full, and add another load of repeaters to it?  The field is open for discussion.

73

Frank, NM7R

----



On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 5:43:43 PM PST, Randy Neals <randy@...> wrote:


Daron,

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.

73,
Randy
W3RWN / VE3RWN
Burien, WA









On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:15 PM daron wilson <daron@...> wrote:

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.

 

73

 

Daron N7HQR

Chairman, ORRC, Inc.

 

 

From: wwara@groups.io [mailto:wwara@groups.io] On Behalf Of Frank Wolfe via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 1:14 PM
To: wwara@groups.io
Subject: Re: [wwara] Minutes for March 2, 2019 Meeting Posted

 

Randy,

 

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.

 

73

 

Frank, NM7R

 

 

 

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.

BCARCC
WWARA
ORRC
NARCC
TASMA
220SMA
SCRRBA
With appropriate engagement of inland coordinators as well.

 

Randy
W3RWN
Burien, WA

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kenny Richards <kenny@...> wrote:

Daron,

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. 

73,
Kenny



261 - 280 of 1345