From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:26:59 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1993Jan20.150617.3024@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>The point made in the statement would be that where a
>"closed" system exists, there would also then be the possibility of
>having an open repeater in the same (or nearby area).

There's no _technical_ problem with this at all.  The problem is entirely
political.  This activity puts the frequency coordinator in the position
of making a judgement call as to which closed system gets an open one dropped
on it's channel.  This is where the coordinators get uncomfortable.

>But I really wonder about the value of these extensively linked
>systems which ultimately come down to being little more than a
>large "Private network" usable only by those that are part of the
>in group.

While this is true of some linked systems, there are also extensive open
linked systems like Condor, Zia, and West Texas Connection which provide
large area coverage.  This activity is especially useful in rural areas
with low population density.  West Texas Connection, for example, covers
a very large physical area, but has relatively few users because of the 
few hams living in the coverage area.  Linked systems provide coverage
in areas where there are few other radios.

>And if the FCC does change the FEDERAL law (applicable Part 97), just
>who is going to sue whom over what.  If the FCC changes part 97,
>surely you don't expect any repeater owner to prevail in a local court where
>the coordinator is just applying the FCC regs as proscribed?

This is just a hypothetical situation, and the FCC is not likely to give the
frequency coordinators this kind of power anytime soon.

>what do you even mean when you say "massive" lawsuits?  I'm simply
>tired of seeing that threat tossed out as if it is supported by
>existing case law, etc.  I've yet to see anyone post an example of
>a coordinator being sued which might have resulted in anything more
>than the frequency assignment issue being changed, etc.  No one has
>yet to post any example of a financial penalty (monetary damages)
>ever being assessed against a coordinator.

What about legal fees to defend themselves?  What about the logistical tie-ups
while the litigation progresses?  There are many other harmful things a 
lawsuit does besides monetary damages.  When the Texas VHF-FM Society was
sued, it basically consumed all of the group's resources for two years.

>Then why would amyone ever sue a coordinator.  You clearly point out
>that coordinators do NOT have any power to assign frequencies on any
>type of exclusive basis.

You are under the false inpression that you need a good reason to sue 
someone...Whether the suit directly involves a coordination or not is 
unimportant...it keeps the group involved from doing business until the
suit is resolved.

When the Texas VHF-FM Society was sued, it was for slander.  The person 
filing the suit claimed that his character was defamed by an article printed
in the Society's newsletter outlining the particulars of the case involving
this person.  There was no basis for the suit, and it was eventually 
dismissed with predjudice towards the Society, but it prevented the Society
from doing normal business for two years.

This stuff DOES happen.  It's not just fabrication.


-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy