From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:27:23 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

[Followups to rec.radio.amateur.policy, where this discussion belongs.]

In article <1993Jan5.171347.2389@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>The anology of a priviate vehicle compared to a private repeater is
>totally flawed.

I agree, but was trying to deal with things as they were posted.

>No one is suggesting that anyone MUST turn over their
>private property to anyone else.

No, but they ARE arguing that all repeaters should be open if they wish to
avoid being interfered with by other repeaters. That's equivalent to telling
repeater owners what they can do with their repeaters, and that's as good as
taking the repeater away from the owner.

>Sure you make the relays 
>kerchunk and the circuits operate but the "owner" of that repeater
>is the responsible party to ensure an access arrangement that is
>private enough to eliminate those that s/he doesn't want to operate
>the private repeater.

...and it is this that the open repeater partisans are arguing against.

>As others have pointed out, this is really poor engineering if any
>system (repeater, computer, etc.) is that easily brought down by
>someone just "playing" with different codes.  If a user
>needs to be that sophisticated then the access process must be
>that much more secure to eliminate all probability of a casual
>user inadvertently or deliberately gaining access and "crashing
>down" the system.

...but that requires that the repeater be closed, and that goes against the
arguments that the open repeater partisans are making.

>Experimentation is and should be encouraged, but as with all experimentation
>there is also the risk of the unknown.  Learning that someone punching
>up some indescriminate touch-tone brings down the system would be
>the kind of thing that experimentation is supposed to find out
>and then modification and improvement is done to eleiminate those
>shortcomings.

...which is what closed repeater owners do.

>No, if the access process is sohisticated and secure enough then no one 
>but those "authorized" by Jim will be able to use the repeater.  If Jim
>has no access control (or only a simple PL) then he can't expect that
>others aren't likely to just key up and use the repeater.  Under
>those circumstances, Jim's only recourse, turn off the repeater
>or change the access process.

...and so the person gets on the output and keeps Jim from using the repeater
anyway, according to the arguments of the open repeater partisans. After all,
he doesn't own the frequency, right? Bah!

>Another point, why is the presumption here that the only possible situation
>is one in which "someone that doesn't like Jim" is deliberately trying
>to prevent Jim from using his repeater?  I just don't like the concept of
>private repeaters in general because there's only a finite amount of
>support, limited to the area I live in, which I can "donate to" to
>sustain repeater operations.  My travels (vacation/business/etc.) with which
>I usually bring an HT should not mean I need to lay out $$$ to participate
>in the use of other repeaters elsewhere around the country on Amateur
>Frequencies I am fully licensed to operate on.

OK, so broaden the hypothetical to include people who don't like closed
repeaters. There have been a few jammers on Jim's system who have done it
because they didn't like closed repeaters.

Nobody is saying that transient users should be run off. Jim has said
repeatedly that he's only concerned about those who wish to use the machine
regularly but not support it like the rest of his users are doing.

There are still plenty of open repeaters, especially on 2 meters. If I travel,
and take my 440 handheld with me, I expect to have to tune around a while to
find a repeater I can use - regardless of open/closed status, I'd have to tune
around anyway. What's the difference?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of all Fears_
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:2013 rec.radio.amateur.misc:21962