HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:05:27 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

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.

>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.

>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.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:13:00 GMT

In article <8333@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.165651.28417@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>>Actually, I think the FCC prohibits exclusive "ownership" of a frequency pair.
>>They agree that you don't have to let someone else use your EQUIPMENT if you
>>don't want to. 
>
>The problem is that this leads to interference, and forcing someone to accept
>interference to his repeater violates the agreement that let the ham community
>tell him where to put it in the first place - "If you put your repeater here,
>with these technical limits, we'll keep everyone else away" - and that's the
>entire basis for frequency coordination in the first place. Now, we get back
>to lawsuits. I still haven't heard anyone volunteer to pick up the legal
>expenses for coordinating bodies that try this.

Sorry, coordinators have no legal right to make this promise to keep
everyone else away. They are forbidden by 97.101(b) from granting
exclusive use to any one station. The doctrine of nullification says
that private agreements have no legal force if they are in contravention
of law. Since a promise of exclusive use is a violation of 97.101(b),
it has no force.

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
From: dave@netmgr.mmc.COM (David A. Rageth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: user brandt@inlatlas.den.mmc.com
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:15:30 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

unsubscribe Ham-Policy brandt@inlatlas.den.mmc.com

-- 
x++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++x
 x            David Rageth                x
  x   Internet : dave@netmgr.mmc.com       x
   x   voice    : (303)977-4584             x
    x   fax      : (303) 977-2765            x
     x   USMail   : Martin Marietta           x
      x              P.O. Box 179 m/s 1084     x
       x              Denver, Colorado          x
        x                               80201    x
         x++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++x
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:09:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.231300.22346@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Sorry, coordinators have no legal right to make this promise to keep
>everyone else away. 

You are correct.  That's the catch 22 in the situation.

Several years ago, there was a movement by many frequency coordination 
groups which sought to "legitimize" the frequency coordination process in
the amateur radio service.

Specifically what was discussed was whether there was a need for a national
or regional "overseer" for coordination groups.  This overseer would act
as a mediator in cases of dispute between coordination groups and to set
some reasonable guidelines for coordination groups to follow.

Unfortunately, this movement was opposed by the ARRL and others who argued
that they didn't want the liability of choosing who got to be the "recognized"
frequency coordination group in a given area.

Because the frequency coordination process is so localized, and because the
local groups don't communicate with each other, they have no widespread
acceptance.  Therefore, they aren't "legitimate".

The FCC does recognize frequency coordination.  They don't, however, recognize
who does the coordinating.  Therefore, if I wanted to form a group of 20 
trustees in Houston, call them the "Houston Area Frequency Coordinating
Council" and issue repeater coordinations to anyone and everyone, I could...
and the FCC would respond to my coordinations just like they do the ones from
the Texas VHF-FM Society.

Until the coordination groups decide to cooperate and communicate, the process
will never be "legitimate".

It's unfortunate for the repeater trustee, who just want's to operate his
radio, that this political situation occurrs.  Many times the frequency crunch
didn't hit until many years after the repeater went on the air.

It's just like transmitting simplex on somebody's input frequency...it's legal
to put on a un-coordinated repeater...it's just pretty rude.

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
From: stevej@pillock.moron.vware.mn.org (Steven Jarosh, KA0VYB)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Commercial radios on ham bands
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 09:15:10 CST
Organization: 11th Hour Contest Group (North American Chapter)

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> >An email conversation with another net-ham pointed out to me that it is
> >illegal to have a land-mobile radio programmed with both amateur and
> >non amateur (ie: business band, public safety, etc) frequencies, even
> >if the user is licensed for both, unless the radio owner made provisions
> >in his land-mobile license to include the amateur frequencies.  This would
> >make it rather difficult to comply with the law, as ham frequencies change
> >frequently depending on the repeater the ham wanted to access (or simplex,
> >or whatever).  Anyone want to provide input on this?
> 
> Modifying a land mobile radio to operate on frequencies outside the land
> mobile service voids the Type Acceptance of the radio. Thus it would be
> legal to use on the ham bands where Type Acceptance isn't required, but
> would now be illegal to use on the orginal land mobile channels.
> 
> Gary KE4ZV
> 

However, programming freqs. and changing crystal elements has never been 
considered a modification of the type accepted radio.  If the capability was 
there at the time of the type acceptance then it can be used with out 
stepping outside the bounds of the type acceptance.
(if done by an approved maintaince facility)
There are still several type accepted radios on the market that meet these
requirements.  They are:
                        1. Motorola Radius series
                        2. Uniden
                        3. TAD COM

The law pertains to cross communication between dissimilar services which is 
not allowed (ie. direct linkup of dissimilar services through a remote base 
and duplex communication). Of course in an emergency the rules change.

Steve KA0VYB
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
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 02:01:33 GMT

In article <8376@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.033238.29721@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>Tough. They got there first, way back when they were told to put there closed
>>>boxes on 440 in the first place. They did what they were told. Now you want to
>>>take it all away from them.
>>Seniority only counts in union shops Jay. Everyone else has to justify
>>their existance every day.
>
>OK, so come up with an objectively verifiable method for coordination that
>does not include value judgments. Anything else generates income for lawyers.

Ok, since we're being silly, make it rule number one that anyone who
even mentions a lawyer, much less hires one, never gets a coordination.
If they don't like that, they can start their own coordination body
and coordinate themselves. The FCC won't mind. They've refused to
give exclusive recognition to any coordinating body.

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
From: leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:51:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <8373@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> [Followups to .policy.]
|> In article <1ifo38INNqah@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
|> >Require PL/CTCSS on all machines, TX and RX, on 144, 220, and 440.
|> >Add a warning that 10, 6, 900, and 1280 machines may in the future
|> >require the same.
|> 
|> So far, so good. Some screaming will be heard, and some folks will refuse to
|> go along. What then?

Give them a year to add PL/CTCSS and if it isn't done by then
drop the pair into the available folder.  Use it or lose it.

|> >Allow multiple repeaters on these low usage closed pairs.
|> 
|> We allow multiple repeaters on any pair, if the trustees agree.
|> If you mean forcing folks to accept other repeaters on those pairs, though...

Sure.  They aren't going to spend any money or time adding PL/CTCSS so
they can share without a little push.  It is basic human nature, most
people aren't going to do anything that costs them time/money when
all it is going to do is help out the common good.  Note I did say
most, not all.

|> >If they scream, tough, the coordinator never owned the frequencies anyway.
|> 
|> OK...so what when they sue? Even if you're right, there's _still_ the major
|> expense and hassle of defending such a suit. Are you willing to pay that?

This whole bit about sueing over pairs is silly.  It isn't like the
coordinator has a legal ownership or god given right give away
pairs.  It's all a voluntary, and hopefully non-commercial, agreement.

|> That doesn't mean that I think coordinators will be able to force others to do
|> so. You apparently have an overinflated idea of the power of a coordinator;
|> there's not a lot there beyond saying "if you operate on this frequency, and
|> within these limits, we won't tell anyone else to operate there, and we will
|> tell the FCC that we told you to operate here if they ask."

I never said they were gods or legally binding.  The whole thing is
voluntary, if they don't want to play by the new rules they can drop
out of the game.  This is a hobby not a business.

|> I agree that life isn't necessarily fair, but going out of your way to make it
|> unfair usually isn't a good idea.

There isn't anything unfair about it.  Times change and so do the
rules of getting along.  As more people become hams and start using
the same old bandwidth, less now after 220-222, it's going to
get more crowded.  People are going to have to share the available
frequencies.  The old systems which wasted space are going to have
to be changed to make better use of a limited resource.  Much like
the SW broadcasters are going to have to move to SSB, AM is just
too wasteful.  It was cool at the time, but times have changed.
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:06:44 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan5.231300.22346@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Sorry, coordinators have no legal right to make this promise to keep
>everyone else away. They are forbidden by 97.101(b) from granting
>exclusive use to any one station. The doctrine of nullification says
>that private agreements have no legal force if they are in contravention
>of law. Since a promise of exclusive use is a violation of 97.101(b),
>it has no force.

If this is the case, then why does the FCC recognize frequency coordination at
all?

I ask again: are you willing to pay to defend coordinators from the lawsuits
that acceding to your demands will generate?
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
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 01:55:01 GMT

In article <C0HJ8M.57L@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.231300.22346@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Sorry, coordinators have no legal right to make this promise to keep
>>everyone else away. 
>
>You are correct.  That's the catch 22 in the situation.
[deleted]
>It's just like transmitting simplex on somebody's input frequency...it's legal
>to put on a un-coordinated repeater...it's just pretty rude.

Yep, absolutely right.

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
From: kleing@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Klein Gilhousen)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:29:10 GMT

There's be a lot of talk in this thread about lawsuits.  One
question: can anyone cite a legal precedent for such a lawsuit?
Has anyone ever filed prosecuted and won such a lawsuit?

Sure, you can sue anyone over anything, but has anyone
actually done it successfully.  (I doubt it.)  

