In article ,
Steve Bonine wrote:
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article ,
KØHB wrote:
"Mark Kramer" wrote in message
...
No, we could say "who are you interfering with if you put your newfan
gled
technology on a pair where there is no repeater active?"
The tone of this (and other) responses seems to suggest Ummm, they alr
eady have it. If the pair really is unused, who is
going to tell you to stop using it?

That is not what K0HB wrote. In
what he actually
said was:

]The tone of this (and other) responses seems to suggest "just stroke up on a
]convenient pair, and wait to see if the coordinated person/club complains".

That is also what appears in the article you replied to.

What YOU claim he wrote was something I wrote in a different
sub-thread. Yes, when what he actually wrote is replaced with something
I wrote, then what I wrote will look exactly like what you claim he said.

So, when I wrote:
No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was
said, nor was it said directly.

I was replying to the actual statement made by K0HB. I did not say
"convenient", nor "just stroke up", nor "wait to see" if anyone complains.
I said that there WILL be nobody to complain about the use of an unused
coordinated pair, because there will be no interference to complain about.

A coordination owner can complain that someone is using "his" frequency,
but all I have to do is ask what interference I am causing. And then
I'll ask him what rule makes that "his" frequency. When he answers "none"
and "none", the complaint will have been dealt with.

If you know a pair where there is no active repeater, you are not just
"stok[ing] up on a convenient pair", you've picked the pair with an
explicit reason.

How is this different than picking a pair where there's an active
repeater, or a repeater that is temporarily down?

An unused pair is one where there IS NO REPEATER. That's how it's
different. A pair with an active repeater on it is not unused. I've
said that before.

It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused.

First of all, I did not say "because I think it's unused". I said a known,
unused pair. That's not "think", that's KNOW. There is a difference.

Second, yes, the FCC gives ALL of us the prerogative of picking the
frequency we operate on. With the restriction that I may not cause
malicious or deliberate interference to another operator, and must operate
within the CFR allocations, I am free to pick any frequency I wish, just
as you are. Since I cannot possibly cause any kind of interference to a
repeater that does not exist, I have met the limitation of "no malicious
or deliberate". Since there is no repeater to interfere with, there is no
action I am required to take under the section that deals with coordination,
since the only required act is for the uncoordinated operator to solve any
interference issues. There are none to solve.

If you think there is a rule that says I don't get to pick my own
frequency to operate on, other than the limits I've already mentioned,
please quote it. The one about coordination isn't it.

That's what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists.

No. Frequency coordination is intended to mitigate interference issues. It
can't solve them (because they sometimes create the problem themselves
by coordinating two systems on the same pair too close together -- even
professional coordinators sometimes do that.) They are there to identify
the station who must act to solve interference issues. They do not grant
exclusive rights to a frequency. They cannot. The rules do not allow it,
and every 605 contains a statement that nobody owns a frequency. That
applies to repeater ops, too.

Of
course you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the law. And yes, it is "the law".

Please quote the law that says I may not use an unused repeater pair.
I cannot ignore a law that does not exist. In the meantime, I am obeying
the "uncoordinated must solve interference" law fully, in both spirit
and letter. I am ignoring or breaking no law.

Yes, the FCC is going to listen to him, because he has the right to use
that pair, while you do not.

Please quote the law that says THAT.

You just don't understand the concept of formal frequency coordination,
do you?

Yes, I do, and that insult was unwarranted.

I am sure that in many areas there are repeater pairs that, in your
eyes, would appear unused. It is the charter of the frequency
coordinator to make that determination, not each individual ham.

I said "known unused". I did not say "in my eyes appears".

It's too bad that we need formal frequency coordination and can't go
with the concept of "no one owns any frequency". Experience has shown
that the formality is needed in this case, and I your explanation of how
you could just jump in and squat on any repeater pair because you want
it is a fine illustration of how we got to this point.

This paragraph is a deliberate insult. I have never caused interference
to a coordinated (or uncoordinated) system, and never plan to, despite
your implication.

"This case" is not about the need for coordination because it is
not about interference. It is about the use of an UNUSED pair without
coordination. Since there is nobody using the pair, there is nothing
to interfere with. Since there is no interference, the law dealing with
who has to solve interference issues is moot. Even were the law to say
that the uncoordinated use must change frequency (which it does not)
there is no interference issue to force a change.