From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:13:47 GMT

In article <8323@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1ialnnINNt37@transfer.stratus.com> leadfoot@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Mark Curtis) writes:
>>|> Second, the lane Jim's Porsche is in
>>|> is one of the most heavily traveled lanes on the highway.
>>All the more reason not to park your car in the lane blocking it.  I don't
>>care how many lanes there are, when they're all needed people have to
>>share.  When there are unused lanes available then it isn't a problem,
>>but when demand is high the rules have to change.  No more private use
>>of public property.
>
>Sorry, but this doesn't wash either. You're demanding that Jim change his
>Porsche into a public bus, just liek all the public busses in all the other
>lanes. Are you going to pay for it? If not, then what gives you the right to
>take his property?

The anology of a priviate vehicle compared to a private repeater is
totally flawed.  No one is suggesting that anyone MUST turn over their
private property to anyone else.  A better example is that you have your own
radio controlled private vehicle but there are no or minimal constraints
to prohibit others from making the vehicle operate.  If someone
other that the anointed few that you want to allow to use/operate
the radio controlled vehicle do so, your only recouse is to turn
it off or change the control authorization process.  Use of any repeater
does not constitute a taking of any kind.  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.

>example, are extremely confusing to the uninitiated, as well as being
>expensive to set up and maintain. Others have sophisticated control systems
>driving alll manner of accessories; a careless touch tone at the wrong time
>can being the whole thing crashing down on your head. You would have all such
>repeaters open to every ham.

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.

> The net effect of _that_ would be lowering all
>repeaters to the lowest kerchunk-box common demoninator. What ever happened to
>experimentation?

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.

>You're demanding that Jim hand the keys to his Porsche to anyone who comes
>along and asks. Are you prepared to buy the machine from him? If not, then ho
>dare you tell him how to run it?
>
>>Just turn your repeater off, that is the only thing you
>>do own and control.
>
>Letting someone who doesn't like me prevent me from using my repeater -
>something that has happened regularly in the Houston area - is silly and
>wrong, but it's exactly what you're advocating: by your standards, someone ho
>doesn't like Jim merely needs to appear on his repeater, thus forcing him to
>either let the guy use it or deprive himself of it.

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.

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.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc