LA Times article, Mt. Wilson repeater group
James N. Price
Oh boy, just the kind of publicity we need....
Featured article in yesterday's LA Times, first page of the "View"
section--all about the evil ham radio doings on the infamous
147.435 repeater (the "4-3-5 machine") in the LA area. This
repeater has been a dumping ground for some of the worst things
I've ever heard on ham radio, for over 20 years. And yet the FCC
apparently feels relatively powerless to determine what's obscene,
and night after night this thorn in our sides continues on.
The article was quite even handed, pointing out that most hams are
mild-mannered technology nuts and generally abhor this type of on
the air behavior. But the bottom line of the article was that for
most of the crazies who use this machine, it's "fun" and for the
thousands of SWLers who apparently listen to it, it's
"entertaining." Great.
Any other thoughts?
--Jim, K6ZH
-------
Brent Jones
>-------
>Oh boy, just the kind of publicity we need....
>I've ever heard on ham radio, for over 20 years. And yet the FCC
>apparently feels relatively powerless to determine what's obscene,
>and night after night this thorn in our sides continues on.
The concept of "community standards," which are quite different from
the norm on the 435 repeater, is one of the main points the article was
making. It is silly to think that a governing body based in Washington,
D.C. can determine what is obscene for a repeater located 3000 miles
away in Los Angeles, CA. And why should it? Standards of decency vary
within the U.S. as much as the landscape. I would no more wish to be
bound by the FCC's idea of what is obscene as I would be bound by the
"dry" laws of some of the eastern states' counties. The impact of the 435
repeater is local to the area and, in actuality only impacts those people
who tune the repeater in. As such, why should the users of 435 be
subjected to someone elses interpretation of obscenity if it in no way
affects the people not using the repeater?
True, the article states that most hams are the "genteel" types who
don't approve of this mode of operation, but most hams are not using the
Mt. Wilson repeater either.
Even the point of jamming which occurs on 435, and which is limited to
that system is arguable as to whether it would be legal or not using the
"community standards" principle. Every ham is not entitled to use every
repeater, just see how many closed repeaters there are listed in the
ARRL repeater directory. The pre-requisites for usage of many repeaters
is that you be a club member, or just have the proper PL in your radio.
Without these, your point will not be heard. On 435, one of the
pre-requisites is that you run enough power to make yourself heard
through the system. The regulars on the system will be the first to
admit this. If you are on 435 and are getting jammed out by someone
else, it's usually looked upon as the fault of the weaker station for
not 'using the minimum power necessary to facilitate communication,' as
stated by our good ol' FCC.
147.435 is NOT a repeater for the meek and the weak. If you don't like
the way the machine is used, there are many other calmer repeaters
scattered throughout So. Cal. Ham radio can be a fun hobby. When I
received my license it didn't come with a guarantee that I wouldn't be
offended by any other hams. If I don't like the way a group is playing
on their repeater, I'm free to tune somewhere else.
Brent KB1UK
Gr|nlund Pentti
>Oh boy, just the kind of publicity we need....
---explanation deleted---
>
>The article was quite even handed, pointing out that most hams are
>mild-mannered technology nuts and generally abhor this type of on
>the air behavior. But the bottom line of the article was that for
>most of the crazies who use this machine, it's "fun" and for the
>thousands of SWLers who apparently listen to it, it's
>"entertaining." Great.
>
>Any other thoughts?
>
>--Jim, K6ZH
>-------
Who owns the machine? How about some old-fashioned KKK action to him?
Benjamin OH3BK, a mild-mannered technology nut
--
Pentti "Benjamin" Gr|nlund, benj...@ee.tut.fi, Gr|nlund_Pentti_OMNI (elisa)
Life member of the Association for Adjustment Aces ------------ OH3BK@OH3RBR
"Kyll{ min{ raavin persett{ni jos minua raavituttaa" (kansaned. J. Donner)
Gary Coffman
>I've ever heard on ham radio, for over 20 years. And yet the FCC
>apparently feels relatively powerless to determine what's obscene,
>and night after night this thorn in our sides continues on.
>
>The article was quite even handed, pointing out that most hams are
>mild-mannered technology nuts and generally abhor this type of on
>the air behavior. But the bottom line of the article was that for
>most of the crazies who use this machine, it's "fun" and for the
>thousands of SWLers who apparently listen to it, it's
>"entertaining." Great.
>
>Any other thoughts?
Some people insist on trying to force their brand of morality on
others. This is a two edged sword that can cut both ways. The
FCC is understandably reluctant to get involved in matters of
taste. Taste after all is mostly in your own mouth.
Gary KE4ZV
Phil Karn
serve a useful purpose: it keeps the crazies in one place. Turn off
that machine and you scatter them all over the bands.
It's similar to the practice in some cities to concentrate the
red-light district in one particular spot, e.g., "The Block" in
Baltimore, my home town.
--Phil
Mike Morris
>Even the point of jamming which occurs on 435, and which is limited to
>that system is arguable as to whether it would be legal or not using the
>"community standards" principle. Every ham is not entitled to use every
>repeater, just see how many closed repeaters there are listed in the
>ARRL repeater directory. The pre-requisites for usage of many repeaters
>is that you be a club member, or just have the proper PL in your radio.
Please stick to one subject - a closed system simply requires club
membership, and membership of a closed system is available to anybidy
who wants to join. "...or just have the proper PL in your radio" refers
to an open system that happens to require PL.
>Without these, your point will not be heard. On 435, one of the
>pre-requisites is that you run enough power to make yourself heard
>through the system. The regulars on the system will be the first to
>admit this. If you are on 435 and are getting jammed out by someone
>else, it's usually looked upon as the fault of the weaker station for
>not 'using the minimum power necessary to facilitate communication,' as
>stated by our good ol' FCC.
This attitude is why many LA hams consider 435 to be a sewer. ANd why
more have gone to 220, 440 or 1200.
And why should someone need a Motorola B93MPB into a 16 element beam
antenna ? Over 2.5kw erp?
(A B93 is 330 watts continuous duty, for those who don't grok Moto model
numbers)
The "ultimate base" was sold when the person got transfered out of town...
I helped to build it, install it, move it _twice_, dismantle it (the power
transformer alone was > 300 pounds, not to mention the rest of the beast!)
and ship it to the new owner in Arizona. He was willing to ship it
beacuse it was a rare beast: it came from the Moto factory on a 14x mhz
channel - not a conversion from 150 or 160mhz.
But damn! could it get a piece of RG-8 warm....
--
Mike Morris WA6ILQ | This space intentionally left blank.
PO Box 1130 |
Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays
818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece...
Mike Morris
> pr...@marlin.nosc.mil (James N. Price) writes:
>>-------
>>Oh boy, just the kind of publicity we need....
>>This repeater has been a dumping ground for some of the worst things
>>I've ever heard on ham radio, for over 20 years. And yet the FCC
>>apparently feels relatively powerless to determine what's obscene,
>>and night after night this thorn in our sides continues on.
>147.435 is NOT a repeater for the meek and the weak. If you don't like
>the way the machine is used, there are many other calmer repeaters
>scattered throughout So. Cal. Ham radio can be a fun hobby. When I
>received my license it didn't come with a guarantee that I wouldn't be
>offended by any other hams. If I don't like the way a group is playing
>on their repeater, I'm free to tune somewhere else.
Just for those who are not aware of the history of "435", the machine
has had half-a-dozen trustees and sites over the last 20 years. It is
also a wierd split system: the input is 146.40 and the output is
147.435 mhz. The original site was Mt Wilson, home to 99% of the FM and
TV transmitters in LA, and according to folklore those channels were
the only "holes" in the grunge on the mountain - and the grunge was
enough to send 30w _down_ the feedline. A friend of mine actually got
zapped off the feedline while working on the repeater one day, so a Bird
Termaline was plugged into the heliax and he saw 32w coming down the
cable. Anyway, the article dd not make it plain that the repeater is
called the Mt. Wilson system, is sponsored by the Mt Wilson ARC, but the
system hasn't been on Mt Wilson in over 10 years. It is currently on
Saddle Peak, near Malibu. If you want to find it on a map, Saddle is
not on the AAA LA & Vicinity map, but is shown on the Ventura map, in the
overlap area between the two maps.
I've been up there many times - a UHF system has needed my attention
over the years....
Anybody been to the Saddle Peak steak house? Is it any good?
John F. Woods
>>repeater has been a dumping ground for some of the worst things
>>I've ever heard on ham radio, for over 20 years. And yet the FCC
>>apparently feels relatively powerless to determine what's obscene,
>>and night after night this thorn in our sides continues on.
>others. This is a two edged sword that can cut both ways. The
>FCC is understandably reluctant to get involved in matters of
>taste. Taste after all is mostly in your own mouth.
Now, of course, when someone plays a tape of that repeater at the next WARC
as evidence of the State of the Art in amateur radio communications, we should
not be surprised at coming back with a 10kc-wide cw-only ham band...
I don't personally care about "obscene" language, and they aren't jamming me,
but I really don't have much respect or concern for people who feel they MUST
act like jerks regardless of the consequences for themselves or others.
Marc Wiz
While it was never admitted in public IMHO a lot of hams in southern
California knew this and that's why the machine has been around all
these years. And while we're talking about garbage machines let us not
forget 146.61 in southern California.
I was on 435 for many years and in the late 70's it was one of the
finest repeaters to be on despite the fact that the problems were
starting to worsen. It has gone through cycles of good and bad. A lot
of this depended on how much the people who were on the repeater cared
about it. After the FCC took away the licenses of some of the hardcore
jammers in the early 80's 435 experienced a "rebirth" where it was a
fun repeater to be on.
Alas this "rebirth" went the way of the dodo when Dave Faraone WA6KOS
the repeater owner and trustee passed away in May of 1983.
There were a lot of fine hams on the system and there was always
some interesting discussion going on.
Marc Wiz MaBell (512)838-4780
Yes that really is my last name.
The views expressed are my own.
ma...@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com
or
uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!ekhomeni.austin.ibm.com!marc
John Moore
In article <1991Oct8.1...@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> mor...@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:
]Please stick to one subject - a closed system simply requires club
]membership, and membership of a closed system is available to anybidy
]who wants to join. "...or just have the proper PL in your radio" refers
]to an open system that happens to require PL.
No, membership of a closed system is available to those whom the owners
of the system choose to admit. There may be closed systems open to all, but
there are lots of closed systems open to only an elite few (Cactus comes
to mind, although the "few" is a lot of people these days).
--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 (602-951-9326)
ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john jo...@anasaz.UUCP anasaz!jo...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth
part..." B. Franklin - Standard Disclaimer Applies -
- - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Marc Wiz
mor...@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:
>
>
> This attitude is why many LA hams consider 435 to be a sewer. ANd why
> more have gone to 220, 440 or 1200.
>
> And why should someone need a Motorola B93MPB into a 16 element beam
> antenna ? Over 2.5kw erp?
> (A B93 is 330 watts continuous duty, for those who don't grok Moto model
> numbers)
>
> The "ultimate base" was sold when the person got transfered out of town...
> I helped to build it, install it, move it _twice_, dismantle it (the power
> transformer alone was > 300 pounds, not to mention the rest of the beast!)
> and ship it to the new owner in Arizona. He was willing to ship it
> beacuse it was a rare beast: it came from the Moto factory on a 14x mhz
> channel - not a conversion from 150 or 160mhz.
>
> But damn! could it get a piece of RG-8 warm....
Since we're now into talking about details about operation on 435
I'll have to refresh Mike's memory of events.
Flame thrower set on mild. :-)
I was the owner of the B93MPB. It was rated at 250 watts continuous
duty but did put out much more than that. (Love those Motorola
radios).
The radio was acquired at a swap meet and was never "built" or
installed by Mike. The only contact Mike had with it was to dismantle
it from the rack so it could be transported or shipped by the new owner
to Arizona. (At least that part is correct)
Flame off.
Anyway, it was rather sad to need that type of power to get into
the repeater.
There was one evening when I talked for a solid 10 minutes with
the "MPB" and yes Virgina the RG-8 did get quite warm. In fact
the PL-259 at one end of the coax was too hot to hold.
The radio did have the capability to be made into a remote base or a
repeater. It was to my knowledge a somewhat rare radio and IMHO the
successor to the Motorola green box. The green box was (in the L.A.
area) a rather well known military surplus amplifier with a pair of
4X150's in it. There were a couple of green boxes used on 435 over
the years.
I know that this will quite probably surprise to say the least many
people, but when you care about a repeater and the people on it you
don't want to get run off the frequency. It was a case of not giving
in to some rather indecent hams.
Many people left as Mike said to go to other bands but some of us
were willing to stay and try and keep a good repeater alive.
As I mentioned in a previous posting there were a lot of positive
things about the repeater and the Mount Wilson Repeater Associaton.
Among them was a tremendous public service effort know as "Operation
Santa Claus" to allow children to talk to Santa Claus via ham radio
before Christmas.
There also was a lot of help extended to prospective hams.
There were also many wonderful t-hunts held on the repeater.
Unfortunately along with the jammers, bootleggers and hams who enjoyed
harrassing people there was also a tremendous amount of politics and
personal agendas both on and off the repeater.
As shocking as this all is to some people let us not forget that
events such as this occur on HF and other walks of ham radio.
Not that this excuses anything that happened on the repeater.
Even more surprising things happened that made it seem like
a soap opera.
Brent Jones
>
>And why should someone need a Motorola B93MPB into a 16 element beam
>antenna ? Over 2.5kw erp?
>(A B93 is 330 watts continuous duty, for those who don't grok Moto model
>numbers)
It's kind of fun in it's own weird way like chasing DX on HF. Part of
the challenge is breaking through the pile-ups. On VHF and UHF it's a
little more challenging and requires some finesse occasionally to get a
big enough signal (especially from San Diego).
Brent, KB1UK
Marc Wiz
Bloom) writes:
>
> In rec.radio.amateur.misc, ma...@ekhomeni.austin.ibm.com (Marc Wiz) writes:
>
Lots of stuff from my previous deleted.
>
> As the trustee of a local high-level 2 meter repeater, I have never
> understood how a repeater group can allow blatant obscenity, music,
> intentional interference, etc. to continue unchallenged on a
> repeater. (I'm not from LA, but I take it from the postings that
> this describes the repeater in question.)
This would describe either 147.435 or 146.61.
This is a complex issue to say the least. Over the years very few
people had control over the repeater (as in wielding the on/off button)
and I know that with Dave WA6KOS (one of the trustees and owner) that
he tried to avoid turning off the repeater at all costs. Dave used to
say to the MWRA (Mount Wilson Repeater Association) that the repeater
was what those people made it to be. And to a certain point that was
true. People will do their own thing and in their own way and many
people tried to make the repeater a nice place but the "crazies" were
into making it into their vision if I may call it that.
435 was always privately owned (I can't speak for the last three years)
and was never under the control of the MWRA. The MWRA was a support
organization and that was it.
>
> For one thing, the trustee is legally responsible (along with
> the repeater user) for any transmissions the user makes. I know
> I don't want to put my license on the line for someone else's
> illegal operation.
That's true. But IMHO that ruling is wrong. You can't control
everything. I don't wish to digress or open a bag of worms but you
don't see the FCC going after a phone company because one of their
subscribers made an obscene phone call. Dave as well as lot of other
hams on the repeater felt that making the licensee responsible was
wrong. He even made a trip to Washington to talk to the FCC about this
topic. Dave was willing and obviously did put his license on the
line.
>
> Why not just have a control operator turn off the repeater whenever
> illegal operation occurs? Of course, this means that legitimate
> users can't use the machine either, but they can't anyway when
> the chaos is going on. Hopefully, over time, the jammers will
> realize that they can't have their audience, and will move on to
> less destructive pursuits. Even if they don't, at least their
> damage to Amateur Radio would be limited.
This does work in most cases (in my experience) but you have to
understand the type of people that were disrupting 435 in the late
70's. These people openly jammed the repeater. They did not care if
people knew who they were.
And when the repeater was turned off and came back on after a cooling
off period they would do there darndest to get it turned off right
away. Legal issues aside (and yes it's past history) what do you do in
a case like that? Do you give in and give these lids the pleasure of
turning off the repeater? It's not an easy question to answer.
After the FCC revoked the licenses of these hard-core lids there were a
couple of years in which the repeater and the MWRA went through a
rebirth. When a jammer was found a phone call or eyeball QSO was
sufficient to show the individual the error of his or her ways. This
new generation of lid was scared of being identified.
>
> P.S. By the way, the difference between repeater and HF jamming
> is that you can't "turn off" an HF frequency.
Why should there be any difference?
Alan Bloom
>Anyway, it was rather sad to need that type of power to get into
>the repeater.
...
>I know that this will quite probably surprise to say the least many
>people, but when you care about a repeater and the people on it you
>don't want to get run off the frequency. It was a case of not giving
>in to some rather indecent hams.
>Many people left as Mike said to go to other bands but some of us
>were willing to stay and try and keep a good repeater alive.
...
>Unfortunately along with the jammers, bootleggers and hams who enjoyed
>harrassing people there was also a tremendous amount of politics and
>personal agendas both on and off the repeater.
>As shocking as this all is to some people let us not forget that
>events such as this occur on HF and other walks of ham radio.
>Not that this excuses anything that happened on the repeater.
>Even more surprising things happened that made it seem like
>a soap opera.
As the trustee of a local high-level 2 meter repeater, I have never
understood how a repeater group can allow blatant obscenity, music,
intentional interference, etc. to continue unchallenged on a
repeater. (I'm not from LA, but I take it from the postings that
this describes the repeater in question.)
For one thing, the trustee is legally responsible (along with
the repeater user) for any transmissions the user makes. I know
I don't want to put my license on the line for someone else's
illegal operation.
Why not just have a control operator turn off the repeater whenever
illegal operation occurs? Of course, this means that legitimate
users can't use the machine either, but they can't anyway when
the chaos is going on. Hopefully, over time, the jammers will
realize that they can't have their audience, and will move on to
less destructive pursuits. Even if they don't, at least their
damage to Amateur Radio would be limited.
What am I missing here?
AL N1AL
Brian Kantor
>Why not just have a control operator turn off the repeater whenever
>illegal operation occurs? Of course, this means that legitimate
>users can't use the machine either, but they can't anyway when
>the chaos is going on.
I recall one repeater in Arizona that the local old farts were just SO
proud of. They even had someone monitoring it 24 hours a day - some
retired dude, I assume, since people with a life would have had
something better to do.
Anyway, the control operator had standing instructions to shut off the
repeater without warning at the slightest infraction, and he did.
So, with about half-a-dozen pranksters randomly interjecting the odd
curse or rude noise, that repeater started spending most of its time
off the air. Soon it got to the point that even the cleanest of
operators wouldn't use it, because you could never depend on it being
there when you needed it.
In San Diego, one repeater trustee used to turn off his club's system
whenever he didn't like what was happening on the channel. We built a
second repeater with two receivers - one on the output - and rigged it
up so that if the club repeater didn't key within about a half second
(presumably because it was shut down), ours would activate. That club
soon got themselves a new trustee.
No, real repeater owners learn quickly that the only time you turn the
repeater off is when it breaks. Otherwise you're just playing repeater
baron, you're not serious about it.
- Brian
Brent Jones
>illegal operation occurs? Of course, this means that legitimate
>users can't use the machine either, but they can't anyway when
>the chaos is going on. Hopefully, over time, the jammers will
>realize that they can't have their audience, and will move on to
>less destructive pursuits. Even if they don't, at least their
>damage to Amateur Radio would be limited.
Barring all arguments to what is obscene or not, there are a couple
arguments why someone wouldn't want to turn the repeater off which have
already been stated. Though the repeater is called a "dumpung ground"
by some, remember dumps have a purpose. They keep garbage and refuse
centralized. Take away the dump and the garbage isn't going to
magically disappear, it will be put (go) elsewhere. Turning off the
repeater isn't going to make the people go away, they'll just move
somewhere else. Keeping the Mt. Wilson box on the air is limiting the
"damage" to ham radio since it gives everyone a place to play.
There are few "legitimate" users on the 435 repeater anyway. If someone
wishes to really communicate through a repeater in LA, 435 is one of
the last boxes to come to mind...
Brent, KB1UK
John Moore
In article <43...@ucsd.Edu> br...@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
]In article <1457...@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> al...@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alan Bloom) writes:
]>Why not just have a control operator turn off the repeater whenever
]>illegal operation occurs? Of course, this means that legitimate
]>users can't use the machine either, but they can't anyway when
]>the chaos is going on.
The FCC can hold responsible a repeater trustee who does not do so.
]I recall one repeater in Arizona that the local old farts were just SO
]proud of. They even had someone monitoring it 24 hours a day - some
]retired dude, I assume, since people with a life would have had
]something better to do.
]
]Anyway, the control operator had standing instructions to shut off the
]repeater without warning at the slightest infraction, and he did.
]
]So, with about half-a-dozen pranksters randomly interjecting the odd
]curse or rude noise, that repeater started spending most of its time
]off the air. Soon it got to the point that even the cleanest of
]operators wouldn't use it, because you could never depend on it being
]there when you needed it.
Which repeater was that?
]No, real repeater owners learn quickly that the only time you turn the
]repeater off is when it breaks. Otherwise you're just playing repeater
]baron, you're not serious about it.
Real repeater owners take the regulations seriously and try to abide by
them. If that requires shutting down the repeater, then they do that.
It doesn't mean shutting it down because you dislike the conversation
(although any repeater owner has that right). It does mean shutting it
down if you become aware of abuse, and there is no other way to eliminate
the abuse.
We have open autopatches here in central Arizona. If we did not adhere to
this practice, we would find those patches filled with business calls and
unlicensed bootleggers (this is not speculation - it is experience). We
would also be in violation of our responsibility as repeater owners.
This doesn't mean I believe that every time someone belches, the repeater
should be shut down. To do so is to encourage the idiots (it gives them
power over the repeater because they can get it shut down). It also causes
us T-hunters to lose the signal we are tracking :-) However, to
consistently allow illegal operation on one's repeater is IMHO irresponsible.
Alan Bloom
...
>Real repeater owners take the regulations seriously and try to abide by
>them. If that requires shutting down the repeater, then they do that.
>It doesn't mean shutting it down because you dislike the conversation
>(although any repeater owner has that right). It does mean shutting it
>down if you become aware of abuse, and there is no other way to eliminate
>the abuse.
...
>This doesn't mean I believe that every time someone belches, the repeater
>should be shut down. To do so is to encourage the idiots (it gives them
>power over the repeater because they can get it shut down). It also causes
>us T-hunters to lose the signal we are tracking :-) However, to
>consistently allow illegal operation on one's repeater is IMHO irresponsible.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
AL N1AL
Roger Bly
>As the trustee of a local high-level 2 meter repeater, I have never
>understood how a repeater group can allow blatant obscenity, music,
>intentional interference, etc. to continue unchallenged on a
>repeater. (I'm not from LA, but I take it from the postings that
>this describes the repeater in question.)
The user group allows it because this is what the users want!
The ONE rule of the Mt. Wilson Repeater Association is that
there are no rules. As a user/listener since 1981, let me list
some of the activities and modes of operation on the famous
147.435/146.400(448.950 link) repeater:
- "typical QSO's" about weather, rigs, etc.
- swap net
- antique radio net
- trivia net
- joke net (lude jokes allowed)
- other nets that I can't remember now
- political & religious discussions
- talk about sexual acts
- talk about law
- "verbal abuse"
- "king of the hill" jamming contests (winner must
capture the repeater so that no other users can
be heard for at least 15 seconds)
- poetry reading
- debates and arguments about every subject.
- tape playing
- handling emergency traffic as needed.
- and much more
Operating convention dictates that all users duplex so that
others can make comments over top of them, they won't
double and so they can tell when they are being jammed.
And as far as the illegal stuff goes, of course no one likes to
be jammed, but the bootleggers, malicious jammers and music
players usually keep it to a minimum and are low power enough
that it is only heard when no one else is talking. Personally,
I find this very funny and an enjoyable operating environment.
Jammers, bootleggers and operators typically standby for
emergency traffic to be handled; and this repeater deals
with lots of emergency traffic.
>For one thing, the trustee is legally responsible (along with
>the repeater user) for any transmissions the user makes. I know
>I don't want to put my license on the line for someone else's
>illegal operation.
We're not asking you to. ;-) The FCC has not been giving our
trustees a hard time, so I guess they approve. Anyway, there
is a long line of hams willing to be trustee of this machine
including this licensee. I strongly disagree with any reading
of part 97.113(a) or the Communications Act of 1934 that restricts
the content of radio transmission or makes the repeater trustee
responsible for said content. I am a vulgar man. All I ask
is for a place where I can be myself and not worry about some
clown turning the machine off because I say "fucking asshole"
or something. 147.435 is such a place.
>Why not just have a control operator turn off the repeater whenever
>illegal operation occurs? ...
>Hopefully, over time, the jammers will
>realize that they can't have their audience, and will move on to
>less destructive pursuits.
The last trustee of the repeater was thrown out by the users
for turning the machine off when "illegal operation" occurred.
The current trustee has vowed that the "machine will be
turned off for no reason!".
>What am I missing here?
>AL N1AL
The whole point! A group of people have banded together to fund
and support a repeater where they don't have to worry about a
control operator turning the repeater off because of "blatant
obscenity", topic of discussion, etc.
>P.S. By the way, the difference between repeater and HF jamming
>is that you can't "turn off" an HF frequency.
You can always turn off your radio or change frequency. If the
operation on 147.435/146.400 bothers you, I suggest this as the
solution to all those offended. ;-).
Love,
Roger Bly (ka6mwt)
Alan Bloom
>You can always turn off your radio or change frequency. If the
>operation on 147.435/146.400 bothers you, I suggest this as the
>solution to all those offended. ;-).
I have never even heard this repeater, and I am still offended!
I have received a lot of satisfaction from Amateur Radio over the
years, and the hobby means a lot to me. It bothers the hell out
of me to see it torn down by people who apparently don't give a
damn.
I am not at all offended by foul language when used in person-to-
person private conversations. And if people want to prove their
manhood by having macho shouting matches, that's fine by me as
long as they do it in private. But it is very destructive to
our hobby when people pull this kind of shennanigans over a
wide-coverage repeater (or international shortwave band, for
that matter.)
I know of at least one instance where a tape of this kind of
operation was played by a representative of a third-world nation
at a World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC), to the great
embarassment of the Amateur delegation present. The point was
that scarce frequency resources should not be wasted on a group
with no more self-control than this.
It also gives a very poor impression of Amateur Radio to any
potential new hams who might be listening in on their scanner.
A CB license is much easier to get, if this is the kind of
operation you are looking for. (No flames, please -- I realize
not all CB'ers are like this.)
I was going to suggest that the (ab)users of the 147.435 machine
take their garbage to a simplex frequency. Then I realized that
the whole point of this kind of operation is the large audience.
Exhibitionists can't get their jollies if nobody is listening.
If they did it on a street corner they would be arrested.
Apparently they can do it on Amateur Radio with impunity.
AL N1AL
Robert Smits
> responsible for said content. I am a vulgar man. All I ask
> is for a place where I can be myself and not worry about some
> clown turning the machine off because I say "fucking asshole"
> or something. 147.435 is such a place.
>
Of course, the only problem that this cretin, and others of his ilk
create, is the image in the minds of non-amateurs that we all like him.
If legislators actually ever listen to his repeater, we'll lose any
support we ever had.
I'm in the service business. It's an axiom in my industry that it takes
14 "good" acts to overcome 1 bad one. That is, if you screw up once, it
takes on average 14 good interactions with the customer to overcome the
negative image created by the one bad one.
It'll take a lot of positive PR to outweigh the negative image created by
these jerks.
73, Bob
Robert Smits VE7EMD Nanaimo B.C. Ph (604) 753-4119 __|
e-mail: e...@smits.oneb.wimsey.bc.ca Fax (604) 753-4143 _/. |\
VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NOAM < (0)
CQ DX ! CQ DX ! _ /__ |
( ) <_______/
\ \/ \