The Closed Repeater Issue
Charles (W8VOM)
on
July 23, 2000
View comments about this article!
The Closed Repeater Issue
The Proliferation of Private Repeaters that are Totally Closed to the general amateur population are cause for concern!
The issue being addressed here is Closed Systems who "exclude" some amateurs for "arbitrary" reasons...This is a form of discrimination and it is Alive and well within the amateur radio service.
In this land we are blessed with many repeaters to choose from, the owners of these machines have spent many hours and money maintaining them for our use. Most of these repeaters are Open and their owners understand that while they have foot the bill for the
equipment, said equipment also resides on Amateur frequencies and they allow Open access to
them. This approach seems to be a fair exchange. Sadly, we are also seeing a rise in the Family only or Private group repeaters on amateur radio frequencies!
As a past repeater owner I once made the statement "Nobody Rides For Free". Requiring people to pay for access to the DVR or Autopatch seems fair and is not the issue here. The problem arises when owners or groups deny access for strictly arbitrary reasons! We should all be more concerned about these "Invitation Only" systems. I have never been denied access to any system but I have friends who were denied access. To be denied access simply because the person seeking it has a Funny voice or because "We don't know you" goes beyond the intent of the law granting owners exclusionary powers. What
next, ethnic or political closed systems? The door is Wide Open under current law. An owner may legally discriminate against *anyone* who attempts to use his system and in my
opinion, that attitude is not in the Spirit of Amateur Radio! Many areas are now out of frequency pairs on 2 meters and 440. Should remaining frequencies be granted to more closed systems?
America has eliminated many forms of discrimination and so should we. To exclude a licensed amateur from any system for arbitrary reasons or because they are not one of the
group, is cause for concern. Again, I am not referring to Special service
repeaters, I am referring to the proliferation of Private and Closed repeaters within the amateur radio service! If this proliferation
continues, you may well find yourself hunting for an Open repeater as you travel this great nation.
It may be time for the FCC and the ARRL to revisit existing law and the great latitude it grants to repeater
owners. A survey on QRZ showed that the vast majority of amateurs oppose closed repeaters and I include myself in that majority. I am well aware that some owners will not agree with said
majority, nobody likes to loose the power to withhold access. Some owners withhold access for "personal"
reasons, not because the person seeking access is a bad operator and this is wrong! Together we can make arbitrary exclusion from closed repeaters a memory. Let your ARRL director know that the existing law needs to be changed. We can take action now or wait till the last pair is granted to yet another closed system!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Bad Amateur Practice
|
|
|
by K8YS on July 23, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Closed repeaters are not good for Amateur Radio. Luckily, we do not have any around here. Autopatch is closed, you must be a member to use it. This is fine, but to openly prohibit a licensed Amateur from using a system that is within his license class is Not Good Amateur Practice.
It has been my experiance that repeaters are ego trips for some. For others, who want to limit access to family members only, there is a FCC part 95 service called GMRS.
A repeater cost money, if you want to spend the money to put one on, then accept donations from users, PL it, but do not make non-dues paying Hams unwelcome. If you want, put a community tone panel on it and use a tone just for the family.
|
| |
|
Closed Repeater Blight
|
|
|
by KV4BL on July 23, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I fully agree with the author, something has to be done about this. Supposedly, the FCC does not grant any person or group of persons ownership or exclusive use of any frequency, but this is exactly what is happening by allowing this plague of "CLOSED" machines to exist. If anyone in the operatring range of one of these "private" repeaters dares to use "their" frequency, they will be accused of malicious interference, bad amateur practce, or worse. This is the case for a 20-100 mile radius of the sacred private machine for not one, but two, frequencies.The FCC allowed this quagmire to happen and I hope they will see fit to rectify it sometime in the near future. As another ham has already noted, there is GMRS and, I might add, business band that these unfriendly "hams" can set up camp on if they have to have exclusive use of a repeater. Amateur radio is probably one of the least private of all radio services and as such, there is no place for closed machines on the ham bands. It is frightening to look at a "Repeater Directory" from two or three years ago and compare it to the latest ones to see how this plague is spreading all over the country. I have no problem with "closed" auto patches and such, but to totally close access to a repeater is not in keeping with the spirit of ham radio. A while back, after one of these "private" machines came online in our area, one of the local clubs added its info to the club's web site on the page listing all working local repeaters. The web page duly noted that this was a closed repeater so that club members and other hams who happened to stumble upon the "new" machine in town would not try and use it and get griped at by the machine's owner. The machine's owner and other users griped and moaned for some time about the club having dared to publish "their" frequencies like that. This was a learning experience for me as I had not previously been aware that the FCC was allowing ownership of frequency pairs, b
|
| |
|
RE: Closed repeters
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on July 23, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There are "member only" repeters in the area I am in. These repeters have tone control and locked autopatch. If some group wants a system like this that is fine as long as they pay for the frequency in the GMRS band. To do this on amateur frequencys is just plan wrong. Amateur radio was setup to listen for SOS calls from ships at sea and others needing assistance. Right now the stage is set to take all the amateur bands above 50 MHz. Look at the Cell Phones everywhere and being used to call in emergencys. Now you dont even need an account with a local provider to access the 911 system in the area your in. I myself have an old bag phone I bought for $5 at a local thrift store. I now use it to make 911 calls for traffic wrecks and emergencys. The only number you can dial with it is 911 but what other number would you need for calling in an emergency? I no longer even have a 2 meter transceiver. Even if I did have one it would be useless as the phone patches are closed and no one will talk to someone they dont know or not in the club that owns the repeter. Before I gave up on 2 meters I came across a bad wreck with injuries. I tryed the local repeters with no help. I then drove to a pay phone and called in the wreck. While driving back to the wreck and still listing to the 2 meter radio I heard two hams comment about me wanting help. They must have thought I had moved to another repeter and said that whoever I was I should have been a club member if I had wanted there help. So now I use a cell phone. Let the FCC sell off 2 meters and up. It's no longed used for it's intended purpose anyway.
|
| |
|
CLOSED REPEATERS....NAAAAAHH!!
|
|
|
by NY7Q on July 23, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I AGREE WITH AUTHOR. CLOSED REPEATERS SHOULD BE BANNED BANNED BANNED...RECENTLY TRAVELED ALL OVER USA, WAS THROWN OFF REPEATERS MOSTLY IN CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO AREA, AND LOS ANGELES AREA..VERY VERY RUDE HAMS!. EVEN THO THEY SPEND THE BUCKS, THEY DONT OWN THE FREQUENCY, AND TO CLOSE A REPEATER IS JUST PLAIN STUPID. WE OWN SEVERAL REPEATERS IN MY AREA, INSTALLED FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HAM RADIO, NOT FOR LITTLE STUPID GROUPS OF PEOPLE. I DONT AGREE WITH CHARGING FOR THE SERVICES OF THE DIAL UPS, OR ANYTHING ELSE, ITS JUST PLAIN STUPID AND NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF HAM RADIO..IF YOU WANT A PRIVATE LITTLE GROUP THEN GET A BUNCH OF PUBLIC RADIOS FROM RADIO SHACK AND STAY AWAY FROM HAM RADIO. I TOO, HAVE TRIED TO USE 2 METERS IN A ROAD EMERGENCY, WHERE A LIFE WAS THREATENED, AND SOME STUPID DOPE IN SACRAMENTO ASKED ME IF I WERE A LOCAL OR TRANSIT WHEN I TRIED TO GET SOMEONE TO DIAL 911...IS THAT DUMB?? IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE BECOME?? IF I MOVED IN MY WORK TO SACRAMENTO, I'D BE DAMNED IF I WOULD JOIN A CLUB THERE...THEY ALL ARE STUPID JERKS..
|
| |
|
RE: The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by AB7RG on July 23, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the FCC rules governing Amateur Radio, it does state that no one "owns" a frequency. So how can anyone "exclude" other Amateurs from Amateur Radio frequencies? Sure, they can own a repeater, that's *their* system, but it is on Amateur Radio frequencies! If they don't like someone on the frequency that their repeater is one, they can change it's frequency, or shut it off. They cannot chase people off, not and be in compliance with the FCC rules under Part 97.
Don't believe me? Check Out Part 97, 97.101 General Standards, subsection (B). "Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station."
Wow, that last sentence pretty much sums it up! "No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station." There ARE NO closed repeaters, not legally anyway! If they don't like you using their equipment, they can pull the plug. Kind of hard to argue with the rules and regulations, huh? Got to love things that are spelled out so clearly in black and white. Just the former OO in me looking up the issue before commenting.
I do want to go on record as being one who is very much in favor of supporting the repeater(s) that you use, and their respective groups and owning and maintaining such a system is not cheap. So if you're going to use it, don't abuse it. Pay your dues or make a contribution to help out. Even if it's just donating your time or stuff that the club or repeater owner needs.
73, Clinton Herbert AB7RG
|
| |
|
RE: Closed Repeater Blight
|
|
|
by AC5WO on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real issue is "ownership" of the frequencies used by the repeater, not access to that repeater. Many hams including myself have enough surplus land mobile radio equipment to put together several repeaters, but lack access to open frequency pairs. I see nothing wrong with a ham putting up a closed repeater as long as it doesn't prevent other hams from using the frequency pair. Personally, I don't see the point in putting an "ego box" repeater on the air, but as long as it uses selective access like CTCSS and the frequencies are not wasted, what's the problem?
Outside of ham radio, wide-area single channel repeaters using FM analog modulation look pretty old fashioned. How about rethinking the whole idea of the repeater? We could design a new digital modulation scheme with useful features like time-division duplexing to eliminate the cost and size of the duplexer and multiple time slots so the repeater can handle multiple conversations. In a bits-are-bits digital world, the conversation can be a mix of voice, pictures, text, etc. Automatic power control could be built in so mobiles transmit just the right amount of power for low error rates with minimal co-channel interference. GPS signals could be used to automatically adjust the repeater frequency, synchronize the time slots, and even automatically "coordinate" the repeater. Automatic "coordination" would work by assigning frequencies to geographical areas similar to cellular telephone cells. If the frequency isn't in use and it's assigned for that location, its fair game for that conversation. Rather than having a small number of wide area repeaters that "own" frequencies, it might be possible to network together these small digital repeaters at the homes of individual hams. Why not make use of multiple "free" repeater sites spread out across the community? If it's done right, it could be an incredibly robust emergency communications system. This isn't expensive, exotic technology, it's 1990's era 2nd generation digital cellular technology combined with GPS and applied to amateur radio.
|
| |
|
RE: The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by W8VOM on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Clinton is correct,but in the practical application, it would be political suicide in some areas to use these assigned frequencies! In a sense,the frequency pair belongs to the closed repeater owner by default.Not many people would be willing to risk being labeled a bad operator to prove a legal point. That being said,closed repeaters do exist as long as they remain unchallenged.It is a catch 22 and the law needs more definition.
|
| |
|
closed repeater
|
|
|
by KT4DU on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If a repeater group is excluding someone from using a system, why would a person want to be able to use it. It might not be right to keep people out, but, if no one is going to talk to you if you did get on, find another repeater. They probably are not worth talking to anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeater
|
|
|
by K1OU on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Even though this is a bit off the subject, the repeater in my city is open until midnight, when until 5:30 am it is only accessible through PL, known only by club members. To me, this is ludicrous. Heaven forbid somebody traveling through has an emergency and no cell phone. And all because of a few people fearing who knows what. That is NOT amateur radio. That is self-serving exclusionary trash borne out of thought for nobody except a select few who are concerned about spending a few extra pennies because somebody kerchunks the machine at three in the morning.
|
| |
|
Closed Repeaters
|
|
|
by KC2FOR on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I have not seen many such systems here in the NYC Metro area, closed repeaters indeed do have the potential to divide the Ham community. If the spectrum is a resource that must be used efficiently by all hams then closed repeaters are directly at odds with that premise.
