From: G0RDI.BRidge_House@rxuk.xerox.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Private vs. Public - wars ....
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:49:01 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
Reply-To: G0RDI.Bridge_House@rxuk.xerox.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu
Originator: daemon@ucsd.edu

Folks,

As an unbiased (?) observer from many thousands of miles away from the
epicenter of all this stuff, I have tried to keep out of it (and, believe me, I
tried ...). HOWEVER ....

> ...but, since there are hundreds of lanes, changing lanes to one that doesn't
> have someone's Porsche in it is not only possible but easy.

Surely this should read  "... at times, changing lanes to one that doesn't have
someone's Porsche in it ...."

>>Blocking off PUBLIC property for one group/user's PRIVATE use without
>>compensation to the public is wrong.

>Fortunately, the FCC disagrees with you.

Doesn't mean that they're _RIGHT_, though, does it?

>>All the more reason not to park your car in the lane blocking it.  I don't
>>care how many lanes there are, when they're all needed people have to
>>share.  When there are unused lanes available then it isn't a problem,
>>but when demand is high the rules have to change.  No more private use
>>of public property.

>Sorry, but this doesn't wash either. You're demanding that Jim change his
>Porsche into a public bus, just liek all the public busses in all the other
>lanes. Are you going to pay for it? If not, then what gives you the right to
>take his property?

My impression was not that anyone was being asked to change or give up
anything. I have the view that the concept of "sharing" was what was being
intoduced here. I don't recall anything that said anyone was going to take
anyone else's property. Where'd you get _THAT_ idea from?

>Some repeaters have traps for the unwary. Linked repeater systems, for
>example, are extremely confusing to the uninitiated, as well as being
>expensive to set up and maintain. Others have sophisticated control systems
>driving alll manner of accessories; a careless touch tone at the wrong time
>can being the whole thing crashing down on your head. You would have all such
>repeaters open to every ham. The net effect of _that_ would be lowering all
>repeaters to the lowest kerchunk-box common demoninator. What ever happened to
>experimentation?

Is this a suggestion that members of clubs which run private repeaters never
pressed a wrong button? I have a view which states that if the result of an
action could " ... bring the whole thing crashing down on your head ...", that
such a device ought _NOT_ to be inflicted on the unwary. Experimentation? Sure.
But didn't experiments (in amateur bands ought to be confined to low-use
frequencies? Since what you've alluded to are experiments with logic and
control circuitry, surely the RF stages are consequential? Maybe these
experiment should be run "offline"; perhaps under simulation on a PC? Better
yet, what about 220MHz or 1300MHz? Maybe they're ideal bands for these kind of
experiments? You seem very defensive of any ham's right to experiment, whilst
saying "Ah yes, but *I* wanna choose _WHO_ will experiment!"

>You're demanding that Jim hand the keys to his Porsche to anyone who comes
>along and asks. Are you prepared to buy the machine from him? If not, then ho
>dare you tell him how to run it?

Nope. That isn't what was suggested. Reread, and you'll see that it has been
suggested that Jim be prepared to SHARE a frequency pair when that pair is not
in use. Are you telling me that if I see someone driving a car in an
unreasonable manner, I'd better be prepared to buy it from him before I either
start a discussion on the subject or report him to the police?  Unreal.

>Letting someone who doesn't like me prevent me from using my repeater -
>something that has happened regularly in the Houston area - is silly and
>wrong, but it's exactly what you're advocating: by your standards, someone ho
>doesn't like Jim merely needs to appear on his repeater, thus forcing him to
>either let the guy use it or deprive himself of it.

Again, I don't recall that anyone was trying to do anything about preventing
someone from using a repeater. However, I DO recall that someone was trying to
prevent some else from sharing some frequency pairs ....

73     -     Iain
G8SJP/G0RDI/C30DLA/AA2still_waiting
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.misc:21871 rec.radio.amateur.policy:2004