From: bteng@nic.cerf.net (Brooktree Corp Eng)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 05:16:38 GMT
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Distribution: us
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

ON JAMMING:
jab@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Alan Barrow) writes:
>We have always dealt quietly with jammers. It never took more than a
>week. Most were kids. Three were lids. All stopped without the FCC
>getting involved. (The evidence/witnesses were that obvious.)

That's the way to resolve it.  FCC field staff rarely will get involved.
I think I goofed using the word "jamming" as I did.  In the Southern
California repeater world, "jamming" includes operating practices such
as operating on closed repeaters uninvited, making comments in between
others conversations as well as malicious interference.  That is why
I put "jamming" in quotes in my original post.  I have not always
been squeaky-clean in my amateur operations, but I try to keep it legal
(except for the content rules).

The "jamming" I was talking about was a last-resort harassment of a
couple closed groups in LA who were charging $200+ a year for
systems w/ autopatch and were making a good profit.  These guys
were advertising their system as a "mobile telephone" service for hams.
(This was before cellphones).  Anyway, the "jamming" resulted in
them meeting face-to-face where they hadn't been willing before.
They stopped the on-air advertizing at least, but raised their price.
And yes, there were several other cases that were less morally justified.
 
I understand from posts/e-mail that some of you object to this
"radio terrorism".  I understand, but it's my style; sorry.  I've stepped
on less toes than you might think.

ON EXPERIMENTATION:
>Does anyone *really* care about FM rptrs that much? They are a tool, not
>a lifestyle. 
>The commercial world has dealt with this issue for 20 years or more.
>we are that far behind. Is this something to be proud of?
>I watch repeater egos with their talking boxes, and packet systems
>with 1200/2400 connections fight over things like this, and wonder
>where amateur radio lost it.
>Time to do something productive.
>
> Alan Barrow  km4ba 

This is the stuff we should really get back to!  When Jay and others
claim that experimentation with repeaters will be hurt by "open"
legislation, I have to laugh (clip: a football stadium full of laughter).
Experimenting with a repeater is like experimenting with a toaster;
you're not going to learn anything more than what you can read in
an ARRL manual.

Let's work on a plan to get rid of repeaters; closed ones and open ones!
Let's experiment with and phase in new technologies like spread spectrum,
virtual channel/trunked systems, low-level cellular, high speed digital,
digital HDTV, high speed adaptive packet/frame routing, and things unknown.

When I visit the FCC on business, the halls are full of discussions on
and lobbying for things like: cellular, CDMA and TDMA spread spectrum, 
DBS TV satellites, LEO satellite systems for TV and personal communication,
HDSL "video dialtone", packet systems, multimedia, etc.
When I get back in the car and kerchunk a 2m repeater after seeing and using
this stuff, it all seems so sad, so old, so one-dimensional!!! 

We are going to see more technology/policy change in communications than in
any other area in the next 10 years.  Too bad so many of our ham
"experimenters" will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that
change. :-)

Roger Bly (ka6mwt)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy