Ham Radio few problem
Tom Dengler
MD>in poor health, slowly approaching what amateur radio has become in
MD>southern california. Most of the problems have been with CBers coming
MD>into the hobby and bringing their bad habits with them. 90% of the
MD>callsigns I hear on local 2 meter repeaters are N1xxx no-code calls.
MD>The elmers have fled to the safety of private repeaters or other bands.
It is unfortunate that the elmers are fleeing. Being a newly liscensed
ham since January of this year I sure have appreciated the help that
more experienced hams have given me on the air.
If I make a misteak (spelling not included) then take the time to
correct me, but don't run away in disgust.
I was encouraged to get my code requirements because it was the only way
I was going to be able to use my HF rig, I didn't have a 2m rig at the
time. Having spent the time to learn code did not teach me any operating
skills/etiquitte, I am learning this from patient listening to advice.
If anything, the code requirements only taught me to be patient.
I doubt I'll ever use code again, I prefer digital modes on HF.
And hopefully I'll be able to contribute something to the hobby in the
way of my computer skills and yearn to learn.
Tom KE4IRV (/AG and still waiting)
deng...@iia.org
* SLMR 2.1a *
Roger Buffington
: MD>I'm glad that amateur radio in your area is healthy. In this area its
: * SLMR 2.1a *
:
I don't know why anyone would say that Southern California amateur radio
has been invaded by CBers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Southern California amateur radio has been invaded by ENTHUSIASTIC NEW
HAMS virtually all of whom are FB ops! And as far as all the elmers
fleeing to the private repeaters, rubbish. We have as nice a cross
section of hams on 2 meters as you could ask for, and virtually all of
the repeaters on 2M are characterized by courteous, excellent operating
practices. Incidentally, scores and scores of the new no-code folks out
here are upgrading to advanced and extra! FB! HF bands look out, new
blood is on the way.
I've been a radio amateur since 1966, and I've never seen our hobby as
healthy as it is now.
We have a few problem ops, and a few jammers. Mostly they congregate in
one or two spots, and the rest of us ignore 'em.
What IS true, is that in Southern California, back when coordination of
VHF/UHF was new, a bunch of old boys got themselves appointed as
coordinators for 440. These chaps then assigned THEMSELVES virtually all
of the 440 repeater pairs, which they proceeded to designate as closed or
private. This has effectively shut the average ham out of the 440 band
in Southern California, which is unfortunate.
Over 90 percent of repeaters in Southern Cal are closed to virtually all
hams, and this IS unwholesome. Eventually we will do something about it,
however.
73
--
ro...@netcom.com
Glendale, CA
AB6WR
Sandy Lynch
: Over 90 percent of repeaters in Southern Cal are closed to virtually all
: however.
What about it makes it "unwholesome"? Do these "closed" repeaters also
suffer the same or higher level of jamming, obscene/foul language, etc.
that the more "wholesome" open repeaters have?
There is certainly nothing "illegal" about a closed repeater, right? Or,
has there been a new FCC (not ARRL) edict on this? I know we don't
"own" the airwaves, but there's nothingin the rules that I've read that
says that ALL repeaters are owned by the public.
So, would it be better if there were FEWER total repeaters and more
simplex channels or, should we have more repeaters and make all of them
"open", or what?
AND, out of curosity, just exactly who is the "we" that are going
to do something about the unwholesomeness of closed repeaters?
And just what and when would "we" do it?
73 de Sandy
WA6BXH - sl...@netcom.com
PS: I don't live in California and have only very, very rarely used a
repeater - open or closed, during my own 30+ years as a ham; so I
admittedly don't know much about the problems which may exist there
and don't have much of an opinion - other than to ask what others
mean by theirs. ;-)
Andy Domonkos
>: MD>I'm glad that amateur radio in your area is healthy. In this area its
>: MD>in poor health, slowly approaching what amateur radio has become in
>: MD>southern california. Most of the problems have been with CBers coming
>: MD>into the hobby and bringing their bad habits with them. 90% of the
>: MD>callsigns I hear on local 2 meter repeaters are N1xxx no-code calls.
>: MD>The elmers have fled to the safety of private repeaters or other
bands.
>
The problem is the same it was when I got my ticket 17 years ago, a few bad
ops stand out, the good ones are transparent. There have ALWAYS been trouble
makers on the bands but as always, they eventually burn out and get replaced
w/new ones...just turn the frequency dial and they disappear. The only
problem w/some new ops is some of these folks can't even figure out how to
measure the SWR on their antennas until it's too late; these few individuals
have missed the point of the hobby...
Andy
Jeffrey Herman
>.....
>Over 90 percent of repeaters in Southern Cal are closed to virtually all
>hams, and this IS unwholesome. Eventually we will do something about it,
>however.
How? A lawsuit? Internally?
Is there a precedent for forcing someone to make public a private repeater?
Jeff NH6IL
hb...@sun.sws.uiuc.edu
I have a feeling that those have responded to this so far perhaps are
taking this statement the wrong way (please correct me if I'm wrong,
Roger). My interpretation of Roger's statment is that having 90% of HAM
repeaters closed to all HAMS is not necessarily in the best interests of
HAM radio in general, and that something needs to be done about the
attitudes or circumstances that have led these individuals or organizations
to keep thier repeaters closed. I never got the impression that legal
action was being considered or promoted.
My $.02 worth...
-Steve-
N9??? (passed test 3/20 and holding...)
Brad Ward
RB> nice a cross section of hams on 2 meters as you could ask for, and
RB> virtually all of the repeaters on 2M are characterized by courteous,
RB> excellent operating practices. Incidentally, scores and scores of the
I agree. It's a shame that a few repeaters such as .435 and 5.22
are giving people that impression.
RB> Over 90 percent of repeaters in Southern Cal are closed to virtually
RB> all hams, and this IS unwholesome. Eventually we will do something
RB> about it, however.
Well, that depends on where you look. The vast majority of the 2M
band is open, but the opposite is true of 440. 220 is (for the most
part) still open as well. I think the 220 band is radio's best
kept secret, at least from my location. There are plenty of free
repeaters that aren't packed. The only bad thing I can see in
Southern California (except for 440 being closed) is the amount of
people on the same repeaters at the same time. This really limits
the opportunities of having a quality QSO. One time I was driving
through the Valley and I felt like an air traffic controller trying
to get a signal report as fast as I could before someone else made
a call. They either need to open up 440 or put more repeaters on 2M,
because things aren't going to get any better...
KD6KYL
Santa Barbara,CA
... A feature is a bug with seniority.
Brad Ward
SL> also suffer the same or higher level of jamming, obscene/foul language,
SL> etc. that the more "wholesome" open repeaters have?
I think the problem with closed repeaters is the lack of opportunity.
I believe that I should have the same right as anyone else to use
a frequency.
SL> So, would it be better if there were FEWER total repeaters and more
SL> simplex channels or, should we have more repeaters and make all of
SL> them "open", or what?
I vote for the latter. Everything is becoming too crowded these days.
Open up the 440 band and relieve some of the congestion on 2M.
... Catch the Blue Wave!
Roger Buffington
: On Sun, 22 May 1994 17:08:39 GMT,
: Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
: My $.02 worth...
A fair interpretation of my remarks. Frankly, I've been trying to find
the time to get up a petition among Southern California hams to the ARRL
to challenge whether or not the present coordination of the 440 band is in
the best interests of the hobby. I've almost never spoken with an amateur
here in the area who is happy with 440 as it stands. A start would be to
challenge the ARRL sanctioning of the present coordination group.
It'll be a while before I get much done, as I start Law School in a few
months.
Roger Buffington
: : Over 90 percent of repeaters in Southern Cal are closed to virtually all
: : hams, and this IS unwholesome. Eventually we will do something about it,
: : however.
: What about it makes it "unwholesome"? Do these "closed" repeaters also
: suffer the same or higher level of jamming, obscene/foul language, etc.
: that the more "wholesome" open repeaters have?
: There is certainly nothing "illegal" about a closed repeater, right? Or,
: has there been a new FCC (not ARRL) edict on this? I know we don't
: "own" the airwaves, but there's nothingin the rules that I've read that
: says that ALL repeaters are owned by the public.
: So, would it be better if there were FEWER total repeaters and more
: simplex channels or, should we have more repeaters and make all of them
: "open", or what?
Nope, it's not illegal for repeaters to be closed or private. It IS
unwholesome, however, to have virtually an entire band's worth of
repeaters closed and private, excluding the average ham. These repeaters
are rarely used, and appear to serve as often as not as private
communications services for the repeater owners. In an area like So Cal
where there are lots of hams and crowded frequencies on 2 meters, it is
obvious to most of us that the present arrangement is far from satisfactory.
You are quite right that repeaters are often/usually privately owned.
But the frequencies they utilize are in the public domain for licensed
hams.
Personally, I believe that repeaters should be allowed to be closed or
private at the whim of the owner. But I also believe that closed and
private repeaters should simply not be coordinated, as in most cases such
repeaters do not represent optimum use of the spectrum. Many, I'm quite
sure most, amateurs in the area agree with me, and that is what it will take.
: AND, out of curosity, just exactly who is the "we" that are going
: to do something about the unwholesomeness of closed repeaters?
: And just what and when would "we" do it?
Stay tuned :-)
: 73 de Sandy
: WA6BXH - sl...@netcom.com
: PS: I don't live in California and have only very, very rarely used a
: repeater - open or closed, during my own 30+ years as a ham; so I
: admittedly don't know much about the problems which may exist there
: and don't have much of an opinion - other than to ask what others
: mean by theirs. ;-)
Jeffrey Herman
> SL> What about it makes it "unwholesome"? Do these "closed" repeaters
> SL> also suffer the same or higher level of jamming, obscene/foul language,
> SL> etc. that the more "wholesome" open repeaters have?
>
> I think the problem with closed repeaters is the lack of opportunity.
> I believe that I should have the same right as anyone else to use
> a frequency.
You're confusing not being able to use the machine with not being able to
use the frequencies - these are not synonymous. Since the machine is private
it has a coded squelch. Feel free operate simplex with others either on
the input or output when the repeater is not in use (you'll have to monitor
the output).
Some folks are under the mistaken impression that repeaters are public
property, but of course, that is not the case (and has been affirmed
by a California court).
Rather than trying to invade or force closed repeaters to open, why not,
instead, ask yourself why closed repeaters exist?
If you WERE successful in opening a closed machine, would any of the members
want to talk to you?
> SL> So, would it be better if there were FEWER total repeaters and more
> SL> simplex channels or, should we have more repeaters and make all of
> SL> them "open", or what?
I'm all for banning any new repeaters. Encourage more simplex operation.
I can remember when L.A. had only one repeater (K6MYK - Art Gentry's AM
machine up on Mount Lee, Hollywood Hills; How is Art? - heard he was in
the hospital).
I've since left VHF for HF CW. Love it!
>... Catch the Blue Wave!
Huh?
Jeff NH6IL (ex WA6QIJ)
Roger Bly
Roger Buffington <ro...@netcom.com> wrote:
>A fair interpretation of my remarks. Frankly, I've been trying to find
>the time to get up a petition among Southern California hams to the ARRL
>to challenge whether or not the present coordination of the 440 band is in
>the best interests of the hobby. I've almost never spoken with an amateur
>here in the area who is happy with 440 as it stands. A start would be to
>challenge the ARRL sanctioning of the present coordination group.
>It'll be a while before I get much done, as I start Law School in a few
>months.
Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service. We should
probably get more organized.
I said it before, but the FCC is willing to consider a "close repeater ban".
There there are several commissioners (I know one personally) that are
sympathetic to our cause. They say the request (RFR) must come from the amateur
community or politically they can not act. I have not been active on lobbying
the ARRL... attacking the coordinating bodies might be a new angle on this...
PS. My wife is a communications lawyer... What school are you going to?
Roger Bly
--
Roger Bly
ro...@brooktree.com
Roger Buffington
: In article <rogjdCq...@netcom.com>,
: Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
: jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service. We should
: probably get more organized.
: I said it before, but the FCC is willing to consider a "close repeater ban".
: There there are several commissioners (I know one personally) that are
: sympathetic to our cause. They say the request (RFR) must come from the amateur
: community or politically they can not act. I have not been active on lobbying
: the ARRL... attacking the coordinating bodies might be a new angle on this...
: PS. My wife is a communications lawyer... What school are you going to?
: Roger Bly
: --
: Roger Bly
: ro...@brooktree.com
I will be attending the USC Law Center this fall. BTW, hope you're
kidding about the jamming. We should all work within the law.
The idea of getting up a petition is a good one. The concept I favor is
that closed repeaters would be legal, but they would simply not be
coordinated. Therefore any time a closed or private repeater conflicted
with a repeater coordinated as open to all licensed amateurs, the latter
would have the right of way.
Southern California is ripe for reform of the 440 band coordination. It
is scandalous that it has become almost silly to bother buying a dual band
HT, as the 440 band is effectively closed to all but a few good old boys.
System Operator
> Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
> jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
> probably get more organized.
Yup folks, another fine example of how to "quantity before quality"
attitude in Ham Radio is swelling our ranks with "fine" operators who
think that jamming is perfectly acceptable.
10-4!
MD
Nathan N. Duehr
: however.
I agree with AB6WR, something does need to be done about this. I visited
SoCal recently and could only get one ham to talk to me on a 2m/70cm
repeater the entire time I was in L.A.
This compared to an area where only one 2m repeater has a subaudible
tone on it due to the pagers on the same mountain. And it can be shut
off with a simple 0* command and turned back on with a 1*. Most of the
440 machines has subaudible tones in the Denver metro area out of
necessity from interferance, also, but none of the machines are truly
"closed" to other hams.
Southern California has taken the hobby out of ham radio and turned 2m
into a ham-commercial band. Sad.
73 de Nate, N0NTZ
--
Regards,
Nate Duehr
Jeffrey Herman
>>ro...@btree.brooktree.com (Roger Bly) writes:
>From QRZ! CD:
>KA6MWT
> ROGER G. BLY JR License: Advanced 10/8/91
> 4740 MOUNT ETNA DR Born: 12/24/63
> SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
>
>But most people want strict code requirements, which didn't work to filter
>this lid out.. It is not a matter of making sure someone can copy @ <put
>favorite number here>WPM the problem is that we have people who are willing to
>use illegal activity to affect their desired ends. This is not some form of
>'civil disobedience' afterall he is certainly not using these repeaters
>without permission, he is simply making it impossible to use them at all.
>Perhaps if the rules were set to insure that everyone understood the reasons
>we have amateur radio and the way it is supposed to be a service the community
>we have fewer closed repeaters and fewer jammers. perhaps the examination
>process should stress these aspects more than code speed or RF theory. It
>would also be nice if the FCC would take some action against an intentional
>jammer, especially when he repeatedly boasts about it in a public forum.
Good point, Dan (except for the code part ;). Maybe we should petition
the FCC to include a psychological exam in addition to the code and theory
tests; that might help weed out the potential trouble makers who would
consider jamming to show their displeasure.
What's the current fine for intentional jamming? $10,000?
Who is it that keeps claiming that VHF/UHF is healthy in So. Cal?
Sure glad we don't regularly have these problems down on HF CW.
73 Dan,
Jeff NH6IL
Daniel D. Todd
>Subject: Re: Ham Radio few problem
>Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 15:16:35 GMT
>ro...@btree.brooktree.com (Roger Bly) writes:
From QRZ! CD:
KA6MWT
ROGER G. BLY JR License: Advanced 10/8/91
4740 MOUNT ETNA DR Born: 12/24/63
SAN DIEGO, CA 92117
But most people want strict code requirements, which didn't work to filter
this lid out.. It is not a matter of making sure someone can copy @ <put
favorite number here>WPM the problem is that we have people who are willing to
use illegal activity to affect their desired ends. This is not some form of
'civil disobedience' afterall he is certainly not using these repeaters
without permission, he is simply making it impossible to use them at all.
Perhaps if the rules were set to insure that everyone understood the reasons
we have amateur radio and the way it is supposed to be a service the community
we have fewer closed repeaters and fewer jammers. perhaps the examination
process should stress these aspects more than code speed or RF theory. It
would also be nice if the FCC would take some action against an intentional
jammer, especially when he repeatedly boasts about it in a public forum.
cheers,
Dan
=========================================================================
Dan Todd ddt...@ucdavis.edu kc6uud@ke6lw.#nocal.ca.us.na
Charter Member: Dummies for UNIX
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When radios are outlawed, only outlaws will have radios
- David R. Tucker on rec.radio.amateur.policy
==========================================================================
Michael P. Deignan
ddt...@ucdavis.edu (Daniel D. Todd) writes:
> But most people want strict code requirements, which didn't work to filter
> this lid out.. It is not a matter of making sure someone can copy @ <put
> favorite number here>WPM the problem is that we have people who are willing
> to use illegal activity to affect their desired ends.
Most of the Truely Enlightened[tm] realize that the code test by itself
is not an adequate lid filter, but instead its the constant lowering of
requirements in general that, in an attempt to make the hobby "less
exclusionary" or the "first step in a life-long learning process", simply
lets the "Barbarians at the Gate" ruin an otherwise enjoyable hobby for
everyone.
> This is not some form of
> 'civil disobedience' afterall he is certainly not using these repeaters
> without permission, he is simply making it impossible to use them at all.
> Perhaps if the rules were set to insure that everyone understood the reasons
> we have amateur radio and the way it is supposed to be a service the comunity
> we have fewer closed repeaters and fewer jammers.
Perhaps if we had an enforcement agency which actually did something
instead of letting the amateur bands constantly slip closer and closer to
their 27mhz counterparts.....
> perhaps the examination
> process should stress these aspects more than code speed or RF theory. It
> would also be nice if the FCC would take some action against an intentional
> jammer, especially when he repeatedly boasts about it in a public forum.
Since most jammers I have encountered have other psychological problems,
I doubt that even insuring that they understand what amateur radio is
"all about" will make much difference. People like this aren't
interested in amateur radio, they're interested in other things like
self-worth augmentation though "recognition" by disrupting other
people's enjoyment, no doubt subliminally thinking that since their life
is miserable, they might as well share the wealth.
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan
-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."
Jeffrey Herman
>
>: Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
>: jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
Ah yes, the `new blood' that will save the hobby. They practice jamming when
they don't get their way, then brag about it. What a filthy disgrace.
>: There there are several FCC commissioners (I know one personally) that are
>: sympathetic to our cause.
And does this FCC commissioner that you personally know also know that you
are a jammer? I doubt he would be very sympathetic, and would surely distance
himself from you if he found out.
>: PS. My wife is a communications lawyer.
And has your communications lawyer wife counselled you concerning your jamming
activities? If she knows you're jamming and condones it then she's a lawyer
of the lowest class.
The newspapers would have a field day if you get caught: ``Husband of
communications lawyer gets arrested for intentional radio jamming.''
That would do wonders for her career.
>: Roger Bly
>: ro...@brooktree.com
For those who are interested, he's KA6MWT
Someone send this guy either a copy of Part 97 or a CB radio. His article
has perfectly explained the need for closed repeaters.
Jeff NH6IL
Roger Buffington
SNIP
: Who is it that keeps claiming that VHF/UHF is healthy in So. Cal?
I'm the guy, Jeff: AB6WR..... name is Roger. (Not the same Roger who
referred to jamming earlier in this thread!)
I can assure you that in Southern California we take as dim a view of
jammers as is done anywhere else. Fortunately, the problem is manageable
and the jammers are reasonably few. T-hunting is big in our area, and
often if a jammer gets too out of hand he gets tracked down and
identified. These creeps tend to lose their enthusiasm for jamming when
they know that others know who they are.
Jeffrey Herman
>
> Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
> jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
Wait a minute! Now I remember this guy. Recall back in December he posted
an article stating how easy it is to operate in Southern California
without a license, and how he bragged he had done that for years?
And he has the gall to use the subject line: `Ham Radio - few problems'.
I guess one never sees oneself as a problem.
In December someone on here chastised me for calling him a criminal and
saying `once a criminal always a criminal'; now he's jamming closed repeaters.
Sigh.
Back to HF CW where everyone's licensed and there's no jamming.
Jeff NH6IL
Michael P. Deignan
ro...@netcom.com (Roger Buffington) writes:
> I can assure you that in Southern California we take as dim a view of
> jammers as is done anywhere else. Fortunately, the problem is manageable
> and the jammers are reasonably few. T-hunting is big in our area, and
> often if a jammer gets too out of hand he gets tracked down and
> identified. These creeps tend to lose their enthusiasm for jamming when
> they know that others know who they are.
In a recent conversation with a fellow ham out in CA, KD1NR, a
fellow ham in this area, exchanged information regarding how we have
caught a jammer with hard evidence and nobody will do anything about
it. Apparently, from his conversation, it would appear that similar
incidents occur on a regular basis out in CA, with even professional
RF folks at NASA doing jammer hunting with $100k+ equipment, only to
bag people and have nothing done at all about it.
Perhaps your glasses are a little too rose colored, Roger?
Roger Buffington
: ro...@netcom.com (Roger Buffington) writes:
: > I can assure you that in Southern California we take as dim a view of
: > jammers as is done anywhere else. Fortunately, the problem is manageable
: > and the jammers are reasonably few. T-hunting is big in our area, and
: > often if a jammer gets too out of hand he gets tracked down and
: > identified. These creeps tend to lose their enthusiasm for jamming when
: > they know that others know who they are.
: In a recent conversation with a fellow ham out in CA, KD1NR, a
: fellow ham in this area, exchanged information regarding how we have
: caught a jammer with hard evidence and nobody will do anything about
: it. Apparently, from his conversation, it would appear that similar
: incidents occur on a regular basis out in CA, with even professional
: RF folks at NASA doing jammer hunting with $100k+ equipment, only to
: bag people and have nothing done at all about it.
: Perhaps your glasses are a little too rose colored, Roger?
See, now that's the kind of comment that does not contribute to
meaningful dialogue.
Oh for God's sake, who's saying we're perfect? We aren't, ask us! The
fact is though, that except for the crud magnet repeaters, of which there
are a couple, jammers are not common. I operate almost 2 hours a day on
2 meter FM repeaters during my commute, and maybe run into a jammer once
or twice a month. That's not gossip or hearsay, old chap. That's a fact.
Perhaps you are focusing on hearsay and gossip rather than experience?
The NASA $100K equipment story sounds more made-up than anything else.
As far as FCC enforcement goes, I'll agree that it leaves a bit to be
desired. It is my understanding that the FCC tends to focus on HF
jamming and violations, for obvious reasons.
: MD
: --
: -- Michael P. Deignan
: -- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
: -- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."
Michael P. Deignan
> See, now that's the kind of comment that does not contribute to
> meaningful dialogue.
I believe its a valid question. Perhaps you are too close to the
situation, and your expectations are such that you are unwilling or
unable to see how things have deteriorated.
Then again, maybe the repeater(s) you frequent don't have the problems
I've encountered in two dozen states.
> Perhaps you are focusing on hearsay and gossip rather than experience?
Nope, those are my experiences. Sorry they differ from yours. Perhaps
its simply a matter of perspective. How long have you been involved in
ham radio? I've been around it for a decade, so perhaps my expectations
are based upon what I thought ham radio was, or what I expected it to
be, when I was introduced to it a decade ago.
> The NASA $100K equipment story sounds more made-up than anything else.
Well, since I've never known KD1NR to lie, nor have I known the person
he spoke with (someone who posts here infrequently) to lie either, I
have no reason to assume its "made up".
Roger Buffington
: I believe its a valid question. Perhaps you are too close to the
: situation, and your expectations are such that you are unwilling or
: unable to see how things have deteriorated.
On the other hand, perhaps you are too prone to complain rather than
simply enjoy the hobby. I travelled for years on business to virtually
every major city in the 48 States, and the only place I was flat-out
unable to enjoy the hobby was New York City. I'll agree that the hobby
there has attracted an inordinate share of jammers. Everywhere else I
found the 2 meter repeater scene to be friendly and in good order.
Forgive me, but I think my powers of observation are as good as yours. :-)
: Then again, maybe the repeater(s) you frequent don't have the problems
: I've encountered in two dozen states.
Encountered, or been plagued by? We all encounter jammers if we work 2
meters long enough. Are you telling me that it was so bad that your
enjoyment of the hobby was seriously inhibited. That strains credibility
past the breaking point.
: > Perhaps you are focusing on hearsay and gossip rather than experience?
: Nope, those are my experiences. Sorry they differ from yours. Perhaps
: its simply a matter of perspective. How long have you been involved in
: ham radio? I've been around it for a decade, so perhaps my expectations
: are based upon what I thought ham radio was, or what I expected it to
: be, when I was introduced to it a decade ago.
Well, let's see. I was first licensed in 1966. Guess that makes it 28
years. (Got my Advanced in 67 (or was it 68? Can't remember any more :-)
). In those days there were only a couple of repeaters in LA. They got
jammed now and again. We still enjoyed the hobby though. Just like now.
As for your expectations a decade ago: Maybe you just expected a perfect
world and are frustrated when it contains the usual quota of rogues? Life
does have a way at times of not measuring up to expectations! :-)
: > The NASA $100K equipment story sounds more made-up than anything else.
: Well, since I've never known KD1NR to lie, nor have I known the person
: he spoke with (someone who posts here infrequently) to lie either, I
: have no reason to assume its "made up".
The NASA deal sounds hokey to me. But if someone represents that it
happened, then I'll accept it. But normally the guys that to the RDF in
LA have the standard loop antenna and simple good operating skills. Not
$100K NASA super dooper gizmo doodads. (Just like everywhere else.)
: MD
: --
: -- Michael P. Deignan
: -- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
: -- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."
Richard Furuta
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>>Roger Bly (ro...@btree.brooktree.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
>>: jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
>Ah yes, the `new blood' that will save the hobby. They practice jamming when
>they don't get their way, then brag about it. What a filthy disgrace.
[...]
>For those who are interested, he's KA6MWT
There is absolutely no justification for taking KA6MWT's outrageous
statement and using it to slam the no-code license. I don't think
these extreme statement do anyone any good.
Since it's possible with a little research in the callsign server to
figure out that Roger Bly's call is KA6MWT, it is also quite simple to
notice that holders of calls in this region have been licensed for
quite some time---since at least the mid-1980's. Whether or not
KA6MWT is a lid has nothing at all to do with current licensing
policy.
It's bad enough when the arguments keep repeating over and over. It's
getting destructive when they become ad hominem.
--Rick
KE3IV
Jeffrey Herman
>In article <CqL07...@news.hawaii.edu>,
>Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>>>Roger Bly (ro...@btree.brooktree.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>: Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
>>>: jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
>> ^^^^^^^
>>Ah yes, the `new blood' that will save the hobby. They practice jamming when
>>they don't get their way, then brag about it. What a filthy disgrace.
>
> [...]
>
>>For those who are interested, he's KA6MWT
>
>There is absolutely no justification for taking KA6MWT's outrageous
>statement and using it to slam the no-code license. I don't think
>these extreme statement do anyone any good.
Whoa, not so fast. I said `new blood' not `no-code'. The guy is an
Advanced not a Tech.
IMO, mistakes the FCC made which made it easier for people like Roger to become
a ham (to, I suppose, build up our numbers but not necessarily our quality)
were the VE system, and easy-to-pass tests.
Jeff NH6IL
John E. Taylor III
(Roger Bly) wrote:
> Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
> jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service. We should
^^^^^^^
> probably get more organized.
Sounds like you're the reason they have closed repeaters out there on the
West Coast.
> I said it before, but the FCC is willing to consider a "close repeater ban".
> There there are several commissioners (I know one personally) that are
> sympathetic to our cause. They say the request (RFR) must come from the amateur
> community or politically they can not act. I have not been active on lobbying
> the ARRL... attacking the coordinating bodies might be a new angle on this...
Most recently the FCC has affirmed that the repeater operator has the right
to say who uses the repeater. If you jammers are such jerks that the
operator doesn't want you using his machine, he can boot you off even an
_open_ repeater.
--
John Taylor (W3ZID) | "The opinions expressed are those of the
rohvm1...@rohmhaas.com | writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."
Brian Kantor
>I agree with AB6WR, something does need to be done about this. I visited
>SoCal recently and could only get one ham to talk to me on a 2m/70cm
>repeater the entire time I was in L.A.
Most of the repeaters on all bands in SoCal are PL (subaudible tone)
squelched, yet most are still open. They are that way because there
are NO clear channels; every single pair is shared with another
repeater somewhere and the tone squelch helps cut down on people keying
repeaters they don't intend to use. Do not make the mistake of
thinking that just because the repeater requires a tone, it is closed.
Check the repeater guides available at any local ham radio store.
However, the majority of the systems to be found on the 440 band in
SoCal ARE closed, as by longstanding areawide agreement, that's the
band where closed repeaters are to be located. In this way, people who
are not invited on one or more closed repeaters can save themselves the
cost and hassle of investing in equipment for that band.
It seems to me that's a workable compromise. Closed systems are legal
and fully supported by the FCC; by balkanizing them to a band by
themselves they are removed to a place where they should not annoy
people. This was done long before 440 radios where available at ham
radio stores, and long before most of you discovered the world above
30 MHz. Certainly it was done long before the ARRL arrogated band
planning to itself in the late seventies.
The SoCal 2m, 220, and 1200 MHz bands contain a number (a majority, in
the first two cases) of open repeaters. Enough, in fact, that every
repeater pair has at least two systems on it, and often more.
There are a few open systems on 440 - there are three of them here in
San Diego alone, and they are not at all busy - which a visitor using
440 equipment could easily use. Again, they are tone squelch for
interference avoidance, not because they're closed. I wonder if part of
the problem is that SoCal uses a low-in/high-out scheme (which works
better in our area because of the extremely high density of commercial
systems on the 450-470 band), and thus visitors to the area don't
hear much of anything on the band because they're listening in the
wrong half!
I do not see why people would go out and buy equipment for a place
where they aren't welcome. This is, perhaps, mostly the fault of the
ham radio stores; they don't tell people that the dual-band x/440
radios are really only useful if you are invited on one of the closed
systems on 440. Luckily, manufacturers are now selling 2m/220 and
2m/220/1200 radios which should be much more popular.
- Brian
Brian Kantor
> Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
> jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
Mr. Bly is well known in the San Diego Amateur Radio scene. In my
opinion, he does not represent a majority of the area's amateurs.
- Brian
Jeff Jones
best in ham radio. Sighhhh....
Jeff
--
Jeff Jones AB6MB
je...@crl.com
Todd Little
In article <1994May31.1...@cs.brown.edu>, m...@maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
|>ro...@btree.brooktree.com (Roger Bly) writes:
|>
|>> malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
|>> for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
|>> conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
|>> and the Communications Act of 1934.
|>
|>Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
|>define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
|>on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
|>in fact violating Part 97.
Please cite the relevant rule from Part 97 that disallows the use of a closed
repeater? My recollection is that it simply allows the repeater owner to
disallow the use of his/her equipment, i.e. the repeater owner may turn
off the repeater if they choose not to allow outsiders to use the equipment.
The frequency on the other hand is clearly owned by whomever is using it at
the time. Part 97 does _not_ grant exclusive use of a frequency to the
repeaters owner. The coordination portion of Part 97 only mentions
interference to a coordinated repeater from another uncoordinated repeater.
That is as close as the FCC goes to granting exclusive use of an amateur
frequency.
|>You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.
Well many of us feel that you are a prime example of why we should have
retroactive abortions. :-)
Also, can this discussion PLEASE move to rec.radio.amateur.policy where such
tripe belongs? Thank you.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Neil D. Pignatano
Roger Bly <ro...@btree.brooktree.com> wrote:
>
>You all really extrapolate on that jamming word. :-)
>
>By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
>malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
>for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
>conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
>and the Communications Act of 1934.
Unauthorized use of private property (in this case, closed repeaters)
may be construed as trespassing or even theft! I hope that you and your
cronies are prepared to pay the price for your "civil disobedience."
Just because you operate "legally" within Part 97 and the Communications
Act of 1934 doesn't mean that you haven't broken any other law. You may
be in violation of civil/criminal codes regarding trespass and the right
to posession of property. Think about it...
Regards,
Neil (kn6vj)
Neil D. Pignatano
n...@misr-fsw.jpl.nasa.gov
"Plastic People, oh, baby, you're such a drag!"
-Frank Zappa
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are mine...JPL can get their own!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Herman
[in regards to Roger Bly's `jamming' closed repeaters (and possibly also in
regards to Bly's years of operating with a license)]
>You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.
How many swats should be imposed upon his behind, Mike? I vote for 8 (4 didn't
seems to hurt Fay very much). Which one of you closed repeater owners would
like to administer the swats?
Jeff NH6IL
Roger Bly
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>ro...@btree.brooktree.com (Roger Bly) writes:
>>
>> Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
>> jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service.
>
>In December someone on here chastised me for calling him a criminal and
>saying `once a criminal always a criminal'; now he's jamming closed repeaters.
You all really extrapolate on that jamming word. :-)
By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
and the Communications Act of 1934.
Roger Bly
--
Roger Bly
ro...@brooktree.com
Roger Bly
Neil D. Pignatano <n...@misr-fsw.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Unauthorized use of private property (in this case, closed repeaters)
>may be construed as trespassing or even theft! I hope that you and your
>cronies are prepared to pay the price for your "civil disobedience."
>Just because you operate "legally" within Part 97 and the Communications
>Act of 1934 doesn't mean that you haven't broken any other law. You may
>be in violation of civil/criminal codes regarding trespass and the right
>to posession of property. Think about it...
Good points! That is exactly where this issue currently is legally.
The LA 145.22 repeater war/lawsuits are being closely watched by those of
us active in this.
Operating on a closed repeater is not a trespass (at least on a common
law trespass). It is probably a violation of "right to possession" codes.
The owners of a closed repeater are damaged if I use that repeater without
permission. Damages would probably be club dues used for operating expenses.
This is uncharted legal ground, so who knows. For a while we were fishing
for a law suit in order to challenge/define these laws as they pertain to
radio repeater access.
Of course you can avoid all this is you just operate simplex on the repeater
input w/o intent to access the repeater, just use a clear frequency.
Agreed, These laws and the FCC say the repeater
owner has the right to deny access to any station by DPL, turning the
machine off, etc. and that makes perfect sense. None of this is a problem
until you only have 3 open repeaters. You can't put up another open 440
repeater that the community demands because all the closed repeaters are
"coordinated". The greater community is being damaged by the closed repeater
owners and by the coordinating bodies. There is no doubt that as the
ranks swell, more and more pressure will be put on the closed repeaters to
open or make way for open machine. To speed the process up, class action
suits against the owners and coordinating bodies are being considered.
I like the "closed means no coordination" policy several people mentioned.
We should all put pressure on the coordinating bodies to adopt this.
Closed repeaters don't fit the spirit and intent of amateur radio.
What do we do when the bands shrink, the ranks grow, and the number of
closed repeaters increases? Do we just give up on the hobby? Do we operate
only on the 1 or 2 frequencies where we can afford the dues? Should
We really have to be INVITED to operate on the 440 band like Brian Kantor
says? We are dangerously close to this in So. Cal., other cities can't
be far behind.
Roger Bly
Jeffrey Herman <jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>What did your FCC commissioner-friend and communications lawyer-wife think
>of your unlicensed operations?
Because it was such a small insignificant part of their lives, they didn't
care. If you had a life, you wouldn't either :-). They know I'm a radio
pirate and they still love me. We've had some great discussions about
low-level microbroadcasting, citizen's bands, jamming, and even
the evil's of closed repeaters :-).
Roger
--
Roger Bly
ro...@brooktree.com
John Schmidt
> Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
> define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
> on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
> in fact violating Part 97.
> You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.
> MD
Nonsense, Mike. Part 97 says only that repeater trustees may restrict
access. There is no distinction in the regs between open or closed repeaters.
In other words, if someone gets on the frequency, and they happen
to activate the repeater, the control op has the option of shutting down the
repeater or activating other measures to restrict usage to all but authorized
users. This is the meaning of "restrict access", IMO. You may own a
repeater, but you don't own a frequency -- and I believe part 97 supports
that view, since the only protection repeaters are given is against other
uncoordinated repeaters on the same frequency (and malicious interference, of
course). The latest edition of part 97 even states that unintended triggering
of carrier-operated repeaters by spread spectrum transmissions is not
considered interference. If the FCC has ever taken action against hams who were
only attempting to use a repeater (non maliciously), I haven't heard of it and
would be interested in any actual cases. Note that in the current case in
California, the FCC has apparently chosen not to take action so far.
As a repeater trustee myself and an officer for several years of a repeater
club, I'd be very interested in any evidence to the contrary.
If you insist on operating a system closed to all but a select few, it's up
to you to secure it appropriately. If you took reasonable measures to secure
a machine (such as requiring a tone sequence on a control frequency to
activate it) you might have a case against unauthorized users. If the repeater
is carrier or PL-access, I doubt your arguments, impassioned as they are,
cut any mustard with the FCC, since you are not taking any effective
measures to restrict access.
Fortunately, here in Colorado we have only a few "closed" machines, although
almost all clubs restrict phone patches to members. We deal with the few
problem users, and the FCC field office is very cooperative. Even in
urban areas (Denver/Boulder) "open" is the general expectation, and it
works well. New users try out a range of machines, and usually wind up joining
the group(s) that operate the machines they use the most, usually with little
or no pressure. Perhaps the fact that our repeater operators have a better
attitude than some in California or on the East Coast leads to fewer problems
and more cooperation from our local FCC staff.
73,
John, NK0R
Michael P. Deignan
> By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
> malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
> for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
> conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
> and the Communications Act of 1934.
Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
in fact violating Part 97.
You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.
MD
Michael P. Deignan
> I do not see why people would go out and buy equipment for a place
> where they aren't welcome. This is, perhaps, mostly the fault of the
> ham radio stores; they don't tell people that the dual-band x/440
> radios are really only useful if you are invited on one of the closed
> systems on 440. Luckily, manufacturers are now selling 2m/220 and
> 2m/220/1200 radios which should be much more popular.
You know, this is a good point which most people don't even think
of. Closed repeaters on 440mhz were the standard in most areas,
because 2m was heavily used and the coordinating bodies wanted to
insure that the open repeaters were coordinated on frequencies which
many people used.
Of course, over time, demographics change. With the demand for dual-
band radios over the past two years, people are able to inexpensively
get on 440mhz. Then they cry FOUL! when they find out that most 440mhz
repeaters are closed. Well, that's tough. Five to ten years ago when
you wanted to set up a closed repeater you were told you had to do it
on 440mhz. So, you make the investment and do it. Now, just because of
the influx of many VHF operators and low-cost equipment you're going to
change the rules, after trustees have spent thousands of dollars, simply
because some people are mad that they can't yack on 440mhz without
joining a repeater group?
As the trustee of a coordinated closed repeater, if anyone told me that I had
a choice to either "open" my machine or loose coordination, I would opt for
choice number three: protect my legal, FCC-recognized closed repeater
coordination via litigation.
Gary Coffman
>a choice to either "open" my machine or loose coordination, I would opt for
>choice number three: protect my legal, FCC-recognized closed repeater
>coordination via litigation.
And after enriching the lawyers to the tune of several thousands or tens
of thousands of dollars, you could still lose. The FCC does *not* recognize
closed repeater *coordination*. All they recognize is closed repeater
*operation*. They recognize coordination status *only* in resolving mutual
interference issues without regard to issues of closed or open. The FCC
doesn't mandate a particular coordination policy. Coordination policy is
a public policy issue internal to the amateur community, made and administered
by local amateurs, and courts have traditionally been reluctant to overturn
such policies absent a compelling public benefit.
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 | |
Dana Myers
In article F...@news.Hawaii.Edu, jhe...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
[Text edited out, including a note from Roger Bly claiming to jam closed repeaters]
>Who is it that keeps claiming that VHF/UHF is healthy in So. Cal?
Me, Jeff. Me. If it makes you sleep better at night to think that VHF/UHF
is all rife with jamming and poor operating in Southern California, then go
ahead and keep ignoring reality. My experience is, most repeaters in Southern
California are *not* constantly jammed, most operators on VHF/UHF in Southern
California *are* good operators, but we do have a few well known examples of
"trouble". Nonetheless, in a private conversation with one of the FCC PRB
staffers, it was expressed to me that every major population center in the
USA has at least one "trouble spot", but that somehow Southern California has
gained the most attention.
Heck, in 1978 when I got on 2m, the WR6ABM repeater (later WB6AAE, I recall)
was constantly jammed. This machine was in the Oakland hills, far away from
Southern Calfornia and long before the dropping of the code requirement from
the Technician license. Guess what? This machine was just like the MWRA
147.435 machine is today! Guess what? This didn't mean that VHF was unhealthy
in Northern California 16 years ago.
>Sure glad we don't regularly have these problems down on HF CW.
Well, if it makes one feel better to think that HF CW is free of jamming and
poor operating, then please continue to ignore reality. I regularly use HF
CW (on 20m, 17m, 15m, 12m and 10m), and I've heard incidents of jamming and
poor operating. The DX pile-ups are good examples of ill-mannered HF CW
operating. I've also heard people intentionally jamming, in CW, DX pileups
and SSB nets. Does this mean HF CW is all bad? Not any more than VHF/UHF
is all bad.
It is common human nature for insecure, unhappy people to deride others.
Too bad some have to cope with their frailties by condemning others, no?
---
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are *
* (310) 348-6043 | mine and do not necessarily *
* Dana....@West.Sun.Com | reflect those of my employer *
* This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *
Jeffrey Herman
> We operate legally within Part 97
>and the Communications Act of 1934.
>
>Roger Bly
Really? What about those years you operated without a license? Are you
selecting sections of Part 97 to abide by and rejecting others?
What did your FCC commissioner-friend and communications lawyer-wife think
of your unlicensed operations?
Jeff NH6IL
System Operator
> Agreed, These laws and the FCC say the repeater
> owner has the right to deny access to any station by DPL, turning the
> machine off, etc. and that makes perfect sense. None of this is a problem
> until you only have 3 open repeaters.
Maybe you ought to look at yourself as a reason why people want closed
repeaters in the first place.
> You can't put up another open 440
> repeater that the community demands because all the closed repeaters are
> "coordinated".
So? Move up to 1.2ghz.
> The greater community is being damaged by the closed repeater
> owners and by the coordinating bodies.
Opinion, not fact. Around here, closed repeaters contribute heavily to
the amateur radio community, offering sanctuaries away from the increasing
number of CB transplants that are destroying 2 meters.
> There is no doubt that as the
> ranks swell, more and more pressure will be put on the closed repeaters to
> open or make way for open machine. To speed the process up, class action
> suits against the owners and coordinating bodies are being considered.
I highly encourage you to litigate. I can't wait to see the courts laugh in
your face.
> I like the "closed means no coordination" policy several people mentioned.
> We should all put pressure on the coordinating bodies to adopt this.
If I applied for and was denied coordination simply because my machine
was going to be "closed", you can bet the coordinating body would be
hearing from an attorney. Since the FCC recognizes that repeaters can
be closed, a coordinating body's denial of coordination on the basis of
"open" or "closed" status is illegal and discriminatory.
> Closed repeaters don't fit the spirit and intent of amateur radio.
That's your opinion. And, with people like you in the hobby, I'm surprised
that ALL the machines in SoCal aren't closed.
> What do we do when the bands shrink, the ranks grow, and the number of
> closed repeaters increases? Do we just give up on the hobby? Do we operate
> only on the 1 or 2 frequencies where we can afford the dues?
Ah yes, now we see all. Translated: "I don't want to have to pay to use
someone else's equipment." Yup, the good old welfare-state mentality once
again. "HEY! I'm BREATHING, aren't I?!? Its my RIGHT!"
Maybe you should move up to 1.2ghz or 2.4ghz. Lots of spectrum up there
for open repeaters, and spectrum that we're in danger of loosing due to
underutilization.
What? Oh, equipment for those bands is too expensive, or you can't buy
an appliance radio for those bands at the local HRO? Well, gee, isn't
that just too bad. Sounds like the same issue closed repeater owners faced
years ago when they wanted to set up a closed repeater and were told they'd
have to do it on 440mhz.
MD
Dana Myers
>
>ro...@netcom.com (Roger Buffington) writes:
>
>> I can assure you that in Southern California we take as dim a view of
>> jammers as is done anywhere else. Fortunately, the problem is manageable
>> and the jammers are reasonably few. T-hunting is big in our area, and
>> often if a jammer gets too out of hand he gets tracked down and
>> identified. These creeps tend to lose their enthusiasm for jamming when
>> they know that others know who they are.
>
>In a recent conversation with a fellow ham out in CA, KD1NR, a
>fellow ham in this area, exchanged information regarding how we have
>caught a jammer with hard evidence and nobody will do anything about
>it. Apparently, from his conversation, it would appear that similar
>incidents occur on a regular basis out in CA, with even professional
>RF folks at NASA doing jammer hunting with $100k+ equipment, only to
>bag people and have nothing done at all about it.
It sounds like Mike is referring to a recent conversation between Tony
and myself.
For the record, the amateur we caught, which did involve a NASA
radio tech, was "tried" by the local amateur club. He was "sentenced"
to a 1 month "suspension" of his transmitting privileges. The amateur
was a 12 year old boy. He asked the club to try him rather than report
him to the FCC, which we were quite ready to do, with considerable
evidence. The FCC was never involved. The boys parents later
prohibited him from using his radio after another questionable event,
and we haven't heard from him since.
Yes, the FCC is often slow in responding to interference complaints. The
.435 repeater is rife with examples of spotty or non-extant enforcement.
At the same time, some people *are* being busted, and Richard Burton did
go back to jail for amateur radio jamming.
However, Roger is quite correct in pointing out the value of well-placed
peer pressure.
One evening, an unlicensed individual was operating on the air with a bogus
callsign. It was not immediately clear that he was not licensed. He
bragged about his place of employment having ham radios (Radio Shack) and
offered me a deep discount. His poor practice led me to check his callsign;
I was not surprised to find it invalid. When I spoke with him, he was quite
recalcitrant, and the unlicensed operation ceased. I guess he bragged to
too many hams, since someone contacted the manager of his store and he
was later fired.
One morning, a station was on the local repeater, obviously a young man,
signing with a WB6xxx call. His obvious youth and naive operating manner
suggested he was not legit; a check of his call sign indicated it invalid.
I spoke with him on the air, mentioned his call did not appear to be current,
and he apologized and went away. We haven't heard from him since.
>Perhaps your glasses are a little too rose colored, Roger?
Well, Roger *does* live in Southern California, and you *do* live
in Rhode Island, a little out of VHF/UHF range. Roger's story
sounds reasonable to me. Maybe your glasses are a little too
mud colored, Michael :-) ?
Roger Buffington
: In article <1994May31.1...@cs.brown.edu> m...@maxcy2.maxcy.brown.edu (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
: >
: >As the trustee of a coordinated closed repeater, if anyone told me that I had
: >a choice to either "open" my machine or loose coordination, I would opt for
: >choice number three: protect my legal, FCC-recognized closed repeater
: >coordination via litigation.
: And after enriching the lawyers to the tune of several thousands or tens
: of thousands of dollars, you could still lose. The FCC does *not* recognize
Hey, what's wrong with enriching lawyers? I start law school in a few
months. Let him litigate, for goshsakes!
: closed repeater *coordination*. All they recognize is closed repeater
: *operation*. They recognize coordination status *only* in resolving mutual
: interference issues without regard to issues of closed or open. The FCC
: doesn't mandate a particular coordination policy. Coordination policy is
: a public policy issue internal to the amateur community, made and administered
: by local amateurs, and courts have traditionally been reluctant to overturn
: such policies absent a compelling public benefit.
: Gary
: --
Gary, you are exactly right, and I agree with all of the above. Forgive
my little fun :-)
Dan Pickersgill
I agree totally with Michael. Nuff Said.
Dan N8PKV
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME
DEATH!" -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775
Tony Pelliccio
(System Operator) wrote:
> > Closed repeaters don't fit the spirit and intent of amateur radio.
>
> That's your opinion. And, with people like you in the hobby, I'm surprised
> that ALL the machines in SoCal aren't closed.
Exactly! There's nothing wrong with a closed repeater. Lets face it, if
people would grow up and learn some on-the-air manners (ie, not abusing
autopatch, listening, etc.) then the need for closed repeaters would
dwindle to nothing.
> > What do we do when the bands shrink, the ranks grow, and the number of
> > closed repeaters increases? Do we just give up on the hobby? Do we operate
> > only on the 1 or 2 frequencies where we can afford the dues?
>
> Ah yes, now we see all. Translated: "I don't want to have to pay to use
> someone else's equipment." Yup, the good old welfare-state mentality once
> again. "HEY! I'm BREATHING, aren't I?!? Its my RIGHT!"
There are ways other than monetary to support a repeater but I think you've
gotten it pretty much right.
--
== Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR
== Anthony_...@brown.edu, Tel. (401) 863-1880 Fax. (401) 863-2269
== The opinions above are my own and not those of my employer.
System Operator
> Nonsense, Mike. Part 97 says only that repeater trustees may restrict
> access. There is no distinction in the regs between open or closed repeaters.
> In other words, if someone gets on the frequency, and they happen
> to activate the repeater, the control op has the option of shutting down the
> repeater or activating other measures to restrict usage to all but authorized
> users.
Oh sure, someone can operate on the simplex input or output frequency,
but if they take steps to key the repeater knowingly (i.e. use the
repeater's PL even though they are operating simplex), then that can
and has been construed as interference.
Its a question of intent, and the admitted intent of Roger Bly is not to
operate simplex, but to disrupt the operation of closed repeaters because
he doesn't LIKE them.
MD
System Operator
> Please cite the relevant rule from Part 97 that disallows the use of a closed
> repeater?
The FCC has stated that repeater owners have always had the authority to deny
individuals access to their repeater.
> My recollection is that it simply allows the repeater owner to
> disallow the use of his/her equipment, i.e. the repeater owner may turn
> off the repeater if they choose not to allow outsiders to use the equipment.
If someone knowingly takes steps to key a repeater, even though
they have been told not to, then that is intentional interference.
You are correct in stating that nobody owns the frequency, and the
person is completely justified in operating simplex on the input or
output at any time.
However, we're not speaking simply of actions, we're also speaking of
intent. Someone may choose to operate simplex on my repeater input,
and use the same PL as I have on my machine because it happens to be
the same as one they use elsewhere. Does this become intentional
interference? Of course not, the person isn't intending to interfere.
That is not what Roger Bly indicated, however. He specifically stated
that he and a group of people go on closed repeaters and tie it up
with rapid-fire conversation, effectively forcing the trustee to shut
the machine down. Since this specifically requires an coordinated effort
on their part to disrupt the operations of a machine, I don't know how you
can NOT call it intentional interference.
MD
John Schmidt
> The FCC has stated that repeater owners have always had the authority to deny
> individuals access to their repeater.
There is no question about this. The repeater owner can turn off the machine
whenever they choose to do so. I think the key word here is that the trustee
must deny the access -- which to me means more than saying "Get off the
frequency - we own this one."
> If someone knowingly takes steps to key a repeater, even though
> they have been told not to, then that is intentional interference.
Can you support this statement by other than your own opinion, if the
attempted usage of the repeater is not malicious?
I would be very interested in any case where the FCC has held that attempting
to use a repeater is considered "malicious interference". My personal
contention is that PL today is not an access-restriction mechanism -- almost
all new rigs include encoders and many open machines require PL to reduce
interference from other services keying the repeater.
> However, we're not speaking simply of actions, we're also speaking of
> intent. Someone may choose to operate simplex on my repeater input,
> and use the same PL as I have on my machine because it happens to be
> the same as one they use elsewhere. Does this become intentional
> interference?
A good question, and I would be interested if you have any evidence from
the FCC's rulings to support your contention that attempting to use the
repeater is interference. According to the FCC, as you've already stated,
there really is no such thing as "open" or "closed" repeaters. Anyone can
shut off their repeater to anyone else. Where we differ is on the issue of
whether it's malicious interference to try to operate within the rules on a
"closed" machine that readily responds to all users (or all users with the
proper PL).
73,
John, NK0R
Dana Myers
>In article <2sfofs$h...@btree.brooktree.com>,
>Roger Bly <ro...@btree.brooktree.com> wrote:
>>
>>You all really extrapolate on that jamming word. :-)
>>
>>By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
>>malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
>>for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
>>conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
>>and the Communications Act of 1934.
>
>Unauthorized use of private property (in this case, closed repeaters)
>may be construed as trespassing or even theft! I hope that you and your
>cronies are prepared to pay the price for your "civil disobedience."
>Just because you operate "legally" within Part 97 and the Communications
>Act of 1934 doesn't mean that you haven't broken any other law. You may
>be in violation of civil/criminal codes regarding trespass and the right
>to posession of property. Think about it...
Part 97 simply explicitly states that the trustee of a repeater may
deny use of the repeater to other amateurs. It does not make it
illegal, or even trespassing, for an amateur to use a repeater
without the trustee's authorization.
I am *not* against closed repeaters, no matter how distasteful they may
be.
I *am* against people twisting Part 97 to suggest that a person can gain
ownership of a frequency by gaining coordination. Part 97 explicitly and
simply states that isn't the case, no one owns a frequency.
I think it is a horrible and ugly precedent for civil courts to start
encroaching on Part 97. Either amateurs *want* Federal pre-emption or
amateurs *don't want* Federal pre-emption. We seem to want it when we
want a tall tower (i.e., PRB-1 cases) but we seem to not want it when we
want to gain exclusive control of a frequency (i.e., CLARA case).
At the same time, it is illegal to maliciously interfere with amateur
communications. Part 97 is clear about this.
What is Bly doing? I don't know, I haven't heard him.
Gary Coffman
>
>Unauthorized use of private property (in this case, closed repeaters)
>may be construed as trespassing or even theft! I hope that you and your
>cronies are prepared to pay the price for your "civil disobedience."
>Just because you operate "legally" within Part 97 and the Communications
>Act of 1934 doesn't mean that you haven't broken any other law. You may
>be in violation of civil/criminal codes regarding trespass and the right
>to posession of property. Think about it...
If a repeater retransmits signals it receives on a public frequency,
it's not the responsibility of those legally using that frequency to
keep the repeater from doing so. Instead it is the responsibility of
the control operator of the repeater to make sure it doesn't re-transmit
signals the control operator wishes not to be repeated.
It isn't trespass to drive down a public street and have a private
tow truck grab hold of your car and drag it onto private property.
In fact it's just the reverse of trespass, it's kidnaping.
RAY WADE
Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, RB>
petitioning, RB> : jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the
amateur service. RB> We shoul RB> : probably get more organized. RB>
RB> : I said it before, but the FCC is willing to consider a "close RB>
repeater ban". RB> : There there are several commissioners (I know one
personally) that RB> are RB> : sympathetic to our cause. They say the
request (RFR) must come from RB> the amat RB> eur RB> : community or
politically they can not act. I have not been active RB> on lobbyin
RB> : the ARRL... attacking the coordinating bodies might be a new
angle RB> on this... RB> RB> : PS. My wife is a communications
lawyer... What school are you going RB> to? RB> RB> : Roger Bly RB> :
-- RB> RB> : Roger Bly RB> : ro...@brooktree.com RB> RB> I will be
attending the USC Law Center this fall. BTW, hope you're RB> kidding
about the jamming. We should all work within the law. RB> RB> The idea
of getting up a petition is a good one. The concept I favor RB> is RB>
that closed repeaters would be legal, but they would simply not be RB>
coordinated. Therefore any time a closed or private repeater RB>
conflicted RB> with a repeater coordinated as open to all licensed
amateurs, the RB> latter RB> would have the right of way. RB> RB>
Southern California is ripe for reform of the 440 band coordination.
RB> It RB> is scandalous that it has become almost silly to bother
buying a dual RB> band RB> HT, as the 440 band is effectively closed to
all but a few good old RB> boys. RB> RB> 73 RB> -- RB>
Did it ever occur to you that the "few good old boys" may own the
thing? I am unaware of ANY repeater ANYWHERE that is owned by the
public. And here is another flash, if I own something, it's MINE
TO DO AS I DAMM WELL PLEASE WITH IT. If you want to join my "club"
pay dues, and help maintain it, I might allow you to be "a good old
boy". Parasites (dead beats) are not welcome!
* OFFLINE 1.56 * You only THINK I'm devious? Actually, I'm far more twisted.
.
Michael P. Deignan
> And after enriching the lawyers to the tune of several thousands or tens
> of thousands of dollars, you could still lose.
There are no such things as absolutes.
> The FCC does *not* recognize
> closed repeater *coordination*.
I am guilty of a poor choice of words. I do have an "FCC-recognized
closed repeater" and I do have "coordination". I was not attempting to
imply that the FCC recognizes coordination.
Jeffrey Herman
>
>It is common human nature for insecure, unhappy people to deride others.
>Too bad some have to cope with their frailties by condemning others, no?
``Physician, Heal Thyself.''
I knew the Defender of Radio Lawbreakers would eventually surface. You
came to Bly's defense in December when he bragged about operating
without a license, and now in June Bly resurfaces and so do you.
I will continue to publicly condemn those who intentionally break the law;
if you choose to hid your head or deride me then you, in effect, are indirectly
condoning their behavior. I'm very secure and very happy but I won't let
that stop me from condemning someone who does wrong. I'm sure that
you scold your children when then do wrong; does that make you an `insecure,
unhappy' person?
Now, concerning HF CW, to the uninitiated, DX pileups might sound as if
everyone is jamming one another but there is a sense of order in all
those hetrodyne squeals. Music to my ears!
A CW station jamming a SSB net? Is it possible the net started right on
top of a CW QSO? You would had to have been parked on that freq prior
to the start of the net to conclusively call it jamming. It's possible
that the two CW stations were trying to continue their QSO under the
SSB net (maybe it was even a CW net that was there first).
73 Dana and good luck on the 20M rig!
Jeff NH6IL
Brad Ward
JETI> right to say who uses the repeater. If you jammers are such jerks
that
JETI> the operator doesn't want you using his machine, he can boot you off
JETI> even an _open_ repeater.
If the control operator has the right to boot anybody off an open
repeater, what's the point of having a closed machine?
... Catch the Blue Wave!
Alan Barrow
>law trespass). It is probably a violation of "right to possession" codes.
>The owners of a closed repeater are damaged if I use that repeater without
>permission. Damages would probably be club dues used for operating expenses.
Hmm, I think it would be more of "theft of services", just like the
satellite operators would like to enforce.
Only there is a problem. How can you have theft of services for a
defined non commercial repeater??
We have had this debate a hundred times in this group.
I will refrain from the detailed analogies that don't change anyone's
mind anyway.
It will be interesting to see if you can get a court to enforce anything
outside of FCC regulations.
Sounds like a waste to $$, and a black eye to ham radio to me.
Alan Barrow km4ba | If a little knowledge.....
Work: j...@atl.hp.com | is a dangerous thing.....
Home: al...@km4ba.ampr.org | then what is the Anti-Dote???
Bob Wilkins n6fri
: Mike,
: > If someone knowingly takes steps to key a repeater, even though
: > they have been told not to, then that is intentional interference.
: Can you support this statement by other than your own opinion, if the
: attempted usage of the repeater is not malicious?
: I would be very interested in any case where the FCC has held that attempting
: to use a repeater is considered "malicious interference". My personal
: contention is that PL today is not an access-restriction mechanism -- almost
: all new rigs include encoders and many open machines require PL to reduce
: interference from other services keying the repeater.
OK lets take this to the next step. Most technically proficient amateurs
today can decode touch-tone signals that are broadcast on the input
frequency. Most of you will now agree that touch-tone is no longer an
access-restriction for controlling or functioning an amateur repeater.
Surely by punching in the correct sequence on a touch-tone pad found on
any radio you are now controlling the repeater. You might even be able to
use the repeater for third party traffic. Where do you draw the line?
If PL is not an access restriction in the historic and common sense then
touch-tone is not sacred.
: > However, we're not speaking simply of actions, we're also speaking of
: > intent. Someone may choose to operate simplex on my repeater input,
: > and use the same PL as I have on my machine because it happens to be
: > the same as one they use elsewhere. Does this become intentional
: > interference?
: A good question, and I would be interested if you have any evidence from
: the FCC's rulings to support your contention that attempting to use the
: repeater is interference. According to the FCC, as you've already stated,
: there really is no such thing as "open" or "closed" repeaters. Anyone can
: shut off their repeater to anyone else. Where we differ is on the issue of
: whether it's malicious interference to try to operate within the rules on a
: "closed" machine that readily responds to all users (or all users with the
: proper PL).
Why do you want to shut off or deny the repeater group their pleasure?
Please remember that the repeater or 40 meter net is on a fixed
frequency. Your station has the ability to change frequency or bands at
the flick of the wrist. The Commission has ruled at length on these
issues in the many cases that have plaged nets and repeaters.
John, your intent is showing...have you forgotten the rule about good
amateur operating practice? This is the catch all... ;)
Bob
--
Bob Wilkins work bwil...@cave.org
Berkeley, California home rwil...@ccnet.com
94701-0710 play n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam
Dana Myers
>
>Since the FCC has stated that a repeater trustee has the right to
>define who may and who may not use his/her repeater, if you operate
>on a closed repeater without the permission of the owner you are
>in fact violating Part 97.
Not exactly, Michael. The FCC has stated that a repeater trustee may
limit access to his equipment. It is not illegal for an amateur to
operate on a frequency his license grants. It *is* legal for a repeater
trustee to make his repeater only operable for selected individuals.
I spoke with an FCC PRB official about this very subject, and he concurred
with this interpretation. No one has exclusive access to any amateur frequency,
but no one is compelled to operate an open repeater.
>You're a good example of why we should have caneing in the US.
Well, Bly may not be tactful, but look at the examples he has on the
Usenet :-).
>
>MD
>--
>-- Michael P. Deignan
>-- Amalgamated Baby Seal Poachers Union, Local 101
>-- "Get 'The Club'... Endorsed by Baby Seal poachers everywhere..."
;-)
David R Tucker
: JETI> Most recently the FCC has affirmed that the repeater operator has the
The default changes. On an open machine, you can use it until you're
told not to. On a closed machine, you can't use it until you're given
permission. Other than that, there's no difference.
-drt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|David R. Tucker KG2S 8P9CL d...@world.std.com|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Buffington
: On 05-28-94 ROGER BUFFINGTON wrote to ALL...
SNIP
: Did it ever occur to you that the "few good old boys" may own the
: thing? I am unaware of ANY repeater ANYWHERE that is owned by the
: public. And here is another flash, if I own something, it's MINE
: TO DO AS I DAMM WELL PLEASE WITH IT. If you want to join my "club"
: pay dues, and help maintain it, I might allow you to be "a good old
: boy". Parasites (dead beats) are not welcome!
Listen, Bub, you might try reading the thread before making comments like
your last article. First of all, you attribute some of Roger Bly's
comments to me, which I don't appreciate one little bit. Let's get it
together.
It's obvious that you have either not read, or were unable to comprehend
the issues in this thread. Everyone here knows that repeaters are not
public property. It has been mentioned by myself and others on this
thread that we agree with the concept of a repeater owner expecting some
kind of support in return for providing the repeater.
Next time how about reading and thinking before writing, hey?
73
: * OFFLINE 1.56 * You only THINK I'm devious? Actually, I'm far more twisted.
: .
Michael P. Deignan
> It has been mentioned by myself and others on this
> thread that we agree with the concept of a repeater owner expecting some
> kind of support in return for providing the repeater.
Really? What if the repeater owner wishes to restrict access so that
those who choose to support the repeater have a place to go when they
can't find an open spot elsewhere? What if the owner's concept of
support means you help pay part of the bills associated with upkeep of
the repeater, otherwise you can't use the repeater?
The impression I've gotten is that you reject both of these concepts.
That, to me, indicates you want a free ride at other people's expense.
Roger Buffington
: ro...@netcom.com (Roger Buffington) writes:
: The impression I've gotten is that you reject both of these concepts.
: That, to me, indicates you want a free ride at other people's expense.
: MD
Comments like that are not helpful or contributory. They simply have a
tendency to piss people off. I seem to recall you lecturing somone on
this thread about how this or that behavior would cause the person to not
make many friends. Accusing others of "want(ing) a free ride....."etc.
is just a way to disregard the real thrust of what is being discussed
here and instead lower the quality of the discourse to a level you are
for some reason more comfortable with.
If you feel that a repeater owner has the right to operate a coordinated
machine any way he wants, and so forth, that's your privilege. I may
disagree with you, and that too is my privilege. Discussing it in a
gentlemanly way is both our privileges. But let's try to keep the
discussion at a higher level than name calling.
73
John Schmidt
> If PL is not an access restriction in the historic and common sense then
> touch-tone is not sacred.
Agree, tones on the imput frequency are not a very secure mechanism. I have
no clue what the FCC would say -- except that a tone sequence to enable a 2m
repeater would have to be on other than the input frequency anyway.
Just my opinion, but I view PL as more of a necessity to clean operation than
an access mechanism. My personal idea of an effective access restriction would
be to require a tone sequence on a control frequency to open the repeat
function, or a digital-burst squelch type of mechanism on the input frequency.
> Why do you want to shut off or deny the repeater group their pleasure?
> Please remember that the repeater or 40 meter net is on a fixed
> frequency. Your station has the ability to change frequency or bands at
> the flick of the wrist. The Commission has ruled at length on these
> issues in the many cases that have plaged nets and repeaters.
Huh? All I said was that if a particular trustee doesn't want a particular
ham operating on a machine, then the trustee needs to either shut it off or
use an effective access mechanism. A good access mechanism can be secure
and not deny access to any members of the "closed" group. If it makes it
slightly more difficult, then that's the price of exclusivity, IMO.
I certainly am not advocating sitting on the frequency to attempt a denial
of access type of attack on the "authorized" users. That would definitely
be considered malicious, and I would never advocate deliberate interference.
I just don't see how mere ordinary use of a repeater, while operating within
the rules, would fall into that category.
> John, your intent is showing...have you forgotten the rule about good
> amateur operating practice? This is the catch all... ;)
> Bob
Intent? No. Philosophy, probably yes. I personally would not continue to
operate on a machine if someone told me I wasn't welcome, unless an
emergency existed, regardless of legalities. (BTW - that hasn't happened
in 15 years of operating. But I haven't been to Rhode Island yet. :-) )
I don't personally consider it a good practice and I've got better things
to do than to hang out where I'm not wanted. I do believe that while there
are a few exceptions, repeater operators that maintain "closed" systems do not
serve either the amateur community or the public as a whole as effectively as
open systems. Outside of a few experimenters with exotic setups, I don't
think there's any point to putting up a repeater if your intent is not
to do good for the community. If large chunks of 440 in California actually
sit idle while "occupied" by repeaters closed to all but a few, I think it's
an inappropriate use of valuable spectrum. At the very least, other open
machines could be coordinated co-channel with these systems, using
different PL's and mutual lock-out to eliminate interference. Coordination
does not guarantee exclusivity in the business bands -- why should it in
the amateur frequencies?
Repeater owners that whine about having users support the cost of their
systems as an excuse for operating a closed machine are usually just looking
for an excuse to play channel cop. I'm well aware of the costs of
building and maintaining repeater sites, having been involved with several
groups and getting up close and personal with the hardware many times.
I've yet to see a good open system that didn't pay its own way.
The largest and most successful systems in this state,
including a state-wide linked network, are run by groups that welcome all
users, and they have continued to add and upgrade equipment and services based
on voluntary donations and memberships. These groups provide all forms of
emergency and special event support, as well as regular access at all other
times. The only constraint is that you're expected to join a group if want
access to autopatches. Regular users are also encouraged to join -- usually
by receiving an invitation on the air or in the mail -- and many do. New
hams usually rapidly pick up on the idea that you should join the group(s)
whose repeaters you use the most -- without coercion. Occasional users and
travelers are always welcome. These open groups, in my opinion, are operating
in the intended spirit of amateur radio -- unlike those that seem to operate
on the concept that a user is not welcome unless invited to use their
private repeater, which usually serves no one but their (often few) members.
Probably my last word on the subject....
73,
John, NK0R
Michael P. Deignan
> Just my opinion, but I view PL as more of a necessity to clean operation than
> an access mechanism. My personal idea of an effective access restriction would
> be to require a tone sequence on a control frequency to open the repeat
> function, or a digital-burst squelch type of mechanism on the input frequency.
And neither of these methods are realistic for normal, end-user access
to the machine. Perhaps for control functions, but certainly not for
everyday access. Some reasons why:
1. The equipment to perform this function is not widely available to a
majority of users within the existing radios sold by equipment
manufacturers (although some are starting to include DTMF squelch as
"standard" options).
2. Requiring a third frequency for control purposes reduces the amount of
available bandwidth for others to use. Now a repeater will take three
frequencies instead of two.
3. The complexity of activating the machine may be more complicated than
some people can understand properly.
> All I said was that if a particular trustee doesn't want a particular
> ham operating on a machine, then the trustee needs to either shut it off or
> use an effective access mechanism.
There is no such thing as an "effective access mechanism". PL, DTMF
squelch - they all can be broken in a matter of seconds if you have the
right equipment. Activation via a third control frequency is not
practical - its simply not possible without additional equipment or
modification to existing equipment.
About the only way to truely restrict access would be to use a RF
key-down signature fingerprint and compare it against a database of
valid users. Even this is not practical - the amount of time required to
take a snapshot at keydown, look up in the database, find a match, and
open the squelch would clip the first second off each person's
transmission. Not to mention we generally don't authorize radios, we
authorize people, to use closed machines.
> I do believe that while there
> are a few exceptions, repeater operators that maintain "closed" systems do
> not
> serve either the amateur community or the public as a whole as effectively
> as open systems.
Subjective value judgement.
> The only constraint is that you're expected to join a group if want
> access to autopatches.
Well, we ought to de-coordinate them in favor of machines with completely
FREE autopatch access, damnit! Why should the cost of running an
autopatch be any different than the cost of electricity, site rental,
or maintenance? Open up those frequencies to someone who is willing to
give free autopatch. That's certainly serving the amateur community or
the public as a whole more effectively than a machine with a members-only
autopatch does.
Roger Buffington
: In article <2sja4j$l...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> my...@cypress.West.Sun.COM writes:
: >
: >It is common human nature for insecure, unhappy people to deride others.
: >Too bad some have to cope with their frailties by condemning others, no?
: ``Physician, Heal Thyself.''
: I knew the Defender of Radio Lawbreakers would eventually surface. You
: came to Bly's defense in December when he bragged about operating
: without a license, and now in June Bly resurfaces and so do you.
Oh, come on, this is silly and asinine. Linking Dana to Bly when what he
is really doing is offering a well-reasoned response on the subject of
this thread.
Your attitude is an example of the discredited practice of attacking
one's opponent rather than addressing the argument.
: Now, concerning HF CW, to the uninitiated, DX pileups might sound as if
: everyone is jamming one another but there is a sense of order in all
: those hetrodyne squeals. Music to my ears!
Both true and untrue. There are plenty of lids and jammers on HF CW.
But they are a small minority, true. No different than 2M FM in So.
Cal. No different at all.
73 and cheers.
Joe Jarrett
: You all really extrapolate on that jamming word. :-)
Yes, it is a hot button for most experience repeater people, open or
closed. You apparently aren't one of those.
: By jamming, I mean the unauthorized use of a closed repeater, not
: malicious interference. Maybe I need to think of a better word
: for it, but when a bunch of us attack a closed repeater with rapid-fire
: conversation, we call it jamming. We operate legally within Part 97
: and the Communications Act of 1934.
IMHO this is NOT legal operation within Part 97.
--
***************************************************************************
* Joe Jarrett, K5FOG | *
* joej...@netcom.com | This area *
* Information Storage Devices FAE | intentionally left blank *
* Austin, Texas | *
***************************************************************************
Joe Jarrett
<snip>
: that view, since the only protection repeaters are given is against other
: uncoordinated repeaters on the same frequency (and malicious interference, of
: course). The latest edition of part 97 even states that unintended triggering
The original post that resulted in all this discussion admitted their use
of the repeater WAS MALICIOUS. They were trying to interfere. All your
comments are moot!
: If you insist on operating a system closed to all but a select few, it's up
: to you to secure it appropriately. If you took reasonable measures to secure
Totally disagree. A carrier operated repeater may properly be a closed
repeater. Obviously, someone who didn't know couldn't be held responsible
for any "interferrence" but if asked to leave, common courtesy dictates
they should. And if it is generally known that a repeater is closed,
shame on you if you just "accidentally" happen to talk on the input.
John Schmidt
> The original post that resulted in all this discussion admitted their use
> of the repeater WAS MALICIOUS. They were trying to interfere. All your
> comments are moot!
Not moot - I was addressing a related issue, not trying to condone
interference. Read my later posts for better context. Repetition, last time:
I don't condone malicious interference.
Me:
> : If you insist on operating a system closed to all but a select few, it's up
> : to you to secure it appropriately. If you took reasonable measures to secure
Joe:
> Totally disagree. A carrier operated repeater may properly be a closed
> repeater. Obviously, someone who didn't know couldn't be held responsible
> for any "interferrence" but if asked to leave, common courtesy dictates
> they should. And if it is generally known that a repeater is closed,
> shame on you if you just "accidentally" happen to talk on the input.
A closed carrier operated system sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless you
have someone playing channel cop 24 hours a day. If you have several
members who don't have a real life, maybe you can do that. I said in a previous
post I wouldn't hang around if asked to leave, but neither you nor Mike have
been able to give a single example of the FCC disciplining a ham for
attempting to use an ostensibly closed repeater while otherwise following
all regulations -- that is, using proper calling procedures and not
causing deliberate interference to other users. (Of course, if no one ever
answers a call I don't see why he'd hang around.) I help administer a few
repeaters, and would be very interested in an actual case.
Perhaps you are confusing "the right to deny use of my equipment"
with "the right to deny use of a frequency". You can do the first, but not the
second -- and if the repeater is carrier operated, it does seem that you're
trying to reserve exclusive use of the frequency.
It seems you and Mike are trying to invent an interpretation of part 97
that says that telling a user to go away is the same thing as restricting
access, and that if the user continues to make use of the repeater, he's
guilty of interference. If the FCC has made that interpretation, it's news
to me -- and I am aware of the latest ruling that reinforces the fact that
there is no legal differentiation between "open" and "closed". If you have a
example that does not involve malicious interference, please enlighten
me. While I'm fortunate to live in an area almost free of closed machines,
it appears from the postings in this group that the method most used to
restrict access is an obnoxious attitude on the part of the owner. While
somewhat effective in reality, I do question its legal value :-)
I think I've made several points at least twice over a few postings. I
respect differing opinions on the subject, but my requests for an
actual example of an FCC ruling that addresses my points have been
ignored or countered by more whining from Mike about "welfare-statism".
Let's see some facts -- we all know each other's opinions by now.
I could be convinced of the legality of your viewpoint, even though I
disagree with it, but I'd really like to see specific FCC example that states
that merely acessing a "closed" repeater without the intent to
maliciously interfere is/is not considered "interference" by itself.
73,
John, NK0R (I am not a lawyer, but find it fun to play the ham legal
squabbles from time to time...)
Michael P. Deignan
> Comments like that are not helpful or contributory. They simply have a
> tendency to piss people off. I seem to recall you lecturing somone on
> this thread about how this or that behavior would cause the person to not
> make many friends. Accusing others of "want(ing) a free ride....."etc.
> is just a way to disregard the real thrust of what is being discussed
> here and instead lower the quality of the discourse to a level you are
> for some reason more comfortable with.
Sorry Roger, that's the way I see it. Legal and moral issues aside, the
advocates of no-closed/all-open repeater coordination feel they shouldn't
shouldn't have to pay to access spectrum that "belongs" to everyone.
And, while I may agree that its a good policy to promote as many open
systems as possible, I also recognize that systems are expensive to
set up and maintain - especially good systems with many links,
remotes, and excellent coverage. Hence, if those trustees wish to
restrict access to the machine to "members only", that's their
right.
Its not a question of frequency ownership. Everyone knows that nobody
"owns" a frequency. Certainly someone can choose to operate on a
repeater input or output, and can probably do so ad infinitum, as long
as they're not interfering with its operation.
Amateurs are very greedy when it comes to their spectrum. And, with
the welfare-state mentality permeating american society, its only
a matter of time before we see that mentality invade amateur radio -
and rightfully so, since the attitude of hams involved in ham radio
simply mirror those of society as a whole.
I believe that the attitude expressed by some here - dual-band radios
are cheap and we want access to that spectrum now, so decoordinate all
of the "closed" machines so we can coordinate new yak-boxes which will
give us free access to the airwaves - is but one symptom of that
problem invading the hobby.
If you disagree, then fine, that's your right.
Joe Jarrett
: Good! Several of us in San Diego are also writing letters, petitioning,
: jamming, etc. to shut down closed repeaters in the amateur service. We should
: probably get more organized.
Fine, Roger. I'm sure you will "prove" your point by jamming. I can't
believe you actually admitted it. Any credibility you had in this
discussion just went down the toilet.
: I said it before, but the FCC is willing to consider a "close repeater
: ban. There there are several commissioners (I know one personally) that
: are sympathetic to our cause. They say the request (RFR) must come from
: the amateur community or politically they can not act. I have not been
: active on lobbying the ARRL... attacking the coordinating bodies might
: be a new angle on this...
I think when the FCC finds out you are advocating jamming, they will be
most ready to hear your side of the story. If they catch you jaming, a
NAL of several grand is appropriate.
Michael P. Deignan
> A closed carrier operated system sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless you
> have someone playing channel cop 24 hours a day. If you have several
> members who don't have a real life, maybe you can do that.
Since a repeater trustee is responsible for all traffic rebroadcast through
his/her machine, he certainly should have control operators capable of
monitoring the system all day.
> I said in a previous
> post I wouldn't hang around if asked to leave, but neither you nor Mike have
> been able to give a single example of the FCC disciplining a ham for
> attempting to use an ostensibly closed repeater while otherwise following
> all regulations -- that is, using proper calling procedures and not
> causing deliberate interference to other users.
You're right, I don't know of a specific case which has made it to the
FCC for clarification, as most interference issues are handled through
the OO and Auxiliary. I can say that I work closely with several members
in the OO/Auxiliary program on other issues, and each of them agree that
the scenario you describe would be considered interference.
Again, it boils down to intent. If the intent of the person is to make
a call on a closed repeater, one would have to ask "why?", especially
if nobody is going to come back to him.
Since the FCC has stated that repeater owners can limit who uses the
station, the only option available to a control operator when an
unauthorized user comes on the machine who refuses to leave is to
shut the machine down. If the user keeps coming on the repeater, its
pretty clear his/her intent is to keep the machine off the air by
continually forcing the control operator to shut the machine down.
Is this not interference with repeater operation?
Let's look at a similiar example. You have an open repeater with a
members-only autopatch. Someone comes on the machine, IDs, and proceeds
to attempt to crack the autopatch code. Is this interference? Again,
intent.
Most of these cases around here have never made it past the OO/Auxiliary
stage. Usually by then the offending party finds other things to do or
mysteriously looses interest in ham radio.
Michael P. Deignan
> OK lets take this to the next step. Most technically proficient amateurs
> today can decode touch-tone signals that are broadcast on the input
> frequency. Most of you will now agree that touch-tone is no longer an
> access-restriction for controlling or functioning an amateur repeater.
> Surely by punching in the correct sequence on a touch-tone pad found on
> any radio you are now controlling the repeater. You might even be able to
> use the repeater for third party traffic. Where do you draw the line?
> If PL is not an access restriction in the historic and common sense then
> touch-tone is not sacred.
If PL is not an access restriction then *NO* form of access restriction
is sacred, since any amateur can figure out how to bring up a machine. Once
someone figures out how to bring up a closed machine, does that give them
the right to operate the station? Even the most convoluted mechanisms
won't work - someone can always figure it out.
(Of course, I'd like to create a RF fingerprint access system, but the
technology is too slow and expensive right now.)
Jeffrey Herman
>Jeffrey Herman (jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>
>: I knew the Defender of Radio Lawbreakers would eventually surface. You
>: came to Bly's defense in December when he bragged about operating
>: without a license, and now in June Bly resurfaces and so do you.
>
>Oh, come on, this is silly and asinine. Linking Dana to Bly when what he
>is really doing is offering a well-reasoned response on the subject of
>this thread.
You're new on here so let me fill you in:
1. One fellow was bragging about how he was going to place a 5 kW broadcast
band transmitter on the ham bands and about how he didn't care about the
FCC rules, etc. - I scolded him - Dana came to his defense.
2. Bly bragged about how easy it is to operate in SoCal without a license
and that he'd done it for years - I scolded him - Dana came to his defense.
3. Someone was inviting pirates to use 6 Mc air-to-ground frequencies - I
argued with him about the danger of that - Dana came to his defense.
4. Bly now brags about jamming closed 440 Mc repeaters - I scold him -
Dana shows up.
You might want to `read the mail' for a couple of months before you become
too critical.
Jeff NH6IL
Roger Buffington
: Jeff NH6IL
Sorry Jeff, doesn't hold water. I don't know anything about what was
said back in December, that is true. But your characterization of Dana's
comments in this thread is unfair and highly inaccurate. Very highly
inaccurate.
I would suspect that the same can be said of the earlier comments based
on the distortion of the current comments?
73
Tom Bodoh
|> Sorry Jeff, doesn't hold water. I don't know anything about what was
|> said back in December, that is true. But your characterization of Dana's
|> comments in this thread is unfair and highly inaccurate. Very highly
|> inaccurate.
|>
|> I would suspect that the same can be said of the earlier comments based
|> on the distortion of the current comments?
Please take your damn bickering elsewhere such as policy - or email. Yes,
I've heard of killfiles, but your traffic is using up disk on the news
server AND the more topics I add to my killfile, the slower my reader runs...
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Tom Bodoh - Section Manager, Systems Engineering and Management, Hughes STX +
+ USGS/EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA 57198 (605) 594-6830 +
+ Internet; bo...@dgg.cr.usgs.gov (152.61.192.66) Amateur radio call; N0YGT +
+ "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!" EL&P +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gary Coffman
>Jeffrey Herman (jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>
>: You might want to `read the mail' for a couple of months before you become
>: too critical.
>
>said back in December, that is true. But your characterization of Dana's
>comments in this thread is unfair and highly inaccurate. Very highly
>inaccurate.
>
>I would suspect that the same can be said of the earlier comments based
>on the distortion of the current comments?
You catch on fast. Ask Jeff how the bathroom patrols are going.
Gary Coffman
>j...@fc.hp.com (John Schmidt) writes:
>
>>Just my opinion, but I view PL as more of a necessity to clean operation than
>>an access mechanism. My personal idea of an effective access restriction would
>>be to require a tone sequence on a control frequency to open the repeat
>>function, or a digital-burst squelch type of mechanism on the input frequency.
>
>And neither of these methods are realistic for normal, end-user access
>to the machine. Perhaps for control functions, but certainly not for
>everyday access. Some reasons why:
>
>1. The equipment to perform this function is not widely available to a
> majority of users within the existing radios sold by equipment
> manufacturers (although some are starting to include DTMF squelch as
> "standard" options).
>
>2. Requiring a third frequency for control purposes reduces the amount of
> available bandwidth for others to use. Now a repeater will take three
> frequencies instead of two.
>
>3. The complexity of activating the machine may be more complicated than
> some people can understand properly.
Tsk, tsk, such is the price of cliquish exclusivity.
Gary Coffman
>
>> Comments like that are not helpful or contributory. They simply have a
>> tendency to piss people off. I seem to recall you lecturing somone on
>> this thread about how this or that behavior would cause the person to not
>> make many friends. Accusing others of "want(ing) a free ride....."etc.
>> is just a way to disregard the real thrust of what is being discussed
>> here and instead lower the quality of the discourse to a level you are
>> for some reason more comfortable with.
>
>Sorry Roger, that's the way I see it. Legal and moral issues aside, the
>advocates of no-closed/all-open repeater coordination feel they shouldn't
>shouldn't have to pay to access spectrum that "belongs" to everyone.
And indeed that's correct. The spectrum is a commons.
>And, while I may agree that its a good policy to promote as many open
>systems as possible, I also recognize that systems are expensive to
>set up and maintain - especially good systems with many links,
>remotes, and excellent coverage. Hence, if those trustees wish to
>restrict access to the machine to "members only", that's their
>right.
