Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, Even with automatic control someone, a licensed ham, is responsible for the proper operation of a repeater. The control op does not have to be at the control point, but is still responsible. So does this mean one must have a control op??? No, that is on duty, but if something goes wrong he/she can be held responsible. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/13 Tue AM 12:55:55 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control I think it's an interpretation of how you define failure of the control link. You could use an active low COS and if the repeater controller sees three minutes of continuous low, it assumes the control has failed. But, that is a discussion for another day - or another list. But, you brought up the original question - DOES the automatic control relieve the need for any other control? Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote: I know of very few who do this. Joe M. I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules. I think the legal out here is that automatic control relieves the need for remote control, with only the latter requiring the heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B mailto:no6b%40no6b.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Bob, Whatever way one is in control of a repeater, remote or in person, one must be able to shut down. Just saying it is under automatic control means the tx can be keyed by an unlicensed machine. However, a real to live licensed ham is responsible for the operation. Just that person does not have to be at the control point, but again is responsible for getting to it in time of need. Now you can make the call of the need for a control op. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/13 Tue AM 12:32:44 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote: I know of very few who do this. Joe M. I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules. I think the legal out here is that automatic control relieves the need for remote control, with only the latter requiring the heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B mailto:no6b%40no6b.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I know of very few who do this. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote: I know of very few who do this. Joe M. I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules. I think the legal out here is that automatic control relieves the need for remote control, with only the latter requiring the heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B mailto:no6b%40no6b.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I think it's an interpretation of how you define failure of the control link. You could use an active low COS and if the repeater controller sees three minutes of continuous low, it assumes the control has failed. But, that is a discussion for another day - or another list. But, you brought up the original question - DOES the automatic control relieve the need for any other control? Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/9/2007 13:12, you wrote: I know of very few who do this. Joe M. I don't know of anyone that does this. Yet it is in the rules. I think the legal out here is that automatic control relieves the need for remote control, with only the latter requiring the heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B mailto:no6b%40no6b.com[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/12/2007 22:55, you wrote: I think it's an interpretation of how you define failure of the control link. You could use an active low COS and if the repeater controller sees three minutes of continuous low, it assumes the control has failed. But, that is a discussion for another day - or another list. But, you brought up the original question - DOES the automatic control relieve the need for any other control? Yes, so long as compliance with FCC rules is achieved. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I believe that, as long as he has the SSID turned on for the WiFi link, he's OK with the ID requirement. How else would one ID on 2.4G WiFi?? Mark - N9WYS _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Paul Plack ...or, if you're calling wifi a ham-band link, how you're ID-ing that sucker! - 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Understood. For my question, I was thinking along the lines of using the 2.4G radios as a WiFi user, not as an Amateur user. I just wanted a clarification, because using 2.4G WiFi for a portion of a control link is no different than using a 49 mc. cordless phone, or a 1900 mc. cellphone to punch in DTMF to control your repeater. Last I saw, 49 mc. or 1900 mc. are not legal for Amateur Auxiliary usage. :-) NOT wanting to start a new discussion here, but at another time and place, I suppose we could discuss the legality of an autopatch where the above types of phones, or, say, a commercial microwave circuit, are carrying patch audio. See 97.113(e). GRIN Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/9/2007 07:01, you wrote: Laryn, My only reason for thinking 2.4 G would not be legal for control it did not fall within the Auxiliary frequencies allowed for control or Telecommand. The entire 2.4 GHz amateur band is available for auxiliary stations. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
How do you define when 'it fails'. That is the real question that has existed for decades. I don't think anyone can answer that. I think it's more of a theoretical 'what if' scenario as to what should happen - a guide to use. Joe M. Dennis Zabawa wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Otherwise, what would provide an indication to the repeater that the 3 minute time interval should start? The link going away? OR does it magically divine that it is no longer under the control of a control operator? If the link truly has to be active to be in control then, a dialup connection would not seem to fit the requirements nor would an RF link that is not transmitting at all times. The only thing that seems to fit the bill would be a pair of wires, telco or otherwise that directly connect to the repeater at ALL times! Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Threaded... John Barrett wrote: A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. So because the content in both 'directions' (TX and RX) are the same, that disqualifies it as 'full duplex'? There is only ONE audio path full duplex requires TWO. There are two - the incoming and the outgoing. If you want to get technical, they are often not the same due to delays in audio processing. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common carrier (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) We are talking radio here, not telephones. The telephone industry may have different definitions of the same terms. A repeater is NOT bidirectional audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever I never said it was bidirectional. You could make it bi-directional, but not both directions at the same time. From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Read what I said before. In a half duplex setup, you CANNOT receive and transmit at the same time. This clearly does not exist in a repeater (except a simplex repeater). Pa State Police use a Half Duplex system. They transmit on frequency X and receive on frequency Y. Neither is repeated on the other. The users of a repeater are most often operating in a Half Duplex mode. They cannot TX and RX at the same time. Again, radio terms may not perfectly follow telephone or computer terms. A repeater in computer-land is something quite different than in radio-land. In radio, a scanner is a device that scans radio frequencies. In computer-land, it's a device that converts printed matter into electronic form. Not everyone's terms will always match. The definitions I gave (quoted below) are for radio-land only. Sometimes, even in radio-land terms do not match. What hams call an Autopatch the Land Mobile industry calls an Interconnect. It's the exact same thing, but with different terms. Likewise, sometimes the same term is used to describe two different things. BUT, even in comptuer-land, a full duplex ethernet card is a device that can RX and TX at the same time - just like in radio-land. Half Duplex cards can both TX or RX, but not at the same time. (just like the definitions I gave) Joe M. -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Nate Duehr wrote: Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 PM, MCH wrote: Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Hmmm... erg. Right. So his terminology for a dual-band mobile that can repeat is correct, it's both full-duplex from one band to the other, and can be user configured to be uni-directional or bi- directional. Okay... so what I'm looking for is a way to describe a system that both can do full-duplex while also listening for commands on the user input which is something a dual-bander can't do... but a real repeater fed with the right kinds of links, can do... Is there a word for that? Yes - illegal. ;- Seriously, I would submit that any repeater - even one built into the dual bander - is subject to the same control requirements as any other repeater. This includes prohibited Primary Control on either input frequency. With respect to listening for commands, do you mean a device that is bi-directional but can sample the TX frequency for commands? Otherwise, if you're talking about a device that is bi-directional but can sample the RX frequency for commands, you're just talking about a controllable radio. (which would probably not be legal - see above for why) Yes, there are lots of illegal activities that are accepted practices on the bands. Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/9/2007 07:01, you wrote: Laryn, My only reason for thinking 2.4 G would not be legal for control it did not fall within the Auxiliary frequencies allowed for control or Telecommand. The entire 2.4 GHz amateur band is available for auxiliary stations. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Remember that this is only required if you do not use automatic control. This is why most repeater owners implement automatic control, and then use telecommand as a backup. Keith On 11/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Bob, I think you are kidding, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/09 Fri AM 10:46:08 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control At 11/8/2007 18:12, you wrote: OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Yes, at least once every 3 minutes. If input from the control station is not present for more than 3 minutes, the remotely controlled station is supposed to shut down. This is known as a heartbeat timer. Bob NO6B Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
This would amount to relinquishing control of the station to an unlicensed individual. This is not like operating 3rd party where you allow another person to communicate using your station. In 3rd party operation you must still remain in control of the station. Keith McQueen 801-224-9460 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Clark Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:27 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control One more question on this, if say you had a crossband at home, and you were out. Your wife is home to shutoff radio with a phone call, does that cover it or must it be a licensed operator?
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Understood. For my question, I was thinking along the lines of using the 2.4G radios as a WiFi user, not as an Amateur user. I just wanted a clarification, because using 2.4G WiFi for a portion of a control link is no different than using a 49 mc. cordless phone, or a 1900 mc. cellphone to punch in DTMF to control your repeater. Last I saw, 49 mc. or 1900 mc. are not legal for Amateur Auxiliary usage. :-) NOT wanting to start a new discussion here, but at another time and place, I suppose we could discuss the legality of an autopatch where the above types of phones, or, say, a commercial microwave circuit, are carrying patch audio. See 97.113(e). GRIN Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/9/2007 07:01, you wrote: Laryn, My only reason for thinking 2.4 G would not be legal for control it did not fall within the Auxiliary frequencies allowed for control or Telecommand. The entire 2.4 GHz amateur band is available for auxiliary stations. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
...or, if you're calling wifi a ham-band link, how you're ID-ing that sucker! - 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Laryn Lohman To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Understood. For my question, I was thinking along the lines of using the 2.4G radios as a WiFi user, not as an Amateur user. I just wanted a clarification, because using 2.4G WiFi for a portion of a control link is no different than using a 49 mc. cordless phone, or a 1900 mc. cellphone to punch in DTMF to control your repeater. Last I saw, 49 mc. or 1900 mc. are not legal for Amateur Auxiliary usage. :-) NOT wanting to start a new discussion here, but at another time and place, I suppose we could discuss the legality of an autopatch where the above types of phones, or, say, a commercial microwave circuit, are carrying patch audio. See 97.113(e). GRIN Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/9/2007 07:01, you wrote: Laryn, My only reason for thinking 2.4 G would not be legal for control it did not fall within the Auxiliary frequencies allowed for control or Telecommand. The entire 2.4 GHz amateur band is available for auxiliary stations. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
The way most HSMM stations do - you use your callsign as the SSID of the access point, and have beaconing enabled! - Original Message - From: Paul Plack To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control ...or, if you're calling wifi a ham-band link, how you're ID-ing that sucker! - 73, Paul AE4KR
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I saw that initially, but is a repeater a station under Telecommand? I guess that might be where it has always been, though. Thanks, Ron. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:54:38 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packetmode link ?? IâÂÂm sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinionabout running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios IâÂÂmgoing to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers aregoing to be hooked to a single computer⦠thought it would make a nice centralizedway to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20078:38 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re:[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, Had to dig to find it again. 97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. It defines the methods that can be used to control a station remotely. Auxiliary freq are allowed for RF control link. One thing that I get confused with...malfunction in the control link. The control link could be working fine, but illegal activity could be on a repeater or it could be going wild spreading RF all over the place, etc. Are we not to shut the repeater down??? There is some additional info on station control in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 10:58:00 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control And what rule says this? (this is my original question) Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: One must have control of a repeater or any Ham transmitter and it must be done on the proper control link, most of 2 meters and 222 MHz and above, by wire (phone line, etc) and in person. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, It is in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:37:40 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:54:38 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Do you guys see a problem running thecontrol link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packetmode link ?? Iâm sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinionabout running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios Iâmgoing to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers aregoing to be hooked to a single computer⦠thought it would make a nice centralizedway to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20078:38 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re:[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, I think this is what we are looking for: Under Definitions: (43) Telecommand/. A one-way transmission to initiate, modify, or terminate functions of a device at a distance. §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. Also last part of paragraph (a) might cover 2.4 G WiFi. 73, ron, n9ee/r Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliaryfrequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is nowrequired. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeatercontrol This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc)or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I think I just replied to the wrong post. This is the one I intended to reply to a few minutes ago. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Joe, It is in 97.213. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 08:37:40 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John Barrett wrote: a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that is automatic not be considered automatic control OK - lets define terms here... An automated function is anything the controller does without human input beyond keying up and talking. Nope-your looking at it wrong. We're talking about 'Automatic CONTROL', not automatic functions. A time-of-day macro is causing the transmitter to activate with no input signal, hence the repeater is no longer in repeater mode, but just an ordinary amateur station. At that point it is no different then if you had a 'talking clock' keying the rig in your shack. It needs a control op. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Kevin Custer wrote: Oh, BTW the rules discussion is fine for now. Kevin Custer montypython mode Oh, this isn't an argument at all! /montypython mode ;c} -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/7/2007 11:28, you wrote: But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) 97.213(a). Remote control may only be performed by telecommand, , only auxiliary stations may provide an over-the air control link. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Keith, KB7M wrote: This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. Actually I believe the new Kenwood dual-bander added CWID's, but I hear they mute the audio passing through the dual-bander when they occur, so the feature isn't quite done right, but it's a move in the right direction. Most dual-banders don't have this and the direction from repeater - dual-bander - your HT is not ID'd legally. The Kenwood will do it, supposedly -- but I don't have one to test with. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. This also isn't true even of older Kenwood's -- they would accept DTMF commands while in dual-band mode and it could be turned off, etc. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. Only partially true, depends on the dual-bander. For the record, I'm not defending the practice of using a dual-band rig as a repeater, nor do I like it really -- just saying that the information provided is somewhat inaccurate in light of new developments in the dual-band radio world these days... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
My comments on this were generalized. Note the use of terms like common dual-band radio and run of the mill dual-band radio. Even the Kenwoods that supposedly support remote control don't do it in a way that is usable (I know. I own one. I tried it. And it is a kludge that would only work under perfect conditions). I also stated that IF you could provide means of ID and control, THEN it would be legal. Everything I said was qualified, knowing that there are exceptions. I stand by my statements. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Keith, KB7M wrote: This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. Actually I believe the new Kenwood dual-bander added CWID's, but I hear they mute the audio passing through the dual-bander when they occur, so the feature isn't quite done right, but it's a move in the right direction. Most dual-banders don't have this and the direction from repeater - dual-bander - your HT is not ID'd legally. The Kenwood will do it, supposedly -- but I don't have one to test with. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. This also isn't true even of older Kenwood's -- they would accept DTMF commands while in dual-band mode and it could be turned off, etc. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. Only partially true, depends on the dual-bander. For the record, I'm not defending the practice of using a dual-band rig as a repeater, nor do I like it really -- just saying that the information provided is somewhat inaccurate in light of new developments in the dual-band radio world these days... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] nate%40natetech.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
-Original Message- From: Keith, KB7M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 8, 2007 11:59 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. [snip] The other big issue is ID... very few dual-band rigs provide any means for ID'ing the transmissions on either band. Yes, if it's yours and you're the ONLY user, your ID'ing also covers the cross-band repeater's ID in one direction, but there is no provision for ID'ing the transmissions in the other direction. I had a very heated argument once with a high-altitude balloon group that was flying a cross-banding HT, and finally had to forward an e-mail from Riley confirming that it would be illegal (I hadn't mentioned to him that they were already doing it... just posed a hypothetical question), both because of lack of control and lack of ID. George, KA3HSW
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Could we say this same for a repeater IDing the final ID. The repeater did not have an input for the repeater to come up. Of course the control is responding to a previous input, but the control decided when to key and send the ID. 97.111 Authorized transmissions: (b)(6) transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins. Any Ham station can do this and the method of control is not mentioned. This gets confusing sometimes, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/08 Thu AM 11:07:12 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control John Barrett wrote: a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that is automatic not be considered automatic control OK - lets define terms here... An automated function is anything the controller does without human input beyond keying up and talking. Nope-your looking at it wrong. We're talking about 'Automatic CONTROL', not automatic functions. A time-of-day macro is causing the transmitter to activate with no input signal, hence the repeater is no longer in repeater mode, but just an ordinary amateur station. At that point it is no different then if you had a 'talking clock' keying the rig in your shack. It needs a control op. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Guys, with all due respect, any time this topic comes up it gets beat to death without resolution. I completely understand the routine ban on Part 97 arguments here. You might as well debate abortion or global warming. No matter how definitive the FCC might get, there will be hypothetical scenarios which make the rules appear vague. At one point 20 years ago or so, I recall an FCC rep coming out and stating that they want the rules imprecise enough not to stifle our legitimate activities in the public interest. In my experience, a careful reading of Part 97 will answer these questions far better than what-iffing them to death. Most gray areas are manufactured by people unwilling to live within rules that really are pretty clear. You have to be in control of your transmitter, period. You have to ID your transmissions, period. You have to be able to quickly disable the transmitter if it's captured by a scofflaw, held on by intermod, your next-door neighbor's worn-out doorbell transformer lands a signal on your input, or a mouse craps on the COR logic wire, both legally and as a matter of common sense and spectral citizenship. Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. I have occasionally used my Alinco as an aux station by locking out the ABX (automatic band exchange) to make it unidirectional, only able to repeat UHF transmissions on VHF. I can work difficult 2M repeaters by setting my handheld to listen to the repeater output on on VHF directly, but transmit on UHF to be repeated by the mobile on VHF. As long as I identify my own transmissions on UHF, they'll be identified on VHF as well, and the FCC no longer requires a unique /A for aux or /R for repeaters, so that's all legal. I stay near enough to my vehicle to run back and turn it off if needed, so I consider myself to be under direct control. I run the handheld at its lowest power setting, on an obscure but legal 70cm frequency, minimizing the discovery of my aux input frequency by others. If this mode of operation ever causes a problem for myself or others, I'll just stop doing it. I believe I'm (a) aware of what the FCC's intent is with Part 97 to preserve the nature of the amateur service, and (b) operating within the letter of the law. I believe that's what the FCC wants us all to do. A dual-band handheld in bi-directional repeat mode turned loose on a balloon is, IMHO, a willful, flagrant violation of Part 97. It's not even a close call. A quick read through the regs comes up with several obvious issues. But, you know what? It might be just fine in a remote area somewhere. I really don't care as long as it doesn't cause a problem for other users of the bands. Don't get me wrong. If the only way to get emergency traffic out of a remote valley after an earthquake or hurricane was to park my car on a ridge, set up for full, bidirectional, crossband repeat, and hike down into a black hole with my handheld, I'd probably decide to serve the public now, and ask the FCC's forgiveness later. But I wouldn't expect the FCC to cut me any slack if I configured my system like that for routine use, especially if it was publicized as being open to a community of users. 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Ron Wright To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Jim, I agree. One could perform control functions on a say 10 meter repeater input in my option. A primary control method must be available and in place, but control can still be by other means. I would think someone calling a non-licensed Ham at the repeater site and allowing them to unplug the repeater to turn it off would be acceptable, but not to turn it on. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/08 Thu AM 11:07:26 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 7, 2007, at 11:20 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Nate, You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get the joint to a higher peak temp. Am I missing something? 73, Paul AE4KR Well, the maximum temperature is going to be relatively the same, either way -- once it's finally been on for a while. The big question is... in the temperature change breaks the connection theory -- is the thing rate-of-change dependent more than it is number-of-changes dependent. Since rate-of-change is affected by the ambient temperature in the room... it's harder to control. Rate-of-change is something we can fiddle with... or at least smooth out... it comes on, it stays keyed for a long time, and it goes off... in the longer tail setup. ^^^ Oops. Make that number-of-changes for that paragraph above. Ultimately since it can take two or more years to see the results of these tests we'll have to put different systems into different configurations and keep one system as a control for a really scientific test, and the other variables will screw this all up, anyway... but it's something to try... if we stumble into something that works... sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, eh? (In the scientific world you're allowed to bumble into surprise discoveries as long as you're documenting everything along the way, right? GRIN...) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Ron, please clarify why you think that Part 97 would not allow using 2.4 gc. WiFi for a control link... Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Has to be 144.5-144.8 and 146-148 on 2 meters. Not sure about the 2.4 G WiFi for now you getting into an area that is more than RF, but strict reading of 97 would not allow it. 73, ron, n9ee/r
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 PM, MCH wrote: Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Hmmm... erg. Right. So his terminology for a dual-band mobile that can repeat is correct, it's both full-duplex from one band to the other, and can be user configured to be uni-directional or bi- directional. Okay... so what I'm looking for is a way to describe a system that both can do full-duplex while also listening for commands on the user input which is something a dual-bander can't do... but a real repeater fed with the right kinds of links, can do... Is there a word for that? Maybe not. The example I'm thinking of is a hub repeater or link connected to a user repeater which are tied together in such a way such that either receiver can pass DTMF to either controller (or port on a multiport controller) so control can still be maintained, even with something transmitting to you... hmmm. I guess that's really just putting two bi-directional full-duplex devices back to back, which creates a system that's controllable even when the link is actively transmitting a signal toward the user on the user repeater. I definitely stand corrected, now I'm just trying to think of a way to describe the difference between your typical dual-bander used as a repeater and a properly built linking system... hmm. Thinking... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path - full duplex requires TWO. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common carrier (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) A repeater is NOT bidirectional - audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Full duplex direct (non-repeater) RF links require 2 frequencies.. one transmit for user A, and one transmit for user B.. this is a true example of full duplex.. both streams are completely independent, and have no influence on the other except through processing at the end points, human, computer, or otherwise. You could accomplish an apparent full duplex repeater link in RF using 3 frequencies. 2 for input, one for output, and mix the inputs. The only problem is the 2 users have to agree which input they will use ( shades of modem negotiation here !!). a Party Line, or Conference Call would require one input per user.. In each of these cases, all users listen to the same output. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Simplex: One frequency - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Half Duplex - Two frequencies - you can either TX or RX, but not both. Your TX frequency is different than your RX frequency. Full Duplex - Two frequencies - you can RX and TX at the same time. A repeater is Full Duplex operation. It can RX and TX at the same time. Bi Directional means you can come in on one frequency and go out the second, or come IN the second and go OUT the first. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 8, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Paul Plack wrote: Manufacturers sometimes market features on new radios without regard to Part 97. I have an Alinco DR570T, one of the first, if not THE first, dual-band mobile to feature full duplex crossband repeat. As designed, it's crossband repeat function was clearly not legal. From your description (and knowing the radio) you mean bi- directional (but not at the same time), not full-duplex (which means you can go both directions through it at the same time). I'm seeing the term full-duplex misused more and more in regards to dual-banders in cross-band repeat mode... did someone publish an article with this less-than-accurate terminology again somewhere? :-) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 8, 2007, at 10:35 PM, John Barrett wrote: A repeater is NOT full duplex.. it is not simultaneously processing completely separate audio streams in and out.. it is processing the SAME audio in and out. There is only ONE audio path – full duplex requires TWO. Telephones accomplish this by modulating both audio signals on a common “carrier” (the DC power provided by the telco), modems do it by using different tone frequencies for send and receive.. essentially half duplex, but coerced into being full duplex by the behavior of the telephone line. The modems accomplish this by negotiating which modem will use which frequencies (hence all the V## protocols.. they define how the modems negotiate) A repeater is NOT bidirectional – audio streams flow in only one direction, from sender to reciever From this point of view the repeater is a filter in a half duplex link. The only reason a repeater uses 2 frequencies is because you cannot transmit on the same frequency as you receive.. Full duplex direct (non-repeater) RF links require 2 frequencies.. one transmit for user A, and one transmit for user B.. this is a true example of full duplex.. both streams are completely independent, and have no influence on the other except through “processing” at the end points, human, computer, or otherwise. You could accomplish an apparent full duplex repeater link in RF using 3 frequencies… 2 for input, one for output, and mix the inputs. The only problem is the 2 users have to agree which input they will use ( shades of modem negotiation here !!)… a Party Line, or Conference Call would require one input per user.. In each of these cases, all users listen to the same output. John, you've hit on what I was struggling to describe... Coming from the datacomm world I see full-duplex as both senders of information can send separate information at the same time... without interrupting each other. But Joe's dictionary definition of full-duplex is also technically correct, just applied differently. (We need better terminology to really describe these differences concisely.) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Thanks for the clarification! Craig _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith, KB7M Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Craig Clark craigclarknh@ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] comcast.net wrote: Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
One more question on this, if say you had a crossband at home, and you were out. Your wife is home to shutoff radio with a phone call, does that cover it or must it be a licensed operator? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith, KB7M Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:00 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is an issue that is highly misunderstood, and commonly abused. A crossband repeater is still a repeater and must therefore follow all of the rules for repeater operation. Unfortunately, the common dual-band mobile radio that supports repeater mode generally does not include ANY support for automatic control. So, unless you somehow provide for all of the requirements of automatic control, you MUST provide some other means of control - RF remote, wireline remote, or Direct control. Again, the run of the mill dual band mobile radio doesn't provide any means for remote control. The only option left is a control operator sitting in the car with the radio. So, to answer your question, unless you provide for the same control capabilities any normal repeater would have as discussed at length in this thread, you can sit in your car and control the radio, but you CANNOT put your mobile radio in crossband mode and walk away from it. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/8/07, Craig Clark craigclarknh@ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] comcast.net wrote: Can anyone clarify if a radio can be used to crossband from 2 meters to say 220 or 440 under these rules? _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Ron Wright wrote: John, Control on 144.39 is not allowed due to it not being an Auxiliary frequency. Change that to PRIMARY control. Nothing illegal about control on 144.39, just that that can't be the PRIMARY control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
OK, here is where it really gets fuzzy for me: §97.213 Telecommand of an amateur station. ... (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. Does that mean that the link must be active at all times? Otherwise, what would provide an indication to the repeater that the 3 minute time interval should start? The link going away? OR does it magically divine that it is no longer under the control of a control operator? If the link truly has to be active to be in control then, a dialup connection would not seem to fit the requirements nor would an RF link that is not transmitting at all times. The only thing that seems to fit the bill would be a pair of wires, telco or otherwise that directly connect to the repeater at ALL times!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
So a repeater is both an Automatically Controlled station and a Telecommand Station? (And a Repeater Station on top of that?) Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11/6/2007 22:04, you wrote: Part 97 debates are not allowed on the list, but this is not a debate. It used to be that repeaters had to have some means of control (Control link or telephone), and that they had to cease operations within 3 minutes of failure of the control link. Is that still in Part 97, and if so... WHERE? I can no longer find it under any rules that apply to repeaters. I can only find any such reference under the Telecommand Station rules. Correct. If the amateur station is under telecommand (remote control, see 97.3(a)(43) ), the 3 minute control link malfunction rule applies. So if a repeater is being operated under remote control, this rule applies. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Hi, I don't get QST. Any details you can share here? _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:15 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details. Adam kb2jpd
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above.
Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Craig, If you go to www.arrl.org you and do a search for Part 97 you can view the regs. You don't need to be a League member for this. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Craig Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed AM 10:46:39 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Hi, I donât get QST. Any details youcan share here? From:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 200711:15 AM To:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]Part 97 question reference to Repeater control and thereis a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details. Adam kb2jpd Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote: and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details. Adam kb2jpd
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
-Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
-Original Message- From: Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Most 2M Repeater operators use their input free so I think you know what that means. Primary control CANNOT be on the repeater input frequency. What if the repeater is being jammed? George, KA3HSW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I guess that is where it is - in all parts. You need at least one control point - be it local or remote, and if remote, it has to be... Can anyone finish the path to where it requires the remote control point to be wireline or radio (on an AUX frequency, not the input)? I know the rules about AUX frequencies, and the provisions for those. I just cannot make the connection that requires the control point to be an AUX station or landline. I know there is a specific rule that only ancilliary operations may be performed on the input. I had a guy at a meeting last night who wants to get rid of the 'expensive' phone line. I told him it was required for control of the repeaters. He asked where that was in Part 97, and I didn't have an answer for him. This is why I'm asking the question. His answer is to let the control operator drive to the club to control the repeater. (nobody lives within 3 minutes, and even if they did, that person would always have to be home. Joe M. George Henry wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd wrote: and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details. Adam kb2jpd Actually if you want to be very specific about it, Auxiliary Stations are now allowed down into portions of 2m. It doesn't say anything about control link frequency in Part 97. Those are Auxiliary Stations, and the impetus for the change goes back many years to Kenwood's petition to make SkyCommand split frequency 2m/ 70cm operations legal in the U.S. a long time ago. The change also came in handy for all the IRLP/EchoLink links that were on the input/output of 2m repeaters, since they were probably technically illegal until the change came along. And it definitely came in handy for those same IRLP/EchoLink nodes that operated on 2m simplex, because they were completely illegal for years... I apologize for continuing this thread, since we're really not supposed to discuss Part 97 here... Kevin is being awfully patient with all of us on this one... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Part 97 text is here: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/onepage.html The section discussed here is 97.201 Auxiliary station. Note that in 97.201(b), the frequency range is listed as 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. This was a change pushed through by Kenwood (and others) to allow them to legally market their Skycommand system (since it used an auxiliary link on 2m). -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/7/07, Craig Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I don't get QST. Any details you can share here? -- *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:15 AM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control and there is a update in Part 97 where the control link frequency limit of 220 MHz has been lowered to 144 MHz. See QST for details. Adam kb2jpd
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
And that can be done though DTMF with my controller from the receive frequency on the repeater. On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:57:14 -0600 John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Part 97.205e, ancillary functions (phone patch, etc) are not considered remote control which seems to limit the meaning of remote control to enabling or disabling the repeater as a unit. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:32 -0600 (GMT-06:00) George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:ka3hsw%40earthlink.net net wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mch%40nb.net Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
There are only three types of control: 1. Direct (operator at the control point) 2. Remote (operator at some other point controlling via some type of link) 3. Automatic (automatic systems that enforce legal operation) Remote control can be implemented either over wires or RF or some combination. I can't think of any other possibilities and I don't recall anything in part 97 that mentions any. Direct and Remote control are available for any amateur station, but Automatic control can only be used with certain specific types of stations (repeater and auxiliary are among them). Most repeater trustees use a combination of automatic control (usually a microprocessor based controller with appropriate time-out timers, ID timers etc.) and RF remote control (usually in the form of a separate control receiver). Some trustees are not comfortable with RF remote control and insist on a land-line for control, though it is not required. Many times, a land-line is not available or is prohibitively expensive. I know of repeater sites in use that are many miles from the nearest available land-line. In these cases, RF remote and automatic control is all you can do. -- Keith McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-224-9460 On 11/7/07, MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that is where it is - in all parts. You need at least one control point - be it local or remote, and if remote, it has to be... Can anyone finish the path to where it requires the remote control point to be wireline or radio (on an AUX frequency, not the input)? I know the rules about AUX frequencies, and the provisions for those. I just cannot make the connection that requires the control point to be an AUX station or landline. I know there is a specific rule that only ancilliary operations may be performed on the input. I had a guy at a meeting last night who wants to get rid of the 'expensive' phone line. I told him it was required for control of the repeaters. He asked where that was in Part 97, and I didn't have an answer for him. This is why I'm asking the question. His answer is to let the control operator drive to the club to control the repeater. (nobody lives within 3 minutes, and even if they did, that person would always have to be home. Joe M. George Henry wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] mch%40nb.net Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.comRepeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 1:21 PM, MCH wrote: I had a guy at a meeting last night who wants to get rid of the 'expensive' phone line. I told him it was required for control of the repeaters. He asked where that was in Part 97, and I didn't have an answer for him. This is why I'm asking the question. Switch to an inexpensive control receiver and a two-port controller. ??? His answer is to let the control operator drive to the club to control the repeater. (nobody lives within 3 minutes, and even if they did, that person would always have to be home. Kinda lacks imagination, eh? :-) Plenty of no recurring cost options that would work better and save having the phone line. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I though that's what bozo timers were supposed to cover :-) I.E. a function of the automatic controls I have just very carefully read the Part 97 section on repeaters and automatic control, and my understanding is that a repeater does not require any sort of control link.. Nothing in the sections 97.109d or 97.205 state that an automatically controlled repeater station must have a control link. the 3 minute restriction that was mentioned is a restriction on telecommand stations (97.213) and I do not believe that a repeater is considered a telecommand station, else it would state that in the repeater section or the telecommand section, or those sections would be combined. No where can I see it stated that there MUST be a control link for a repeater !! The question that needs to be asked is what are the currently accepted best practices for the type of installation . and I know of several repeaters in my area that are remotely located (if you want to consider a cabinet next to a water tower as remote) that have no Telco or RF controls. everything is done via the repeater input or on site.. I personally would want something more for a repeater less accessible than that. i.e. If someone can't get to the machine in 15 minutes to shut it down, then I'd want something more. Just as a case in point.. there have been times where we have had jammers and controller issues cause problems with our primary local VHF repeater, and those problems went on for hours until someone was free to travel to the site. The site has a phone patch, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no capability to dial in and command a shutdown of the repeater. The portable repeater I'm working on will have both packet and wifi control links with the ability to completely cut power to the repeater . so I'm covered there :-) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control -Original Message- From: Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:adamvaz%40earthlink.net net Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Most 2M Repeater operators use their input free so I think you know what that means. Primary control CANNOT be on the repeater input frequency. What if the repeater is being jammed? George, KA3HSW
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
According to Part 97.205e, ancillary functions (phone patch, etc) are not considered remote control which seems to limit the meaning of remote control to enabling or disabling the repeater as a unit. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:32 -0600 (GMT-06:00) George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:ka3hsw%40earthlink.net net wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mch%40nb.net Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
MCH wrote: So a repeater is both an Automatically Controlled station and a Telecommand Station? (And a Repeater Station on top of that?) Joe M. Depends on what it's doing at a given instant. If it is actually repeating an incoming signal, and nothing else, it's a repeater, and can be under automatic control. If it's doing an autopatch, or a remote base function, or Echolink/IRLP, or just saying the time of day, or anything else other then an ID, it's not in repeater operation anymore, and cannot operate under automatic control. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John Barrett wrote: No where can I see it stated that there MUST be a control link for a repeater !! When it is in automatic operation, you are correct. It's when it is doing something other then repeating or identifying that it needs a control link. Someone punching in a code that commands the controller to speak the time of day, or the temperature at the site, or whatever, takes the station out of repeater use, and therefore out of automatic control and requires a control op. Even a macro that comes up and speaks the time of day automatically takes it out of automatic control. But of course, it still has to identify within 10 minutes of that! -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
It doesnt say anywhere in the rules that you cannot have both primary and ancillary controls via DTMF on the input. Only that the ancillary controls are not considered to be remote control of the repeater, which opens up a point of ambiguity, since, as Ive read, there is no requirement for a primary/remote control of a repeater, at least not clearly stated. Which leaves us with a accepted practices question. You could always do what Im doing :-) Im going to have VHF APRS and Winlink stations on board the trailer, and both will be set up to respond to a set of commands that will let me monitor and control many functions on the trailer through the on board computer the computer will also be accessible via WiFi and will have access to the same controls via a secure web server or VNC remote console access. I still have a single point of failure if the computer crashes but it is on a watchdog timer and will reboot to a known state if it crashes unexpectedly, so the only thing I worry about is an outright hardware failure, and it would take a highly unlikely concatenation of events for everything to fail in such a way that any of the radios were stuck in TX and every path of remote control that Ive designed in is completely blocked. The WiFi link seems particularly interesting to me given the availability of DD-WRT if you dont mind hacking in some extra hardware features to allow your router to control the repeater power. Techniques similar to those used to add SD/MMC memory card ports to various routers could be used to give the router some external I/O capability. Run an extra coax line up the tower and a remote WiFi amp.. then all you need is a laptop and a high gain antenna to remote control the site . If you need more than 2-3 pins of I/O control you could implement I2C on the I/O pins and connect up any I2C memory or I/O expansion device as needed :-) Would make for a nice HSMM repeater at the same time. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:01 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control And that can be done though DTMF with my controller from the receive frequency on the repeater. On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:57:14 -0600 John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:ke5crp1%40verizon.net net wrote: According to Part 97.205e, ancillary functions (phone patch, etc) are not considered remote control which seems to limit the meaning of remote control to enabling or disabling the repeater as a unit. _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mung%40highwayusa.com com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:32 -0600 (GMT-06:00) George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:ka3hsw%40earthlink.net net wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mch%40nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John Barrett wrote: According to Part 97.205e, ancillary functions (phone patch, etc) are not considered remote control… which seems to limit the meaning of remote control to enabling or disabling the repeater as a unit. Technically, turning off (unkeying) the transmitter, and identification. Control circuits must be able to accomplish those tasks. -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 12:56 PM, George Henry wrote: Primary control CANNOT be on the repeater input frequency. What if the repeater is being jammed? It can if you have a retired ham who's always home and has an 18-el yagi and 1000 W VHF amp. :-) Just kidding, just kidding... but I'm sure someone was thinking it... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Whether or not using the input of the repeater for control purposes fulfills the requirements of Part 97, , using DTMF commands on the repeater input presents two potential problems: 1. For it to be reliable, you have to be able to pretty much capture the receiver. It doesn't take much on channel interference to make your decoder unable to recognize the DTMF commands. 2. Throwing sufficient suds at the repeater input to fully capture the channel means that your control commands are pretty easily heard on the input and capable of being decoded by the repeater users, both the benign and the miscreants. I MO, for the time and money put into a repeater, the outlay for an out of band control receiver and/or a phone line seems like a pretty reasonable cost for the security it provides. K7IJ In a message dated 11/7/2007 12:50:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern Recent Activity *18 _New Members_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlczdwaGhvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2Vj A3Z0bARzbGsDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDQ2ODYwMQ--) *15 _New Photos_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2QxdWxuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z 0bARzbGsDdnBob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE5NDQ2ODYwMQ--) *1 _New Links_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmdtODRiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3Z0 bARzbGsDdmxpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExOTQ0Njg2MDE-) _Visit Your Group _ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder;_ylc=X3oDMTJkanRucTU3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwNDE2OARncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwNjMxMDgEc2VjA3 Z0bARzbGsDdmdocARzdGltZQMxMTk0NDY4NjAx) Biz Resources _Y! Small Business_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jg0ht4e/M=493064.10729657.1148.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4025321/R=0 /SIG=12a352npd/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44092/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.c om/r-index) Articles, tools, forms, and more. Endurance Zone _on Yahoo! Groups_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jo8aco9/M=493064.11135487.11710473.8674578/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4776372/R=0/ SIG=11k023rmb/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/endurancezone/) Communities about higher endurance. Stay in Shape _on Yahoo! Groups_ (http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12kcca5m8/M=493064.11675218.12153349.11323196/D=groups/S=1705063108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1194475801/A=4840954/R=0 /SIG=11n59vup4/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/healthandfitness/) Find a fitness Group get motivated. . ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
a Time Of Day macro to me is an automated function.. how can something that is automatic not be considered automatic control OK - lets define terms here... An automated function is anything the controller does without human input beyond keying up and talking. an ancillary function would be one that is commanded via DTMF. and in most cases that I have seen commonly used, those commands are used for information requests or temporary modifications to the repeater functionality (changing the courtesy tone for a net, enabling or disabling specific voice announcements, phone patch, etc) I would define a Primary function to be one that made a major change to the repeater functionality, for instance, enable/disable repeat or remote shutdown. Primary functions may be made available via the same mechanism (DTMF) used for ancillary commands, or via a separate control link. In most cases where Primary functions are available at all, they are on a control link since it is risky to have them on the repeater input. End Of Definitions I don't consider that an information request or other ancillary function takes the repeater out of automatic control, since functions of that type generate an automated response (Phone patch breaks that rule, but its been around so long that it's a special case, unless you want to define repeater phone patch as remote control with the caller as the control operator) Or are you saying the person pressing the DTMF keys is the temporary control operator for all ancillary functions?? A point of view not supported by the wording in Part 97, as ancillary functions are not considered remote operation. The controller and the operator that designed/programmed it is still the control operator the way Part 97 is worded. In my understanding of the rules - the control operator is the person who has final control of the repeater, and must answer to the FCC for the actions of the automatic control, not for the actions of the repeater users. Part 97 is clear on that. The repeater owner is not responsible for misuse by other operators. (Part 97.205g) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:47 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control John Barrett wrote: No where can I see it stated that there MUST be a control link for a repeater !! When it is in automatic operation, you are correct. It's when it is doing something other then repeating or identifying that it needs a control link. Someone punching in a code that commands the controller to speak the time of day, or the temperature at the site, or whatever, takes the station out of repeater use, and therefore out of automatic control and requires a control op. Even a macro that comes up and speaks the time of day automatically takes it out of automatic control. But of course, it still has to identify within 10 minutes of that! -- Jim Barbour WD8CHL
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required? Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems to indicate it can. I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now. Joe M. Keith, KB7M wrote: Some trustees are not comfortable with RF remote control and insist on a land-line for control, though it is not required.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
97.205(e) is pretty straight on this: (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. That rule was put in place to allow functions such as time checks and TT pad testing legal, as remote control was only available on 220 and above, and there were commands such as the above issued on 2M repeaters. Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control of the repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:32 -0600 (GMT-06:00) George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm thinking it got axed from Part 97 - perhaps around the same time that the rule that repeaters must discontinue transmitting within FIVE SECONDS of the input going inactive was removed. I believe the prohibition on the list is debating Part 97. I'm simply asking where something is in Part 97, or if it was removed (which seems to be the case). If this is true, there may be a lot of repeater trustees who can save money from expensive phone line charges that are no longer required, so this potentially affects everyone on the list. Joe M. John Barrett wrote: No where can I see it stated that there MUST be a control link for a repeater !!