I would support the outright banning of closed repeaters on the Ham Bands
|
| |
|
RE: Closed Repeater Blight
|
|
|
by KV4BL on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I apologize for the second post, but the tail end was cut off of my first one and saw a few posts that I wished to additionally comment on. I agree with NY7Q that repeaters should only be put up in the spirit of bettering amateur radio. Private machines are totally contrary to this. I also liked Clinton, AB7RG,'s comments about there being no such thing as closed repeaters. Perhaps it is the ARRL Directory or maybe local coordinators such as SERA who legitimize "closed" machines by allowing them to be posted as such in their publications, who are partly responsible for their increase in numbers. If so, they need to address this problem from their respective ends. Mr. Hollingsworth or other FCC Officials; if you're reading this can you please offer comment and or help in rectifying this mess? I saw where AC5WO has no problem with "closed" repeaters as long as they don't prevent other hams from using the freq. Problem is, that if they are on the popular bands of 10,6,2m or 70cm, it is pretty much a given that they WILL prevent other hams from using the freq at some point in time, especially on the DX prone bands like 10 and 6m. KT4DU was on the money with his comment that these little anti-social groups probably aren't worth talking to, to begin with, but the point is that they are tying up spectrum that might be used by a machine erected for the good of ham radio, either locally or at a distance, had this unfriendly repeater not been coordinated for that pair. I tend to agree with the hams who were against closed autopatches but there is a need in many areas to keep lids from abusing the patches and even making hang-up 911 calls which embarrass the machine owners at the very least. A club I belong to had maintained a closed patch for many years, as a perk to encourage membership (support) of the repeater effort and to prevent abuse. We just went to open status with universal up and down codes on a trial basis. Prior to this, if a non-member ne
|
| |
|
RE: Closed Repeater Blight
|
|
|
by KV4BL on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Darn it! I got cut off again. Here's the rest of my comments A club I belong to had maintained a closed patch for many years, as a perk to encourage membership (support) of the repeater effort and to prevent abuse. We just went to open status with universal up and down codes on a trial basis. Prior to this, if a non-member needed to make a call, all he or she had to do was ask a member to dial the number for them. This was not a problem. Finally, I fully agree with KC2FOR who called for an outright banning of "closed" repeaters from ham radio. 73, Ray KV4BL
|
| |
|
RE: Closed Repeaters
|
|
|
by N0RKX on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I'm not mistaken all repeaters have to be coordinated by the local coordination body. All repeaters that aren't coordinated must accept any "interference" they receive. Also, as far as I know all coordinated repeaters have their frequency pairs and PL tones published. I think it should be mandatory that to receive coordination the repeater be an open repeater.
Our local 147.135/735 machine is one of those wide area dinosaurs. The NWS loves it when we have severe weather. We were forced to put a PL tone on it because of it's exceptional coverage. The frequency pair and PL tone are published every year in all of the repeater directories. Is a repeater considered closed because it has a PL tone on the input? Some area amateurs do consider it a closed system just because of the PL. They believe that if a Ham can't use it with a 25 year old radio then it is closed. I guess in that particular instance it could be considered closed, you could also say that the offended ham needs to buy an up to date radio. Nobody has ever been chased off of this machine, we go out of our way to announce the PL tone over the air to people who are having trouble getting in. We want people to use it, that's why we put it up.
|
| |
|
Closed Repeaters >A NASTY THING<
|
|
|
by N1YLN on July 24, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Luckily enough ther isn't a closed repeater around here (Southbury, CT) that I know of. I would ask the Freq. cooridinators to declare the freq. pair local simplex channels (just kidding)... I do agree that Autopatchs should be accessed only by owners permission but to deny any and all hams not family or club members general access defeats the spirit and even the purpous of Ham Radio.
This is a topic that should be looked at very closely by the FCC and changed as soon as possible.
Ed N1YLN
|
| |
|
Closed Repeaters and "Member" attitudes
|
|
|
by WA6DLM on July 25, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I "elmered" a friend to get his ham license a few years ago. I live in Orange County, CA, and he lives under Mt. Lukens in L.A. A very nice "open" repeater was operated from Mt. Lukens for years that served very well for my friend and I to keep in touch. This repeater went to a "Closed" status, and the DX group that owns it transmits an automatic voice synthesized "DX alert" now on the repeater. I had made friends with people using this repeater when it was open, and many of them were part of the group that took the repeater "Closed." It seems that the main purpose of this repeater now is to send out "DX alerts." I wasn't aware when the repeater went closed, and when I used the repeater for casual conversation during commutes, I was soundly scolded and told that the repeater was not to be used for conversing because it interfered with the "DX alerts" - and I should not be on at all because I was a "non-member." I had considered joining this DX group before, but as rudely as I was addressed, I have no intention of being associated with these guys! This repeater has been one of the best coverage repeaters in L.A., and now the frequency has been monopolized by a bigoted group for a specific purpose. How about transmitting "DX alerts" some other way?? Shutting every "non-member" out of a specific machine for such a purpose is even one step beyond "members only" machines. Closed repeaters should have to be on GRMS and be paid for!!!
|
| |
|
closed repeaters closed minds
|
|
|
by N0AH on July 26, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
it is privatization of a public resource- how it ever was deemed ok is beyond understanding- If you don't want to share the resource you are utilizing, then bag it and spend your money on a private commercial repeater system-
|
| |
|
Tone control and Closed Repeaters
|
|
|
by AC5WA on July 26, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This topic is sure to bring out the contentious ones!
The refusal of the hams in the remark above to handle emergency traffic because the caller was not a member of the group is hard for me to accept as reasonable.
If I am talking to another station on a repeater and the control op turns it off, I have a choice to go simplex on the input, the output, or move to another frequency.
