Owning a repeater

[elk2370bruce]

In addition to your research (a damned good idea) why not get involved with an area club and get some practical guidance and elmering about repeaters. If they have a repeater, even better - you can get some hands-on learning, No one here is trying to pee into your Rebocks. From your initial post, it was to clear to us that some realistic perspective was necessary for you to proceed with this project. Repeaters can be an enjoyable and challenging part of our hobby but with every flower, there is the occasional hidden thorn. All of the above comments are positively designed to temper your enthusiasm with the potential downsides. If you were looking for aimless platitudes - you came to the wrong place.

 

[gewecke]

There are a multitude of repeaters put up by hacks who have no clue what they're doing. Before you go down that route, check out the Repeater Builder website, learn all you can, join the Repeater Builder yahoo group, and then decide whether it's something you want to take on. I'm 1000% in favor of learning how to go about it right, and then proceeding. I don't think Radio Reference is the proper venue to pick up all you'll need to learn. And you'll need to learn a lot if you intend on doing it right.

Good advice!

n9zas

 

[lbfd09]

Hello Anthony,

As a couple of us stated in here. This can be a fun part of the hobby. Yes it can be an expensive endeavor, as any can any other part of this or any hobby can entail. It also does not have to cost an arm, legs and the mortgage of your house - two radios couple together in a way that repeats the transmission constitutes a repeater.

Now that being said, again. Best way to learn about repeaters is, besides reading about them, to ASK - those who have, operate, manage, and are trustees of repeater systems. Perhaps your local (or not-too distant) club already has such a group assembled. These folks are almost always looking for new blood the help their activities and in the spirit of ham radio willing to train and show you the ropes. (They had to start somewhere, too.)

Be leary of the ney sayers, while they may have a point, it is your activity in the hobby, not their's...

 

[N0BDW]

It is definitely a good idea to get in touch with the local clubs. Here we have a club that I fear is dwindling and may die out within the next 5 - 10 years or so. They operate a repeater. Our club has kinda made friends with their club. We hope that if they do dwindle out that we can take over the repeater operations instead of it going silent. You don't necessarily have to put up a new system - find one that needs some new life put into it and take it over.

 

[K4APR]

The fact that no one has brought up yet is, most areas have all of the pairs coordinated and designated as used, however, I can assure you that close to 1/3 or less are actually actively on the air and being used. I have lived in three fairly large metro areas in my life and this was the case everytime. What happens is, someone or some group gets the frequency coordination and they either put up a machine or they don't. If they do, there is a 50/50 chance that it will last longer than a couple of years. If it does, great. If not, the person or group holding the pair coordination will sit on it, keep the coordination up to date and just hold it. This prevents someone who might actually put it to good use from getting it.

A good example of this is in Roanoke, VA. There is a fairly popular (and heavy used) mountain for RF sites called Poor Mountain. If you look in the ARRL repeater directory for Roanoke, you will see damn near 10-12 repeaters in the 2M range listed. I can tell you from personal experience, only about 4-5 of these are actually on the air and only two at the most get used. That is the 2M spectrum. In the 70cm (440) spectrum, there are almost just as many frequencies coordinated, but funny enough, most of them are on the air. Again, they are used very little.

Personally, I built both a 70cm and 33cm repeater, but I never got the chance to actually put them at a site. They mostly lived at the Motorola shop I worked at, at the time and saw very little local use. It's just the nature of the beast, but I did learn a lot.

 

[grem467]

3 1/2 years?? shesh...

keep in mind that while co-ordination is recommended, it is NOT required under part 97. There is nothing legally stopping you from running uncoordinated assuming you have an unused pair.

 

[zz0468]

3 1/2 years?? shesh...

keep in mind that while co-ordination is recommended, it is NOT required under part 97. There is nothing legally stopping you from running uncoordinated assuming you have an unused pair.

Not illegal, but not recommended, either. Should that pair be become properly coordinated and your uncoordinated repeater becomes a problem, the FCC will likely rule against the uncoordinated repeater.

