From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:32:02 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C19xn1.EAJ@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) 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.

If it was meant to be limited to ancillary functions, it would have said
"Limitng use of ancillary functions of a repeater to certain user stations is
permissible." It doesn't say that. It says that limiting use of a repeater is
permissible. You're right: interpretation is not an issue...except that you
and your buddies choose to misinterpret it, and therefore choose to make it an
issue.

>   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.

So far, so good.

>   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.

So far, so good.

>   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.

You've just allowed nonmembers to use the restricted function: they can talk
on the link. Why bother restricting it?

>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.

You mean that we should let anyone and everyone use the system, linked or not,
whether or not they kick in to support the multiple-thousand dollar expense of
keeping the thing running, all in the name of letting someone use a frequency?
Sorry; I simply cannot buy that argument. If someone wants to use a system
capable of talking from Houston to San Francisco, let him help support it.

>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.)

What's lacking with the technology?

As for the attitudea, this is a circular argument: you deride them for running
a closed system, yet when they're brought up as an example of a working closed
system, you claim that closed systems are bad in part because of their
attitudes.

>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.

I guess it's never occurred to you that closed repeaters got that way because
of these kinds of folks, huh? If, as you demand, the system is open, and
on-link, and he gets on, then I have two choices and only two: let him use the
link, or take the repeater off-link (or down). That's it. No more.

>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.) 

No bible studies needed; the regs mean exactly what they say, and it is you
who are misinterpreting them. (No, I'm explicitly not religious.)

>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.

"I have discovered a wonderful proof, but this margin is too small to contain
it."

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

The open repeater comrades apparently care quite a bit that my system is
closed.

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

[deleted for bandwidth reasons]

Bravo. They're doing Very Good Things. Why, then, do they insist on taking
over my system as well? Don't they have enough to play with?

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

...including the bands others are doing their own things in, apparently.

>Resources are not an issue. This is unlike closed groups that I have
>seen.

They must be independently wealthy, then.

>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.

All I ask is to be left alone while I do my thing...live and let live. I won't
go treading on their shoes, but I ask that they keep off of my toes in return.
This is not what the comrades want, though: they want to force me to join
their holy cause.

>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.

They haven't over the past 25 years; why should they now?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)