FCC Denies Petition

kayn1n32008 · Jun 1, 2018

FCC Denies Petition Aimed at Preventing Interference from Digital Repeaters to Analog Repeaters

“The FCC has turned away a Petition for Rulemaking from a Michigan radio amateur that asked the Commission to amend Section 97.205 of the Amateur Service rules to ensure that repeaters using digital communication protocols do not interfere with analog repeaters. Charles P. Adkins, K8CPA, of Lincoln Park, had specifically requested that discrete analog and digital repeaters be separated either by distance or frequency and that digital repeaters be limited to 10 W output, the FCC recounted in its June 1 denial letter, released over the signature of Scot Stone, the deputy chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Mobility Division. According to the letter, Adkins had characterized digital repeaters as “a major annoyance” to analog repeater operators.”

PL/DPL is a good way to not be annoyed by digital repeaters...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mancow · Jun 1, 2018

kayn1n32008 · Jun 1, 2018

I thought his callsign was familiar. He is a member here. Not active in the last year

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DaveNF2G · Jun 2, 2018

PL/DPL will only prevent unwanted signals on the input from being relayed through the repeater. It will not prevent co-channel interference effects. The signal is still present.

Same limitation on PL/DPL on the station receiver. Nothing comes through the speaker, but the interference is still present.

prcguy · Jun 2, 2018

Co-channel interference is a problem with analog or digital. I think the guy behind the petition just has a problem with digital in general.

DaveNF2G said:
PL/DPL will only prevent unwanted signals on the input from being relayed through the repeater. It will not prevent co-channel interference effects. The signal is still present.

Same limitation on PL/DPL on the station receiver. Nothing comes through the speaker, but the interference is still present.

nanZor · Jun 2, 2018

A side issue to that is that some decrepidly old analog repeater installations, co-located on a mountaintop with modern DMR repeaters for instance, may not have had adequate audio / rf filtering / shielding to begin with, revealing an issue that wasn't noticed for decades.

kayn1n32008 · Jun 2, 2018

hertzian said:
A side issue to that is that some decrepidly old analog repeater installations, co-located on a mountaintop with modern DMR repeaters for instance, may not have had adequate audio / rf filtering / shielding to begin with, revealing an issue that wasn't noticed for decades.

The older the repeater(MSR, MSF, MTR, Quantar, Mastr 1, 2, 3, 4) the less likely it is to suffer issues from digital repeaters. It’s the new full band stuff(DStar and fusion especially) that has little to no front end filtering, and no old school preselectors that are going to suffer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KC3ECJ · Jun 2, 2018

10 watts?

Doesn't he know that slow scan meme repeaters can be fun?

ai8o · Jun 2, 2018

Part of the problem in Michigan is that repeater spacing from 146 to 148 Mhz is 20Khz rather than the 15 khz that most other states use.

This means that there are less 2m repeater channels available, consequently more cases of co-channel interference in Michigan

zz0468 · Jun 2, 2018

It's an issue that should be resolved at the regional frequency coordinator level, not the FCC. Coordinators should be planning for several frequency pairs set aside for digital operation, and let them co-channel where it's necessary. It might involve some frequency shuffling, but it CAN be done.

I would also question just how busy the bands really are. Consider how many threads here on RR have been started lamenting the lack of activity. It seems the petitioner's request is a solution looking for a problem.

n5ims · Jun 2, 2018

With many ham band coordinators, a pair is a pair is a pair. They don't ask what you'll be using it for and really don't care. For some, they don't even want to know the power or height that repeater will be, just that the pair is whatever distance they believe is OK from another with the same pair. They appear fine to assign a pair for a high power, high height repeater on the same frequencies as another high/high repeater with the same separation as two low power, low height repeaters on another pair are assigned. After all, if we believe that 40 miles is enough separation and can prove it with those two 10 watt, 50 feet repeaters, it must work just fine for two 250 watt, 1000 feet repeaters. After all, if there are any issues they can always assign different PL tones to take care of any interference!

Sorry if my comment makes it appear that the coordinators aren't doing their jobs, but unfortunately I don't feel that many are taking into account all of the information that they should when they assign a pair, especially for a high profile repeater. When folks changed from analog to digital (especially with the Fusion invasion when those repeaters were sold at almost give-away prices and today's increase in DMR repeaters) often the coordinators had no process to accept information that the pair went from analog to mixed analog/digital or even straight digital operation.

zz0468 · Jun 3, 2018

n5ims said:
With many ham band coordinators, a pair is a pair is a pair...

I don't disagree, but that doesn't negate my point. The FCC's intention is that repeater coordination be done at the amateur level, not the federal rule-making level. At some point, frequency coordinators must get with it, catch up to current technology, and engineer their coordinations, not just go by loose rules of thumb.

In some cases, one can get away with simply asking the repeater owner what frequency, where, and ERP, and it won't bother anyone. Other times, it requires a substantial engineering effort to squeeze another repeater in. The coordinators should know how to do this, but it's clear that many do not.

AK9R · Jun 3, 2018

Chris Boone WB5ITT really pushed the idea of 20 kHz spacing throughout the 2m band several years ago. He made a compelling argument that it actually increased the number of pairs that would be available in multi-metro areas because you can coordinate adjacent channel pairs at closer geographic distances than if you used 15 kHz. An FM signal deviated +/- 5 kHz is about 16 kHz wide so there is some overlap with 15 kHz channels that you avoid with 20 kHz channels. The 20 kHz idea caught on in Texas, Michigan, and, I think, Alabama. Most of the rest of us are using 15 kHz (though I think southern California may be using 10 kHz with slightly less deviation).

Yes, absolutely, frequency coordination should be handled on a local, state, or regional level. The FCC has no interest in being involved and I can't blame them. The record-keeping alone is a large task.

Setting aside pairs for digital voice is a noble idea, but difficult to implement in practice. Frequency shuffling? When you have many clubs and repeater trustees running repeaters that are still rock-bound or programmed with DOS computers and their duplexers are corroded in place, telling them you are changing their frequency won't make you a popular person. Remember, coordinators are volunteers who serve at the behest of the trustees.

The coordinators in the upper Midwest, including Michigan, met a few years ago and one of the discussion topics was coordinating based on RF modeling rather than simple minimum distance spacing. It's a great idea and there are tools available to do it. But, it does increase the coordinator's workload somewhat. Have I mentioned that we are volunteers?

In Indiana, we've been coordinating digital voice repeaters in the 441.5 to 442.0 segment of the band while leaving voice repeaters in the 442.0 to 445.0 segment. It gets sticky, though, when a trustee of an existing voice repeater decides to go digital. Invariably, they want to stay where they are even though the coordinator might want to assign them a different pair. Then there are the mixed mode repeaters, e.g. Yaesu System Fusion. Analog users don't want to hear the "digital noise" even though there are ways to avoid that. On 2m, though, all of the pairs are assigned, so segregating digital voice repeaters just isn't going to happen very easily.

I think the example of two low-profile repeaters at 40 miles is a bit specious. If anything, we coordinators are too conservative and will put those two low-profile repeaters at 120 miles...the same standard we use for high-profile repeaters. That said, I've been known to close-space low-profile repeaters when I think I can trust the information provided by the trustees. We have something like 500 coordinations in the state of Indiana. I've been diligently trying to collect accurate and complete information from our trustees for the past 3 years. Nonetheless, we still have coordinations that haven't been updated in longer than that in spite of our requests for information (and, yes, those coordinations are given serious consideration for de-coordination).

I don't know the backstory behind the K8CPA's petition. I wonder if he even bothered to talk to his local repeater trustees or the MiARC people about his issue or how receptive they were to his concerns if he did talk to them. I'm really skeptical that MiARC coordinated a digital voice repeater close enough for him to hear it on his local analog repeater's frequency. My guess is that his local repeater bought a Yaesu Fusion machine and he hasn't been able to block the repeater's "digital noise" from breaking the squelch on his radio. I did look around on his blog to see if I could find any clues, but came up blank.

DaveNF2G · Jun 3, 2018

It's not just coordinators who need to come up to speed on amateur technology. Ham operators in general need to catch up with the hobby.

There are still no-CTCSS repeaters in my area that stay that way because the old farts don't want to replace their antique transceivers.

N4BSH · Jun 3, 2018

W9BU said:
Chris Boone WB5ITT really pushed the idea of 20 kHz spacing throughout the 2m band several years ago. He made a compelling argument that it actually increased the number of pairs that would be available in multi-metro areas because you can coordinate adjacent channel pairs at closer geographic distances than if you used 15 kHz. An FM signal deviated +/- 5 kHz is about 16 kHz wide so there is some overlap with 15 kHz channels that you avoid with 20 kHz channels. The 20 kHz idea caught on in Texas, Michigan, and, I think, Alabama. Most of the rest of us are using 15 kHz (though I think southern California may be using 10 kHz with slightly less deviation).

Yes, absolutely, frequency coordination should be handled on a local, state, or regional level. The FCC has no interest in being involved and I can't blame them. The record-keeping alone is a large task.

Setting aside pairs for digital voice is a noble idea, but difficult to implement in practice. Frequency shuffling? When you have many clubs and repeater trustees running repeaters that are still rock-bound or programmed with DOS computers and their duplexers are corroded in place, telling them you are changing their frequency won't make you a popular person. Remember, coordinators are volunteers who serve at the behest of the trustees.

The coordinators in the upper Midwest, including Michigan, met a few years ago and one of the discussion topics was coordinating based on RF modeling rather than simple minimum distance spacing. It's a great idea and there are tools available to do it. But, it does increase the coordinator's workload somewhat. Have I mentioned that we are volunteers?

In Indiana, we've been coordinating digital voice repeaters in the 441.5 to 442.0 segment of the band while leaving voice repeaters in the 442.0 to 445.0 segment. It gets sticky, though, when a trustee of an existing voice repeater decides to go digital. Invariably, they want to stay where they are even though the coordinator might want to assign them a different pair. Then there are the mixed mode repeaters, e.g. Yaesu System Fusion. Analog users don't want to hear the "digital noise" even though there are ways to avoid that. On 2m, though, all of the pairs are assigned, so segregating digital voice repeaters just isn't going to happen very easily.

I think the example of two low-profile repeaters at 40 miles is a bit specious. If anything, we coordinators are too conservative and will put those two low-profile repeaters at 120 miles...the same standard we use for high-profile repeaters. That said, I've been known to close-space low-profile repeaters when I think I can trust the information provided by the trustees. We have something like 500 coordinations in the state of Indiana. I've been diligently trying to collect accurate and complete information from our trustees for the past 3 years. Nonetheless, we still have coordinations that haven't been updated in longer than that in spite of our requests for information (and, yes, those coordinations are given serious consideration for de-coordination).

I don't know the backstory behind the K8CPA's petition. I wonder if he even bothered to talk to his local repeater trustees or the MiARC people about his issue or how receptive they were to his concerns if he did talk to them. I'm really skeptical that MiARC coordinated a digital voice repeater close enough for him to hear it on his local analog repeater's frequency. My guess is that his local repeater bought a Yaesu Fusion machine and he hasn't been able to block the repeater's "digital noise" from breaking the squelch on his radio. I did look around on his blog to see if I could find any clues, but came up blank.

This also goes to "self policing" our bands. No one wants the heavy hand of the FCC getting involved unless it's a crisis.

And even then.............

mikey60 · Jun 3, 2018

We recently had an issue where we switched our old analog 440 repeater to DMR. The old analog machine had some issues and wasn't used much. After the switch to DMR, we received notice from MiARC that they had received an interference complaint from a repeater in Canada that was about 60 miles from our machine. We had been on that frequency for years with the analog machine, but with it's limited use, there weren't any issues. Once the DMR machine went up (and yes we did notify MiARC that it was changing), it gained a lot more use than the old one, which brought the issue to a head.

After some discussion with the MiARC group, it was determined that the best course of action was to change the frequency of our DMR machine if an available pair could be found (we were very limited on what we could do physically at the site, and reducing power level would have reduced our coverage within the county to unacceptable levels). 10 watts as suggested in the petition would have really not worked at all.

We've been on the new frequency pair now for about 3 months. We have pretty much the same coverage and no more interference issues. It was handled through the coordinating body and resolved. No need for the FCC or Industry Canada to get involved.

Mike

kayn1n32008 · Jun 3, 2018

DaveNF2G said:
Ham operators in general need to catch up with the hobby.

There are still no-CTCSS repeaters in my area that stay that way because the old farts don't want to replace their antique transceivers.

THIS

Too many repeaters have PL in place on the repeater input, but refuse to enable PL on the output.

In major cities, I will avoid these repeaters on my ham gear simply because of the lack of front end filtering.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wb6uqa · Jun 3, 2018

digital repeaters

they give the repeater owner control over who uses the repeater.

INDY72 · Jun 3, 2018

wb6uqa said:
they give the repeater owner control over who uses the repeater.

But they refuse to control who they may be slamming with the lack of that same control on the OUTPUT! Its all about I am God of this little Ham slice of pie... I will lord over anyone or anything wanting to get INTO my repeater.. (Who gives a darn about you others out there that I may be interfering with. You should lock down your repeater like I do...) And, you foolish coordinators, trying to dare tell me what I should do on my machines. If the FCC does not give a darn, why in heck should I? My machine is NEVER the issue, its you other nosy busybodies! The FCC does not care if I put my antenna up at 1000 feet with that DPS antenna that IS regulated, and they do not care if I am putting out 300 watts but will regulate that DPS antenna to ONLY putting out say 100 watts. Why should I the trustee give a F about what you the coordinator wants or needs? Heck,.. I will not even let you know if I even really have an actually active repeater. Now what?

Dear God, I seriously feel your pain now that I have heard about these issues. I thought it was insane enough with territorial and control issues in the Public Safety radio world. With this kind of madness, why does any new Amateur Radio person even keep going? What is the upside to those of us that actually would like to get in the hobby when we see this insanity? I am starting to see some trustees looking like Darth Sidieous with lightning shooting out of the antennas shouting about Unlimited Power!

ipfd320 · Jun 3, 2018

You Know its Linda funny--The fcc is Only worried about rolling out 5g--They dont give 2 S*^ts about us (the Amateurs)-They gave up with the Ham Community a long time ago

Maybe the petition poster might be right here--people on here attack this / that and the other thing and Blaming Everyone under the sun---the only one to blame is the fcc--They were in such a rush for an auction to get rid of users in vhf just for the cell companies to take--it Could have been given to the digital users--Good Thought Anyway !!

vhf is from 144.100 to 148---1 Post on here is stating 146 to 148 for repeaters kc spacing

My Question is why cant the fcc allocate an area from 144.1 to 146.0 just for digital use ---Problem Solved--146.050 to 148 for repeated Use

FCC Denies Petition

ØÆSØ

Member

ØÆSØ

DaveNF2G

Guest

Member

Active Member

ØÆSØ

Member

Attachments

Brachiating Tetrapod

QRT

Member

QRT

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator

DaveNF2G

Guest

Member

Member

ØÆSØ

Member

Monitoring since 1982, using radios since 1991.

Member

Similar threads