NO! It is not legal to operate an amateur radio station *for hire*.
That's what you're doing when you restrict access to only those
who pay to use your system. Get a commercial license if you want to
operate a radio business.
Gary Coffman
>j...@fc.hp.com (John Schmidt) writes:
>
>> A closed carrier operated system sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless you
>> have someone playing channel cop 24 hours a day. If you have several
>> members who don't have a real life, maybe you can do that.
>
>Since a repeater trustee is responsible for all traffic rebroadcast through
>his/her machine, he certainly should have control operators capable of
>monitoring the system all day.
Your assertion is false. A repeater may operate under automatic control,
97.205(d). A control operator need not be present when a station is
operated under automatic control, 97.109(d). A station licensee operating
a station under automatic control is only obligated to cease automatic
operations if notified by the Engineer In Charge of his district of harmful
interference, 97.109(d). The FCC has consistently ruled that it is the
originating station who is responsible for improper content of automatically
repeated transmissions. Only in the case of third party traffic is a
repeater licensee responsible for content, 97.109(e). No phone patch,
no problems.
Don't be misled by recent FCC statements regarding digital messaging
systems (IE they mean BBSs). In that case, all retransmissions involve
third party traffic.
Dana Myers
>In article <2sja4j$l...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> my...@cypress.West.Sun.COM writes:
>>
>>It is common human nature for insecure, unhappy people to deride others.
>>Too bad some have to cope with their frailties by condemning others, no?
>
>``Physician, Heal Thyself.''
>
>came to Bly's defense in December when he bragged about operating
>without a license, and now in June Bly resurfaces and so do you.
Hmmm, I re-read my message and I think it is clear I was trying to defend
the law abiding amateurs of southern California from unfair criticism.
Did I at any point defend the actions or statements of Bly? I think not.
>I will continue to publicly condemn those who intentionally break the law;
>if you choose to hid your head or deride me then you, in effect, are indirectly
>condoning their behavior. I'm very secure and very happy but I won't let
>that stop me from condemning someone who does wrong. I'm sure that
>you scold your children when then do wrong; does that make you an `insecure,
>unhappy' person?
When my daughter mis-behaves, I don't condemn all the children in my
neighborhood. When the kid down the street was selling methamphetamine,
I didn't condemn all the teenagers in my neighborhood. You see, it wouldn't
be fair, would it?
Anyway, to defend the law abiding amateurs of SoCal suggests that I condone
their actions, and I do. I do condone law abiding amateurs.
Now, Jeff, do *really* think I condone illegal activities?
>Now, concerning HF CW, to the uninitiated, DX pileups might sound as if
>everyone is jamming one another but there is a sense of order in all
>those hetrodyne squeals. Music to my ears!
Maybe, but the people holding the dit paddle down and tuning up and down don't
sound pleasant to me. Or, the constant "dit-dah-dit-dha" of squeezed paddles
may be rythmic, but doesn't belong on amateur radio.
>A CW station jamming a SSB net? Is it possible the net started right on
>top of a CW QSO? You would had to have been parked on that freq prior
>to the start of the net to conclusively call it jamming. It's possible
>that the two CW stations were trying to continue their QSO under the
>SSB net (maybe it was even a CW net that was there first).
Hmm, repeatedly sending "FU FU FU" sounds like jamming to me. The likelihood
that a CW QSO was in progress on 7255kHz is pretty remote, and still doesn't
justify unidentified transmissions, use of foul language, or intentional
malicious interference.
Are you suggesting that the use of CW makes these practices *not* jamming? ;-)
Dana Myers
>In article <rogjdCq...@netcom.com> ro...@netcom.com (Roger Buffington) writes:
>>Jeffrey Herman (jhe...@uhunix3.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>>
>>: I knew the Defender of Radio Lawbreakers would eventually surface. You
>>: came to Bly's defense in December when he bragged about operating
>>: without a license, and now in June Bly resurfaces and so do you.
>>
>>Oh, come on, this is silly and asinine. Linking Dana to Bly when what he
>>is really doing is offering a well-reasoned response on the subject of
>>this thread.
>
>You're new on here so let me fill you in:
>
>1. One fellow was bragging about how he was going to place a 5 kW broadcast
>band transmitter on the ham bands and about how he didn't care about the
>FCC rules, etc. - I scolded him - Dana came to his defense.
The fellow that suggested he was going to move a 5KW transmitter over to
the amateur bands did not say he was going to operate the transmitter at
the 5KW level. Nonetheless, Jeff attacked him and I said "but he didn't
say he was going to break the law" and then Jeff decided I was a lawbreaker.
As I recall, after Jeff's attack, the amateur with the 5KW transmitter
said he intends to operate it legally.
>2. Bly bragged about how easy it is to operate in SoCal without a license
>and that he'd done it for years - I scolded him - Dana came to his defense.
Yeah, I said something like "just cause Bly said he did it, doesn't mean he
did, we just don't know on the Internet". I recall it was part of a train of
thought on my part suggesting that Jeff ought to ignore Bly's posts, since
they are similar to a radio jammer. They tend to go away if you ignore them.
>3. Someone was inviting pirates to use 6 Mc air-to-ground frequencies - I
>argued with him about the danger of that - Dana came to his defense.
No, someone, in Europe, on rec.radio.cb, said they'd monitored CB pirates
on 6MHz. Jeff wrote a note slamming the original poster, who, for all we
know, is an SWL, and Jeff threatened to call the FCC and report the original
poster. My response was an attempt to point out that not all radio amateurs
are as uptight as this.
>4. Bly now brags about jamming closed 440 Mc repeaters - I scold him -
>Dana shows up.
Yeah, I show up to defend the VHF/UHF scene in Southern California, not
Roger Bly. Did I ever defend Bly? Not on your life. Did I suggest that
Bly's postings may not be indicative of reality in Southern Cal? Sure did!
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
I do *not* condone breaking the law.
I do *not* condone unwarranted personal attacks on the Usenet.
I do *not* have a history of illegal radio operation.
Probably I should treat the attacks from Jeff as I would any other malicious
jamming and ignore them. ;-)
JJ Martin
>
> Probably I should treat the attacks from Jeff as I would any other malicious
> jamming and ignore them. ;-)
Scuze me for butting in here Dana,
But should we take things with a grain of salt that are said over the Internet?
I mean who in their right mind is going to blatantly brag about this kind of
stuff anyway? An imbecile?
And if someone does call the FCC what are they going to say? "Uh, I heard or
read over the Internet that Mortimer Z. Ziddlehopper is running 5kw in the
ham bands?" They'd laugh you off the phone. Your own advice to yourself
above is probably the best thing you can do. Ignore them.... I wonder why
we are so competitive via electronic media to begin with? Is it a battle of
wits or what? Do we enjoy arguing? Here I'll start one.......uh, there...
you win! Argument over.
Oh well...It's only a hobby.....only a hobby...only a hobby...
73 de JJm WK1V
Jeffrey D. Angus
In article <2t06io$n...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> my...@spot.West.Sun.COM writes:
> Probably I should treat the attacks from Jeff [ NH6IL ] as I would any
> other malicious jamming and ignore them. ;-)
Good idea. Despite how fun it is to bait him and watch him run around in
circles. After several go-rounds with him and threats to complain to my
sysadmin (which never materialized) I've decided he just isn't worth the
effort to slap around.
So Jeff [ NH6IL ], sleep well little buddy, be content to dream of your
days in the Coast Guard (while making little swimming motions) and not
wake up in a cold sweat anymore wondering what I'm liable to say.
73 es GE from Jeff (the rational one)
Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NOAM | "You have a flair for adding
Internet: jan...@skyld.grendel.com | a fanciful dimension to any
US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749 | story."
Phone: 1 (310) 324-6080 | Peking Noodle Co.
Hate "Green Card Lottery"? Want to help curb ignorant crossposting on Usenet?
E-mail cker...@hamp.hampshire.edu for more information, or read news.groups.
Jean-Christophe MONIER
I'm searching a person can give me schematics or plan for a packet radio modem
I can self construct work on my ST and freeware or shareware software to control
this modem.
If anyone have freeware or shareware about ham radio (misc. things) let me know
the list and where I can get those.
Thank to all person,
You can mail me direct ... but I think many ham are interresting on the Internet
to these kind of software for Atari ST .... I'm not alone :-) POST A NEWS !!!!
---
######
####
(* 0)
-------------------------------oooO---(__)---Oooo-------------------------------
ATHESA FRANCE - AGENCE CEA Defense | MONIER Jean-Christophe
BP 28 | 87, rue Juliette Adam
91 192 GIF SUR YVETTE | 91 190 GIF SUR YVETTE
FRANCE | FRANCE
----------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
E-Mail : jcmo...@muguet.saclay.cea.fr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bodoh
even email? Yes, I know how to kill subjects, but it still fills up my
news server disk, causes delays when I start up and the subject line keeps
changing!!!!
Jeffrey Herman
>
>You catch on fast. Ask Jeff how the bathroom patrols are going.
Since you brought it up here's an update: The university, due to a flood
of complaints from students, faculty, staff, and the student newspaper,
have taken the drastic action of removing the doors from the stalls in
all the restrooms. No privacy but at least the gays have to go elsewhere
to do what ever it is they do to each other. No more sticky floors.
It's easy to tell that you haven't been on a college campus for a loooong
time. Funny that you've been thinking about this all this time, though...
Jeff NH6IL
Brian Suggs
>If I applied for and was denied coordination simply because my machine
>was going to be "closed", you can bet the coordinating body would be
>hearing from an attorney. Since the FCC recognizes that repeaters can
>be closed, a coordinating body's denial of coordination on the basis of
>"open" or "closed" status is illegal and discriminatory.
But does the FCC say that closed repeaters must be given the same consideration
as open ones by the coordinating body, without regard to their open/closed status?
Just because something is discriminatory doesn't mean it's illegal, otherwise
an employer who hires only competent employees could be sued for discrimination
against the incompetent.
(I posted another followup to the "Ham Radio few problem" thread asking for
more info on coordinating bodies, their status, who appoints them, etc.)
The question that this brings up is this: Could a coordinating body give
preference to open repeaters over closed ones if they wanted to? over
*existing* closed ones? (The answer to the question "Do they actually do
this?" apparently seems to be "No".)
Not trying to fan the flames too much. Just looking for information.
-Brian
Brian Suggs
>(I posted another followup to the "Ham Radio few problem" thread asking for
Oops. That should read the "440 in So. Cal." thread
-Brian
Michael P. Deignan
> But does the FCC say that closed repeaters must be given the same
> consideration
> as open ones by the coordinating body, without regard to their open/closed
> status?
The FCC doesn't recognize an "open" and "closed" status. To the FCC all
repeaters are "closed". The trustee has the ultimate right to determine who
can and cannot access his/her repeater.
> Just because something is discriminatory doesn't mean it's illegal, otherwise
> an employer who hires only competent employees could be sued for
> discrimination
> against the incompetent.
I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago brought on behalf of a
retarded person being denied work at a restaurant (cleaning dishes or
taking out the garbage, from what I recall) because he was too stupid....
> The question that this brings up is this: Could a coordinating body give
> preference to open repeaters over closed ones if they wanted to? over
> *existing* closed ones? (The answer to the question "Do they actually do
> this?" apparently seems to be "No".)
Could they? Absolutely. If they're willing to back up their decisions
financially.
wayne roberts
: >3. The complexity of activating the machine may be more complicated than
: > some people can understand properly.
: Tsk, tsk, such is the price of cliquish exclusivity.
The price of cliquish exclusivity? We got some Com-spec tone encoders for
$26 a piece. They can be programmed for 42hz to 125hz, all non standard
tones.
The repeater itself will be open with a standard 103.5 pl, but all
control, autopatch & crossbanding will only be accessable thru a non
standard pl below 67.0. If they can hack it then maybe they're worthy
of permission to use. There are so many plug 'n play hams out there that
i think as badly as they would want to get it, I dont think they'd trust
themselves opening their $600 radio to install something they know
nothing about. Besides, were calling it "DPL" anyways. Hopefully
they're as dumb as we think.
And what about 900Mhz? However, that would be pricy. But the
rif-raff up there would be history.. No more resetting.
--
RF power specialists mil...@netcom.com