From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:14:32 GMT

In article <8377@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.052814.461@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>The FCC accepts voluntary coordination as evidence that the repeater owner
>>showed willingness to cooperate with other repeater owners in *sharing*
>>the spectrum at one time. They don't see it as prima facia evidence that 
>>one amateur has ownership rights in a given frequency.
>
>Even so, if an uncoordinated repeater gets on the same frequency as a
>coordinated repeater and causes interference, the uncoordinated repeater
>loses, even if it was transmitting first. The coordinated repeater, therefore,
>has the right to operate on that frequency without interference.

No he does not. The FCC says that the uncoordinated repeater owner must
bear *primary* responsiblity for ameliorating the problem. They will
accept PL, anti-PL, antenna pattern adjustments, or any other widely
accepted channel sharing method as a solution to the problem. Never
do they demand as the only solution the granting of exclusive use to
any repeater owner. That would be a violation of their own rules.

>>Coordinators have *no* legal standing to grant exclusive use of frequenies.
>>If they wish to *presume* that responsibility in contravention of 97.101(b),
>>then I'd be willing to support those who *sue them* to stop such illegal
>>actions. Fortunately, most responsible coordinators *know* they don't
>>have that legal right, and don't take actions that could be subject to
>>suit. Instead they act as advisers and negotiators between repeater owners
>>attempting to minimize mutual interference.
>
>That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you'd pay to defend a coordinator from a
>lawsuit against them by someone who the coordinator had coordinated another
>repeater on the frequency with. The folks in this discussion have been
>demanding that coordinators coordinate multiple repeaters on the same channel
>as an existing closed repeater. Doing so WILL generate a lawsuit.

Then they will lose. 97.101(b) is clear. The coordinator does not have
the *authority* to grant exclusive use. In Georgia, such frivolous suits
require the filer to pay all fees and costs, *and* double costs as damages.

>>My open 440 repeater is a coordinated repeater, "blessed" by SERA. But
>>SERA also "blessed" a link between a two meter repeater's split receive
>>and transmit sites ON MY REPEATER'S INPUT FREQUENCY. SERA failed to
>>rescind either coordination, and the 2 meter repeater owner refused to
>>move his link onto a link frequency even though I offered to pay any costs 
>>involved.
>
>In that case, SERA screwed up. Pure and simple. It was their duty to fix the
>screwup, and at least from where I sit (and assuming that you've stated all
>the relevant facts - no, I'm not calling you a liar, just noting that I
>haven't heard all sides of the story), they didn't.

Sure they screwed up. Such things happen, their database isn't well
maintained and volunteer coordinators change regularly. Just because 
they made a mistake in their voluntary activities doesn't give me grounds 
to sue, however. I *could* file an interference complaint with the FCC 
against the link owner, but the FCC would just say "figure out a way to 
share." So I just cut to the chase and figured out a technical solution 
and saved myself a lot of pointless legal hassles.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy