4 ms·

it's worrisome when combative tactics (arbitrarily large fees) are employed to reduce communication network availability, with little reason other than 'it's no

by serf 7y ago

it's worrisome when combative tactics (arbitrarily large fees) are employed to reduce communication network availability, with little reason other than 'it's no longer useful for the state.' . One hates to extrapolate what could be meant by the statement. Does anyone know of any practical (legitimate/good) reason why anyone would want to dissolve this network?

shakna 7y ago
There's been a push in recent years to free up parts of the amateur bands for auction. It doesn't seem particularly well thought out, to be honest. Power usage and interference are among the reasons that you probably don't want to own the amateur band... But some companies disagree.
- kawfey 7y ago
  Citation needed. I've been a ham in the US for 11 years and not once has this come up. It's a commonly touted threat or rumor that could happen, but not a single proposal has made it through the FCC (or has even been proposed afaik), nor has the FCC made any public advances to do such a thing. One recent thwarted infiltration was a proposal by Thales to make 2m amateur spectrum shared with radionavigation, which was quickly put down.
  - shakna 7y ago
    I didn't say the FCC was being shown to be open to this, but that some companies were making the push for it. Like Thales.
  - drmpeg 7y ago
    3450 to 3550 MHz (of which 3450 to 3500 MHz is allocated to Amateur Radio) is being looked at. https://www.multichannel.com/news/spectrum-now-act-introduced https://www.multichannel.com/news/spectrum-now-act-introduce... https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_repurposing_report_august_2019.pdf https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_re...
dragonwriter 7y ago
I don't think anyone wants to dissolve any network. From the state letter (the histrionic complaint to which it is attached provided no useful additional information, but a lot of hyperventilation and irrelevancy), it looks like the State has been allowing collocated private ham radio equipment with neither formal agreement nor any charge on State property based on historically perceived public value (without such policy value, it would probably be, legally, a gift of state resources to a private party, which is prohibited), which it has reassessed and found no longer justified, and it has therefore provided notice that henceforth, a formal lease will be required for this use of State property.
- insulanus 7y ago
  The letter from Cal Fire says: > I do understand and appreciate all of the service you have provided in the past. However, with > constantly changing technological advances, there is no longer the same benefit to State as > previously provided. Therefore, the Department no longer financially supports HAM operators > radios or tenancy. If you desire to enter into a formal agreement to operate and maintain said > equipment, you must complete and submit attached collocation application along with fee as > outlined on page one of application. > There is cost associated with getting an agreement in place. In addition to the technical > analysis fee ($2500/application), there is DGS Lease admin cost associated (typically between > $3000-$5000) with preparation of lease. Also, there will be an annual rent charge based upon > equipment type/space. >Please let me know how you wish to proceed. If you determine the cost is too great to proceed, > please make arrangements with me to remove equipment. If you still have questions, please do > not hesitate to ask. I am much more readily available via email. If no action is taken, they will dissolve the network by removing the equipment. There is no evidence to propose that the reason they are charging the hams is because they are charging their commercial tenants. It also seems like an excuse, that it might be illegal to "gift" the hams a place on the tower. We'll probably reach that level of glorification of property rights soon, but for now, I'm assuming that it was legal to let the ham equipment reside there in previous years. Someone decided they didn't want the things there any more, and this is the way they decided to do it. These new requirements are not the reason, but the implementation. If someone says "the policy says so," and they make the policy, that's an excuse, not a reason. I want to know what the original reason was.
kj4ips 7y ago
I feel like I'm missing something, the document mentioned a lease, so I am wondering if these repeaters reside on Cal fire owned property, or owned towers. They're not exactly small pieces of equipment, besides the mast and the actual radios, the filters (diplexer) take up quite a lot of space, and there's likely a generator on site as well. Regardless of land or tower ownership, the provided email doesn't have any timeline, which is somewhat unprofessional when we're talking about something that takes weeks to remove.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Regardless of land or tower ownership, the provided email doesn't have any timeline, which is somewhat unprofessional when we're talking about something that takes weeks to remove. It also doesn't have actual lease cost, just some cost ranges for some administrative fees associated with the lease. It seems to be an attempt to determine if further discussion should be directed at developing a plan and timeline for removal or at setting up a lease, not being a notice to pay or leave by a set date.
- philpem 7y ago
  Depends on the kit you're running. A Hytera RD985 DMR/Analog mixed-mode duplexer is 2RU in height and the duplexer (a diplexer is a different thing) is internal if you buy the fitting kit. I have a Raycom analog repeater which is 1RU, including the internal duplexer and a basic repeater controller. If you want to use a beer-keg duplexer then yes, that'll cost more rackspace. Probably another 5-6RU. And if you insist on running an old, obsolete Motorola analog repeater (say, a Eurobase), you're into 3RU to start, plus the duplexer (the Moto standard ones of that era are usually 2-3RU).
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > so I am wondering if these repeaters reside on Cal fire owned property The linked article is a terrible source sadly for understanding the full picture. Yes, the gear in question is located on state owned property and have been allowed there without anything more than a handshake agreement historically.
blotter_paper 7y ago
Remember when BART blocked cell phone access to make it harder for protesters to organize? Fewer communication channels are easier to control. Controlling people is pretty much the definition of governing.

by serf 7y ago

shakna 7y ago

There's been a push in recent years to free up parts of the amateur bands for auction. It doesn't seem particularly well thought out, to be honest. Power usage and interference are among the reasons that you probably don't want to own the amateur band... But some companies disagree.

kawfey 7y ago
Citation needed. I've been a ham in the US for 11 years and not once has this come up. It's a commonly touted threat or rumor that could happen, but not a single proposal has made it through the FCC (or has even been proposed afaik), nor has the FCC made any public advances to do such a thing. One recent thwarted infiltration was a proposal by Thales to make 2m amateur spectrum shared with radionavigation, which was quickly put down.
- shakna 7y ago
  I didn't say the FCC was being shown to be open to this, but that some companies were making the push for it. Like Thales.
- drmpeg 7y ago
  3450 to 3550 MHz (of which 3450 to 3500 MHz is allocated to Amateur Radio) is being looked at. https://www.multichannel.com/news/spectrum-now-act-introduced https://www.multichannel.com/news/spectrum-now-act-introduce... https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_repurposing_report_august_2019.pdf https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_re...

dragonwriter 7y ago

I don't think anyone wants to dissolve any network. From the state letter (the histrionic complaint to which it is attached provided no useful additional information, but a lot of hyperventilation and irrelevancy), it looks like the State has been allowing collocated private ham radio equipment with neither formal agreement nor any charge on State property based on historically perceived public value (without such policy value, it would probably be, legally, a gift of state resources to a private party, which is prohibited), which it has reassessed and found no longer justified, and it has therefore provided notice that henceforth, a formal lease will be required for this use of State property.

insulanus 7y ago
The letter from Cal Fire says: > I do understand and appreciate all of the service you have provided in the past. However, with > constantly changing technological advances, there is no longer the same benefit to State as > previously provided. Therefore, the Department no longer financially supports HAM operators > radios or tenancy. If you desire to enter into a formal agreement to operate and maintain said > equipment, you must complete and submit attached collocation application along with fee as > outlined on page one of application. > There is cost associated with getting an agreement in place. In addition to the technical > analysis fee ($2500/application), there is DGS Lease admin cost associated (typically between > $3000-$5000) with preparation of lease. Also, there will be an annual rent charge based upon > equipment type/space. >Please let me know how you wish to proceed. If you determine the cost is too great to proceed, > please make arrangements with me to remove equipment. If you still have questions, please do > not hesitate to ask. I am much more readily available via email. If no action is taken, they will dissolve the network by removing the equipment. There is no evidence to propose that the reason they are charging the hams is because they are charging their commercial tenants. It also seems like an excuse, that it might be illegal to "gift" the hams a place on the tower. We'll probably reach that level of glorification of property rights soon, but for now, I'm assuming that it was legal to let the ham equipment reside there in previous years. Someone decided they didn't want the things there any more, and this is the way they decided to do it. These new requirements are not the reason, but the implementation. If someone says "the policy says so," and they make the policy, that's an excuse, not a reason. I want to know what the original reason was.

kj4ips 7y ago

I feel like I'm missing something, the document mentioned a lease, so I am wondering if these repeaters reside on Cal fire owned property, or owned towers. They're not exactly small pieces of equipment, besides the mast and the actual radios, the filters (diplexer) take up quite a lot of space, and there's likely a generator on site as well. Regardless of land or tower ownership, the provided email doesn't have any timeline, which is somewhat unprofessional when we're talking about something that takes weeks to remove.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Regardless of land or tower ownership, the provided email doesn't have any timeline, which is somewhat unprofessional when we're talking about something that takes weeks to remove. It also doesn't have actual lease cost, just some cost ranges for some administrative fees associated with the lease. It seems to be an attempt to determine if further discussion should be directed at developing a plan and timeline for removal or at setting up a lease, not being a notice to pay or leave by a set date.
philpem 7y ago
Depends on the kit you're running. A Hytera RD985 DMR/Analog mixed-mode duplexer is 2RU in height and the duplexer (a diplexer is a different thing) is internal if you buy the fitting kit. I have a Raycom analog repeater which is 1RU, including the internal duplexer and a basic repeater controller. If you want to use a beer-keg duplexer then yes, that'll cost more rackspace. Probably another 5-6RU. And if you insist on running an old, obsolete Motorola analog repeater (say, a Eurobase), you're into 3RU to start, plus the duplexer (the Moto standard ones of that era are usually 2-3RU).
jsjohnst 7y ago
> so I am wondering if these repeaters reside on Cal fire owned property The linked article is a terrible source sadly for understanding the full picture. Yes, the gear in question is located on state owned property and have been allowed there without anything more than a handshake agreement historically.

blotter_paper 7y ago

Remember when BART blocked cell phone access to make it harder for protesters to organize? Fewer communication channels are easier to control. Controlling people is pretty much the definition of governing.