From: der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Dave Ritchie)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:25:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change


In <8510@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

>...but if I'm in the middle of a conversation with folks in Austin, Dallas,
>Midland, and Corpus Christi, and someone comes on locally who, far from
>supporting my repeater, is an active opponent of it, what would you have me
>do? I choose not to let him run me off of my system, interfering with my
>conversation.

  And I feel that buried in this response are the "keys to the kingdom".

  Jay, why is this person your enemy? Could it be something that you or
your group has done? Fundamentally, you can not force your enemies to like
you - but it is indeed possible to have your enemies become allies. I would
argue that your approach to the problem is as much a cause of the problem
as the individuals who are interfering with you. 

  Unfortunately, closed repeaters promote an 'us versus them' mentality where
the 'thems' are excluded from participating. If you have a sufficiently
large enough group of 'thems', and make a policy of harassing them when they 
are using your repeaters, it is almost certain that you will create
a group of hard-core enemies that will go *out of their way* to twist your
crank to watch you react. This often results in an escalating war between
both camps that ultimately will not be resolved.
 
  The optimal approach is to not create enemies in the first place. How?
I would argue that making systems that are not exclusionary is the answer. 
Also, education of the user community on how to use the equipment is 
important also.

  As I see it, placing a closed repeater in public airspace is not unlike 
placing a swingset in a public park and then placing a 10 foot chainlink 
fence around it. People in the park see that it is there, and may resent
being told some swingsets are for all to use, and that some are for  
"special people". This may cause resentment by itself.

  If the park is popular, swingsets with fences with around them may 
be tolerated if there is a) enough other swingsets for the children to
play on and b) you have not used up all the spots for swingsets in the park. 
 
  Suppose, however, that the park has became crowded to the point that 
there is not room enough to play on the unfenced swingsets. The kids look 
up and notice that there are some fenced in swingsets that are relatively  
lightly used compared to the unfenced swingsets (or are perceived as such).  

  As an owner of one of the fenced in swingsets, admittedly you have made an 
investment in your swingset. However, the reality is that you built your 
swingset on land you don't own. You should not be surprised when the users 
of the open swingsets start questioning the existence of your fenced in 
swingsets. After all, you don't own the park. 

  If the crowding gets severe enough, some of the players may go to the 
head of the playground and ask that all of the closed swingsets be replaced 
with open swingsets, or that they moved to a different park, or to at least 
consolidate some of the swingsets into the same fenced area. 

  I would argue that this is the situation currently in many larger
cities with respect to repeaters. Fortunately, the repeater operators in
Atlanta appear to have been able to make this work without going to closed
systems.

-- Dave Ritchie N4DJS
der@hpuerca.atl.hp.com

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy