Should be easy to do. All you need to do is get rid of the politics in all the existing clubs.
Good luck with that, BTW. Joe M. > Paul Plack wrote: > > Ken, now you've gone and done it...that metallic "clank" was the sound > of the lid from the can of worms hitting the floor! > > Well...let's start with the premise that any coordination board is > probably going to attract primarily existing repeater ops as members, > and hand them a sort of monarchy. Is there a bigger conflict of > interest than that? It ticks me off to see a coordinator hoarding > unbuilt "paper repeaters" while others with real machines and sites > ready to go are kept off the air. > > The whole premise of assigning a 15- or 20kHz-wide chunk of > spectrum to one individual who's using it less than 1% of the > time violates the spirit of the amateur service, IMHO. The FCC doesn't > allow a local volunteer coordinator to reserve 3885 kHz SSB for you, > or a VHF simplex frequency for that matter. > > This isn't like commercial services where you have to be assigned a > frequency to have a practical system. The public interest would be > best served by allowing as many hams as possible the experience of > building, maintaining and operating a repeater, not by saving a seat > in a crowded theater. > > There should never be a waiting list for repeater coordination in the > amateur service. Utah has a 440 frequency which is designated as > shared with no protection, and it's occupied by five repeaters. Some > other states have "backyard/test" pairs, as well. There could be a > compromise position between the two extremes. Sharing a frequency pair > by day of the week would be easy with modern controllers with > schedulers. If the two repeaters had vastly different coverage areas, > make them user selectable, and revert to that day's default repeater > on a 10-minute "end of activity" timer. > > You know someone would do this...get together 7 guys to share one > pair, and build a central computer system to automate control of which > machine of the 7 came up based on time of day, which receiver voted, > PL tone, etc. Other guys would build synchronous transmitters with > voting receivers, so both could be on at once. > > This wouldn't be as hard to introduce as it sounds. All you'd have to > do is accept applications from licensees who proposed to share a > frequency pair, and give shared applications preference over single > applicants. Require applicants to spell out the terms under which they > propose to share the frequency, so the coordinator would have a > documented set of rules should issues arise. > > Immediately, applicants on the waiting list would be on the phone with > one another, lining up partners. > > Make continued sharing by those who originally filed that way a > requirement to hold the coordination. If you're left alone on a pair, > you contact the coordinator for a new partner, and maybe you get one > who's been in a three-way sharing arrangement on another pair. > > If you have an agreement with someone to share a pair, and he doesn't > honor it, call the coordinator and forfeit the coordination for both > of you, and go back into the pool. You'd have partners striving to > maintain good references, so they could easily find partners, and bad > partners would be left filing singly, waiting at the back of the list. > > Grandfathered one-per-pair coordinations would open up to the shared > system whenever there was a change in licensee/callsign. Anyone > unwilling to partner (or unable due to bad references from screwing > over previous partners) could build a repeater on a band with no > waiting list. > > We'd end up with redundant hardware backing up every pair on 2m and > many on 440, (probably 1.2 in parts of CA,) and everyone with a > repeater would have an incentive to work together. The downside > is...what? Used duplexers would go up in price? The licensee would not > longer be able to show up at club meetings with a name tag that read > simply, ".76"? > > If we find a way to get rid of the waiting list, the coordinator's > position changes dramatically, and the corrupting influences are > greatly reduced. No more sucking up for years, having to join the > right club, or pay a coordinator thousand of dollars for one of > his "paper repeaters" to get yours on the air. > > Other than that, I think the current system works fine. > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: JOHN MACKEY > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:42 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo > > Ken- > You are correct. It was/is not the ENTIRE ORRC board that is > less than > ethical, but certainly several of the board members have > been what you call > "downright crooked"!! > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:31:35 PM CST > From: Ken Arck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] NFCC cordination foo > > > At 12:22 PM 12/22/2007, you wrote: > > > > >So what happens if a coordinator or coordination body > violates the code of > > >ethics? > > > > > >I've seen the Oregon Region Relay Council violate these > ethics many times. > > > > <---Well in all fairness, only certain individuals who > were Board > > members (or Chairman) of the ORRC were less than ethical. > Ok, some > > were downright crooked. > > > > Then again, it ain't exactly rocket science that politics > plays a big > > part in the operations of many ham coordination groups. > > > > Ken > > > > > >
