From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 00:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.122717.1@ttd.teradyne.com> rice@ttd.teradyne.com writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.062020.24365@ssc.com>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>> 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)
>> 
>
>Where does this say ANYTHING about simplex operation between non repeater
>users ? All it talks about is mutual interference between the two repeaters.
>
>> 
>> The whole idea with coordination is ensuring that a variety of
>> spectrum usage is protected.  This means that if I have a frequency
>> coordinated for my UHF link or repeater input or whatever, and
>> it is a closed system, then you can probably get into some hot
>> water if you and your buddies repeatedly operate simplex there.
>> 
>
>Not if your repeater isn't in use at the time.
>
>> (Larry is a nice guy and I know he wouldn't do that)
>
>I wouldn't either, but that's not the point. The point is that you are 
>trying to put rules in Part 97 that don't exist.
>
>> 
>> Of course, the local coordinator also has the right to assign
>> several closed repeaters to one freq pair, each with their own PL.
>> But that is just one option.
>
>And under that same theory, simplex activity and repeaters can (and do) 
>co-exist quite well on the same frequency.
>   John Rice -  K9IJ         |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was    


I think John's points are quite on target and
here's a basic question...How does anyone know there actually is a repeater
"assigned" to a certain frequency in a certain area.  Yes, I know there's
an ARRL repeater directory and repeater coordinators, BUT no where in
part 97 am I required to obtain the ARRL directory and/or to stay in
touch with all the many repeater frequency coordinators that exist
across the country.  So...If I am traveling across the USA with a friend in
another vehicle and we start out using XYZ frequency simplex and it happens
to be used in 50 or 60 places as a repeater input, I can't see how any
argument/case can be made against my friend and I using that frequency
during the whole trip as long as we make sure the frequency is not in
use before we attempt communications (simplex) between us.

Now I'm not saying that I wouldn't change frequencies if asked politely,
but that often is not the case when you read about all the nasty 
comments tossed at those "infringers" on a particular frequency.
Bottom line seems to be (IMHO) that the ONLY requirement to avoid being
labeled an interferer by the FCC is that you check the frequency
before using.  If it is clear, you are not infringing.  I'll be happy
to see if there's any other "case history, legal opinion, or otherwise"
to sustain any other interpretation as it specifically relates to
the amateur bands.

Happy new year and here's a hope for a pleasant and friendly
1993 amongst all hams.

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