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?

No, that is not what was said at all. That is not the tone of what was
said, nor was it said directly.

Your actual words in were "Ummm,
they already have it. If the pair really is unused, who is going to tell
you to stop using it?". That looks exactly like, "Ummm, they already
have it. If the pair really is unused, who is going to tell you to stop
using it?"

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? It's not your
prerogative to "pick a pair", just because you think it's unused.
That's what frequency coordination is for, and the reason it exists. Of
course you have an "explicit reason"; that doesn't give you the right to
ignore the law. And yes, it is "the law".

If a coordinated user complains that you are interfering
with a repeater that does not exist, you are free to laugh at him. Tell
me, just how DO you interfere with a non-existant system? Do you think
the FCC is going to listen to him?

Yes, the FCC is going to listen to him, because he has the right to use
that pair, while you do not. The FCC does recognize the work of
frequency coordinators.

If I lived in Resume Speed, Montana that might work, at least for awhi
le, if I
had the bad manners and grapes to try.

You think it is bad manners to use a frequency that is not being used?
You
only join conversations already in progress? You never make a call on
an unused frequency?

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

But if you commandeer a pair in an
already wait-listed/saturated environment,

The the pair is wait-listed and saturated, then it isn't unused, now is
it?

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.

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.

73, Steve KB9X