From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: very little
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 23:42:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.184611.5834@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan02.061145.6961@ssc.com> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.234200.11309@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec30.062020.24365@ssc.com> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the following has some bearing here:
>>>>
>>>>97.205  Repeater station.
>>>> 
>>>>     (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful
>>>>interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are
>>>>equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference UNLESS
>>>>THE OPERATION OF ONE STATION IS RECOMMENDED BY A FREQUENCY
>>>>COORDINATOR AND THE OPERATION OF THE OTHER STATION IS NOT.  In that
>>>>case, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has primary
>>>>responsibility to resolve the interference.
>>>>     (d) A repeater may be automatically controlled.
>>>>     (e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
>>>>users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled
>>>>functions of the station.  LIMITING THE USE OF A REPEATER TO ONLY
>>>>CERTAIN USER STATIONS IS PERMISSIBLE.
>>>> 
>>>>(CAPITALIZED EMPHASIS IS MINE)
>>>
>>>Two things to note here. First, section (c) only applies to interference
>>>from one repeater to another repeater and says nothing about individual
>>>non-repeater station transmissions.
>>
>>Ha!  Please test this for us.  Start operating simplex packet on
>>the input of a local repeater.  See if citing this rule does you any
>>good at all.
>>
>>It won't.
>
>You have that backwards, it won't do *you*, the repeater owner, any
>good because it only refers to interference between *repeater* stations.
>The applicable regulation for the case you state is 97.101(b) which
>says "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station."
>As long as there is no *on going* QSO on the repeater that suffers 
>interference by the simplex use, the simplex user is not in violation.
>Someone who comes on and attempts to "talk over" the packet transmission
>*would* be in violation for malicous interference.

So a repeater has NO defense against a jammer who sets up a packet
station on its freq?  The packet TNC will not transmit when there
is a signal present, so you are saying that the repeater user who 
attempts to talk on the repeater at any time after the jamming TNC
has been set up could be cited because he is talking over the
"simplex user"??

Please try this and then report back how well it works.


 As someone else noted,
>transmitting simplex on a repeater input is inconvienent because to remain
>legal, the repeater output would also have to be monitored *first* to see if 
>there is possible interference to an *on going* QSO through the repeater.
>Operating simplex on the output frequency is a better practice, but 
>operating on the input is *not* a violation if the repeater is not 
>otherwise in use at the time of commencement of simplex operation.

Then how have operators of links-closed repeaters-packet forwarding
networks been able to deal with miscreants all these years?
Why doesn't your arguement work then for the folks who like to
torment repeater owners in LA?


>
>> Second, section (e) refers to
>>>*ancillary* functions of repeaters and the ability to limit access to
>>>those *ancillary* functions to certain user stations. This doesn't
>>>address closed repeaters where the *primary* function of the repeater
>>>is restricted.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You're confused.  The ability of a licensee to limit access to
>>his station is NOT confined to ancillary functions.
>
>No, I'm not confused. It's true that a repeater operator can *always*
>vacate the frequency occupied by his repeater by turning it *off*
>when he doesn't want it to repeat a particular amateur's transmissions.
>But that's a separate issue. The right to *cease operations* is never
>questioned anywhere in the regulations. What the repeater operator
>*cannot* do is lay exclusive claim to any frequency by attempting to
>prohibit *any* licensed operator from transmitting on a frequency
>that is currently not in use.
>

Sorry.....if this were true, then coordinators would not be able
to coordinate, operators of any kind of link or repeater would
have no defense against idiots who want to torment them.



-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad