Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
Joe, Semantics implies the distinctions are trivial. If an obsolete term is in common usage, it's a valid topic here, whether aromatic or not. When hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs with undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise. (Remote base comes to mind.) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: MCH To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something. A trustee is a person *entrusted* with something. (That's the legal definition of a trustee) That something could be a repeater or a coordination or a license, or any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'm trustee of all three - the license, the repeater, and the coordination. So, a single person could be both a licensee and a trustee. Certainly that person is the trustee for their personal license. It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legal definition and one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define it differently in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they are bound by the legal definition. This is like arguing that a licensee isn't an entity since the FCC has no definition of an entity. Now, let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is really beginning to smell. Joe M. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You're the licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care the club entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCC definition.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Ahh...but it is. If you transmit a command to a control receiver, you are technically in auxiliary operation. Convoluted, I know, but it goes all the way back to the old block diagram days at the candy company. ;^) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
A remote base is technically a Remotely controlled station in FCC-eeze. It's all very clearly defined in Part 97. Joe M. Paul Plack wrote: Joe, Semantics implies the distinctions are trivial. If an obsolete term is in common usage, it's a valid topic here, whether aromatic or not. When hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs with undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise. (Remote base comes to mind.) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* MCH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2008 8:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination? A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something. A trustee is a person *entrusted* with something. (That's the legal definition of a trustee) That something could be a repeater or a coordination or a license, or any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'm trustee of all three - the license, the repeater, and the coordination. So, a single person could be both a licensee and a trustee. Certainly that person is the trustee for their personal license. It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legal definition and one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define it differently in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they are bound by the legal definition. This is like arguing that a licensee isn't an entity since the FCC has no definition of an entity. Now, let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is really beginning to smell. Joe M. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You're the licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care the club entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCC definition. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Don't confuse auxiliary operaton with a Remotely controlled station. The latter was quite legal in 2M even before the rules change. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal...
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Ug. forgot about the Echolink guys! As for Control Receivers, I think I agree with Paul's post on that. True, they don't transmit, but they are part of a closed system. I've gotta keep Part 97 in front of me for this discussion! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:04 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Mototrbo Repeater Question
While on the subject of Mototrbo, I finally had time to play with our demo repeater. Am I safe to assume the Mototrbo repeater will pass all digital voice transmissions as long as the color code is the same? As long as there are two portables or mobiles with the same group list within range of that repeater that is. If this is true, how can the operator of a commercial Mototrbo repeater allow only his paid customer base while rejecting rogue radios? In the case of a Mototrbo ham repeater, how does the control operator prevent unauthorized communications when he/she would not even be able to monitor the communications? Sorry if I've missed something during my initial experience with Mototrbo and there is a way to reject unauthorized transmissions. Randy WB0VHB Paul Metzger wrote: Yes, the Motorbo radios can operate simplex on both Analog Digital. Text messaging, non-intrusive radio checks, call logs, call alerts etc . . all work simplex as well. Just remember, the repeater handles the two time slots (two virtual voice channels at the same time), when the repeater goes down and your forced to run simplex, and you choose to run digital voice and or text messaging, you now can only run a single QSO on that frequency. Your two time slots (virtual channels) go away. Paul Metzger K6EH Awaiting the gates to open here at the Dayton Hamvention. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com, wd8chl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Mullarkey wrote: Wd8chl wrote: I don't think there is a direct radio-to-radio mode in Mototrbo...I could be wrong tho... No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
The rules did state what frequencies could be used for control. It was the same as AUXILARY frequencies. Recent changes did add 2 meters and included 145.5-145.8, out of the repeater band. Some started putting D* repeater in this segment thinking they could also use for repeaters. Remote bases were legal, but still required a 222 and above or the other 2 types of control. Now can use 2 m. Anyone can remotely control a ham station including a HF rig. Kenwood got into problems for they wanted to use their 2m/440 dual bander. Made it much simpler, but not legal until recently. See what money will get with the FCC, hi. I did like the change. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ug… forgot about the Echolink guys! As for Control Receivers, I think I agree with Paul’s post on that. True, they don’t transmit, but they are part of a closed system. I’ve gotta keep Part 97 in front of me for this discussion! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:04 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
Joe, Spoken just like a real attorney, hi. Very well spoken. Remote base is used in comm, but not sure in FCC rules. Not in Part 97, but maybe in 95 or 90 where remoted bases are used widely. So it might have a FCC definition somewhere. However, any attorney will tell you certain words do have meaning in law. This is why one most often wants an attorney to write contracts. One could put in words that mean to us the same thing, but in law could mean different things. Most words in law have a law defining what they mean. Not all. An we are told we can defend ourselves in a court. Sue. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Joe, Semantics implies the distinctions are trivial. If an obsolete term is in common usage, it's a valid topic here, whether aromatic or not. When hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs with undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise. (Remote base comes to mind.) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: MCH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:24 PM mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]coordination? mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something. A trusteeis a person *entrusted* with something. (That's the legal definition of atrustee) That something could be a repeater or a coordination or alicense, or any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'mtrustee of all three - the license, the repeater, and thecoordination. So, a single person could be both a licensee and atrustee. Certainly that person is the trustee for their personallicense. It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legaldefinition and one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define it differently in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they arebound by the legal definition. This is like arguing that a licenseeisn't an entity since the FCC has no definition of an entity. Now,let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is reallybeginning to smell. Joe M. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You'rethe licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care theclub entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCCdefinition. mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Ron, Have you seen any sort of bandplan for auxiliary operation on 2 meters besides what’s in Part 97? I’m in conversation with SERA now, but haven’t received an answer on that question yet. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link The rules did state what frequencies could be used for control. It was the same as AUXILARY frequencies. Recent changes did add 2 meters and included 145.5-145.8, out of the repeater band. Some started putting D* repeater in this segment thinking they could also use for repeaters. Remote bases were legal, but still required a 222 and above or the other 2 types of control. Now can use 2 m. Anyone can remotely control a ham station including a HF rig. Kenwood got into problems for they wanted to use their 2m/440 dual bander. Made it much simpler, but not legal until recently. See what money will get with the FCC, hi. I did like the change. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ug… forgot about the Echolink guys! As for Control Receivers, I think I agree with Paul’s post on that. True, they don’t transmit, but they are part of a closed system. I’ve gotta keep Part 97 in front of me for this discussion! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:04 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X image001.jpgimage002.jpg
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Mike, Yes 2 meters can be used for aux stations. Normally the repeater freq, but also 145.5-145.8. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link It certainly makes sense. With all the randomness in the universe, I guarantee that two of us in the same town would probably pick the same control frequency and tone! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Ray Brown Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:46 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link - Original Message - From: Howard Klino SERA does require that you co-ordinate your control frequency. It will be an unpublished frequency. Also suggest that you use a sub tone. They will probably request that anyway. Missouri Repeater Council is thatway, too. Ray KBØSTN
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Nate, My thoughts on putting 2 D* repeaters in one analog UHF channel (I don't like the word channel in Ham Radio, but guess I need to get over it) is since 25 kHz spacing and D* occuping 6+ kHz then say taking 444.250 ch, putting one D* at 444.24375 and one at 444.25625 (the D* rigs will tune these). They would put them 18.75 kHz away from the +/-25kHz of the adjactent repeaters. It would be squeeze, but not much more than say on 2 m at 20 kHz spacing and better than the 15 kHz spacing. And since D* is only 6 kHz (+/-3kHz) it should work. UHF is good start with the 25 kHz spacing. Sure each repeater needs to be studied. Would not put these at same site and would have to know about other repeaters in same area. Wide area coverage another issue, but since we now put repeaters close on 2m with 20 kHz spacing and 16F3 mod it should work. When one goes from 16 kHz wide signal to 6 kHz wide it opens up a lot. This is the thinking of FCC with the 12.5 and 6.25 narrow banding (I know you know this, hi). The rigs are the problem as with commercial. Commercial are better positioned for they need to change radios every 5 or less years anyway. Since the users are not the owners they use the rigs to open beer cans, crack nuts, beat their kids, etc. So changing is not as difficult. Hams keep everything forever even if it don't work...well I do. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: Ron Wright wrote: Have not done the math, but for 25 kHz spacing as on UHF what about putting 2 D* repeaters one + 6.25 and one -6.25 kHz from a standard channel. You're starting to think like the folks who are trying to come up with good ideas, now you've got it! However... you forgot the next step... Next you have to think about the original adjacent channel analog systems on either side. It's a matrix. Now mess around with the locations of all three. Trying to do a raw matrix analysis gets complex, real fast. Might be necessary to seperate distance wise as we do for 2m 15 kHz adjacent repeaters. Here it is 35 miles. We have to go a LOT further here, based on Height Above Average Terrain (HAAT). On VHF we have some systems that will EASILY hear a mobile user out past 80 miles. (And this is why each area has their own coordination bodies... tailoring the situation to the local conditions, is key.) The D* rigs can do this and might be enough seperation. However, I do not know the D* rcvr selective spec. They might use the same IF filters that is used for the analog. Needs more bench testing and real-world experiences with digital against digital and digital against analog. I suspect we'll see more good work out of people who've already published. (Utah's coordination group, and Mark N5RFX have both done some very nice published work for D-STAR systems specifically, and I've talked to a number of radio folks who DID similar or useful work to test such things on their systems, but never had time or energy to publish.) Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
Mike, Our Florida council recommends in their band plan for AUX stations the simplex segments including like 430 and 445-447. I don't think they do any coordination for anything other than repeaters. They just try to give recommendations since in law I don't think their coordination would mean anything, but just be some sort of keeping Hams seperated. Our council is not up to date in that they have nothing for 2 m AUX. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ron, Have you seen any sort of bandplan for auxiliary operation on 2 meters besides what’s in Part 97? I’m in conversation with SERA now, but haven’t received an answer on that question yet. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:17 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link The rules did state what frequencies could be used for control. It was the same as AUXILARY frequencies. Recent changes did add 2 meters and included 145.5-145.8, out of the repeater band. Some started putting D* repeater in this segment thinking they could also use for repeaters. Remote bases were legal, but still required a 222 and above or the other 2 types of control. Now can use 2 m. Anyone can remotely control a ham station including a HF rig. Kenwood got into problems for they wanted to use their 2m/440 dual bander. Made it much simpler, but not legal until recently. See what money will get with the FCC, hi. I did like the change. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ug… forgot about the Echolink guys! As for Control Receivers, I think I agree with Paul’s post on that. True, they don’t transmit, but they are part of a closed system. I’ve gotta keep Part 97 in front of me for this discussion! Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:04 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
Nate wrote: - Runs hot on high power. Hot enough it's uncomfortable. - If powered externally with too high a voltage, the rig drops down to about 300 mW of output power, even though you're in the range specified by Icom. (Try it sometime on the workbench with a dummy load hooked up. Very interesting. ) - When powering from external power, the voltage regulation circuits in the rig add to the already hot operation... the rig gets rediculously hot. (Buy oven mitts or an external speaker mic.) I think rig just in sq'd rcv get too warm and yes it really gets too hot to handle on long time tx. Guess ICOM thought the battery would drain before this became an issue, but I use mine on a 10V external supply most of the time. - Programming anything this complex through the keypad is a giant pain. Get the programming software and cable. (The plus is, the programming cable doubles as the data/serial cable on the HT's -- not on the mobile rigs.) I did not find all that difficult prog the rig, however, had to know what was needed with the callsign, etc. With the rig sending the ID info was good. Don't have to keep a mental or physical pad of the users. Some like it for they know the kerchunkers who do not manually ID. - The thing eats batteries alive. On the to-do list to get more or the aftermarket bigger one. The battery drain in most HTs these days is 160 ma sq'd rcv and Hams wanting all small makes it hard to put in a large battery. That's my list... Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Help me out here guys. The following piece of information came from our coordinating body: snip To: Mike Besemer (WM4B) Subject: Re: Control Link/Repeater Linking There is much confusion and disagreement between hams as to what is legal in part 97. If you search the SERA band plan you will find auxiliary stations but no control links on 2 meters but 440 MHz has control links listed. Auxiliary station and a control link frequency are two different things. End Snip My reply to that was: snip Your losing me. According to Part 97: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be under telecommand where: (a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunication service is considered wireline. (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. (c) The station is protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions. (d) A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location. aAnd §97.201 Auxiliary station. (a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be an auxiliary station. A holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be the control operator of an auxiliary station, subject to the privileges of the class of operator license held. (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 2 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.8-146.0 MHz, 219-220 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. (c) Where an auxiliary station causes harmful interference to another auxiliary station, the licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless one station's operation is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the other station's is not. In that case, the licensee of the non-coordinated auxiliary station has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. (d) An auxiliary station may be automatically controlled. (e) An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications. According to this, a control link IS an auxiliary station and an auxiliary station is allowed on two meters. Im pretty sure that Im reading the FCC rules correctly are you saying that SERA does not endorse control links on 2 meters? Im trying to understand, but what youre telling me appears contrary to what Im reading. End Snip Am I totally losing my mind here, guys? If a control link must be an Auxiliary Station (97.213.a) and an Auxiliary Station may transmit on 2 meters (97.201.b), how can a control link frequency be different than an Auxiliary Station? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:08 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector Id prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have been-there/done-that, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! Im considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but itd be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link two repeaters? Am I too stupid to attempt this? Again, pardon me asking prior to doing the research myself, but this place is a wealth of knowledge and with WAY too little time to do everything Id like to do I sure appreciate everybodys assistance. Mike WM4B image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Mike, This may be one of those creative local interpretations embraced by some coordinators who wish to create a gray area after finding the black-and-white of the regs too confining. Or, in this case, too liberating - looks like they want to fight the FCC on having 2M aux frequencies used for control. SERA can refuse to coordinate such uses on 2M, but that will only leave them uncoordinated, not illegal. Perhaps there are some institutional misunderstandings here. He's technically correct, because a frequency is not a link, but a link obviously needs a frequency on which to operate. Part 97 debates are frowned upon here on the list. I'd suggest you contact SERA directly to further pursue how it justifies its unique vocabulary. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Help me out here guys. The following piece of information came from our coordinating body: snip To: Mike Besemer (WM4B) Subject: Re: Control Link/Repeater Linking There is much confusion and disagreement between hams as to what is legal in part 97. If you search the SERA band plan you will find auxiliary stations but no control links on 2 meters but 440 MHz has control links listed. Auxiliary station and a control link frequency are two different things. End Snip My reply to that was: snip Your losing me. According to Part 97: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be under telecommand where: (a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunication service is considered wireline. (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. (c) The station is protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions. (d) A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location. aAnd §97.201 Auxiliary station. (a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be an auxiliary station. A holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be the control operator of an auxiliary station, subject to the privileges of the class of operator license held. (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 2 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.8-146.0 MHz, 219-220 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. (c) Where an auxiliary station causes harmful interference to another auxiliary station, the licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless one station's operation is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the other station's is not. In that case, the licensee of the non-coordinated auxiliary station has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. (d) An auxiliary station may be automatically controlled. (e) An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications. According to this, a control link IS an auxiliary station and an auxiliary station is allowed on two meters. I'm pretty sure that I'm reading the FCC rules correctly. are you saying that SERA does not endorse control links on 2 meters? I'm trying to understand, but what you're telling me appears contrary to what I'm reading. End Snip Am I totally losing my mind here, guys? If a control link must be an Auxiliary Station (97.213.a) and an Auxiliary Station may transmit on 2 meters (97.201.b), how can a control link frequency be different than an Auxiliary Station? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:08 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I'd prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have 'been-there/done-that', rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I'm considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it'd be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Thanks Paul you reaffirmed what I was thinking. My apologies for bringing the debate to the list if anybody wants to contact me off list, Id appreciate the insight. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Plack Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 5:40 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Mike, This may be one of those creative local interpretations embraced by some coordinators who wish to create a gray area after finding the black-and-white of the regs too confining. Or, in this case, too liberating - looks like they want to fight the FCC on having 2M aux frequencies used for control. SERA can refuse to coordinate such uses on 2M, but that will only leave them uncoordinated, not illegal. Perhaps there are some institutional misunderstandings here. He's technically correct, because a frequency is not a link, but a link obviously needs a frequency on which to operate. Part 97 debates are frowned upon here on the list. I'd suggest you contact SERA directly to further pursue how it justifies its unique vocabulary. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:38 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Help me out here guys. The following piece of information came from our coordinating body: snip To: Mike Besemer (WM4B) Subject: Re: Control Link/Repeater Linking There is much confusion and disagreement between hams as to what is legal in part 97. If you search the SERA band plan you will find auxiliary stations but no control links on 2 meters but 440 MHz has control links listed. Auxiliary station and a control link frequency are two different things. End Snip My reply to that was: snip Your losing me. According to Part 97: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be under telecommand where: (a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunication service is considered wireline. (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. (c) The station is protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions. (d) A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location. aAnd §97.201 Auxiliary station. (a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be an auxiliary station. A holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be the control operator of an auxiliary station, subject to the privileges of the class of operator license held. (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 2 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.8-146.0 MHz, 219-220 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. (c) Where an auxiliary station causes harmful interference to another auxiliary station, the licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless one station's operation is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the other station's is not. In that case, the licensee of the non-coordinated auxiliary station has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. (d) An auxiliary station may be automatically controlled. (e) An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications. According to this, a control link IS an auxiliary station and an auxiliary station is allowed on two meters. Im pretty sure that Im reading the FCC rules correctly are you saying that SERA does not endorse control links on 2 meters? Im trying to understand, but what youre telling me appears contrary to what Im reading. End Snip Am I totally losing my mind here, guys? If a control link must be an Auxiliary Station (97.213.a) and an Auxiliary Station may transmit on 2 meters (97.201.b), how can a control link frequency be different than an Auxiliary Station? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:08 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector Id prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
§97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. Maybe SERA is stating they are not coordinating aux stations or not coordinating aux stations on 2 meters. Maybe they do not know of the rule change. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Help me out here guys. The following piece of information came from our coordinating body: snip To: Mike Besemer (WM4B) Subject: Re: Control Link/Repeater Linking There is much confusion and disagreement between hams as to what is legal in part 97. If you search the SERA band plan you will find auxiliary stations but no control links on 2 meters but 440 MHz has control links listed. Auxiliary station and a control link frequency are two different things. End Snip My reply to that was: snip Your losing me. According to Part 97: “ §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. An amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface may be under telecommand where: (a) There is a radio or wireline control link between the control point and the station sufficient for the control operator to perform his/her duties. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. A control link using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunication service is considered wireline. (b) Provisions are incorporated to limit transmission by the station to a period of no more than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link. (c) The station is protected against making, willfully or negligently, unauthorized transmissions. (d) A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location. aAnd “ §97.201 Auxiliary station. (a) Any amateur station licensed to a holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be an auxiliary station. A holder of a Technician, Technician Plus, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operator license may be the control operator of an auxiliary station, subject to the privileges of the class of operator license held. (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 2 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.8-146.0 MHz, 219-220 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. (c) Where an auxiliary station causes harmful interference to another auxiliary station, the licensees are equally and fully responsible for resolving the interference unless one station's operation is recommended by a frequency coordinator and the other station's is not. In that case, the licensee of the non-coordinated auxiliary station has primary responsibility to resolve the interference. (d) An auxiliary station may be automatically controlled. (e) An auxiliary station may transmit one-way communications. According to this, a control link IS an auxiliary station and an auxiliary station is allowed on two meters. I’m pretty sure that I’m reading the FCC rules correctly… are you saying that SERA does not endorse control links on 2 meters? I’m trying to understand, but what you’re telling me appears contrary to what I’m reading. End Snip Am I totally losing my mind here, guys? If a control link must be an Auxiliary Station (97.213.a) and an Auxiliary Station may transmit on 2 meters (97.201.b), how can a control link frequency be different than an Auxiliary Station? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:08 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link Greetings all, Please pardon my ignorance, but with the group of experts who hang out on this reflector I’d prefer getting the straight-poop from those who have ‘been-there/done- that’, rather than trying to find the correct answer the old-fashioned way! I’m considering adding a control link to our clubs 2-meter repeater. Currently, we use the phone-line as control link, but it’d be nice to have a second means of control. The controller is a CAT-1000, so I think I can just use the port for the 2 nd radio (need to do some more reading in the manual to see what functions are allowed with that setup). Am I barking up the right tree? Any downside to this? Do I need to coordinate the link frequency through our coordinating body (SERA)? Can I eventually use this link to link
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: ??97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. I really don't want to split hairs further, but there is a thought here that occurs to me -- the FCC does not require recievers to be licensed. If you are using the control link as a recieve-only radio... What coordination would be required? Is it an auxilary station? If the radio doesn't transmit -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Ralph, You need to geta newer copy of part 97! Sec. 97.201 Auxiliary station (b) An auxiliary station may transmit only on the 2 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.8-146.0 MHz, 219-220 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. The term ancillary functions was created by the FCC specifically to differentiate functions such as autopatch and voice mailboxes from true control functions, such as disabling the transmitter, which are the sole realm of the licensee or trustee and his designated control operators. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Ralph Mowery To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:56 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link --- On Sat, 5/17/08, Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, May 17, 2008, 4:38 PM Help me out here guys. The following piece of information came from our coordinating body: snip To: Mike Besemer (WM4B) Subject: Re: Control Link/Repeater Linking There is much confusion and disagreement between hams as to what is legal in part 97. If you search the SERA band plan you will find auxiliary stations but no control links on 2 meters but 440 MHz has control links listed. Auxiliary station and a control link frequency are two different things. End Snip A control link is really the way to cut the transmitter off and on. That is not allowed on 2 meters. All other functions are. You need to back up to 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. I thought I would stay out of the trustee thing, All I could find on trustee in part 97 is for a club license. A repeater does not have a trustee, but it does have a control operator. This may be the trustee of the club license or hams that he deisgnates . If you put up a repeater under your call, you are not the trustee, but the control operator and can designate others to be control operators. The control operators are to keep the repeater operation legal and if they can not do it by any other means, they are to shut the repeater off. I have been working on a repeater under the SERA for around 30 years. It goes back to before the WR calls came out and was wr4aaa when they did.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Kris, Whatever transmitter you use for the control link becomes an aux station during the time you use it for control, even if it's the same mobile rig you just used for a rag chew before shutting the repeater down. The receiver has nothing to do with the transmitter's definition as an aux station, it's all about the mode of operation. Aux is a loophole category which allows use of an amateur station for transmissions which would not normally be authorized, including one-way communications, such as control and linking. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 4:59 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. I really don't want to split hairs further, but there is a thought here that occurs to me -- the FCC does not require recievers to be licensed. If you are using the control link as a recieve-only radio... What coordination would be required? Is it an auxilary station? If the radio doesn't transmit -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton
Skipp, sorry I missed you today - I didn't check my e-mail before leaving this morning. If I get back there tomorrow, I'll try to look you up.. but I:m not sure if we're coming back on the AM. I need to be home in Chicago by 2PM for my youngest daughter's High School graduation. frown Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of skipp025 Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Dayton Hi Mark, We are all here... some of us haven't been located by the authorities yet. If you want to call my cell... 17074463419 and the brauts can be ordered with pepers and onions for .75 more... mmmhm good. Our booth is just up from the Outside braut tent where the cowgirls are cooking. Look for the blue shirts and cowboy hats. I'm the short fat guy with red hair... c'ya cheers, s. Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, where is everyone at Dayton?? I've been looking near the BRAT tent for Skipp, but not knowing what he looks like to begin with has me at a severe handicap. hehehe I'm wearing a name tag with my call on it, along with a wide- brimmed, brown felt hat - and I'll be there again tomorrow. looking for other Repeater Builders! (I have seen a couple of the BatLabs boys, though.) 73 from Dayton! Mark - N9WYS Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1448 - Release Date: 5/16/2008 7:42 PM
[Repeater-Builder] OT. VLF Transceiver Jim Hawkins' NSS Naval Radio Transmitting Facilities
Click here: Jim Hawkins' NSS Naval Radio Transmitting Facilities Tour Page Be sure to click on NEXT at bottom of each page. 73 W4CSO
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
Kris, I think the issue for aux stn is that there is a tx in the system and the rcvr is the designated end of the transmission. You are correct the receiver does not need coordination. The freq of the tx does not need coordination, but as with a repeater if it is coordinated it has interference rights over one not coordinated. Really don't see this as much of an issue except aux stations can also be used to remote a station; 2m to HF rig. Aux stns can be used to remote a station for normal operation and this is point to point comm. In the case of using an aux station for control purposes of a repeater obviously the tx is not at the repeater unlike the rptr tx. The remote tx is being used to control the repeater tx. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Kris Kirby wrote: On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. I really don't want to split hairs further, but there is a thought here that occurs to me -- the FCC does not require recievers to be licensed. If you are using the control link as a recieve-only radio... What coordination would be required? Is it an auxilary station? If the radio doesn't transmit -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly -- On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. I really don't want to split hairs further, but there is a thought here that occurs to me -- the FCC does not require recievers to be licensed. If you are using the control link as a recieve-only radio... What coordination would be required? Is it an auxilary station? If the radio doesn't transmit -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] us mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] coordination?
Hmmpf... to sit hear and be insulted... calling me an attorney... sheesh. ;-P (no disrespect to the law professionals on the list). I'm not one of them (other than knowing my responsibilities and rights), and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But, I am in a different chain here at Dayton. Seriously, Remote Base I'm pretty sure does not exist in Part 97. But, that's a common term for Remotely Controlled Station (actually, a shortened term for Remotely Controlled Base Station... REMOTEly Controlled BASE Station). The Remotely Controlled Station is very prominent in Part 97. It's the same as the laws specifying automobile but everyone saying they are not allowed to use automobile allowances with a car. One is a civil (or common) term while the other is more legaleeze. In every sense of the word, a 2M remote base (remotely controlled station) is perfectly legal given the Auxiliary Station (commonly called a control link - again, different term for the same thing) to control it with. All of mine always have had this unless they were under local control, and that dates back to the early 80s for me. Even though we are now allowed to use 2M for AUX stations, I personally would not - too many issues attached (interference, too few clear frequencies, too many 'ears', Etc.). Joe M. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Joe, Spoken just like a real attorney, hi. Very well spoken. Remote base is used in comm, but not sure in FCC rules. Not in Part 97, but maybe in 95 or 90 where remoted bases are used widely. So it might have a FCC definition somewhere. However, any attorney will tell you certain words do have meaning in law. This is why one most often wants an attorney to write contracts. One could put in words that mean to us the same thing, but in law could mean different things. Most words in law have a law defining what they mean. Not all. An we are told we can defend ourselves in a court. Sue. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Paul Plack wrote: Joe, Semantics implies the distinctions are trivial. If an obsolete term is in common usage, it's a valid topic here, whether aromatic or not. When hams communicate with the FCC or try to interpret the regs with undefined or incorrect vocabulary, misunderstandings arise. (Remote base comes to mind.) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From: *_MCH_ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To: *_Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com_ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent: *Friday, May 16, 2008 8:24 PM mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject: *Re: [Repeater-Builder]coordination? mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com A licensee is a person who is authorized to do something. A trusteeis a person *entrusted* with something. (That's the legal definition of atrustee) That something could be a repeater or a coordination or alicense, or any combination of these. In the case of my repeaters, I'mtrustee of all three - the license, the repeater, and thecoordination. So, a single person could be both a licensee and atrustee. Certainly that person is the trustee for their personallicense. It doesn't have to be an FCC definition - it's a legaldefinition and one which the FCC must honor unless they want to define itdifferently in their rules. In the absense of any FCC definition, they arebound by the legal definition. This is like arguing that a licenseeisn't an entity since the FCC has no definition of an entity. Now,let's please end the discussion on semantics. The decaying horse is reallybeginning to smell. Joe M. On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:11AM, Paul Plack wrote: Ron, not in any legal sense. You'rethe licensee. If, by trustee, you mean the guy into whose care theclub entrusts the repeater, that's OK, but not an FCCdefinition. mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link
There is no specifics for AUX in the WPA bandplan (on purpose). People using SkyCommand and the like are encouraged to use the 145.510 - 145.670 MHz segment on a SNP basis. Joe M. Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ron, Have you seen any sort of bandplan for auxiliary operation on 2 meters besides what’s in Part 97? I’m in conversation with SERA now, but haven’t received an answer on that question yet. Mike WM4B *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Ron Wright *Sent:* Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:17 AM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link The rules did state what frequencies could be used for control. It was the same as AUXILARY frequencies. Recent changes did add 2 meters and included 145.5-145.8, out of the repeater band. Some started putting D* repeater in this segment thinking they could also use for repeaters. Remote bases were legal, but still required a 222 and above or the other 2 types of control. Now can use 2 m. Anyone can remotely control a ham station including a HF rig. Kenwood got into problems for they wanted to use their 2m/440 dual bander. Made it much simpler, but not legal until recently. See what money will get with the FCC, hi. I did like the change. 73, ron, n9ee/r Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Ug… forgot about the Echolink guys! As for Control Receivers, I think I agree with Paul’s post on that. True, they don’t transmit, but they are part of a closed system. I’ve gotta keep Part 97 in front of me for this discussion! Mike WM4B *From: *Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] *On Behalf Of *Nate Duehr *Sent: *Saturday, May 17, 2008 3:04 AM *To: *Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com *Subject: *Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Control Link Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Speaking of which, if I read it correctly, 2-meters is now available for auxiliary stations. Anybody dared try it yet? A couple of hundred EchoLink and IRLP simplex node owners, even prior to the law change? Or anyone who was in-band linking VHF repeaters? FM 2m remote bases? All of those were doing it before it was legal... :-) or is that :-( ??? What do you mean, Anybody dared try it yet? What are you specifically thinking about when you see the words, Auxiliary Station? It's not really related to control receivers, since they don't transmit. Nate WY0X No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Control Link
But the users at the control points transmit. In WPA, such links are coordinated for a particular radius in which the station is coordinated. It helps assure that the receiver does not receive interference from other such links. Joe M. Kris Kirby wrote: On Sat, 17 May 2008, Ron Wright wrote: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. If radio, the control link must use an auxiliary station. This says it all. A control link for controlling a repeater by radio is an auxiliary station. Also in 97.201 the freq coordination for Aux stations follows similar to repeaters. If interference the coordinated aux station has preference over non-coordinated. I really don't want to split hairs further, but there is a thought here that occurs to me -- the FCC does not require recievers to be licensed. If you are using the control link as a recieve-only radio... What coordination would be required? Is it an auxilary station? If the radio doesn't transmit -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR [EMAIL PROTECTED] But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility. --rly Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1433 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 4:44 PM
