(This was originally published on N8GNJ.org, and copied here; SuperPacket is now my "big picture of Amateur Radio" blog for articles like this - see About SuperPacket.)
In my earlier article The Puget Sound Amateur Radio TCP/IP Network (circa 1995) I said in passing:
The last bit regenerative 9600 bps repeater, on 146.98 MHz on Mt. Baldi fell victim to a "sneak attack" because its "coordination" with the Western Washington Amateur Repeater Association (WWARA) lapsed. The moment the coordination lapsed, WWARA gave the "coordination" for 146.98 to yet another "ego box" voice repeater. To this day, forcing the unique 146.98 9600 bps data repeater off the air is one of the stupidest things I've ever witnessed in Amateur Radio. For that reason I have a very dim view of the utility of "frequency coordination" for Amateur Radio in general, and the WWARA in particular.
The premise that "repeater coordination" is based upon is that (widely held) perception that portions of the Amateur Radio VHF / UHF bands are for the exclusive use of repeaters, and any other use of those portions of the Amateur Radio VHF / UHF bands is not allowed. It has happened that other use of a particular repeater's input or output frequencies have caused complaints to the "repeater coordination body" and sometimes escalated to a formal complaint to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), mostly back decades ago when the FCC took Amateur Radio interference complaints seriously.
Even before the stupidity about "decoordinating" the unique Mt. Baldi 146.98 9600 bit-regent repeater, the "it's MY repeater frequency, dammit" attitude struck me as wrong. When I was learning about Amateur Radio, one of the tenets I was taught was that in operating, no Amateur Radio operator had a "right" or "claim" to a particular Amateur Radio frequency, and the "exclusivity" nature of repeater coordinations just seemed wrong. It's right there in the FCC rules - Part 97.101(b):
Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station.
But that seems routinely ignored when "it's MY repeater frequency, dammit" is asserted.
In my opinion, the proper perspective of a "repeater coordination" is that it's a mild preference among equal peers - that all things being equal, this particular usage is preferred. No more than that.
Years afterward, I read an official opinion of the FCC that confirmed my perspective, that while coordinated repeaters are recognized as a "first among peers" designation if they have blessing from a "coordination body", that "coordination" does not extend to exclusive use of the frequencies the repeater is using, especially when the repeater is not in operation. I squirreled away that note... too well, apparently, because I could never find it again. I tried Google searches, to no avail, until a few days ago.
Kudos to the ARRL for keeping this sort of vital information online!
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-dismisses-two-amateur-radio-related-petitions
But, just in case... https://web.archive.org/web/20100527003357/http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-dismisses-two-amateur-radio-related-petitions
FCC Dismisses Two Amateur Radio-Related Petitions
On Wednesday, December 9, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed two separate Petitions for Rulemaking: One filed by Murray Green, K3BEQ, concerning the operation of repeater stations in the Amateur Service, and one filed by Glen Zook, K9STH, requesting amending Section 97.119(a) to change how often stations must identify themselves.
Murray Green, K3BEQ (DA 09-2559)
In his Petition, Green -- who filed his Petition on March 23, 2009 -- requested that the FCC amend Section 97.205(e) of its Rules "to prohibit a repeater station licensee or control operator from limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations, unless a user blatantly violates the Commission's Rules." Green argued that Section 97.205(e) -- which permits a repeater station licensee or control operator to limit the use of a repeater to certain user stations -- conflicts with Section 97.101(b) which states that no frequency is for the exclusive use of a particular amateur station, and each station's licensees must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the Amateur Service frequencies. In his Petition, Green argued that Section 97.205(e) permits "a pay for use policy in the Amateur Radio Service, enables user censorship and intimidation, breeds on the air inactivity by not using frequencies effectively and creates a negative public image."
In denying Green's Petition, the FCC concluded that Section 97.205(e) does not establish an exclusive assignment of a frequency to a repeater, saying that Green's contention that a coordinated closed repeater has "exclusive control of an Amateur Service frequency." The Commission noted that coordination is not required as a condition of operating a repeater: "Coordination does not and cannot result in assignment or establish control of an Amateur Service channel," the FCC said in its reply, "and nothing in the rules prohibits other amateur stations from using the channels for which a repeater has been coordinated when they are not being used by the repeater. Section 97.205(e) merely enables a repeater licensee or control operator to control the repeater so that he or she can ensure the repeater is properly operated as required by Section 97.105(a). Accordingly, there is no conflict between the rules, and no grounds for the Commission to propose to amend Section 97.105(a)."
The FCC advised Green that questions concerning the impact of the operational decisions of a repeater control operator, licensee or trustee -- such as limiting the repeater's use to certain stations -- should be addressed to the local frequency coordinator so that repeater problem can be "expeditiously dealt with at the local level by people with first-hand knowledge of the facts."
This phrase leapt out at me:
The Commission noted that coordination is not required as a condition of operating a repeater: "Coordination does not and cannot result in assignment or establish control of an Amateur Service channel," the FCC said in its reply, "and nothing in the rules prohibits other amateur stations from using the channels for which a repeater has been coordinated when they are not being used by the repeater.
Although this came too late to save the unique Mt. Baldi 146.98 9600 bit-regent repeater, it was something of a moral victory, at least to me. Armed with this, the fans and supporters of the unique Mt. Baldi 146.98 9600 bit-regent repeater could have argued that WWARA's new "coordination" of the "ego box" new 146.98 repeater was more of a gentle suggestion rather than effectively being "law of Amateur Radio in Western Washington".
Fast forward to 2021 and beyond. In my monitoring of the Amateur Radio VHF/UHF bands, the silence (unoccupied airtime) is deafening. Where is all the activity to justify the exclusion of every requested new "coordination" because "2 meters is full"?
I can also envision that based on this information, when a repeater is proposed for the 144-148 MHz band (2 meters) in Western Washington, instead of the WWARA essentially vetoing such a repeater ("2 meters is full. Go away.") that the new repeater "just do it". I think that especially applies to new data systems like the unique Mt. Baldi 146.98 9600 bit-regent repeater.
I've said that the entire function of Amateur Radio repeater coordination bodies should be, at most, a Wiki page where someone who wants to put up a repeater posts the basic information of the repeater:
- Latitude, Longtitude, and Height
- Relevant technical information - Frequency, Power, etc.
- Control operator's Amateur Radio callsign and name
- How to contact the control operator of the repeater.
That's it. Then, as the FCC suggests, any issues... can be "expeditiously dealt with at the local level by people with first-hand knowledge of the facts.
In a future post I'll discuss why all of the above is relevant - that new data modes such as VARA revive the discussion of using repeaters for data. Existing (voice) repeater owners are loathe to allow data usage of their (coordinated) existing "voice" repeaters, so those of us that want to use repeaters for data are just going to have to create new repeaters. For us "data first" enthusiasts, the situation K3BEQ describes with certain repeaters limiting usage for a select few users, we feel the same way about the exclusion of data. So, it's time to "route around those "voice only" repeaters. Likely they won't notice because their usage is so light.
The above is "cover" for putting up those new repeaters even though "2 meters is full".
There is now funding available to try interesting new things.
Thanks for reading!
Steve Stroh N8GNJ
Bellingham, Washington, USA