HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:38:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.020133.7915@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Ok, since we're being silly, make it rule number one that anyone who
>even mentions a lawyer, much less hires one, never gets a coordination.

I'd vote for that one!  :)

>If they don't like that, they can start their own coordination body
>and coordinate themselves. The FCC won't mind. They've refused to
>give exclusive recognition to any coordinating body.

...and the really interesting thing about this is that the Amateur Radio
Service is the only FCC regulated radio service which uses independent
frequency coordination groups NOT recognized by the FCC.

Unfortunately, the only ham radio organization which could do this is the ARRL,
and they have steadfastly refused to become involved in the frequency 
coordinating process...but I could go on for hours about this one...



-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 5 Jan 1993 22:57:19 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>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.

Oh?  Ours is an experimental system.  In your lab, do you make every
experiment absolutely perfect, foolproof, idiot-proof, and swab-proof
before you begin, or do you just hang a "Do Not Touch" sign on it.

That is, of course, assuming that you have a lab and do experiments,
which is probably an unwarranted assumption for most hams.

Look, dammit, I can upload new operating system code into the controller
among other things.  That's part of the extreme flexibility of the
system.  Unfortunately, like Mac and PCs, we pay for the simplicity
(or "stupidity") of the system with the kind of vulnerability.

Sure, it's possible to make those kinds of safeguards that will protect
against malicious intruders.  But then, my system wasn't designed to
cope with people asserting their God-given rights to ratchet-jaw on
any frequency they can't hear someone already talking on.  I assumed
a friendly (well, at least not actively hostile) community.

Now if what you're saying is that we no longer have a friendly 
community, well, there are steps that can be taken.  Let's hope
they won't become necessary.
	- Brian
Xref: sparky rec.radio.amateur.policy:2001 rec.radio.amateur.misc:21848
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: 6 Jan 1993 16:02:47 GMT
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

[Followups to .policy.]
In article <1993Jan6.014748.12730@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
>What is a closed repeater good for, anyway?  I've already passed the tests
>required to use the frequency, by what right do you impose further
>requirements/restrictions as to it's use by me?  I've got some news for you:
>The FCC you ain't.  To be honest, if ham radio is based upon openness, "good
>will", etc, I'm suprised the FCC allows such tripe.

The FCC allows it, tripe or not. You'll just have to get used to the idea.

>I am thankful that there are trustees/clubs/owners/whatever who have the money
>to put up repeaters, as long as they're open (I've supported several.)  But
>the minute they go closed, I'm gone.  If you want a closed repeater, get a
>commercial license and sell connections.  Or better yet, get a car phone.  The
>rest of us sure could use the bandwidth.

I guess, then, that you don't think that complex systems that require some
user education to use properly, or at all, should take steps to prevent folks
from just coming on at random and punching buttons? You would require linked
systems stretching from Houston to San Francisco to put up with inane jabber
from every ham in between? I'm glad the FCC doesn't agree with you.
-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: Columbia University
	<1icr4sINNl08@transfer.stratus.com> <8339@lib.tmc.edu>
	<POPOVICH.93Jan5220506@morningside.cs.columbia.edu>
	<9301061626.AA28626@catnip.berkeley.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:35:30 GMT

> Gee, Steve, my omni works just great on 1280 for repeater use, as does
> everyone else's here in the SF Bay Area.

It was an exaggeration, like everything else that's been posted on
this topic :-).  Remember, I said it was flame bait.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:32:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.021432.8034@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Then they will lose. 97.101(b) is clear. The coordinator does not have
>the *authority* to grant exclusive use. In Georgia, such frivolous suits
>require the filer to pay all fees and costs, *and* double costs as damages.

Who says you need to sue for the frequency?  There are many ways to sue
someone.  When the Texas VHF-FM Society was sued, it was for slander.