 

[thomasfd13]

Another way to approach this is to set the rig up so that you can remote from it. Incorporate a HT with it and set the out to differing repeaters.. You can be away and still use it as a repeater site for others that may wounder.

If all else fails you have 2 radios. Set them up to monitor multiple repeaters/other.

In my area we have multiple repeaters and some or used more then others. Others are playing with cross band repeating for their car.

Have fun

 

[AK4GA]

Not illegal, but not recommended, either. Should that pair be become properly coordinated and your uncoordinated repeater becomes a problem, the FCC will likely rule against the uncoordinated repeater.

Not recommended by who? I wouldn't blink an eye over using a pair that was coordinated but has been silent for years. Granted if anyone claims interference you are going to be the one that has to fix it but you can't cause interference to a machine that doesn't exist. The trustee for that pair doesn't have a case when he doesn't even have any equipment on the air.

 

[zz0468]

Not recommended by who?

The FCC, NFCC, and virtually every frequency coordinating body in existence.

I wouldn't blink an eye over using a pair that was coordinated but has been silent for years.

That would make you part of the problem, not part of the solution, although I do understand where you're coming from.

Granted if anyone claims interference you are going to be the one that has to fix it but you can't cause interference to a machine that doesn't exist. The trustee for that pair doesn't have a case when he doesn't even have any equipment on the air.

Why go down that route? If the system is off the air permanently then, by definition, it's coordination is no longer valid, and the local coordinator should make the pair available for someone else. If it's temporarily off the air, than your actions will eventually cause interference, and you will be the responsible party. If your radio is uncoordinated, on a frequency that gets re coordinated to someone else, even if you're occupying it, you will be viewed as being in the wrong, and will have no recourse. Really. That's the way it works.

 

[AK4GA]

If the system is off the air permanently then, by definition, it's coordination is no longer valid, and the local coordinator should make the pair available for someone else.

But you know that is not the way it happens. If you try to play by the rules but you get tar-pitted and it's within Part 97 but generally disallowed by "gentleman's agreement" then what choice do you have?

I would say that I tried to work within the system but the system is broken. Then I would say screw "gentleman's agreement" as I am not dealing with gentlemen.

 

[zz0468]

But you know that is not the way it happens. If you try to play by the rules but you get tar-pitted and it's within Part 97 but generally disallowed by "gentleman's agreement" then what choice do you have?

In my extensive experience in dealing with repeaters, coordinations, and coordinating bodies, it's been my observation that when being gentlemanly, and abiding by the policies in place, the system DOES work. The two usual scenarios that cause it to break down are, 1. Paper repeaters that the coordinee won't relinquish for others to use, and 2. rogue repeater owners who fail to see any need to coordinate repeaters because their ham license says they can transmit on whatever frequency they want.

So, what is the issue? You tried to get a coordination and it was denied? Many people look at that as a broken system, when the reality could be that the system is working very well, and there's simply no way to fit in the proposed system.

I would say that I tried to work within the system but the system is broken. Then I would say screw "gentleman's agreement" as I am not dealing with gentlemen.

If the local coordinator is broken, then take it to NFCC and see if they can apply some pressure. If the coordination process is broken, it needs to be fixed, not abandoned.

 

[AK4GA]

In my extensive experience in dealing with repeaters, coordinations, and coordinating bodies, it's been my observation that when being gentlemanly, and abiding by the policies in place, the system DOES work. The two usual scenarios that cause it to break down are, 1. Paper repeaters that the coordinee won't relinquish for others to use, ...

This right here. The biggest issue we are having is repeaters causing interference to each other who are coordinated by two different bodies or eating interference from another coordinated repeater on the same pair and SERA leaving it to the trustees and the other group demands that you move because it isn't financially possible for them.

Simple solution is to change the pair, except they are all allocated to paper repeaters and people refusing to relinquish them. We are having both problems simultaneously. Interference from two different repeaters and lack of any available repeater pairs.

2. rogue repeater owners who fail to see any need to coordinate repeaters because their ham license says they can transmit on whatever frequency they want.

And this is dramatizing it a bit. There is nothing within Part 97 that says that you have to be coordinated. Just that you must not cause harmful interference to other stations. Perfectly fine if operation is within these guidelines.

 

[zz0468]

This right here. The biggest issue we are having is repeaters causing interference to each other who are coordinated by two different bodies or eating interference from another coordinated repeater on the same pair and SERA leaving it to the trustees and the other group demands that you move because it isn't financially possible for them.

I can't imagine being financially sound enough to build and support a repeater, but not having the resources to change frequency. That sounds like a pretty lame excuse. As to the different coordinating bodies, don't they talk to each other? Out here in the west, if a repeater in one state is going to be a factor in another, the two coordinators for the two states (sometimes it's three states!) get concurrence from each other.

In many cases, the coordinators do leave it up the the individual repeater owners to resolve mutual interference cases. If the coordination is basically sound to start with, then a little engineering can be thrown at the problem, and get it resolved. Another issue, and I understand it's a big one in SERA's area, is the use of PL. Many repeater owners refuse to use it as a tool to tighten up co-channel spacing. So, what happens is, a coordination is made based on both systems (and their users) using PL, and one or both systems refuse, and a mutual interference case is created when it didn't need to happen that way. And then the repeater owners blame an ineffective coordinator.

Simple solution is to change the pair, except they are all allocated to paper repeaters and people refusing to relinquish them. We are having both problems simultaneously. Interference from two different repeaters and lack of any available repeater pairs.

The coordinators need to grow a backbone to deal with paper repeaters. Repeater owners need to suck it up and do what needs to happen to make short spacing possible, when it's needed.

And this is dramatizing it a bit. There is nothing within Part 97 that says that you have to be coordinated. Just that you must not cause harmful interference to other stations. Perfectly fine if operation is within these guidelines.

I would suggest you pay attention to 97.205, and understand EXACTLY what it is saying. The function of a frequency coordinator, and the responsibility of a non-coordinated repeater is spelled out very clearly within Part 97. Yes, it's true that coordination is not a hard and fast requirement. But it's also spelled out very clearly that a non-coordinated repeater will hold the burden of responsibility in resolving any interference issues. That is built into the rules, and it IS enforced.

The link below is an example of FCC enforcement action against an uncoordinated repeater:

K6JSI Warning Notice

This link has a couple of such cases where the FCC has stepped in:

W5YI :

It really falls under the category of using good engineering practices, which by the way is covered under 97.101

 

[AK4GA]

It's definitely a lame excuse. And I think the users of that repeater don't want to buy newer radios to run PL, which is another excuse we heard.

Maybe a little engineering could mitigate the problem but all parties have to be willing to give a little. You can run PL and CTCSS like we are but another problem we have is when a local station operating low power is transmitting the repeater squelch is opened and depending on conditions the local signal gets stomped on by the other repeaters on the pair.

They do need to get a backbone, I recently heard another repeater is about to go on the air on this same pair in Georgia. I don't know what they are thinking but we will have to deal with that if or when it happens.

In both the cases you presented, the trustees were notified they were causing harmful interference and continued. That is why both got the hammer, not because they were operating uncoordinated. I guess this one we will never agree upon. I'm not a big fan or proponent of it, but if that's all there is...

 

[zz0468]

It's definitely a lame excuse. And I think the users of that repeater don't want to buy newer radios to run PL, which is another excuse we heard.

It's a common complaint in SERA's area. But this is 2011. Spectrum is tight, and except in unusual circumstances, there is little to no chance that a repeater won't have a co-channel system somewhere that the users can hear. It's been that way in California for 30 years, and we just deal with it.

Your part of the country needs to learn to deal with it, too.

Maybe a little engineering could mitigate the problem but all parties have to be willing to give a little. You can run PL and CTCSS like we are but another problem we have is when a local station operating low power is transmitting the repeater squelch is opened and depending on conditions the local signal gets stomped on by the other repeaters on the pair.

So, a local user on the input is covered by a repeater output from another system? That's just bad engineering practice.

They do need to get a backbone, I recently heard another repeater is about to go on the air on this same pair in Georgia. I don't know what they are thinking but we will have to deal with that if or when it happens.

And how far away is it from your coverage area? What is the expected level of interference? What is SERA's definition of "harmful interference". If it's "hearing the other system", in this day and age, that's wrong.

In both the cases you presented, the trustees were notified they were causing harmful interference and continued. That is why both got the hammer, not because they were operating uncoordinated.

Read the text of the enforcement actions again. They got the hammer BECAUSE they were the uncoordinated party in an interference issue.

I guess this one we will never agree upon. I'm not a big fan or proponent of it, but if that's all there is...

Maybe we won't agree, but the facts are, frequency coordination is a CRITICAL part of successful repeater operation, and the FCC and Part 97 of the rules recognizes that fact. It ain't gonna change just because you're not a fan. What's needed now, more than ever, is repeater owners who support the process, and will do what it take to make it work.

 

[AK4GA]

So, a local user on the input is covered by a repeater output from another system? That's just bad engineering practice.

No, it's worse. A mobile or fixed station transmitting on another repeater of the same pair's input, is being captured over a local low power station's transmission.

I pulled the following from SERA's FAQ page:

5. Is frequency coordination required?

No. Participation in a frequency coordination program is strictly voluntary. No Amateur Radio frequency coordinator has any "authority" to tell a repeater sponsor what he can, or cannot do. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the amateur community has recognized that participation in a frequency coordination program by repeater sponsors is in the best interests of all Amateurs. Therefore, FCC rules (Part 97.205c) have been adopted which state that the sponsor of an uncoordinated repeater bears the primary responsibility for curing any interference between his repeater and another repeater which is coordinated. Likewise, the sponsor of an uncoordinated machine cannot expect much help from his area frequency coordinator.

SERA Frequently Asked Questions is the source page.


As long as you are not causing harmful interference, you can go uncoordinated. Again, it's not because those stations were running uncoordinated, it's because they were causing harmful interference to another repeater that was coordinated without being coordinated themselves and didn't make changes after being given official notice that they were causing harmful interference.

 

[zz0468]

No, it's worse. A mobile or fixed station transmitting on another repeater of the same pair's input, is being captured over a local low power station's transmission.

Well, clearly someone is doing something wrong. Are the two repeaters actually coordinated to have overlapping service areas?

Again, it's not because those stations were running uncoordinated, it's because they were causing harmful interference to another repeater that was coordinated without being coordinated themselves and didn't make changes after being given official notice that they were causing harmful interference.

If all stations were properly coordinated, it is highly unlikely that the FCC would have chosen to intervene in the first place, therefor, uncoordinated operation is ill-advised.

Don't you see my point? Yes, the warnings came after interference that the uncoordinated party refused to mitigate. But the warnings go ONLY to the uncoordinated party, even if the interference is mutual.

 

[AK4GA]

Don't you see my point? Yes, the warnings came after interference that the uncoordinated party refused to mitigate. But the warnings go ONLY to the uncoordinated party, even if the interference is mutual.

I may not be properly communicating my point. The key is interference. Without it there is no issue, regardless of coordination.

It's like you are saying "If you have sex you are going to get AIDS". Which can be true where I am saying "If you have sex with an african hooker and didn't wear a condom, you are going to get AIDS." Which is definitely true depending on the circumstance.

 

[AK9R]

And I think the users of that repeater don't want to buy newer radios to run PL, which is another excuse we heard.

My jaw tightens every time I hear this.

With the exception of my first ham radio purchase over 20 years ago, every 2m radio I've purchased has been capable of transmitting a CTCSS tone. While I recognize that there are hams out there still using older equipment, I just don't buy the "none of my radios can transmit PL" excuse. I refuse to believe that in the past 20 years, these hams have been unable to scrape together enough money that they were otherwise spending on cigarettes and beer to buy a new radio.

I agree with you...it's a lame excuse.

FM using carrier squelch and 5kHz deviation is holding back this era of ham radio the same way AM did when SSB came along.