I don’t see how this is clickbait unless the demands were reasonable.
If money is the problem then California can find far saner and better means than this. I’m sure there are tons of analogies from similar situations with a small subsidized subset being excluded from fees, many with far more questionable reasoning.
Often it is a no-brainer to allow volunteers to do their thing for free. And it is quite common, surely even in america.
In the software world, the equivalent is free accounts for open-source projects at places like GitHub and TravisCI.
That's called rent-seeking.
So the next time a city or state needs ham volunteers to maintain communications during an emergency they won't be able to do it. Even for California that's pretty fouled up.
My local club had a partnership with the local Red Cross, had our own club station and held meetings there for over sixty years. Then a new manager decides he can use the room we were using in the basement and kicked the club out. Sadly there was no appeal. I hope the California hams have better luck.
Radio frequency bands are already publicly regulated and finely controlled for all other important purposes.
I’m curious though, does the cost also come from internal conflict or just from outsiders like local/state regulators?
But they can be a rich source of complaints when someone takes an internal club dispute onto the airwaves, and then you've got to send out the radio engineers to locate the offending signal(s), then begin enforcement action if needed.
CB bands are even worse for the petty politics on air because you access them via a GURL (general user radio license) which means anyone can buy a CB and go wild.
We also don't see much payback mainly because the types of comms ham operators can provide are incorporated into our existing emergency and disaster agencies.
UK perspective -- there isn't much hams can offer here either. An emergency response team wants a local repeater, you can't set it up on a ham ticket (at least not without an NOV and the cooperation of the RSGB ETCC).
But the rescue squad can get their own equipment, a local radio supplier might subsidise the cost, and all they need to use it is an Ofcom Business Radio licence (£70 for - I can't remember if it's three years or five).
Police, fire and rescue are largely kitted out with Airwave radios anyway these days. So why are the hams needed?
Emergency response is a hollow-as-heck argument, the training and experiment side is a far better one.
(ObFD: licensed UK ham, de M0OFX ex M6OFX/2E0OFX)
Does America not do that?
Legislation: Lets pass a bill that lets technocrats decide the details on regulations.
Technocrats: I don't like the look for those emergency antennas from my vacation cabin in the mountains.
Gun-> shoot-> foot
Yay. Good luck with that, California. For some people it could be their purpose in life is just to serve as a example for others. This seems to be California's role as of late.
I don't see how requiring high speed coms in an emergency is practical. Keeping simple analogue links is the best way to make sure you can keep going. It also keeps things simple. In some situations you have 30 year old radios that have only been turned on 3 or 4 times a year in civil defence huts dotted around remote areas.
I'm not into amature radio in any way but I just don't understand that call at all.
They’re non-commercial though, and have a proven record of being valuable in emergencies. And I don’t mean “hey there’s a big fire” — I mean something really, really bad happened.
Still doesn’t seem that great. It seems very short sighted to charge ham operators commercial hosting fees (which are likely unsustainable for ham clubs). And should they be needed, they’ll still be unavailable.
Removing them sees to be idiotic, at best. And callously reckless at the worst.
The hobby has a shitton of gatekeeping and people stuck in their ways. My last club was pretty good but it really varies region to region.
And anyone saying "we should be better" gets hounded out.
Homeowners associations seem to be similar from the reports I've read.. power play on top of power play.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
There is a National Emergency Communications Plan available at https://www.cisa.gov/necp. Duly-licensed amateur radio operators are discussed under AUXCOMM in the plan as a type of resource states typically choose to utilize. Again, California's needs are apparently different than the other 49 states. More power to them, I suppose?
"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-$5000) with preparation of lease. Also, there will be an annual rent charge based upon
2500$ tech analysis fee /aplication;
3000-5000 admin fee
- - annual rent
so 5.5 - 7.5 k just to pay administrative, then rent on top. i wonder what would be said if repeaters reverted to a guy on a hilltop with two transciever sets and some braincells.
Most of the link is the site operator's response to the administration and it's all very level headed and well thought out.
Any chance of this hitting NYT or one of the big California publications?