>Sure they screwed up. Such things happen, their database isn't well
>maintained and volunteer coordinators change regularly. Just because 
>they made a mistake in their voluntary activities doesn't give me grounds 
>to sue, however. I *could* file an interference complaint with the FCC 
>against the link owner, but the FCC would just say "figure out a way to 
>share." So I just cut to the chase and figured out a technical solution 
>and saved myself a lot of pointless legal hassles.

That's because you are a reasonable person.  The person who would sue a 
voluntary frequency coordination group is not reasonable.  Unfortunately,
being reasonable is not required to be a ham. :)



-- 
     Jim Reese, WD5IYT            | "Real Texans never refer to trouble
  jreese@sugar.neosoft.com        |  as deep doo-doo"  --Molly Ivins

Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: True and correct information
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:33:09 GMT

In article <C08Bu6.8yw@NeoSoft.com> jreese@NeoSoft.com (Jim Reese) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.155038.24275@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Sorry, this is not false information. Broadcast licensees have *always*
>>been responsible for the proper operation of their equipment. In addition,
>>the chief operator is also directly responsible for the operation of
>>the transmitting equipment, and (s)he must hold a General Radiotelephone
>>license.
>
>Not so.  You must now only have a Restricted Radiotelephone Permit.  The
>requirement that you have a General Radiotelephone went away several years
>ago.

Actually, the RRP, a write for this card sort of thing, was only required
for control operators of certain directional radio stations, IE people who 
only turn things on and off. The chief operator does not require one since
the GRT supercedes it. The chief operator need not ever *operate* the
station for that matter. He is merely the person the licensee has designated
as being *responsible* for the proper technical operation of the facility.
He need not be a staff person at all. In common talk we would probably
refer to him as Chief Engineer except that the Commission doesn't use
that language, nor does it require the chief operator to have purchasing
or hiring and firing priviledges normally associated with management
personnel. The chief operator is the designated "goat" if any improper
operations occur. 

This has all become rather confusing since the Commission has deregulated
in stages, and has applied different standards to directional, non-directional,
and television broadcast operations. Our communications lawyers are still
sending us bulletins on how to comply with the regulations in our TV and
radio stations. One thing for sure, the GRT has not gone away and is
required of the chief operator of a broadcast TV station. Ordinary operators
don't even require the RRP, in fact they never have, they used to need
the GRT too.

Gary
Senior Engineer Gannett Broadcast Group

And also:
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: popovich@cs.columbia.edu (Steve Popovich)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Organization: Columbia University
	<1icr4sINNl08@transfer.stratus.com> <8339@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:05:06 GMT

Analogies are such fun!  Warning, flame bait:

> So use the next road over that has plenty of open lanes, and goes the same
> places.

The problem is that the road that you are parked in is a wide, modern
Interstate highway, while the next road over is an ungraded cow path
that only certain premium-priced four-wheel drive vehicles can use
productively.  To be more exact:

> Under the rules by which a LOT of repeaters were coordinated, they do in fact
> own that frequency. The simple fact of the matter is that you will not be able
. to change that easily or cheaply, and you may well not be aboe to change it at
> all. Want to put up a repeater? Try 220, or 900, or 1200; there's plenty of
> spectrum out there just begging to be used.

Let's see now.  If we're making analogies, like everyone here seems to
be doing, 220 is a nice old highway through the country, part of which
has already been condemned and dug up for construction, and the rest
of which is under immediate threat of condemnation.  The government
wants to take the land (spectrum) it was built on in order to build a
toll road for commercial vehicles only (UPS, or whoever will end up
with the band now :-).  Even so, a few hardy souls are still using it.
(There's even one named W2AEE/R, a call sign near and dear to my own
heart, since when any of us operates HF from the Columbia University
club shack, we coincidentally use the call W2AEE. :-) 900 is full of
psycho semi-trailer and bulldozer drivers who are sufficiently bigger
than your car that they won't even notice if they hit you, but you'll
get creamed (all of those other services that we are secondary to on
that band).  And finally, 1200 is a rough, undeveloped dirt track in
the country with no gas stations, restaurants or support services of
any kind, requiring a special, premium sort of 4x4 called a Gunnplexer
in order to make use of it.  It'll break an axle on any ordinary sedan
(RF circuitry) that tries to roll over it and go somewhere :-).  And
face it, your standard mobile repeater user isn't going to be able to
stick a microwave dish on the roof of his car, aim it at the repeater
he wants to use, and keep it aimed while he's driving around.  Any
frequency where your transmission line is a waveguide just isn't going
to work for mobile use.  That kind of use simply demands good old
omnidirectional VHF/UHF mobile antennas, while something like, say, a
dedicated link in a sophisticated state-wide repeater system is quite
happy to sit with a parabolic dish aimed at the next parabolic dish
down the way, neither of which is going anywhere, except in the case
of earthquakes if your system is in California :-).

Yes, it's a lot of fun to create analogies, but why would anybody
think that it could possibly do us any good to do this?
	-Steve
From: clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 14:06:03 EST
 <1993Jan3.053500.18260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <1993Jan04.042108.17562@ssc.com>
Organization: Private UUCP "Twig" Node
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00

In article <1993Jan04.042108.17562@ssc.com>, Tad Cook writes:

> >You're right, I would apologize and attempt to change frequency, which might
> >be impossible in Southern California if the single 440 MHz simplex frequency 
> >was in use. I feel like it _*IS*_ the previous poster's right to operate
> >simplex unintentionally on a repeater input. I feel like it is the previous
> >poster's right to operate _*INTENTIONALLY*_ on a repeater's input frequency
> >_PROVIDED_IT_IS_NOT_CAUSING_INTERFERENCE_TO_ANOTHER_QSO_. While I may only
> >be a No-Code, I can read English. All the regulations I have read and seen
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>  Geeze.....I thought we were discussing this with someone who has long
> and distinguished experience with frequency coordination and FM repeaters!
> 
> Not to diminish the talents or abilities of a new ham, but it might

        Too late.

> be a good idea to ask some questions about the subject, rather than
> making all of these dire pronouncements based upon armchair lawyering!
> 
> e

        I don't see a smily above so you can interpret this however you
want.  Whether a ham does or does not know Morse Code does not at all
affect his intelligence, ability to read, ability to understand or ability
to have an opinion.  Geez, I thought we were all hams, all one big happy
family! (becoming one has sure changed my opinion).  Why are hams
constantly stabbing each other in the back, playing dirty pool, talking
down to others and always trying to make themselves appear superior to
others.  I don't quite understand.  I know of some Advanced, 12wpm hams
that couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag (and I'd prefer if they
didn't) and also some Basic's who are the smartest, most curteous hams I
know.  Their license class allows them to do what they want, so they don't
upgrade.  They feel that they shouldn't bother learning Morse if they never
plan to use it.

        The point is, no one should be judged by license class, age, hair
colour, size etc...  I get a lot of hard times because I'm young (relative
to our average ham population).  So I haven't made 1000's of QSO on 80.  So
what!?  That doesn't make me stupid or a waste of skin.  Just my opinions
coming through here.  If I have misinterpreted your message and it was
intended to be somewhat humourous, I'm sorry, but my opinions on the issue
still stand.

--
 Craig Lemon VE3XCL (Advanced) - Kitchener, Ontario. +1 519 741 0297
 clemon@lemsys.UUCP clemon%lemsys@xenitec.on.ca  | 1B Electrical Engineering
 TCP/IP: ve3xcl@ve3xcl.ampr.org [44.135.84.51]   |  University of Waterloo
 AX.25 Packet: ve3xcl@ve3euk.#SWON.ON.CAN.NA     | Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:32:38 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <8359@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>Tough. They got there first, way back when they were told to put there closed
>boxes on 440 in the first place. They did what they were told. Now you want to
>take it all away from them.

Seniority only counts in union shops Jay. Everyone else has to justify
their existance every day.

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
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: bwilkins@iat.holonet.net (Bob Wilkins n6fri)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Organization: the cAVe group
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:59:31 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
: 
: Ok, since we're being silly, make it rule number one that anyone who
: even mentions a lawyer, much less hires one, never gets a coordination.
: If they don't like that, they can start their own coordination body
: and coordinate themselves. The FCC won't mind. They've refused to
: give exclusive recognition to any coordinating body.
: 
: Gary

While the commission does not recognize any coordination body, they do
recognize the process. If there are two coordinating bodies in a given
area, the commission has ruled that both coordinating bodies must agree.
This has come before them in cases that are in border areas and the
landmark case in southern california with two 220 coordinating bodies.
Starting your own coordinating body is easy as all frequencies are
immediatly available. The tough part is convincing the neighboring
coordinating bodies of your finding. To solve some of these
interjurisdictional disputes , many small coordinating bodies have joined
to form super regional councils. This tends to take problem resolution out
of the locals hands and into a larger arena. Sometimes it takes a larger
venue to get gentleman to agree. After all this is what it is all about.

-- 
Bob Wilkins    n6fri          voice 440.250+ 100pl san francisco bay area
bwilkins@holonet.net          packet n6fri @ w6pw.#nocal.ca.usa.na
 
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: 430mhz band under th
Organization: very little
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 04:21:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.053500.18260@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> laborde@oak.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Gregory R. LaBorde) writes:
>In article <uJZTwB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>> 
>>I would agree with you if I made that assumption. It's certainly possible 
>>(though careless) to operate simplex unintentionally on a repeater input. 
>>If you or I inadvertently operate that way, and we had it brought to our 
>>attention, we'd apologize, and change frequency. 
>>
>>The impression I got from the previous poster was that he felt it was his 
>>right to operate anywhere in the band he felt like, and whether or not it 
>>brought up a repeater - as long as he couldn't hear anyone else on the 
>>channel. 
>>
>
>You're right, I would apologize and attempt to change frequency, which might
>be impossible in Southern California if the single 440 MHz simplex frequency 
>was in use. I feel like it _*IS*_ the previous poster's right to operate
>simplex unintentionally on a repeater input. I feel like it is the previous
>poster's right to operate _*INTENTIONALLY*_ on a repeater's input frequency
>_PROVIDED_IT_IS_NOT_CAUSING_INTERFERENCE_TO_ANOTHER_QSO_. While I may only
>be a No-Code, I can read English. All the regulations I have read and seen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 Geeze.....I thought we were discussing this with someone who has long
and distinguished experience with frequency coordination and FM repeaters!

Not to diminish the talents or abilities of a new ham, but it might
be a good idea to ask some questions about the subject, rather than
making all of these dire pronouncements based upon armchair lawyering!

e



-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 07:30:31 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:


>I (generic repeater trustee) followed all the procedures in place to get a
>frequency pair to put my repeater on. I agreed to use a particular fixed
>frequency, to follow limits on height and effective radiated power, and to
>keep out of everyone else's way. Once upon a time, that was good enough. Now
>you're telling me that it isn't.

I built this metal plating factory according to all the rules and carefully
routed my waste lines out to the leach field as instructed by the 
health inspector.  Now you're telling me I have to install pollution
controls AT MY EXPENSE in order to control the discharge of heavy 
metals and 1,1,1 TCE?  And I have to dig up all the old stuff AT MY
EXPENSE and truck it to a hazardous waste facility?

THAT's NOT FAIR.  You're changing the rules in mid-stream.

The rules of life change, Jay.  You can't squat in one place and remain,
particularly when you're squatting on a public resource.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters
Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:59:06 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan7.033238.29721@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Tough. They got there first, way back when they were told to put there closed
>>boxes on 440 in the first place. They did what they were told. Now you want to
>>take it all away from them.
>Seniority only counts in union shops Jay. Everyone else has to justify
>their existance every day.

OK, so come up with an objectively verifiable method for coordination that
does not include value judgments. Anything else generates income for lawyers.

-- 
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.
      "Science is all in the public domain, and allows few secrets."
              -- Tom Clancy, _The Sum of All Fears_