Oh, BTW: I've never run a system that was closed for more than a few
months. The only time I've been closed was when I was trying to get a
new and elaborate system on the air. I kept it closed for a few months
until all of the kinks were worked out and understood. Unfortunately
our state coordinator cannot be troubled to get the city, callsign, or
status listed correctly after several "update forms" being submitted
to do that.
I happen to believe in open systems for the most part, but also am
painfully aware of the cost to individuals putting up systems, and am
advocate for the owner remaining in control. I guess my feeling is
that if we disallow a closed repeater, what's next? Will the next
regulation change take away the ability for the owner to set his/her
own rules for using a system?
Mike, I do like your comments -- closed systems probably are a lot
less likely to get free support. It's your tower (or under your
control), you can give someone space or not. Which is exactly my
point. For decades our community has managed to regulate itself pretty
nicely -- well, I should say, where I've lived it has.
On Jul 26, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Mike Mullarkey wrote:
Hi Cort,
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.
I guess if a coordinator is allowing repeaters to get coordinated
with a closed status, it really does not benefit the ham community.
Having had and owned a linked repeater system with over 28 personal
repeaters within a system that has over 75 linked repeaters through
4 states. If we closed the system to a members closed system. Nobody
would ever use the system and more than ½ of the repeaters would get
kicked off the hill tops.
When we have clubs ask for repeater space on the tower, the first
thing I ask is what do they plan to accomplish with their system and
second is the system for all to use. I have had several say their
system is closed for club members only. Those groups would never get
free space on the towers. The guys that want to benefit all amateurs
and their systems are open to all licensed amateurs, I would always
go out of my way to help them out and most of the time I would even
give them FREE space. Hell, I would even combine them in on the
broadband antennas and multi couplers as long as their equipment was
engineered good and clean.
Mike Mullarkey K7PFJ
6886 Sage Ave
Firestone, Co 80504
303-954-9695 Home
303-954-9693 Home Office & Fax
303-718-8052 Cellular
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.30/2263 - Release Date:
07/26/09 11:07:00
--
Cort Buffington
H: +1-785-838-3034
M: +1-785-865-7206
