From: jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:20:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

In <8527@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>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.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

>>	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?

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.) 

Locally, many repeaters are operated by "groups" (Benign dictatorships)
rather than clubs. This is a significant difference.

>>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.

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

The missed points:

   There is not a problem getting users to support the system because:

        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)

        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.

>>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?

I will check with SELA for the specifics, but they were not impressed.

The fact that you/they are having some of the problems you describe, is
evidence that there are technical faults in the system. Again... the
local systems do every bit as much while remaining open. 

>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.

No circular argument here- The local systems do not have a problem.
Period. They work fine. There is no reason to dislike them (Other than
typical personality issues.) I have never seen a non member leave the
repeater less than impressed. In fact, many travellers seek out the
repeater because they have heard of it. This has helped the group test
new technology and obtain sites. So again, the open rptrs are not the
ones with the problem. 

>>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.

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

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."

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." 

No explanation, nothing but rudeness. 

>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.)

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.

>>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."

Quite the clever wordsmith, are we? 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? 

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

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. 

>>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?

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.

>>We refer to these guys as "NBIS". (No band is safe).
>...including the bands others are doing their own things in, apparently.

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?

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

>They must be independently wealthy, then.

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.)

Relegious sounding whining deleted...

>>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?

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. :-)

Enough time wasted.  

Enjoy the path you have choosen.

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