Dick, one other tidbit to add about this: The original plan for organizing an NFCC in the first place, which occurred largely at the urging of then-Private Radio Bureau Chief Ralph Haller, N4RH at FCC, was to create a national level entity made up of representatives from repeater coordinating organizations. They would (1) develop policies and procedures for succession, so that there was an orderly transition from one coordinating entity to another; (2) develop a dispute resolution procedure and processes that allowed non-FCC and non-judicial methods of dispute resolution among coordinators and between coordinators and individual amateurs in the coordinators' area. Dick Isely and I were at the original organizational meetings and the NFCC got started, but it never really accomplished anything. The plans for rejeuvenating it fizzled as well. I don't see it coming back, but maybe I am just a bit cynical about the group. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Kay Craigie <n3kn@verizon.net> To: 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 3:06 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:20120] Re: Frequency Coordination - NFCO Position I have a few things to add to Tom Frenaye and Dick Isely's very good ummation of the NFCC MOU situation. The NFCC was never a frequency coordinating organization. It was an ssociation of many (most?) regional frequency coordinators. When as a irector I voted in favor of the MOU, I did so in hopes that the NFCC could xert a positive influence on one or two coordinating organizations in my ivision (we had 7 of them) that at that time were not operating in a fair r responsible manner. It didn't work out that way, but hey it was worth a ry. It was also worth having an MOU as a means of putting an end to the nfounded belief among many (most?) regional coordinating bodies that the RRL did not approve of them and in fact wanted to grab their power away and et ourselves up as the national repeater coordinating bosses. The existence f the MOU symbolized our respect for the thankless job of frequency oordination. Then repeater coordination became something of a non-issue, and the NFCC ecame something of a non-organization. The regional coordinating bodies ent on doing their thing. All was well, or well enough, until new echnologies such as D-Star came along that needed spectrum and there wasn't ny place in the existing regional band plans for them. The regional oordinating organizations have had to make decisions, and these decisions ay raise as many controversies as they settle. The controversy I hear about at conventions about has to do with where a oordinator chooses to put D-Star and other newer technologies. Simplex sers are mad if the coordinators put D-Star on hither-to FM simplex requencies, just as simplex users got mad back in the 1980s when AX.25 acket BBS's set up shop on FM simplex frequencies, having nowhere else to o. D-Star users, for their part, get mad if the coordinators won't give hem the time of day, let alone designate frequencies for them to use. Some of the unhappy people want the ARRL to march in and tell the frequency oordinators what to do -- or what to stop doing, as the case may be. robably not something we want to try, since we have no authority over the egional organizations and provoking the coordinating community back into aranoia mode would be neither constructive nor entertaining. In case you ere wondering, the FCC is *not* going to get mixed up in this. Be glad. early every time they made a pronouncement about the mechanics of oordination in the past, it made matters significantly worse. It is correct that the Board has not debated what, if anything, to do about he NFCC MOU, but the subject has come up informally a few times in the xecutive Committee in recent years. Since the NFCC is dead in the water, it ould certainly be tidy and a reflection of reality to terminate the MOU -- hat's assuming we could locate someone who legitimately represents the NFCC o officially inform them that we're ending the agreement. The down-side of ending the MOU is that it would likely be over-interpreted y frequency coordinating organizations as the ARRL pulling the rug out from nder them and disrespecting the whole concept of frequency coordination by egional volunteers. It would somehow become the nasty old League's fault hat the NFCC fizzled. We could go right back to the mid-1990s and all that uspicion. The likelihood of resumed hostility between coordinators and the RRL is what the Directors on the EC have considered to be reason enough for ot officially terminating the MOU, when someone has brought the subject up rom time to time. And as Dick Isely said, maybe the NFCC will revive itself. That's if enough oordinators perceive a benefit to it and are willing to do the work nvolved. Likely? Not very. But it's one cell in the possibility matrix. 73 - Kay N3KN _______________________________________________ rrl-odv mailing list rrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org ttp://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv