I'm not sure how long many on this board have been in ham radio but years ago when getting a license for a ham repeater, yes there was a special license, it was mandatory that you had a receiver monitoring the output of your repeater and if the frequency was in use the repeater was not to transmit to cause interference to an existing conversation.
Today if someone is using the output of a repeater frequency for a simplex conversation and someone else wanted to use the repeater then there would be interference to the conversation that was first on that frequency. Could this be considered malicious interference? There are enough simplex frequencies available that there should not be a need to use a frequency that has a repeater output. I listen/scan the basic simplex frequencies and usually hear one or two conversations a week. Most of the simplex frequencies never are used. David WA4ECM -----Original Message----- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Closed Repeaters When you turn on your 2M radio and tune it to 146.520 and transmit it is now using public spectrum, move over, hand me you mic, I now have the RIGHT to use your radio. I think there is a premise problem here. I have never assumed that because I place a repeater on the air, on a frequency pair, that I have any expectation of exclusive right to those frequencies. Also consider how much of our debate is actually part 97 and how much we are debating long held best practice and "gentleman's agreement". I don't think operating simplex on a repeater output is malicious interference if it's not walking over the repeater transmitter. I think if you want closed repeater access that you should use PL, or better, DPL, or best, DTMF access (turn it on when you use it). I think the number of times someone would operate simplex on a repeater input as a necessity of band congestion and just happen to use the same PL/DPL as the repeater is astronomical... unless the person were just trying to cause trouble... oh wait, that would then be malicious interference. I have the view I do on this because I do not hold the premise that because I have a coordinated repeater that I have the right to the spectrum. And actually none of us have the RIGHT to use the spectrum. We are granted the PRIVILEGE of using it by the government by obtaining the proper class amateur radio license. Getting along, being considerate, willing to compromise, and making and following our own rules is a big part of why the government has been as good as it has to Amateur radio. For example, there are no bandplans in part 97... those are things we agreed to on our own. Maybe if there's such a shortage of repeater frequencies and a huge pent up demand for them we should consider changing our bandplans? I know there are some areas of the country that have problems using 440 (I'm really sorry guys, I wish you didn't have those restrictions). the amateur 440 band is 30MHz wide. A repeater takes 2 x 5kHz channels. Jesus people, what are we fighting about? On Jul 26, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Dennis Zabawa wrote: The point has been made that a closed repeater (actually any repeater) is private property and others have no right to utilize it. I would agree to that premise except for the fact that the repeater utilizes PUBLIC spectrum. The analogy would be: I have a large tent that I like to set up on my property. If I take that same tent and permanently set it up in a public park and, I keep others from entering my tent, I am using PUBLIC property for my own, exclusive use. Would that set well with most of you? I have a closed repeater that has PUBLIC spectrum coordinated for it. That has the effect of allocating that PUBLIC asset for my exclusive use. Why should a repeater be different than the tent? -- Cort Buffington H: +1-785-838-3034 M: +1-785-865-7206
