From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 6 Jan 1993 19:15:32 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan6.003309.21734@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>I believe you are incorrect. I understand that they are arguing that they have
>the right to use the frequencies on which closed repeaters operate, provided 
>they abide by the regulations which govern amateur radio (ie no interference,
>etc.). If they choose to disobey those regulations, then they are in the wrong
>regardless of whether or not they are using such frequencies. 

...but they're demanding exactly the right to use the frequency and keep the
closed repeater off of it!

>Again, I think you are incorrect because I think that what you call "open
>repeater partisans" are actually saying that closed repeater operators SHOULD
>incorporate such protections to prevent unwanted use of their equipment. 

Right. Then they want to use the frequency anyway, and want the closed
repeater to stay the hell off of their frequency while they're talking. This
is open to problems:

>>...and so the person gets on the output and keeps Jim from using the repeater
>>anyway, according to the arguments of the open repeater partisans. After all,
>>he doesn't own the frequency, right? Bah!
>Unpleasant to you, apparently, but true. However, what is the likelihood that
>someone will fillibuster endlessly on Jim's output and render his repeater
>unusable for all time?

A filibusterer can make the repeater effectively unusable, simply by talking
at the times that the regular users would be using it. He doesn't have to talk
for all time.

Fortuantely, the FCC doesn't see it that way.

>As was pointed out countless times in previous posts, 
>the simplex user is frequency agile while the repeater is not. When the 
>repeater comes up for use, the polite and decent thing is for the simplexers
>to move to another frequency. They don't HAVE to, and that is the point of 
>the argument. If they don't, then they are jerks and possibly jammers, so
>a rule requiring them to do so would have little effect anyway. 

That's my contention: the people who would use the frequency that the closed
repeater is on ARE jerks and jammers.

>Would a rule giving closed repeaters exclusive rights to a frequency have
>prevented this? A blanket party would likely be more effective. Laws would just
>waste Jim's time in fruitless court battles. 

It might have convinced the folks who are skeptical about the real meaning of
97.205(e) that it means exactly what it says: that limiting the use of a
repeater to certain user stations IS acceptable.

>Yes, and Jim sure sounds like a hell of a nice guy. Too bad there are so many
>more "experienced" amateurs around here that do not share his enlightenment. 

I can only argue from what I have experienced here, on the repeaters I
frequent.

>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?

Unfortunately, the measures that you and the open repeater partisans are
arguing would prevent this as well. Cactus, for example, would become a thing
of history - after all, how am I to know when I key a repeater in Houston that
I'm interfering with a guy in LA?

>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.

How do you know that's what they're there for? More importantly, what gives
you (or the frequency coordinator, as some are demanding) the right to make
the value judgment that they don't deserve the same interference-free
operation as other repeaters get?
-- 
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_