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: 26 Jan 1993 16:59:23 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <C1FF6o.n5A@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>I do believe that you are the one complaining about the problem. The
>regs say what they say. You can limit the repeater to specific users is
>permissable. How can you limit it? You can:
>   1) Turn it off
>   2) Secure it
>   3) Make it unfriendly.

OK, so you agree that closed repeaters are permissible. Good.

I had (incorrectly, it appears) assumed that you agreed with Gary that closed
repeaters are not what the sentence meant. My apologies.

>The regs do not make any specific protection for closed repeaters when
>they have vacated the frequency. In fact, the only specific mention
>of frequencies is that no one "Owns" a specific frequency.

This argument applies to open repeaters as well as closed repeaters...so the
same tactics you espouse apply equally to open and closed repeaters. Guess
what? You've just sanctioned repeater wars.
 
>So, you can do what you wish, but the repeater trustee is making a
>concious decision to repeat a signal present on it's input. If you do
>not want someone to play with your toys, lock them up.

Exactly what the closed repeater operators are saying they're doing.

>But don't expect sympathy or legal protection, as there is none. I am not
>aware of a single case of the FCC taking action against  a *legal* but 
>uninvited user on a closed repeater.

So? That doesn't mean we can't run him off....and if he chooses not to leave,
he eventually gets himself into a jamming mode.

>You continue to miss the point. (This is getting boring.) Using the
>link is not restricted. If it is not convenient for the trustee/club
>members to have the link up, they can take it down. Or go into into
>"SSSM" (Super Secret Secure Mode). This is a technical issue, not
>a political one. (Sure Comrade.... One local group has they saying:
>"Hitler owns the hub"  :-)  IE: they do whatever they want.) 

OK...so what does being a club member get you, then? You've just said that
nonmembers can use the links. If we do not wish to have someone who does not
support the system use the links, then your utopia has us either dropping the
link when someone who does not support the system gets on, or putting up with
them.

>Where did I say open all functions to all users in my statement? You
>continue to twist words.

No, I'm simply carrying them to their logical conclusions, as applied to our
situation.

>        It does not cost many thousands to keep it running. It is
>        quite reasonable. Power bills are the largest expense. We get
>        good sites for free. Based on the general asinine attitude
>	exhibited by the closed repeater crowd, I am not suprised
>        you are having to pay for sites. (I would not offer my back yard
>        to a group that appears to need litigation to defend their
>        lack of technical proficency)

On the other hand, there are high sites on hills around Atlanta. The only high
sites in most of Texas - certainly the most populated parts - are skinny and
steel, or building tops that, for the most part, are controlled by commercial
interests. Eastern Texas is _flat_.

>        Using the link is not restricted. Turning it on or off, or
>        adding sites to the link is. The motive to join is to be able
>        to control the link. Depending on someone else to have the 
>        links up is not that useful. (The full time links are open to
>        all, regardless.) Many new members join because an existing
>        member brought up the link to allow someone to have a qso.

Whoopee. In our experience, this simply leads to freeloaders who badger folks
to turn the links on or off so they can talk to their buddies across the
state. The system is not a public utility, yet the folks who don't wish to
help support it think that it should be. Your experience may differ, but I'm
telling you what happened here, and why we made this decision. You may
disagree in your case, but don't presume to tell us what happened to us.

>1) I demand nothing. Do what you wish. Do not be suprised if you have
>co channel repeaters in the future.

Unless the Texas VHF-FM Society's membership votes to impose cochanneling on
closed repeaters, this simply will not happen. If they vote to do so, I will
resign my directorship immediately; I do not wish to assume the liability that
that will bring. I suspect that most of the other officers, directors, and
frequency coordinators will do the same.

>2) As a repeater operator, I have the choices you list (open or closed).
>I can say, "sorry OM, we do not leave the link up while unattended." Or
>"sorry OM, I would like to finish the QSO with XYZ". "Sorry OM, we are
>doing some testing, so the repeater is unavailable."

...and you'll get complaints, and jamming, and expectations, and freeloaders.

>All of these allow you to run the rptrs as you wish, without generating
>ill will. Unlike what I have rcv'd in CA on closed rptrs- "Sorry OM,
>please do not use this repeater, you are not a club member." 

What's the difference? The effects are exactly the same, if you do not wish to
run a public utility. The folks in California are honest about it; you're
evading the issue.

>No explanation, nothing but rudeness. 

An honest statement without evasions.

>Funny how the FCC and the rest of the US shares my opinion. (with the
>exception of CA, and maybe 6 other systems.) Nope, I do not have to
>defend my views, as they seem to be the majority.

Based on what? The FCC certainly does not share your opinion; you need look no
farther than 97.205(e) to see that. Debates on Usenet certainly aren't
representative of the ham opinion in the US.

>>"I have discovered a wonderful proof, but this margin is too small to contain
>>it."
>Quite the clever wordsmith, are we?

I wish I could claim it, but I cannot; it's the comment associated with
Fermat's Last Theorem. The giggle value comes from the fact that, in the
hundred or so years since he made the comment, the best mathematicians have
tried and failed to duplicate his proof.

>Nothing I discovered. But I will not 
>disclose it, for the same reason that AMSAT does not disclose it's control 
>methods. Do you care to publish Cactus's link and control frequencies,
>control methods, etc? 

No...but bragging about a technical solution, then refusing to describe it, is
simply blowing smoke. Like Fermat's Last Theorem, I have no way to verify the
truth of your statements.

>This is a waste of time. I am starting to suspect it is not the fact
>that your system is closed, but rather your personality. Enjoy your
>system while you can. 

Tell that to the folks we've brought into the group in the past year.

I expect to enjoy my system for quite a while, thank you; open repeater
communism isn't in vogue in Texas.

>Why, then, do you imply that everyone wants to use your system. I do
>not. From what I can tell it doesn't offer much I do not have access to
>currently.

Maybe not you, in particular; there have been several comments in this
discussion that have implied that folks would come to town and use the
repeater, invited or not. (A moot point: we welcome transients without
reservations or exceptions.)

>Now, now, .... These guys never did anything to you. I just quote them
>as an example of why a properly designed system does not need to be
>closed. Maybe are you jealous? Why the personal attack on a group you 
>have no knowledge of?

You held them out as representative of the open repeater comrades. If so, then
they would want my repeater to be open. If not, then why did you bring them
up?

>No, just not as asinine as others appear to be. Annual membership in the
>$20-30 range. It has gone down as user base increased. They have added
>features and repeaters every year. All non-members are welcome as well.
>(I am currently not a member. But I am allways welcome.)

How much do they get to use their own system? I've been involved in a repeater
club with 600 members before; there was seldom room to get a word in edgewise.

[why closed repeaters will fade away:]
>Population density. Lack of technical innovation. lack of resources.
>NBFM becomes obsolete. Cheaper cellular makes ham radio obsolete.
>Phil Karn gets us all Qualcom units. :-)

The last few of those will be equally as hard on open repeaters as well as
closed ones. The others all assume that closed repeaters will be outlawed; I
seriously doubt that that will happen.

>Enjoy the path you have choosen.

I will. It is those who wish me to change my path that I am now, and will
continue to, argue against.
-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy