From: jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:13:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In <8510@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>You've been listening to Gary Coffman's semantic quibbling too long. 97.205(e)
>means exactly what it says: limiting use of a repeater to certain user
>stations is permissible.

Nope. ( I do listen to Gary occasionally, however.) We have a pretty
good consensus of repeater operators, Rptr Councels, and FCC field
office here. Interpretation is not an issue.

>What do your local clubs do when a conversation is going on down the link and
>a non-member comes on? Do you run him off, or do you drop off the link, or do
>you let him use the restricted functions anyway? In the last two cases, your
>club is letting non-members dictate what you do with your repeater.

You seem to miss most points. 

   1) 	The linked repeater functions like a normal rptr in most cases.
      	The new user would be expected to use the same courtesy that would
	be used for normal rptrs. (IE: do not double.) this is no
	different from a normal repeater.

   2)   The trustee can determine whether a link or a local input
	has priority. Or they can be wire OR'd. So for net's, etc, 
	you can select which approach to use.

   3)   Communicating on the repeater is *not* a restricted function.
	Period. If the link is up, all are welcome to use it. During 
	busy drive times at both ends, sometimes the link is disabled.
	There is not a problem with "interlopers" as there is no reason
	for them to interlope.

I am coming to the conclusion that the systems that you guys are
defending have flawed topology/design, as these are non-issues in the
systems I have seen.

SELA (South Eastern Linking Assoc) has communicated with the Cactus
folks, and found the technology and attitudes lacking. (It does work,
but did not appear to be anything outstanding, per the SELA member
I discussed this with.)

>...but if I'm in the middle of a conversation with folks in Austin, Dallas,
>Midland, and Corpus Christi, and someone comes on locally who, far from
>supporting my repeater, is an active opponent of it, what would you have me
>do? I choose not to let him run me off of my system, interfering with my
>conversation.

You turn on your lid filter, and he goes away. See above postings.
Closed repeaters draw these guys like magnets. This is not a problem
due to policy, but even if it was, there is a technical solution
in place on the system. Again, seems like your whiz bang system needs
some design review. I am not impressed.

>>Where did he say "fully". Only the local repeater need be open. You want
>>to play ancilliary functions, you pay the dues. Nope, I just see more
>>word twisting. 

>Sorry; I've just shot that argument down. Next?

No, you (intentionally?) missed the point. This is not worth arguing.

Your closed system will ultimately unravel. Enjoy stroking your
little egos on your talking box, have bible studies to reenforce your
selective intrepretations of the regs. Reminds me of some relegious
types I know of. (Nothing wrong with relegion, I just despise zealous
prophets.) 

>...so, in essence, you want me to let others dictate how I use my amateur
>station. Da, Comrade.

There is a technical solution to this. I will not outline it to you, so
continue to be plauged by this problem if you wish.

>>Does anyone *really* care about FM rptrs that much? They are a tool, not
>>a lifestyle. 

>The open repeater comrades apparently do...

I do agree that some clubs focus on the controller, but most seem to do
OK.

>>Time to do something productive.

>Yep. Why aren't these folks working to populate 1200 and 900, rather than
>whining about closed repeaters? We populated 440 when it was in about the same
>state that 1200 is now...

Well, these guys are pioneering 1200, 900, and 10Ghz locally just like
they did for 440, 220, ATV, and other areas. Some examples:

    ATV 1200 in 430 out rptr
    ATV 900  in 430 out rptr
    Shuttle video rebroadcast on the  430 output
    900 Mhz audio link for 2m/440 rptr
    (New) 10 Ghz audio link
    900 nbfm rptr in the works.
    GE mstr II converted to 220
    split site 10m rptr, linked with 440. All GE, (no rangers here)
    split site 6m rptr, same as above

We refer to these guys as "NBIS". (No band is safe).

Watching new kd4xxx's play waveguide is a kick. All are welcome.
If you like to whine, you are incouraged to go elsewhere.
Resources are not an issue. This is unlike closed groups that I have
seen.

So you will have a hard time trying to claim the technical/moral high ground 
based on the comments about the systems you and Jim keep defending.

If you want to be closed, go do it. But do not expect sympathy or even
long term operation, as I suspect the closed repeaters will fade away
over a period of time.

Enough time wasted on this issue.

73,

 
 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@atl.hp.com     | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
                    | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy