From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:31:07 GMT

In article <8245@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.161631.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>>  That works both ways. In an area where there's extremely high frequency
>>congestion, If a pair of simplex stations pick a repeater input on which to
>>hold a simplex QSO (and the repeater's not in use at the time), any station
>>knowingly transmitting on the input and QRMing their QSO is equally at fault.
> 
> ...assuming that they can hear him. If the repeater is PLed, and they're not
> using the repeater's PL tone, then someone using the repeater from across town
> won't know that thay're there. Nevertheless, if he gets into a conversation on
> the repeater with someone else who, likewise, cannot hear the "simplex"
> conversation, then the only interference going on is from the "simplex" users.

That's why I said "knowingly".

> 
>>The only thing the rules say is that the repeater operator can turn off the
>>repeater to prevent the 'non members' from being repeated. The rules say
>>nothing about giving the repeater operator(s) EXCLUSIVE rights to the
>>frequencies, input or output. The spectrum is still a shared resource - it's
>>first come first served.
> 
> OK...but why should someone hold a "simplex" conversation on a frequency known
> to be a repeater input? The only reason I can come up with is that they
> deliberately wish to QRM the repeater, especially if they do not QSY after
> being advised of the situation. Otherwise, they can accomplish the same thing
> by using a repeater's OUTPUT frequency, and they thereby gain the advantage
> that the repeater user is much more likely to hear them and avoid them.

This happened to me some years ago. The repeater was 'co-ordinated' on
non-standard frequencies. In my part of the country, the input (and output)
frequencies were both simplex freqs. In California, these frequencies were
a repeater with a non-standard split. My friend and I had been using the
frequencies to co-ordinate a cross country car trip for 2000 miles with no
problem.

When we got into the L.A. Basin, some A**hole read us the riot act. He didn't
bother to explain that it was a repeater freq, or ask us to move. He just
blew his top about malicious interference on "HIS" frequency. I didn't need
that attitude then and I don't need it now.

> 
> It is simply not good amateur practice to hold a conversation on the
> repeater's input frequency if you do not intend to use the repeater. Folks
> have been held to be maliciously interfering with the users of the repeater
> for doing so.

It's also not "good amateur practice" to put repeaters on frequencies that
are considered simplex channels in the rest of the world, either. I can
understand it happening where spectrum is scarce, but if it's a 'so called'
private repeater, and the operator won't have it published in a repeater 
directory so that you know it's there - the frequency is fair game..

--------

   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was    
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially  
   (708)-940-9000 - (work)   |   Not my Employer's.... Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5065 - (bbs )   |   Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV