From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:09:34 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec29.153635.2215@ll.mit.edu> tcs@ll.mit.edu (Tom Sefranek) writes:
>But when I hear yet another "authority" saying "I'll call the FCC...", it
>undermines your creditability.  Jay you know better!

When it comes to the usual "oh, I can't figure out if I can do something under
Part 97" call to the FCC, I'm in 100 percent agreement with you. Such calls
invariably cause more trouble than the putative value of the clarification.

>The FCC doesn't need whining Hams who can't negotiate among themselves a simple
>peaceful solution.  And they are certainly NOT going to take action based on
>a "call".

Depends on who, and what, and how... I agree that we need to negotiate
peaceful solutions. My response was to someone who (apparently) isn't
interested in negotiating, but rather in asserting his rights - which turn
out, mainly, to be his right to be disruptive.

>Look at what your saying!!!  I fly into Houston, "Thank God I'm in Texas".

(Well, _someone_ out there recognizes Texas for what it really is...paradise.
:-) 

>And I listen on a frequency (Simplex), I hear nothing,  I call my friend in
>Texas, (Yes, I do have friends in Texas.) and he finds me at the airport.
>I've heard nothing but my friend on the frequency.  You can BET a complaint
>issued against me for being on that frequency (as interference) will be
>dismissed.  Your saying that my knowing that this is a repeater input
>frequency is an AUTOMATIC guarantee I can receive the OUTPUT of your repeater!
>Or that I MUST monitor another frequency I have no intention of using.

On the other hand, I'd bet you'd respond to a politely worded request to
please QSY away from a repeater's input frequency, especially if you are
getting into the repeater. I doubt the original poster would. I'm not the kind
of guy who'd call the FCC for a single, unintentional incident either.

The original poster was asserting something quite different, though. He was
saying. "I don't care if you put a repeater there. I have the unconditional
right to transmit on that frequency, and I'M GONNA USE IT!"

>I understand the principle,  it's the hard nose, assume guilt before reason,
>that I have and will always have, a problem with.  Now for the audience,
>Jay is a hard working pressured VOLUNTEER, and someone has hit his HOT button,
>so be kind!  He means and infact DOES well!

Thanks. [blush]

>The ONLY complaint likely to be addressed by the FCC is a deliberate,
>continuous, malcontent who is exercising his/her God given American right to be
>on that frequency, with NO reguard for who else is on it too.

...which is how I read the message I was replying to.

>(I have to add, we finished this years training with 113 New Hams!!!)
>(Of the 76 No-Code Techs, 54 have added code, 32 have become Advanced, 7
>Extras!)   Jay, The system is working here!

OOooooo. I'm glad to hear that you're having such good success in your
program; you must be doing it right. Now, if the rest of the country would do
as well...
-- 
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.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis