QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940255.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 22.4 KB

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 04:30:13 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #255
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Mon, 13 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  255

Today's Topics:
                       440 in So. Cal. (5 msgs)
                            CW Argument...
                  Usefulness of the amateur service

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1994 19:49:12 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore -FT-~) writes:

: > If that really is the only way that hams can think of to solve the problem,
: > it is probably time for a more technically oriented repeater coordinating
: > body to be established which is not made up of hams. Good thing hams are
: > not the coordinating body for cellular telephones.

: Unfortunately, hams don't have access to the same level of technology
: in commercially-available radios. I've already proposed a digital
: stdm shared access to the frequency with appropriate "keys" limiting
: which frames a repeater would and would not decypher. This equipment
: is a long time in the coming.

: -- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."

I really have to laugh as here in the Bay Area the hams ARE the
coordinators of cellular telephones. Many of the radio engineers who
design the cellular network are amateurs. They are also the trustees of
local repeaters. At work they design systems that only cover a couple of
square miles and are limeted by capture. At play in the amateur community
their systems may cover hundreds to thousands of square miles. A totally
different scale. At work they have technology to help them sort out the
limited spectrum. Smart radios that that can automatically frequency hop
and change to six different power levels all under three watts.

How many amateurs have this kind of technology in the amateur service? One
of the new portable radios has a power scaling function built in. If the
radio hears the repeater full scale it automatically lowers power. This is
a good thing to save battery and it also helps the co-channel repeater.
How?  lower signal levels on the repeater input frequency. How many of you
have turned off this function .... because you are too noisy into the
repeater. We are starting to see more and more technology help us provide
a higher grade of repeater service than the commercial service providers.

How long does it take the amateur community to find that ctcss does not
close a repeater... it enhances the repeater.

There are eight repeaters on our frequency all at the same mountain top.
The users love it. One repeater with eight ctcss tones encode and decode.
All the new hams are using tone 100 and the old grouches use tone 114.8 .
Neither group has to listen to each other as they can decode their own
group. We ask that when groups are talking that they not decode but
listen in the clear. When monitoring they can decode for their group.
Some tone groups are not vary active, they are used as intercoms for
RACES and ARES groups. Each one of these groups could have its own
repeater but through modern technology they can all enjoy the use of one
good repeater. No lock-outs no bs political constraints, just a lot of
differnt small groups enjoying amateur radio.

   "Join 'The Club'... Endorsed by repeater owners everywhare..."

Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1994 04:10:18 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

Bob Wilkins  n6fri ([e-mail]) wrote:

: The un-coordinated station is unable to detect rf on the output frequency
: do (due?) to its own transmitter in operation.

Don't you know they can be linked over a control channel?

: Here in California you will find many closed 440 repeater groups have two
: or three different repeaters operating in the same general area on the
: same frequency.

Some on this thread said that it couldn't be done but it looks as if the
problem has already been solved. Why not extend the solution to other
repeaters?

: In essance most closed repeater groups have more restrictions placed on
: their members than one would find on a normal open repeater.  Bob

We have all agreed that all repeaters are closed by definition. Why not
cooperate and solve the problems with technology?

73, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1994 04:28:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: The problem is that *I* don't agree to it, since the problem can
: work in both directions. Maybe its my repeater one time, and then his
: the next.

My suggestion involved a control channel that gives your repeater absolute
priority and would not work in both directions. His shuts up when yours
transmits... period.

: Unfortunately, hams don't have access to the same level of technology
: in commercially-available radios.

Hams have access to any level of technology to which they choose to have
access. I would have a hard time conceiving of a system that the combined
efforts of the Intel and Motorola ARC's here in Chandler, AZ couldn't come
up with.  Do you guys need any help from the Valley of the Sun?

: Being obnoxious. Don't worry, its not a acquired trait, its a talent
: you're borne with. -- Michael P. Deignan

If it works on a repeater, I wonder why it doesn't work on Internet?  :-)

73, KG7BK, OOTC, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1994 01:09:51 -0700
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

Cecil A. Moore -FT-~ ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Michael P. Deignan ([e-mail]) wrote:

: : The problem is that *I* don't agree to it, since the problem can
: : work in both directions. Maybe its my repeater one time, and then his
: : the next.

: My suggestion involved a control channel that gives your repeater absolute
: priority and would not work in both directions. His shuts up when yours
: transmits... period.

This would work if the control channel actually controled the users radio
as is done with trunking radios or cellular radio telephones. A control
channel requires cooperation between both compeating groups to work. The
engineers at Motorola and other telecommunications companies developed
trunking and the cellular technology to be able to serve more users in a
given number of channels. Ten trunked channels could support 200 user
groups in the commercial use. Ten amateur rag chewers could tie up that
system for days ;)

: : Unfortunately, hams don't have access to the same level of technology
: : in commercially-available radios.

It is really market driven...

: Hams have access to any level of technology to which they choose to have
: access. I would have a hard time conceiving of a system that the combined
: efforts of the Intel and Motorola ARC's here in Chandler, AZ couldn't come
: up with.  Do you guys need any help from the Valley of the Sun?

We need your help ... but remember those ten rag chewers when you design
a new technology amateur repeater system serving a hundred talk groups.

: : Being obnoxious. Don't worry, its not a acquired trait, its a talent

You got that right ;)

Bob


--
     Bob Wilkins                     work    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     94701-0710                      play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 03:32:00 EST
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
Subject: 440 in So. Cal.
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>[e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore -FT-~) writes:
>
>> Hi Michael, this slow-thinking Texan is trying to understand. If the
>> coordinated station transmits, then the uncoordinated station
>> does not transmit... no PL involved. Both repeater inputs are PLed
>> on different frequencies. Somebody, I think from Michigan, said they
>> had run this configuration for years without problems. If the un-
>> coordinated repeater detects any RF on the output frequency, then it
>> simply refuses to transmit... why won't that work?

The two repeaters talked about are the 146.76 repeaters in Cleveland (of
which I am a trustee and control operater) and the same in Detroit, MI. We
use different PL (110.9 Cle and 100.0 (?) in Detroit). There are two
repeaters in the next county down from us (147.03 I think) that share the
same frequency AND live very close. One has Anit-Buzz (in other words it
will NOT key if ANY CTCSS is present) and one is tone only. One is high
profile one is not. Seems to work fine for them.

>
>1. The proposal said that the "open" repeater would not have a PL,
>   while mine would. If a PL was detected, the "open" repeater would
>   not transmit, ie. if my PL was present, then my machine would transmit
>   and not theirs. If my PL wasn't present, then their machine would
>   transmit.

Then PL Both differently as yours is running PL, so should the new commer.

> 2. Even assuming that #1 does work okay, the fact remains that unless
>   both machines have exactly the same coverage areas, there will be
>   instances where users on the "open" machine may be having a QSO,
>   and a user on my machine keys up my repeater because s/he cannot
>   hear them, and ZAP! my machine obliterates the QSO on the "open"
>   repeater.

As usual, you INTENTIONALLY or ignorantly ignore the comment that all that
is needed is for the OTHER REPEATER SITE to hear YOUR REPEATER. If YOUR
repeater is TRANSMITTING! the new repeater will NOT TRANSMIT! Can we say
"inhibit"? For a guy with a .edu on the end of his address you
miss a lot of plain english! (Intentionally?)

> 3. Let's say that my user can hear the QSO, and he needs to make a call
>   to get in touch with his wife, etc. Is he supposed to remove his
>   PL, put his callsign in on the "open" repeater and ask to make a call,
>   get permission, put the PL back on, wait for the tail of the "open"
>   repeater to drop, make his call on my machine, perhaps have a minute
>   or two of conversation, clear on my machine, wait for the tail to
>   drop, remove the PL again, go back to the open machine, relinquish
>   control back to the parties who were having a QSO? And, oh, let's not
>   forget ID'ing on both machines, perhaps leading to confusion if
>   someone thinks he's finished while he's removing the PL on his
>   radio. And, you're forgetting that my machine, although closed, is
>   heavily accessed.

Lets remember that the intent is to reduce interference, not prohibit
communications. As with simplex, one must wait until the frequency is not
in use. As for IDing, just have the uncoordinated repeater ID at the end
of the squelch tail. No ID problem any more. As to shared use, well, maybe
the new repeater should try 900 or 1.2 (or 440 if not filled in the area,
as this discussion has moved out of So. Cal. long ago).

>Nope, the only way to really solve the problem is the solution that
>coordinating bodies have been using - geographical distance multiplexing.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong AGAIN! (You seem to make this an advocation (or is
being wrong a vocation with you?)

>
>MD

Dan N8PKV
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1994 06:32:53 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: CW Argument...
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (JJ Martin) writes:
|>CW never stopped anyone from becoming a ham or upgrading!!!
|>
|>Only people who refuse to learn the code stop themselves.  Until the CW
|>requirement is amended or deleted any argument about it is moot.

I see, I guess debating changing anything must be moot.

|>Anyone who wants to argue with me about the above...feel free!  I'll let you
|>win everytime!  I'll even tell you now, before you start, you're so right.
|>but then...how come I have an Extra Class ticket...and you don't?
|>
|>This message is not intended for anyone holding an Extra Class ticket or a
|>CSCE for same....I can hear you snickering out there.
|>
|>P.S.  When and if the CW requirement is ever deleted, what will you want next?
|>Open book exams?!?  Yeah, that would make it easier.  Easier is what you want,
|>right?

Well I'd vote for a personality test so we could screen out obnoxious
arrogant little dweebs.

73 and have a nice day,
Todd
N9MWB

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 1994 06:43:43 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
Subject: Usefulness of the amateur service
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tcsa0$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|>
|>[e-mail] (David Tiller) writes:
|>
|>> Isn't disaster relief enough reason in itself to allow people to voluntarily
|>> buy their own high dollar radios and provide critical comms in an emergency?
|>
|>No. Nothing is worse than having a police-authority-wannabe show up with
|>his HT thinking he's going to start running the show. Not to mention that
|>he hasn't had any training in emergency communications and the like...

I'm sure the thousands of trained RACES members will appreciate your vote
of confidence.  Perhaps in your area, you've chased everyone but the police
wannabes away?

|>> Why is it that we have to bail out the local civil defense and FEMA idiots
|>> _every_ time there's an emergency?
|>
|>You vastly overestimate your worth.

You vastly overstate your knowledge.

73,
Todd
N9MWB
Palatine ESDA/RACES

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 94 08:47:00 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2tctmo$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> writes:

>Michael P. Deignan <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>Or (C) my machine receives a signal outside of your operating area,
>>but within mine, and my machine proceeds to clobber a QSO ongoing on
>>your machine because I'm running 250 watts into a 13db gain vertical.
>
>Which apparently would be legal, since yours is coordinated and mine would not
>be.  (However, two can play that game.)

Now now, boys. Play nice!

And remember the (new) uncoordinated machine has the PRIMARY responsibilty
for resolviong interference, Part 97 does not say "SOLE" or "ONLY", just
"PRIMARY!!!!

Dan N8PKV
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 94 09:12:00 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tfk70$[e-mail]>, <2tg3tl$[e-mail]>, <2tghf8$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

>I really have to laugh as here in the Bay Area the hams ARE the
>coordinators of cellular telephones. Many of the radio engineers who
>design the cellular network are amateurs. They are also the trustees of
>local repeaters. At work they design systems that only cover a couple of
>square miles and are limeted by capture. At play in the amateur community
>their systems may cover hundreds to thousands of square miles. A totally
>different scale. At work they have technology to help them sort out the
>limited spectrum. Smart radios that that can automatically frequency hop
>and change to six different power levels all under three watts.

I have to point out that (although my HT does NOT have this feature) it
would not be wise for me to use it. One of our repeaters, which I use
a lot, has 3 remote recieve sites. One that I can SEE from my window.
However the repeater is MILES away. I get medium to low scale readings for
it. If I used it I would be on HIGH power the whole time while 450
miliwatts does me just fine. I usually use EXTREAM minimum power because
of my proximity to the auxiliary input. This would not be the case under
automatic control.

>
>How many amateurs have this kind of technology in the amateur service? One
>of the new portable radios has a power scaling function built in. If the
>radio hears the repeater full scale it automatically lowers power. This is
>a good thing to save battery and it also helps the co-channel repeater.
>How?  lower signal levels on the repeater input frequency. How many of you
>have turned off this function .... because you are too noisy into the
>repeater. We are starting to see more and more technology help us provide
>a higher grade of repeater service than the commercial service providers.
>
>How long does it take the amateur community to find that ctcss does not
>close a repeater... it enhances the repeater.
>
>There are eight repeaters on our frequency all at the same mountain top.
>The users love it. One repeater with eight ctcss tones encode and decode.
>All the new hams are using tone 100 and the old grouches use tone 114.8 .
>Neither group has to listen to each other as they can decode their own
>group. We ask that when groups are talking that they not decode but
>listen in the clear. When monitoring they can decode for their group.
>Some tone groups are not vary active, they are used as intercoms for
>RACES and ARES groups. Each one of these groups could have its own
>repeater but through modern technology they can all enjoy the use of one
>good repeater. No lock-outs no bs political constraints, just a lot of
>differnt small groups enjoying amateur radio.

True.

>   "Join 'The Club'... Endorsed by repeater owners everywhare..."
>
>Bob


Dan N8PKV
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 94 08:51:00 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <2tcu0a$[e-mail]>, <2te5l9$[e-mail]>, <2tfjlv$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: 440 in So. Cal.

[e-mail] (Bob Wilkins  n6fri) writes:

>Cecil A. Moore -FT-~ ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: Hi Michael, this slow-thinking Texan is trying to understand. If the
>: coordinated station transmits, then the uncoordinated station
>: does not transmit... no PL involved. Both repeater inputs are PLed
>: on different frequencies. Somebody, I think from Michigan, said they
>: had run this configuration for years without problems. If the un-
>: coordinated repeater detects any RF on the output frequency, then it
>: simply refuses to transmit... why won't that work?
>
>The un-coordinated station is unable to detect rf on the output frequency
>do to its own transmitter in operation.

The detection is made BEFORE the uncoordinated machine transmits.

>Unknowing users of the
>un-coordinated repeater may wish to communicate with the users they hear
>on  the coordinated repeater and find that they are locked out of the
>conversation. This leads to frustration and later resentment as most
>repeater users expect to find only one repeater on a frequency.

Not from what has been said in this thread before. And maybe they need to
LEARN how to share frequencies and be polite and cooperate.

>Here in California you will find many closed 440 repeater groups have two
>or three different repeaters operating in the same general area on the
>same frequency. This configuration does work in a closed membership as the
>members have all agreed that it will work :) A typical example would have
>a high level repeater covering a large area from 5000 feet elevation with
>many low level repeaters down in the local towns used as autopatch or
>local talk repeaters. Because a single cooperative group can operate on
>one frequency instead of three channels does not mean that three or four
>compeating open groups could do the same thing.

Hummm, seems to work ok on simplex. In business. And GMRS (I can think of
3 GMRS repeaters in this county alone on ONE PAIR all separated by CTCSS).

>In essance most closed repeater groups have more restrictions placed on
>their members than one would find on a normal open repeater. I find this
>to be quite healthy for amateur radio.

As do _I_, sir.

>Bob

Dan N8PKV
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!"   -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #255
******************************