People who know nothing of a subject shouldnt open their mouth about it

The whole issue is that the Californian government cannot keep paying the maintenance costs for these repeaters

Signals dont reach over mountains, through areas with variant topography.

Pfft

Hence are asking people to either pay, or host them themselves

The maintenance cost for these are usually covered by operators

And even if they weren't

So they can happily pay the fee and nothing changes then <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

It would be at best a microscopic fraction of the state budget

I wonder where all that money from state and county emergency services budgets they cut is going.

We can afford a high speed rail from bakersfield to Modesto but not keep uo our communications infrastructure in wilderness and high risk areas

Get fucked California

http://www.shastadefense.com/FAX-CalFireHamRadio20190923.pdf
Page 11

> 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.

What's wrong with that?

Why are you mad that the state won't subsidies your hobby anymore?

Did you even read the rest of that document

The 14 examples of it being used?

If you want to have a debate with me fine but don't go quote mining to satisfy your bullshit confirmation bias, that was the example email used in a document talking about how such measure would devestate their ability to respond to emergencies both fire and rescue related

Those capabilities which are being replaced?

Through the expansion of cellular networks?

:brainlet:

Cellular networks dont work in shasta area

Neither does HAM without the repeaters, your point?

I used to drive through there 2-3 times a week when I drove rigs

So we have two systems which don't work without repeaters in the wild

1/3 of the I-5 is not covered by cellular networks

And thats just the I5

Thats not getting out into wilderness areas

One system (Ham) has less people using it every year and then we have another system (cellular) which has an increase in the amount of people using it

And you wonder why they're replacing HAM with cellular?

Luddies like you would keep us in the past.

The point being that the HAM radio infrastructure is already there and its going to cost more to replace and maintain it with cellular

Aging infrastructure you mean?

"The state cant afford to maintain the HAM repeaters"

Which will need to be replaced and upgraded eventually?

"The state should modernize no matter the cost"

So why not modernize it?

Rather than keeping an ancient system in place

Upgrading and replacing done at owner expense

Because thats their radio towers