I am a member of a group that on one of our machines, uses two PL tones for different levels of access. The published PL is for general every day use, is effective 24 hours a day and the secondary PL is used as a calling PL for members who do not wish to be bothered by all the chatter but do wish to be available to members of the repeater club. This is probably the best way to avoid being bothered by the day to day chatter which includes everything from discussions about antennas to fishing to fixing flush toilets.
In my opinion, I am authorized to transmit on any authorized frequency using any emission authorized for that frequency as long as I am not deliberately interfering with other legal communications already in progress. The owner/control op. of a repeater can turn it off if they don't want me using it, they can even use any access control scheme legal on the amateur bands, BUT if it is a "Closed" machine, they should be denied coordination OR Restricted to a limited number of pairs set aside for "Closed" machines. My thought is to put them all on one singe pair and let THEM figure out how to get along.
Some consideration is in order, because clubs and individuals do put up machines for their own reasons. Don't forget that after all, the "owner" has responsibility for what goes over their machine. If my friends and I are talking about "goose hunting" and the control op believes that the of killing poor defenseless geese is morally reprehensible, would you deny that control op the "right" to shut down the repeater?
Also, do you want a group of people discussing the ingredients of their favorite “stink bait” for catfish on the ARES machine during a hurricane? Even if the participants of this discussion are the ops at various disaster shelters, is this what the others in the net want to be listening to?
I have little sympathy for those who refuse to build or buy a tone encoder/decoder for their rig. If you can afford a radio, you can save a bit longer and get one with subaudible tone or add it to the one you have. The intermod and proximity of other transmitters in many areas makes tone control a necessity. I would far rather put up with having another dial to turn, register to program or button to push than listen to the taxi dispatcher duke it out with the marine operator over our local repeater.
73 de AC5WA
|
| |
|
closed repeaters
|
|
|
by N9NRA on July 26, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I`m in agreement with AC5WO on his idea of digital
trunking on the ham bands. Even an analog trunking scheme would work very well. (the public safty people use it
a lot around the Madison, wisconsin area). We could even
have celluar style autopach capiballities if we wanted.
Just another idea to think about.
thanks and 73 from andy, N9NRA
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters
|
|
|
by AC5WO on July 27, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In reply to N9NRA, analog trunking systems tend to be inherently expensive because they use separate repeaters for each frequency and a very expensive duplexer/combiner. ComSpace Corp. of Coppell, TX has a digital two-way radio system that is fairly close to what I had in mind. See http://www.comspacecorp.com Their system has to handle everything from 5kHz channel spacing at 220MHz to 25kHz channel spacing at 800MHz, so the modulation is more complex than what would be required to drop into existing amateur FM repeater pairs. -George
|
| |
|
closed repeaters and frequemcy coordination
|
|
|
by K4JRB on July 27, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Closed repeaters is merely the tip of the iceberg for what is wrong with 2 meters. I think closing a repeater violates the FCC rule that a frequency is not owned by any ham. Now visit any major city on Saturday night and see how many of the repeaters are in use. I believe there are
far too many repeaters now and most could be shared. The real problem is that we allow the Associations of repeater
owners to coordinate these various repeaters. It is sort of like letting the fox guard the hen house! Before too long the frequencies available for simplex and other uses are gone. Why at least can't they follow the suggested ARRL plan.
Recently one association tried to get repeaters in the weak signal portion of the band (CW, moon bounce, SSB) but were turned down by the FCC.
I think the FCC should adopt the ARRL plan and prohibit closed repeaters.
|
| |
|
semi - off topic and semi - on topic
|
|
|
by K8YS on July 27, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here in Cincinnati, there is a repeater listed on every 15 KHz (above 146MHz) and every 20KHz (below 146MHz) of those repeaters, you can count the number on one hand that are actually USED.. there are an equal number that are down and some have been down for several years. They remain "coordinated" through trickery and lies.
I can understand why a club puts a repeater in to CTCSS access after midnight. The last time I looked, the rules require control ops to assure correct operation of a repeater, some times these guys need to sleep, so putting a repeater to sleep is within the scope of good practice for the more paranoid.
Over the last bunch of years, repeater coordination has been at the forefront of repeater operation, the FCC will "side" with the coordinated repeater over the not coordinated in disputes. Once a repeater has been given the official approval by the coordination committee, these repeater owners have been given the pair for thier use. Sometimes, this is assumed to be a GRANT to a frequency pair and 15KHz on either side AND protection up to 75 miles away!
While the FCC may not have the man power to coordinate repeaters the way they used to, they have the power to appoint a reglatory agency, as they have done with the Volunteer Examiners and 1x1 call sign coordination. There was a time when a repeater had its own license assigned (WR calls) and the owner needed to supply pages of docs to the FCC, this kept some from bothering to put a repeater on the air. The coordinators would have to answer to the FCC in disputes.
|
| |
|
Can we get back to the real issue?
|
|
|
by W8VOM on July 27, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Closed Repeater Issue
The Proliferation of Private Repeaters that are Totally Closed to the general amateur population are cause for concern! The issue being addressed here is Closed Systems who "exclude" some amateurs for "arbitrary" reasons...This is a form of discrimination and it is Alive and well within the amateur radio service.
The author is not talking about repeaters that simply have a PL or are Dedicated Emergency only repeaters!
The issue being addressed are Repeaters that are TOTALLY CLOSED to people who are not members of the Owners Family OR Circle Of Friends!!! .
Example,the owner of a closed repeater belongs to a Coin collectors group,he permits only amateurs with the same interest to use HIS repeater that resides on OUR frequencies!!!
If YOU agree that owners have way too much latitude under existing law,It may be time for the FCC and the ARRL to revisit existing law and the Great Latitude it grants to repeater owners. A survey on QRZ showed that the vast majority of amateurs oppose closed repeaters and I include myself in that majority. I am well aware that some owners will not agree with said majority, nobody likes to loose the power to withhold access. Some owners withhold access for "personal" reasons, not because the person seeking access is a bad operator and this is wrong! Together we can make Arbitrary Exclusion from closed repeaters a memory. Let your ARRL director know that the existing law needs to be changed. We can take action now or wait till the last pair is granted to yet another closed system!
|
| |
|
closed repeaters
|
|
|
Anonymous post on July 28, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
PL control of a repeater can be very effective in avoiding interference, especially in small geographic areas or where one or more repeaters has impressive coverage. However, closed repeaters are contrary to the spirit of the amateur service and should be banned by the FCC.
|
| |
|
Not only stupid, but endangering!
|
|
|
by KC7YJV on July 28, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't get me wrong, i have nothing against having SPECIAL features like autopatch and speed dials etc. to have a fee system attached. But not only is closing a repeater to an exclusive group illegal, it is also a serious safety issue! I live a few hundred yards from a major intersection and town connecting bridge and have several times and i have been lucky enough to save a life or two by being able to QUICKLY report an accident using my 2meter rig trhough the local repeater. Several times this was my only link because i was either on the road or not near a phone. In our area, all you have to do is dial 911! Pretty simple huh!? When you exclusively block a repeater or refuse to help in an emergency you are not only being a total idiot, but you are also breaking the law and being immoral. In fact, doesnt FCC rules state somewhere that you should exercise any effort to the best of your ability to help or prevent in an emergency situation? If these people wanna suck up bandwidth to put up petty repeaters to talk with their fishing buds in the next town on the commute home, they should consider GMRS, or even simplex. I appreciate all of you who support this issue, and as for those of you who dont, you should just hope the next time you're in an accident, that the repeater youre trying to use ISNT CLOSED, maybe you might change your mind? 73's all.
|
| |
|
closed repeaters
|
|
|
by N8JR on July 30, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me, that besides violating the amateur spirit, closed repeaters are illegal according to amateur rules which specifically state amateurs have no claim to a specific frequency. When a closed repeater occupies a frequency, it is in effect, laying claim to that frequency, and its use is forbidden to others. As the licensee of a repeater which was created specifically for emergency communications, our repeater is always open to anyone, but we ask users to hold back during emergency communications or drills.
Those who need "exclusive" communication, should go to GMRS or simply use cell phones.
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters
|
|
|
Anonymous post on July 30, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
when a repeater is given coordination, it is granted title to a pair of frequencies. If you doubt this, put a repeater on the air on or next to an existing repeater and watch how fast you will be ordered to move it.
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters
|
|
|
by K4JRB on July 31, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think the FCC ever envisioned giving anyone "Title"
to a pair of frequencies. The coordination is just a gentleperson's agreement and for a given area. The reason others (both simplex and repeaters) are asked to move as the FCC has granted limited frequency in use control to the repeater.
This goes back to my original premise and supports the original thread that there is no place in amateur radio for
ownership of a frequency. You can ask another to move somewhere else but if that station stands his ground..it is not interference, just using the frequency. If the station goes off a few Khz and transmits then that is interference. If the other station starts broadcasting on the repeater with no intention of listening..that too is interference.
I also agree that its against FCC rules (and ITU rules) to
prohibit use of a frequency by anyone. If you can't figure out the secret tone and they won't tell you then use a 500W brick...that will do the trick or better yet go where the repeater is open.
|
| |
|
Closed Repeaters
|
|
|
by KC5BMJ on July 31, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, as a UHF repeater owner here in Georgia, I can tell you that I would never "close" a repeater to anyone unless that person is causing problems with others on the machine. The ability to "kick people off" arbitrarily is a power that every repeater owner should have -- if only to ensure he has control of his station and how it is used.
We had a ham some time ago that would key a wide area 2m machine up for hours at a time and TALK TO HIMSELF.. even after severe scolding and letters to him, he still did it.
I would find it interesting to see if the "DX Alerting" repeater is legal per the rules -- (have they ever heard of EMAIL???) and I bet if you listened to some of these closed machines for a while you would find that the traffic there is not "amateur" in nature -- go to MIAMI -- perfect case in point where every single 2m and 440 freq is coordinated and the traffic is often more business related than ham.
Setting up a repeater for a family or group of friends should be done by the coordinating body WITH THE UNDERSTANDING that they do NOT have priority on the frequency ASSIGNMENT... Any other machine open to all hams would take priority on the frequency pair. Of course, this would really make all the closed system owners mad, and they would leave their uncoordinated machines on the air anyway -- so I don't know the best way to implement this idea...
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters by "Anonymous"
|
|
|
by W8VOM on July 31, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mr. "Anonymous" Your post lacks credibility in many way's.
1. You are a coward,the author of the article puts himself at risk but you prefer to snipe from the bushes!.
2.You are into the frequency "Power and ownership" thing and you represent exactly what we need to change!
3.You are WAY off subject,the subject is Closed Repeaters and denial of access to them Not their coordination!
You write: "when a repeater is given coordination, it is granted title to a pair of frequencies. If you doubt this, put a repeater on the air on or next to an existing repeater and watch how fast you will be ordered to move it.
I think I know "who" you are and you are using the age old "trick" of mixing Apples with Oranges but it wont fly in this forum. The subject here is Closed Repeaters and the Owners who arbitrarily "exclude" good operators because they don't fit in with the owners little band of friends or they want to protect their little Ego Box they call a repeater!!!. Why not post with your Call or Name and let the debate begin? People do not object to the existence of Repeaters,they object only to the Owners who "exclude" others for no apparent reason!. It is this misuse of power by the owners that is cause for concern.The law needs to be changed or modified as to "who" and for "what" reason,may a licensed amateur be excluded.Some owners "abuse" the great latitude the FCC grants them and that practice is not in the Spirit of Amateur radio.
Chuck W8VOM
|
| |
|
DX alerting repeaters/closed repeaters/etc.
|
|
|
by KA9NZI on August 1, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that "closed" repeaters are against the spirit of the law, even if not explicitly forbidden by the law. Fortunately, we don't seem to have any of them around my area. We do have a lot of repeaters, most of which are silent most of the time. I'd certainly question anyone who wanted to add yet another repeater in this area, closed or not.
On the other hand, broadcasting "DX alerts" via repeater is certainly within the scope of the regulations, which do allow amateur stations to transmit "bulletins" of specific interest to other amateur operators. At least one of our local repeaters has a regularly weekly bulletin transmission that includes "canned" ham radio news items. This is transmitted during a weekly net that uses the repeater. The only problem I see with it is the fact that it does monopolize the frequency for ten minutes at a time (they break for ID) which could keep the repeater from being used in an emergency. Fortunately, there are lots of other repeaters in the area. As for those "DX alerts", it sounds like a phone equivalent to the DX Packet Cluster, which is certainly legal and even useful.
The owners of a repeater should not (and as far as I can see, CAN not) under the present laws and regulations be allowed to exclude users from a frequency based on membership in any group (whether the group is a club, or something else like a family or a particular race or religion!) However, it does seem legitimate within reason for the owners to ask that use of the repeater be restricted to certain purposes (whether those purposes are DX reporting, emergency traffic, or whatever) provided these two requirements are met:
1. ALL repeaters should be made available for emergency traffic in the event that it arises.
2. Where a repeater is the SOLE repeater accessible in a given area and on a given band, it should remain available for general purpose uses.
For areas like Southern California, where the battles over repeater use and coordination so often seem to make it into the FCC enforcement log, I can only remain puzzled. There seem to be too many repeaters out there already, and evidently a great many of them are "closed" or there wouldn't be so many attempts to add yet another repeater to the fray. Obviously, something is very different about that place from my own Midwestern area, but I don't understand it and can't even begin to do so.
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters by
|
|
|
by KG4K on August 4, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with anonymous. When a repeater is given coordination, it is granted title to a pair of frequencies,
it is privatization of our resources. We allow the associations of repeater owners to coordinate, the fox guarding the hen house.
It's time to move forward with the technology, why not have several repeaters in the same area on the same frequency? There are simple technological solutions.
ONLY ONE RULE NEEDS TO APPLY, NO DELIBERATE OR MALICIOUS INTERFERANCE.
The present coordination system and idea(that no one can use the frequency, because someone might want to use the repeater, so it must be unused most of the time), creates
gross mismanagement and inefficient use of our resources. If
we aren't going to do any better, then commerical operators
need these frequencies for public service.
Oh, by the way, I don't exist for public service. However out of common decency, I make my equipment and service available in emergency situations.
I own and operate a repeater.
James Hicks,
KG4K
|
| |
|
Closed Repeaters
|
|
|
by N3HRT on August 16, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello to everyone,
There are several things that you can do about “closed repeaters”.
1) If there is no one talking on the repeater at the time they can’t kick you off. ALL frequencies on the Amateur bands are open for EVERYONE. If someone comes up and tells you to get off of a particular frequency and tries to “chase” you off, THEY are interfering with YOU.
2) If they turn the repeater off while you are talking with your friend, talk on the output.
3) If they change the PL, find the new one and start talking again.
4) Don’t come up while they are talking and try and talk with them. Wait until they are through and call your friend. Then refer back to 1, 2 and 3.
5) Don’t interfere with anyone. Simply USE the repeater.
These repeater systems are only closed because you allow them to be. The Amateur bands are open for everyone. No frequency is assigned for exclusive use to ANYONE. It doesn’t matter if they have the money and the influence to build their own repeater and get a frequency pair or not….
This kind of thing has happened in our area a few times and we forced them to either open it for everyone or shut it down. DON’T ALLOW this to happen. Don’t argue with them. It won’t do any good. Just ignore them and use the repeater EVERY CHANCE YOU GET.
I have my own repeater and its open for everyone (even if no one likes them). If something happens on my repeater that violates the rules or is beyond what I consider to be “good taste” I simply shut it off. That’s my right as the owner. I wouldn’t ever consider closing it. First and foremost its in poor taste to do so. More importantly, it’s against the rules and the intent of Amateur Radio.
Thanks for reading this.
Martin, N3HRT
|
| |
|
RE: Closed repeaters
|
|
|
by KK9H on August 17, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no question that all Amateur Radio frequencies are open for the use
by any licensed operator within the limits of his/her class of license. I do not
agree with continuously using a "closed" repeater against its owner's wishes
to harass him into opening it up or taking it off the air. The repeater is a radio
station that belongs to someone. It is their right to decide who they want to be
able to turn on its transmitter. This is no different than you deciding who you
would invite into your shack to use your equipment. Now, if you decide to use
either the input or output frequency of the repeater to have a QSO, that would
be perfectly legal as long as you are not interfering with someone else already
using them, but it would probably not fall within the spirit of your local VHF/UHF
band plan. How we all choose to use Amateur Radio frequencies is up to us as
Amateur Radio operators. I hope it will always be with the mutual enjoyment of
this great hobby in mind.
|
| |
|
RE: Bad Amateur Practice
|
|
|
by WA4MTG on August 30, 2000
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THESE SOUR GRAPES???
IF YOU PUT A TONE ON THE REPT. THEN MOST USERS DON'T HAVE
TO SET THERE AND LISTEN WHILE SOME "LID OPERATOR"
KER-CHUNCKS THE REPT. WHILE THE IMOD HISSES AND GROWLES.
OR A IMOD CALL FROM THE LOCAL VHF IS BROADCAST OVER THE
REPT..ALA HAS A STATEWIDE SYSTEM CALLED
AICN(ALA INTER CITY NETWORK.) CAN YOU SEE WHAT A
KER-CHUNCKER CAN DO WITH THAT KIND OF SYSTEM?? I MOD IN HUNTSVILLE(N ALA) COULD BE HEARD IN MOBILE( S.ALA)
THE " CHILDREN OF THE CORN" WOULD HAVE A REAL GOOD TIME!!!
HAM RADIO IS A WIDE OPEN FREE(?) COMM SYSTEM...JUST BECAUSE
A POOR OP CAN GET ON AND MESS EVERYTHING UP..WE USE TONE
CONTROL...TRY DOING A DEMO FOR EMA OR RED CROSS OR A SCHOOL
OR CHURCH GROUP...YOU TAKE A REAL CHANCE THAT SOME "LID OP"
WILL COME ON AND CUSS OR MAKE A REAL "MESS" OF YOUR DEMO..
THE COMMENT FROM EMA ETC "WHY THATS NOTHING BUT SOME KIND
OF CB I DON'T NEED AN UNCONTROLED SYSTEM TO HANDLE MY NEEDS"
ALSO WITH TONE A CLUB CAN CONTROL ACCESS AND CUTOUT DISTANT
MOBILE OPS WHO REALLY DON'T WANT TO USE THE RPT. TONES MEAN MOR RPTS CAN USE THE SAME FREQ . IE MORE REPT ON A ALREADY
CROWDED BAND...HERE IN ALA. MANY RPT SYSTEMS ARE OWNED BY
ONE OR TWO HAM OPS.AND THEY DON'T NEED THE FCC CHECKING
TO SEE WHY THEY RETRANSMIT SOME "CHILD OF THE CORN"
|
| |
|
The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by K3FT on January 9, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greetings!
This thread is almost as tenditious as the CW/NoCW issue! ;-)
First, the FCC says no Amateur has any 'right' of ownership to any frequency - true as defined in Part 97.
Therefore, any Amateur can install a repeater on any authorized frequency using the authorized modes, assuming their license class permits them to do so. They must, however, recognize the limitations inherent in this arena such as the need to coordinate the system, interact with other system owners to assure compatibility, maintain a more rigid technical/operational configuration, etc. By default, the self-limiting nature (geographical and propagational) of the RF systems defines the practical allocation of systems to a given band/mode.
One can argue, successfully in my mind, that the moral compact is that someone who wants to utilize a limited resource should and must make the system useful to the largest group of consituents who use that resource. This surely puts the onus on a 'DX repeater' to suppport, realistically, the rationale of tying up a good VHF pair for 'non DX alert activities' and precluding anything other than a very limited usage purpose. Co-sharing the resource is certainly a viable option, indeed and the operator of the system SHOULD and MUST consider it in order to maintain a useful reason for reasonably having the resource, if at all possible, I would think.
Second, recent FCC rulings in 2000/2001 dealing with individuals identified as causing interference/transmitted obscenities) on a specific repeater system have stated, point blank, that if a repeater trustee has asked someone NOT to use the machine (these cases dealt with interference/obscenities - keep that in mind - NOT casual operating!) the FCC upheld the trustee's right to refuse that person access to the machine. The FCC backed it up with their enforcement muscle.
This means, effectively, that the trustee of a repeater system can dictate who shall and shall not be able to use the machine. Proving discrimiation will then be difficult (but not impossible) and will entail expenditure of resources perhaps not in concert with the effort required to prove the point.
Again, the personal dictates of a trustee, if used to grind personal axes, does not support the justification of use and operation of a valuable limited resource such as a repeater pair. Again, we are dealing with a moral and ethical issue here which automatically generates its own set of issues, I know.
Third, current legal precedents allow and permit repeaters to be operated in a limited access, closed, or private manner as long as the appropriate rules are followed IAW Part 97.
This provides perfectly legitimate support for a group or individual to use the repeater system in the manner they have chosen to do so.
Fourth, the trustee of the repeater is legally responsible and accountable for all transmissions (and illegalities) which propagate through his machine. Therefore his latitude in determining what he permits or won't permit is quite broad. You may not agree with the rationale, but it is properly legal and permissible.
Fifth, the FCC has publicly stated that position that when a repeater system, operating on a pair of frequencies that have been properly coordinated with a recognized coordinating body, receives interference (intentional or unintentional) from a competing system that is uncoordinated the uncoordinated system must take the positive measures to mitigate/eliminate the problem - not the coordinated system.
This supports the actions of a trustee in managing who has granted access to use their assets. This also puts the lie to the argument used by some that state 'Well if no one owns a frequency and that repeater (I assume coordinated) is 'closed' then I'll just put up my own open machine and that will be that!' The 2nd system, by definition, will be uncoordinated since the coordinating body will not authorize two competing systems on the same frequency in a close geographical location without extenuating or very specific technical reasons to do so. Therefore the 2nd system is out of order and in violation of the rules. As noted prior to this paragraph, the FCC HAS thrown its regulatory enforcement weight behind the coordinated system over an uncoordinated one.
I know.. it's a sticky wicket.. Just to let you know..
We, in Baltimore, fought these battles back in the 60's when repeaters became popular. Same arguments.. same fights.. still a contentious issue, indeed. However, the difference now.. is that the FCC is putting some teeth behind the meat of Part 97 repeater rules and coordination issues. (not to mention the interference and obscenity issues as well! GO RILEY!)
73
Chuck K3FT
|
| |
|
RE: The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by W4KSR on January 16, 2001
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have a closed repeater here in the Portland, Me. area. It's even listed that way in the webpage of the Maine Repeaters. It's just for a select few "buddies". I don't believe it's right. A few years back we had a system that went up to Northern Maine that was a closed system. We're talking about 6 repeaters! If you checked in, you were told to "Get off this repeater, it is a private system".
However, I agree with the closed autopatch, but allowing access to the repeater to talk. Also, if someone is a totally bad operator, doesn't respect the rules of the repeater, won't straighten up, or totally hogs the repeater with usless chatter all day long, then I believe in all rights the repeater owner should ask them to leave. We have that situation going on here now. 73/Mark/W4KSR
|
| |
|
The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by K0AST on April 17, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Perhaps when repeaters are granted coordination, they should be coordinated solely on the basis of the percentage of them in any given market/region/area that are open v. closed. Thus, if say 20% of the repeaters in an area are closed, then the coordinators would grant no more coordination to closed repeaters. This would allow the few elitists that wanna play with their friends only a segment of the public resource, while allowing the majority the freedom of the airwaves as well. I see this as a place to put pressure on the coordinators in your areas, not the FCC...
|
| |
|
The Closed Repeater Issue
|
|
|
by WB4RTP on August 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A few days ago, I was listening to one of the many repeater systems in my
home state owned and operated by a Closed Repeater Association (CRA), and I
overheard a member of the CRA trying to be very nice about explaining to a
non-member who had been peacefully using the repeater that he had stop. He
semed to be a bit uncomfortable or embarrased, so he went out of his way to
be polite about it, but the rules of the CRA were clear that use of the
repeater by non-members was not to be tolerated. I think that his
discomfort was due to his subconscious realization of a fundamental
inconsistancy between the general operating standards of Amateur Radio, and
the rules interpretation that permit CRAs to operate closed repeaters.
In the articles and posts on the "closed repeater debate" that I have read,
I have not seen a concise explanation of what I see as a clear destinction
between two aspects of this debate: First, whether a CRA should be allowed
to practice "discrimination"; second, whether a CRA should be allowed to
monopolize frequencies. I assert that CRA is a private organization that
has every right to be as selective as they want for their membership. What
should be debated is whether the FCC rules should allow a CRA to extend
that selectivity to the use of Amateur Radio frequencies.
The CRAs base their practice of limiting the use of their repeaters on the
following regulation paragraph:
Sec. 97.205(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled
functions of the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to
only certain user stations is permissible.
A broad interpretation of the second sentance of 92.205(e) would give the
control operator of a repeater station full authority to exclude anyone
from using his repeater (the reason why ancillary functions
[e.g., autopatch, voicemail, links, etc.] are differentiated
from control functions is that control functions are considered
"remote control" and only the control operator may use them - this
way, any user may use the ancillary functions).
I have seen two two ways that CRAs justify excluding non-members from their
repeaters. The first is a property rights argument that says that the
owner of a repeater station has the right to decide who can use it and that
he can't be forced to make it available to the public. This is an apparent
contradiction to a more general regulation paragraph:
Sec. 97.101(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must
cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making
the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies.
No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station.
Thus, while the Amateur Radio repeater equipment may be privately owned
property, the frequencies it uses are publicly available
to all licensed Radio Amateurs.
The second justification is based on technical grounds, and goes this way:
Since the ancillary functions of the repeater are very sophisticated and
powerful, a user without the proper training could potentially enter a
sequence of commands that might cause transmissions in violation of FCC
rules, or even damage the equipment. Since only CRA members have the
proper training, therefore only CRA members may be allowed to use the
primary and ancillary functions of the repeater. This is an obvious
non-sequiter logical fallacy: What does a lack of training in the use of
the ancillary functions of a repeater have to do with being able to use the
primary function (relaying radio transmissions)? Technically, the only way
to automatically limit repeater access is through the use of encryption,
but that would violate Sec. 97.113(a)(4), so CRA members have to resort to
verbal abuse or manually shutting down the repeater to discourage
non-members.
I propose the following new language (IN ALL CAPS) to 97.205(e):
Sec. 97.205(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to
users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions
of the station. Limiting the use of THE ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS OF
a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible.
THE USE OF CODES AND CIPHERS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR TELECOMMANDS
OF ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS AND REMOTELY CONTROLLED FUNCTIONS
OF THE REPEATER.
This clarifies a limited interpretation of the current language in
97.205(e), and allows robust protection of the ancillary functions. With
this change, the primary function of a repeater would be open to all Radio
Amateurs, while the "ancillary functions" would be closed to all except
repeater association members. This seemed to be common practice in the
state where I grew up (Georgia), and numerous radio clubs and repeater
groups prospered under this practice, adding more and better "ancillary
functions" to attract new members, and getting enough new members and
renewals to continue to upgrade and enhance their repeaters.
I think we should petition the FCC to make this change in the wording
of Sec. 97.205(e).
73,
Avery, WB4RTP
|
| |
|
RE: closed repeaters by "Anonymous"
|
|
|
by FRANKM12 on January 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck,
You are right on target. It seems that many love to change the rules in the middle of the game, rather like a jailhouse poker game.
There seems to be a general disdain by some Hams of those who consider Amateur Radio a part of Science. They would rather use the repeaters as a "intercom" system for foolish babble. This is the SAME type of person who would set up a closed repeater sysem. These types also have hatred for those of us who cherish making our own equipment when possible. They are the ones who rant on about their store-bought antennas and how wonderful they are.
There is a trend building in Amateur Radio that is disturbing to me. It's the trend of practical outright worship of stupidity and these idiot types shunning those of us who take this field seriously.
For example, I listened to a few people talking about a packet system they had. The one guy was looking for a program that would interpret ASCII. So, I go on the web and look for one. I find one, get on the repeater and then they treat me like I have the plague. So if you have any education at all and display a caring for knowledge and Science then I suppose Amateur Radio is not for you anymore.
I have made a promise to myself to ingore all idiots on the air waves. Perhaps the idiots will all buy themselves repeaters and lock out those of us who like to study Wave Propagation and other aspects of Science dealing with Radio. Then the rest of us can use the repeaters that are left and talk about forwarding the field we love so much.
73
frank
KG4VLQ
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Amateur Radio Politics
Where Have all the Elmers Gone?.........
A New Century?
Any Help for ARC's
'Odd-Split' Repeaters on 2 Meters
Other Editorial Articles
Still a Great Hobby
10 Signs a Product Review is a Plant!
Mail Order Karma (Ninja QSLing)
Amateur Radio and Scouting In My Life
My First Memory
|
