Guys, thanks for the interesting discussion. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The FCC has imposed exactly the same thing on two repeaters that tried > to share a frequency but where there was mutual interference. It's never > lasted. One of the repeaters has always got fed up and gone off the air. Joe, I think imposed vs voluntary makes this very different. The voluntary method should have a much better shot at success. > > Seems like something a reasonable coordination body might accept with > > a clause signed by both parties that if the "relationship" falls apart > > and interference between the machines starts happening, BOTH machines > > become uncoordinated and the pair heads back to the pool. And, if there's no waiting list, all you're out is getting crystals and a duplexer retune. Not a bad risk for getting your repeater on the air years earlier. > You're putting the coordinator in the position of being the court. Maybe agreements like this should only be done by clubs, with the club as the entity which holds the coordination, and maybe even legally owns the hardware. That way, the dispute is kept within a body with bylaws and its own internal dispute mechanisms. > > > If "SNP" pairs work, why not "SVP"? (Shared with Voluntary Protection) > > Same thing as SNP. No need to debate what the meaning of "is" is. SNP and SVP would be different in one important way. SNP means "no protection," and lets five more guys pile on your pair with no cooperation with existing repeaters, other than maybe picking a PL tone. SVP would protect against new repeaters on your pair. Could be a big difference. > Why should a repeater go off the air simply because it's a PROVEN > machine? What next? "Oh - you've had your license for 30 years. It's > time to make room on the bands for less experienced operators"? I'm not sure where you get the bit about forcing repeaters off the air just because they're proven. I'm saying if the coordinated entity ceases operation, (individual dies, club disbands, etc) that pair should go back to the pool, not be sold to the highest bidder while there's a waiting list for coordination. > > As far as the 30-year comment: You'd need something more than just how > > long someone's held a pair as justification to ask for it to be taken > > away. More than that, pulling a pair for arbitrary reasons never > > works. You need something concrete. Guys, not sure where you're getting this. I may have phrased badly. I'm not suggesting arbitrarily pulling a coordination based on time held. I'm only saying that just holding a coordination for 30 years doesn't mean it belongs to your "heirs and assigns." It ought to go back to the pool when you stop using it. When only coordinators can get pairs, or someone puts a beacon ID on a mobile rig in his garage to hold a pair, or two old handhelds and a mobile duplexer get sold for $5K because they're supposedly a coordinated repeater, the system is broken. Gotta find some way to get rid of the waiting list, consistent with the spirit of the amateur service. As for your clueless user and Motorola or GE vs. new-Asian-import- repeater-with-no-heatsink, I hear ya, brother. Anyone who's had to keep a busy system running figures that one out early on. 73, Paul, AE4KR
