Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Local net on repeater output for training?  (Read 10366 times)

AA4PB

  • Member
  • Posts: 15504
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2006, 03:17:11 PM »

How about having the trustee shut the repeater down for the drill. If you normally use the repeater it might be a good drill to do it unannounced (at least after the first time) and see how stations manage the change-over to simplex on the output frequency.

You are operating the net on the repeater and suddenly it goes down - can stations continue to function on simplex?
Logged
Bob  AA4PB
Garrisonville, VA

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2006, 10:41:16 AM »

>>All they can do is "coordinate" that frequency pair.


Exactly.  That's why they're called "repeater coordinators" instead of "frequency assigners".  

There's no such thing as an assigned frequency in the Amatuer Radio Service as there is in the other radio services.  All of our allocations are by band of frequencies instead of specifc frequency.  

73

Gary, K2GW
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2006, 10:55:29 AM »

Well, while there are NOT de jure assignments
of frequencies by the recognized coordinator, they
are de facto assignments.  Read the letters
that RH sends out and he enforces the
actions of the coordinators against interlopers
on "coordinated" frequency pairs.  Also, letters
to hams who use coordinated repeater imputs
for simplex.

So, again, I say you have de facto freqeuncy

assignment by the coordinators.  I'm all for
the coordinators, but think you oughta call
a spade, a spade.

Were that not so, the FCC would not say anything
to hams that set up repeaters on  bands
authorized for repeaters, nor would it not be good amateur
practice to operate simplex on repeater inputs
and it would be just like other ham station frequency use,
that is, first station on a frequency has
the frequency until finished.

73 de Ronnie
Logged

AB2MH

  • Member
  • Posts: 263
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2006, 02:15:18 PM »

AA4PB wrote:
>How about having the trustee shut the repeater down
>for the drill. If you normally use the repeater it
>might be a good drill to do it unannounced (at least
>after the first time) and see how stations manage
>the change-over to simplex on the output frequency.

Yep, we've done that before and they did well.


Logged

AB2MH

  • Member
  • Posts: 263
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2006, 02:22:12 PM »

Wa4MJF wrote:
> Well, while there are NOT de jure assignments
> of frequencies by the recognized coordinator, they
> are de facto assignments. Read the letters
> that RH sends out and he enforces the
> actions of the coordinators against interlopers
> on "coordinated" frequency pairs. Also, letters
> to hams who use coordinated repeater imputs
> for simplex.

Ronnie, many of the people who get enforcement letters are known troublemakers who defy the repeater trustee's request to stop malicious interference to repeater users.  They are not people who casually use the repeater's output frequency for an occasional QSO.  

Also, there are people who set up uncoordinated repeaters which interfere with coordinated ones.  Right now our club's coordinated repeater has an uncoordinated one interfering with it.  The owner of the uncoordinated repeater will get a warning letter from the FCC one day soon.

> So, again, I say you have de facto freqeuncy

> assignment by the coordinators. I'm all for
> the coordinators, but think you oughta call
> a spade, a spade.

> Were that not so, the FCC would not say anything
> to hams that set up repeaters on bands
> authorized for repeaters, nor would it not be good > amateur
> practice to operate simplex on repeater inputs
> and it would be just like other ham station
> frequency use,
> that is, first station on a frequency has
> the frequency until finished.

Not at all.

You can talk on a repeater's output frequency as long as no one is using the repeater.  If and only if someone uses the repeater, you must QSY or go QRT.

I agree that some coordination has gone amok, with frequencies being reserved for friends and coordination applications being denied for all sorts of BS reasons, but it does serve a valid purpose - i.e. to make sure that repeaters (largely unattended) don't have to QSY every time someone wants to use it.

Also, there are so many simplex frequencies that go unused, why are you on a repeater output frequency anyway?
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2006, 03:18:35 PM »

AB2MH, I don't know whether you're a pullin'
my leg or really cannot read.  Everywhere
I talk about INPUT frequency, you come back
with something about OUTPUT frequency.  I agree
with what you say about usin' the output,
but the letters that I'm referring to
are about users of the INPUT.  

Also, you never really stated whether you thought
that coordinators give de facto assignments
of frequency pairs.

Now are you just writing for the heck of it or
do you not know the difference between
an input frequency and an output frequency???

Inquirin' minds gotta know!  

7e de Ronnie
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2006, 03:21:40 PM »

Also, you say the uncoordinated repeater
interfering with your club's repeater will
get a letter soon.  More evidence that
a coordination, while not a de jure
frequency assignment, is a DE FATCO
frequency assignment.  

73 de Ronnie

Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2006, 03:27:41 PM »

DE FACTO vice DE FATCO in next to last line of previous post.

73 de ronnie
Logged

AB2MH

  • Member
  • Posts: 263
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2006, 05:56:04 PM »

Ronnie,

If you are using the INPUT frequency of the repeater for a QSO, you are in effect using the repeater, provided you use the correct PL tone.  

Even if you are on the INPUT frequency of the repeater and not actually using the repeater, you are OK unless someone else is using the repeater, in which case you have to move because coordinated takes precedence over uncoordinated.

If you are using the OUTPUT frequency of the repeater, you are also OK unless someone is using the repeater, in which case you are causing interference, since the coordinated repeater has priority.

In fact, the emergency plan around here in "2-land" specifically mentions that output frequencies should be used as simplex backup frequencies.  It's not just legal, it is the DE-FACTO STANDARD in every emergency frequency plan I've seen.

Again, I repeat, there is NO frequency assignment in amateur radio.  Absolutely none.  Coordination only gives priority and right of way in the event of a dispute.  
Logged

AB2MH

  • Member
  • Posts: 263
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2006, 05:57:30 PM »

And no, coordinators don't give de-facto exclusive assignment.  They only give semi-exclusive rights to coordinated frequency pairs.

Nothing is preventing anyone from using an unused frequency in amateur radio.  Absolutely nothing.  Not the FCC, not Riley, nor the ARRL.  NO ONE.

Comprende?
Logged

WA4MJF

  • Member
  • Posts: 1003
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2006, 04:40:04 AM »

Well, obviously you want it to look like
a de facto assignment, walk like one and
not be one.

You are correct in saying that there are
NO de jure assignments of frequency in the ham
service.  However, since the FCC uses
the "good amateur practice" rule to enforce
the rights of coordinated repeaters, then
there is a de facto assignment.  Otherwise,
when folks complained to the FCC that some
one was talkng on the repeater input, but
not using the repeater, the FCC would say
sorry they were on frequency first.  Nor
would there be the coordinated repeater
rule that trumps an uncoordinated repeater,
even if it was first on.  

I totally agree with the FCC giving  coordinated
repeaters these rights, but I think,
as I said originally, we need to call it what it is,
a de facto assignment by the recognized coordinating
body.

73 de Ronnie
Logged

K2GW

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
    • homeURL
Local net on repeater output for training?
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2006, 05:50:01 AM »

Can we get back to the original question?  

A group that owns and uses a coordinated repeater as it's primary emergency repeater, is absoultely within every FCC rule to occasionally turn off the repeater to simulate a repeater failure and then continue simplex net operation on the output frequency.  Not only is it perfectly legal, it's actually a very good idea to do it regularly to keep everyone in practice!

The operation should be on the output frequency as folks joining the operation later may not know that the repeater failed.  Most people don't routinely listen to the input of a repeater.

The other advantage is that since the frequency is already coordinated, it's unlikely that any interference will occur.

Please note that running simplex operation on the input or output of a functioning repeater is NOT a good idea.  But simulating a repeater failure by shutting one down is something that everyone should practice regularly.

73

Gary Wilson, K2GW
SNJ SEC
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up