Lawsuits will be the death of us if we don't change how and when they are used!
The freq allocations that the government has allowed us to use are put there for the masses to use not for a priveleged few. There are other avenues available besides amateur repeaters to handle and allow specific use as well as limit those that can use them. I agree completely that open systems should be given priority over closed ones for coordination simply because the mere idea of a closed system goes against what the Ham spirit is supposed to be about. I do think owner/operators should be able to ban certain users due to continuous problems but this is much different than closing a system. HF has been used as an example so I will try that one too. Just because your friend may have a killer 160M antenna does not give you the right to go into his house uninvited and use his antenna. Besides he may have a loaded gun. It also does not give him the right to squat on a freq and hold it "for years" deciding who can use it and who can't. What I would like to see happen is this guy would invite anyone interested in 160M DX to come for a visit and use his station or if met on the air allow the other guy to join in the qso. Maybe we should establish coordination groups for HF freqs too????!!!(kinda works that way on 75M anyway) Tim KB2MFS --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH <m...@...> wrote: > > Repeater coordination should be granted or denied based on interference > matters, not on how someone wants to operate their repeater. Since > people have the right to control their private property, such a policy > is begging for a lawsuit. > > Joe M. > > Mike Mullarkey wrote: > > > > > > Being a past chairman of a coordinating council, we had many > > applications for close repeater systems. All and every application that > > was applied for was denied coordination unless they changed their closed > > status to an open status. >