Klein Gilhousen, WT6G
Qualcomm Incorporated
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:47:15 GMT

In article <8373@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>[Followups to .policy.]
>In article <1ifo38INNqah@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>Require PL/CTCSS on all machines, TX and RX, on 144, 220, and 440.
>>Add a warning that 10, 6, 900, and 1280 machines may in the future
>>require the same.
>
>So far, so good. Some screaming will be heard, and some folks will refuse to
>go along. What then?
>
>>Allow multiple repeaters on these low usage closed pairs.
>
>We allow multiple repeaters on any pair, if the trustees agree.
>If you mean forcing folks to accept other repeaters on those pairs, though...
>
>>If they scream, tough, the coordinator never owned the frequencies anyway.
>
>OK...so what when they sue? Even if you're right, there's _still_ the major
>expense and hassle of defending such a suit. Are you willing to pay that?

Well it takes money to sue also, as I don't think there are many attorneys
that would take on this type of lawsuit on any type of contingency
basis as there really isn't any real argument as to monetary damages.
It seems to me that the best outcome that could be gained is that the'
court orders the coordinator to tell the other repeater operator to
leave the frequency.  Since by nature amateur radio is not a monetary
gaining endeavor/service it'd be hard to claim any monetary loss or
basis for a financial damge claim.

As to defending against such a lawsuit, there isn't a mandatory requirement
that the "defendent" coordinator even hire a lawyer.  He or she can
defend him/herself and should certainly tell the court that this
entire issue is at the minimum a federal issue as it revolves around
the use of the radio spectrum and regulations of a federal agency, the
FCC.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 7 Jan 1993 17:08:20 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <a6yr=5-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>No you're not.  You built your freeway at your own expense on PUBLIC
>property and then you whined when the public decided the land had
>better uses.  You, of course, knew the ground rules going in and therefore
>have no basis for complaint.  Other than you just bitch a lot.

The problem is that they're demanding that I leave the freeway behind when I
leave. I put all this work in to it, and in return you tell me to go away and
leave my hard work behind? I think not.

>Same with repeaters on the amateur bands, Jay.  You can build an 
>electronic castle on top of the publicly owned sand foundation if 
>you like.  Just don't be surprised when the public washes that
>foundation away one day.

When the armed mob comes to my door demanding that I go away and let them loot
my house, don't be surprised if I stand there with a shotgun barring the way.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 07:24:47 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>In article <POPOVICH.93Jan5220506@morningside.cs.columbia.edu> popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich) writes:
>>The problem is that the road that you are parked in is a wide, modern
>>Interstate highway, while the next road over is an ungraded cow path
>>that only certain premium-priced four-wheel drive vehicles can use
>>productively.  To be more exact:

>The Interstate I'm on was just an ungraded cow path when I first got here,
>too; I've put a lot of time and money in paving. In fact, I was chased off the
>next Interstate over because they told me there wasn't room. Now that I've
>paved it, others want to come in and take it away from me.

>Beats me. I'm just shooting them down.

No you're not.  You built your freeway at your own expense on PUBLIC
property and then you whined when the public decided the land had
better uses.  You, of course, knew the ground rules going in and therefore
have no basis for complaint.  Other than you just bitch a lot.

A concrete example.  My great-uncle built a cabin on national forest
land under a 99 year lease.  That lease runs out in a few years and
the Forestry Service has decided not to renew.  Guess what?  
The cabin is gone when the lease runs out.  He knew those ground-rules
going in and decided the short term benefits were worth the long term
risk.

Same with repeaters on the amateur bands, Jay.  You can build an 
electronic castle on top of the publicly owned sand foundation if 
you like.  Just don't be surprised when the public washes that
foundation away one day.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:24:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.003309.21734@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>The fact is, even here in LA where the UHF/VHF is arguably the most crowded in 
>the world, I have no problem making the contacts I want to on open repeaters. 
>Many "private" repeaters here are "friendly" and welcome users as long as they
>do not abuse the system. Other friends of mine with closed systems are happy to
>let me use them, since when I do so it is usually to contact them anyway. Closed
>systems like Cactus are in heavy use, so I have no complaints that they are 
>closed. Hey, if I want to use such sophisticated hardware, why shouldn't I 
>contribute to its upkeep and expansion?


This is the only thing I ask.  Be considerate of the repeater owner.  If more 
people had this attitude, there would be no problem...Thank you.


>There are, unfortunately, a large number
>of closed systems in LA that are not utilized. These systems seem to exist 
>solely as security blankets for their owners/users who get a sense of safety
>from knowing that they would not have to wait to use the machine if they wanted
>to. Not that they seem to ever want to.

You're right, and it is unfortunate.  This is the part that makes the frequency
coordinator's job such a pain in the behind.

-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy