From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:42:03 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>...except that the experimental repeater co-channeled with an open repeater
>would not be able to operate any significant amount under the rules under
>discussion, as the open repeater could force the experimental repeater off the
>air simply by keying up. All it would take would be for licensed radio amateur
>operators (note, I carefully didn't say "hams") like Mr. Bly who didn't like
>closed repeaters to keep the open box keyed up a significant part of the time
>to keep the experimental box from being useful. 

So Jay.  I've watched you rant and rave and show us your anus located atop
your neck and I've watched you assert as the Word From On High that
some sort of sacred experimental repeater could be damaged by someone
keying it (what's wrong with this picture).  What I have not 
heard is you offer a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

I am quite curious to know exactly what kind of "experimental" repeater
can be damaged by mere use?  I'd also like to hear the rational
for putting such a tender creature on frequency in a band that is
highly populated.  After all, if a mere keying can destroy your 
brainchild, so could skip or QRM.

Why do I get the feeling that you are fabricating the BIG LIE again in
a feeble, profane attempt to defend you position?  Must be the 
Morris influence again.

>I don't know if I can address this one; while the repeater I frequent is part
>of an extensive linked system, I don't talk to the folks in San Francisco
>much. I do, however, think that it serves a valuable purpose in understanding
>how extensively linked terrestrial systems work; there are still problems
>inherent in such a system that are poorly understood, at best. ("Where's that
>grunge coming from?")

Poorly understood?  I'm sure you'd agree that cellular phone systems
or a trunked radio systems constitute extensively linked terrestrial 
systems that are quite well understood.  Now you're trying to wrap
a technical sounding BIG LIE around your closed little world.  Nice try
but no cigar.  It is this kind of statement when made to the FCC to justify
our continued existence that gives them the best laugh.

>>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.

>Because they didn't like the coordinator's decision. Because they think the
>coordinator should have given them their blessing instead of some other group
>on THEIR frequency.

But Jay, you're just as likely to be sued by adhering to the first-come-first-
served policy as you are obeying any alternative rule.  Particularly
with a personality like yours.  Though I poopoo the general worry of
coordinators being sued, in your case that is an extremely valid worry.

While I hold people such as "Roger Bly" (has anyone else picked up on
that name yet?) in distain, I'll have to say that if I heard him 
jamming your repeater, I'd switch channels.. and smile a little smile
and whisper to myself "touche', he had it coming."

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy