From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:28:14 GMT

In article <8360@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 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. 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?

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.

>I ask again: are you willing to pay to defend coordinators from the lawsuits
>that acceding to your demands will generate?

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.

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. I briefly considered going upside down and putting my EME 
amp on the repeater, but a quick call from a friend who is co-channel
with my machine in North Carolina persuaded me that was no answer. I
then considered a bit of plastique, but again better sense prevailed.
I finally just put CTCSS on the repeater and published the frequency.
Works like a charm, and no more kerchunks from Macon 2 meter operators
in the middle of the night. In fact, the repeater works better now
than it did before because the CTCSS tracks weak mobiles into the
noise better than any COR squelch setting that would work in the
high intermod of downtown Atlanta. The repeater now only repeats
those who *want* to be repeated. Users simplex on the output, or
on the input with CTCSS turned off, are no problem. We get an 
occasional hetrodyne on weak users, but we can live with that.
Usually we tell them to buy an amp. :-)

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