I personally believe that consideration of further narrow-banding of existing repeaters is long overdue to make way for emerging relay technologies, but I also see only one problem: The ARRL is taking this action unilaterally without having asked the several thousand analog FM repeater owner/operators in the USA if they either want to change or are willing to even accept change.
As one having been around repeaters since the latter days of AM systems (yes there were a number of these back in the early to mid 1960's) I'm keenly aware that the real world relationship between the repeater community and the ARRL has never been exactly one of tight friendship. As such, I can just imagine the political nightmare that the ARRL BoD is creating for itself if it decides that all repeaters must be either super narrow FM or some for of narrow digital -- by a given date. The ARRL officials would quickly be getting e-mails with language I would not even speculate on. As I have found out as the result of writing about repeaters since 1972 (and having been a system owner starting in 1967), repeater ownership is about the most politically volatile aspect of the hobby and one that resists change more than almost any other. In fact, I would venture to quantify repeater ownership to be 1/4 technology, 1/4 ego gratification and 1/2 being a part of what I call the "giant FM political machine" that has developed over the past four decades. In the real world (as opposed to the ARRL board room) one must take all three of these aspects of "repeaters" (as a generic term) into account before even suggesting that there might be a need for change. I also remember the "repeater wars" of the late 1960's through mid-1970's and how hard many repeater owners fought going from 30 to 15 Khz channel spacing. This was never really about technology. Our little group of technology oriented hams had the very first 15 KHz split repeater on the air from NYC in mid-1968 and we proved it could be done. The opposition to the existance of WA2ZWP was mainly one of ham radio politics in that we -- the Kings County Repeater Assn. -- were disturbing the "...political status quo of the previous 7 or 8 years" and that was a taboo. And while I hope that the acceptance of new technology by the current crop of analog FM repeater owner/operators is more open than it was 30+ years ago, based on the fact that humanity rarely learns from past mistakes I do have my doubts. But putting technology aside, as a writer who follows this genre of the hobby, its going to be interesting to see how the politics of this all plays out over the next year or so. -- de WA6ITF --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Mark Thompson <wb9qzb_gro...@...> wrote: > > > > www.arrl.org/announce/board-0907/ > > Minutes of the 2009 Second Meeting > ARRL Board of Directors > Teleconference â" July 17-18, 2009 > > > 29. On motion of Mr. Sarratt, seconded by Mr. Frenaye, the following > resolution was ADOPTED: > WHEREAS, there is current substantial amateur radio movement, activity, and > innovation in the digital narrowband area; and > >WHEREAS, the FCC has mandated that by 2013 commercial radio move to > >narrowband channels and Amateur Radio manufacturers normally follow > >commercial practices; and > >WHEREAS, the VHF/UHF Amateur Radio band plan currently uses 15 and 20 kHz FM > >channels; and > >WHEREAS, with the increasing use of narrowband across the country amateurs > >are placing and using narrowband equipment outside the repeater subband > >because there is no real place to fit the narrowband pairs; and > >WHEREAS, for ARRL to remain a respected leader in technology, we must be > >actively involved in innovative solutions to problems by bringing about a > >productive discussion on a technical paradigm shift; now > >THEREFORE, the President shall appoint a study committee for the purpose of > >research and to consider developing a plan to move the US amateur community > >to narrowband channel spacing. >
