TASMA: Under Fire...again!

[WA6ARC]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I write today, in support of the KG6YPA repeater, and it's trustee/
owner, Dave Mason. For some time now, it has been my belief that there
are several problems, facing ham radio, in the southern California VHF/
UHF spectrums. Most importantly is the general spectrum hogging, that
seems to be rampant, and prevents smaller, but active groups, from
having a repeater to call their own. It is impossible for a club, to
start up, and get their own machine up and running, in the 2 meter
band. They must invade someone else's open repeater, and the repeater
personalities may not always be a good match.

One example of spectrum hogging is having a pair coordinated, but
inactive, thus denying the use of those two frequencies, in the
spectrum, to those who desire to use it in a manner which is Part 97
compliant. Numerous machines exist, on coordinated pairs, with little
to no use, much like the Palos Verdes machine, on 146.235, was, until
the installation and use of the KG6YPA machine. Off the top of my
head, I can think of 6, or 7 repeaters, which have been mostly, if not
entirely, unused, for more than a year. I have no doubt that TASMA is
aware of several of these pairs, so I do not need to list those of
which I am aware. However, I do believe that when a group holds two
coordinated pairs, (in different bands, or the same band for that
matter) which have the same, or similar coverage areas, and, the group
typically uses only one of those machines, this is simply another
example of this type of spectrum hogging.

Another example of spectrum hogging, is having linked systems, which
retransmit the same signal over several different frequencies, with
huge areas of overlapping coverage. While I admire the ability to put
together and operate a well-working linked system, and understand a
limited need for such systems, having triple and quadruple redundancy,
or more, in many of the same coverage areas, is simply narcissistic
hogging. These types of systems exist for one purpose, and one purpose
only. To glorify the creator of such systems. This is not only
narcissistic, but perverse, as well. And TASMA is complicit, in this
endeavor. It is shameful, that not only is TASMA not managing the 2
meter spectrum, properly, but has now taken on the task of managing
the UHF spectrum, as well, in an attempt to assist the operators of
said linked systems. You are driving the small, one repeater owners,
right out of town, so to speak. This is a travesty, and should be
considered as an act of hostility, towards the regular users of the 2
meter and 70cm bands, in the SoCal market. It's no wonder that some of
the coordinated pairs who are inactive, hold tightly to their pairs.
They, too, see the trend towards these mega-systems, and hold on (to
their coordinated pair) for dear life, as they likely believe that
they are to be a thing of the past. Additionally, there is no room to
bring in new technologies, like D-Star, and P-25, when there are no
available pairs. Having these inactive repeaters populating the
spectrum, only makes your job of management, that much more difficult.
What are you going to do, when the FCC mandates narrow band digital FM
for these bands, like they have done for TV, cell phones, public
safety radio, marine radio, and other new technologies? I do believe
we will be forced into this mode, at some point, much like these other
services have been. There is too much demand for spectrum, in today's
technologically advanced world. If we cannot show that we are
utilizing our allocated frequencies, in a sensible manner, the federal
government will force us to do things in a manner which we do not much
care for.

Until Dave erected his machine (with my help and blessing-I donated
the transmit antenna to the repeater), the Palos Verdes 146.235
machine was inactive, at best. I drive to that machine's coverage
area, daily, in my work, and for quite some time (months, not days or
weeks) I was unable to bring it up, on ANY PL tone, any time of day or
night, and never heard a soul on the frequency. Now, that Dave has put
up his machine, and let his intentions be known, suddenly, they are
getting more active on the machine, which their own users describe as
their "Back-Up" repeater.

Please! Get a grip, and show some intestinal fortitude, TASMA. This is
spectrum hogging, unnecessarily so. Why do they need 2 repeaters?
Especially, if one of their machines was used only as a back-up to
their first. After months of inactivity, they are suddenly faced with
the dilemma, of trying to justify their coordination, at 146.235,
simply because of their lack of use of that repeater. (Assuming they
would even be considered as a coordinated repeater) Additionally, as I
understand it, that repeater was operating (the rare times it did)
under the trusteeship of a silent key, using his call sign, and they
had never submitted an RFC, to TASMA, since his death, until the time
KG6YPA installed his repeater, 70 miles away, in Running Springs, on
that pair. Doesn't that make the Palos Verdes machine, an
uncoordinated repeater, also? Meaning that the pair was open, and
available for use by any licensed ham, whose privileges allow the use
of that frequency pair. If the current problem is caused by a lack of
proper oversight by the coordinating body, then coordination should be
granted to the first user to erect an open repeater, with regular use
and activity, on that frequency pair. If they wanted to keep that
pair, coordinated for their club/group/organization, then they should
have submitted an RFC, within a reasonable time after the death of the
license holder, whose call sign was affiliated with the Palos Verdes
146.235 repeater.

I have been a vocal and outspoken critic of TASMA, as I am sure many
of you know. I do appreciate the job you are trying to perform. It is
a thankless job, at best. But, nobody held a gun to your heads, and
forced you to take on this task. You volunteered to do it, and in so
doing, you took on an important responsibility to the southern
California amateur community. The name of the organization is the "Two-
meter Area Spectrum Management Association. That means you need to
manage it. And part of being a manager is to NOT be friends with those
whom you manage. Conversely, you are there to make the difficult
decisions. Every time you make a decision, there will be a winner and
a loser. You can't make everyone happy. Understanding this, you still
must be fair, and even-handed, in your management of the task at hand,
regardless of the number of repeaters owned by those whom you manage.
Your primary responsibility is to the southern California amateur
community, en toto. More specifically, to those who use the 2 meter
band. And, since you also, voluntarily, took on the task of managing
the UHF band, you must make the difficult decisions there, too.

I do not envy you, nor the task you voluntarily undertook. It is a
daunting one, at best. I respect and admire your willingness to accept
this awesome responsibility. But, I must remind you of your obligation
to the community as a whole, not to individuals, who own and operate
repeater systems, large or small. If you are doing your job correctly,
the users of the spectrum will be happy, and there will be a "home"
for hams of all styles. You do not exist, to see to the desires of
operators of multi-repeater linked systems. You exist to manage the
needs of the users of repeaters, in your area of coordination. As it
stands now, there are few folks happy with the job you are doing.

May I suggest that you look at the by-laws of the Texas VHF FM
Society, or similar coordinating bodies, who take the tact of "Use it,
or lose it"? If a the trustee of a coordinated pair cannot show a
regular user base, utilizing the coordinated pair, in a manner
consistent with TASMA's principles and FCC rules, Part 97, then they
should be given the opportunity to either get more users, using their
repeater, more frequently (in a specific and reasonable time frame),
or be forced to give up their pair(s), to new repeater owners, who
have, or can build, a new, a user base, who will use the pair in a
manner consistent with the coordinating body's policies, AND Part 97.
Southern California, at best, is a crowded area, for use of the
available frequencies. If that frequency spectrum is mis-managed by
the coordinating body, then either the pairs must be managed to meet
the needs of the community, or the coordinating body must be replaced
with one which is willing to make the difficult decisions.
We are in an age of rapidly advancing technology, yet, here in the
busiest amateur community in America, we are mired in outdated
thinking, managing technology, which, while popular, is approaching
obsolescence in itself. Other, far less modern thinking communities
are burgeoning, in the use of new technologies, and we are left
behind, because we cannot see the forest due to the trees. TASMA MUST
start thinking "outside of the box", in order to meet the needs of our
community, and accepting the inevitable changes, which have been
foisted upon other frequency spectrums, is part of what must be dealt
with. Prepare now, or scramble to make changes, when you're not ready
for them.

While the core users of the spectrum are mostly there for the long
haul, it is not a static user base, and the spectrum must be managed
in a manner consistent with meeting the changing needs of the amateur
community, as a whole.

Thank you for your time in considering my concerns. Again, I thank you
for the effort you make, but hope you will do more, to effectively
manage the VHF and UHF amateur bands.

Thank You,
Daniel Galligan
W3RXO/W6
909-973-2166