From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:46:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan02.061145.6961@ssc.com> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.234200.11309@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.062020.24365@ssc.com> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>>>
>>>Maybe the following has some bearing here:
>>>
>>>97.205  Repeater station.
>>> 
>>>     (c) Where the transmissions of a repeater cause harmful
>>>interference to another repeater, the two station licensees are
>>>equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference UNLESS
>>>THE OPERATION OF ONE STATION IS RECOMMENDED BY A FREQUENCY
>>>COORDINATOR AND THE OPERATION OF THE OTHER STATION IS NOT.  In that
>>>case, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has primary
>>>responsibility to resolve the interference.
>>>     (d) A repeater may be automatically controlled.
>>>     (e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
>>>users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled
>>>functions of the station.  LIMITING THE USE OF A REPEATER TO ONLY
>>>CERTAIN USER STATIONS IS PERMISSIBLE.
>>> 
>>>(CAPITALIZED EMPHASIS IS MINE)
>>
>>Two things to note here. First, section (c) only applies to interference
>>from one repeater to another repeater and says nothing about individual
>>non-repeater station transmissions.
>
>Ha!  Please test this for us.  Start operating simplex packet on
>the input of a local repeater.  See if citing this rule does you any
>good at all.
>
>It won't.

You have that backwards, it won't do *you*, the repeater owner, any
good because it only refers to interference between *repeater* stations.
The applicable regulation for the case you state is 97.101(b) which
says "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station."
As long as there is no *on going* QSO on the repeater that suffers 
interference by the simplex use, the simplex user is not in violation.
Someone who comes on and attempts to "talk over" the packet transmission
*would* be in violation for malicous interference. As someone else noted,
transmitting simplex on a repeater input is inconvienent because to remain
legal, the repeater output would also have to be monitored *first* to see if 
there is possible interference to an *on going* QSO through the repeater.
Operating simplex on the output frequency is a better practice, but 
operating on the input is *not* a violation if the repeater is not 
otherwise in use at the time of commencement of simplex operation.

> Second, section (e) refers to
>>*ancillary* functions of repeaters and the ability to limit access to
>>those *ancillary* functions to certain user stations. This doesn't
>>address closed repeaters where the *primary* function of the repeater
>>is restricted.
>>
>
>
>You're confused.  The ability of a licensee to limit access to
>his station is NOT confined to ancillary functions.

No, I'm not confused. It's true that a repeater operator can *always*
vacate the frequency occupied by his repeater by turning it *off*
when he doesn't want it to repeat a particular amateur's transmissions.
But that's a separate issue. The right to *cease operations* is never
questioned anywhere in the regulations. What the repeater operator
*cannot* do is lay exclusive claim to any frequency by attempting to
prohibit *any* licensed operator from transmitting on a frequency
that is currently not in use.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu