From: cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: MCNC Data Operations
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:19:19 GMT

In article <8354@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>[Followups to .policy.]
>In article <1993Jan6.014748.12730@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
>>What is a closed repeater good for, anyway?  I've already passed the tests
>>required to use the frequency, by what right do you impose further
>>requirements/restrictions as to it's use by me?  I've got some news for you:
>>The FCC you ain't.  To be honest, if ham radio is based upon openness, "good
>>will", etc, I'm suprised the FCC allows such tripe.
>
>The FCC allows it, tripe or not. You'll just have to get used to the idea.

Ok, Ok.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the word tripe.  I guess I was allowing
my naive contempt to leak on the keyboard.

>>I am thankful that there are trustees/clubs/owners/whatever who have the money
>>to put up repeaters, as long as they're open (I've supported several.)  But
>>the minute they go closed, I'm gone.  If you want a closed repeater, get a
>>commercial license and sell connections.  Or better yet, get a car phone.  The
>>rest of us sure could use the bandwidth.
>
>I guess, then, that you don't think that complex systems that require some
>user education to use properly, or at all, should take steps to prevent folks
>from just coming on at random and punching buttons? You would require linked
>systems stretching from Houston to San Francisco to put up with inane jabber
>from every ham in between? I'm glad the FCC doesn't agree with you.

I fail to see your point clearly.  Do you mean that the random button-pusher
could link Houston and San Francisco?  Wow.  If that's the case, please allow
me to point out the obvious conclusions: 1) the repeater isn't worth jack in
the security department, and/or 2) the administrator doesn't have the
slightest idea what s/he is doing, which implies s/he shouldn't have the
responsibility, anyway.  Let the trustee beware.

I think, however, you've missed my point (my original intent, anyway.)  I am
not against complex repeater systems (although I fail to see the advantage of
a system that can retask satellites...)  I am certainly for user education of
such systems.  I am vehemently against those repeater owners/whatevers who
would close a repeater to a select group of friends under the veil of
"Danger: Do Not Enter.  Complex System Ahead" and cry foul when challenged.
That kind of situation is nothing more than a clique.  It ranks right up there
with hams monopolizing "their" frequency on HF.  It certainly has no place in
amateur radio, as all it accomplishes is the further inflation of egos, the
segregation of operators, and the erosion of precious bandwidth.

Another small point.  Amateur radio is by definition a HOBBY.  Ham radio is
not nor will it ever be AT&T, or even the Internet.  If you want to treat
amateur radio as the hobby it is (and believe it or not, there are those who
do), great!  The HOBBY needs you to survive!  If you want to run a monopolistic
telecommunications company, open your own business.

73 de KC4WEJ,
Derrick

-- 
"3. Blinking light on dashboard reads 'get out of car now!'"
                       -- Top Ten Signs You've Bought A Bad Car
-----
Derrick Cole              KC4WEJ              MCNC Center for Communications