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Thanks. That comes as close as anything thus far. The 'immediate' being the key word against running to the site. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Joe, Might take a look at 97.105(a)...The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, regardless of the type of control. Although there are separate rules for repeaters still other parts of Part 97 must be followed for a repeater as with most other Ham stations. Automatic control mainly means a person does not have to be the one keying and IDing a repeater, but there is still the requirement of a control operator being responsible, just not at the control point. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 05:36:58 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required? Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems to indicate it can. I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now. Joe M. Keith, KB7M wrote: Some trustees are not comfortable with RF remote control and insist on a land-line for control, though it is not required. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Do you guys see a problem running the control link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packet mode link ?? I'm sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinion about running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios I'm going to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers are going to be hooked to a single computer. thought it would make a nice centralized way to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:38 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mch%40nb.net Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
George, Legally on 2 meters and above the control can be done on the repeater input. However, as you said the input might be being jammed. About 20 years ago the FCC, yes FCC agents, would listen on input of a repeater, get the patch codes, then go near the repeater site and make a patch to a business conducting business...plain illegal patch. They would keep their rig keyed preventing intervention on the input. If no one shut it off they sited the trustee. Actually happen. Pissed off a few people. The FCC gave up the idea, maybe someone thought it was entrapment or maybe some noted the FCC was making illegal transmissions. One can control on input, but as you eluded to is not good idea. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:56:33 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control -Original Message- From: Adam Vazquez Kb2Jpd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Most 2M Repeater operators use their input free so I think you know what that means. Primary control CANNOT be on the repeater input frequency. What if the repeater is being jammed? George, KA3HSW Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Regarding using the repeater input as a control frequency... Set it to require a control operator action to bring it back from the 3-minute timeout. That would solve the jammer issue. Just use your own transmitter to make sure it times out, then don't reset it till the trouble has passed. I had a macro in my 7K I could invoke if I had to be away from town, that would do this. Many early ham repeaters in the Buffalo, NY area, where I got started in ham radio, were configured this way, even when they did have alternate means for control. If I recall correctly, it may have been an FCC requirement in the old days that a timeout not auto-reset when the carrier dropped. 73, Paul AE4KR
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
I recall when that 5 second rule was removed. Someone put their repeater on 24-7-365 and it was legal from a transmission point of view. Now, when it comes to interference that is another matter. BTW, I have emailed Riley about this. I'll let the list know what he says. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:46 PM, MCH wrote: That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm thinking it got axed from Part 97 - perhaps around the same time that the rule that repeaters must discontinue transmitting within FIVE SECONDS of the input going inactive was removed. Yeah, with that rule gone I'm surprised at how many repeater controllers still enforce it. I'd prefer longer hang-times for less transmitter cycling, really. Might as well leave it up for up to 30-60 seconds, as long as the controller is properly ID'ing it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
In a message dated 11/7/2007 6:37:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now. Joe M. Repeater rules and part 97 in general has changed a lot. Greatly simplified, thank you FCC. Everyone here should probably take a good look at the current rules judging by some of the replies. That is one of the reasons these topics are not too well liked by the admin's, everyone has their own wrong opinion of what is right. Chris N9LLO ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, MCH wrote: But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required? Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems to indicate it can. I think from a purely legalese point of view, you can get away with not having either one. Then you'd have to look a step further at what the FCC would do if you received a take it off the air right now, it's interfering with X request made urgently, and what they'd think of you (and Ham Radio) if you told them you couldn't control it remotely. (Bunch of yahoos and cowboys is probably not the image we're looking to portray to others, eh?) A real-world example that happened right here on the RB list would be the guy who was unintentionally interfering with a local airport's ATC communications. I wouldn't feel very good sleeping at night if I didn't have a way to keep my transmitter from putting another pilot's life in danger, if I were to get a similar request for the systems I maintain. That's where the rubber really hits the road... Who cares if it's legal, is it smart not to have a secondary way to control the transmitter? I personally say no. It's not smart at all. It just falls into the having some pride and doing it right category, if you can't find a law about it... right? I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now. I haven't found it either. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:46 PM, MCH wrote: That's what I'm seeing, too. The control link used to be required. I'm thinking it got axed from Part 97 - perhaps around the same time that the rule that repeaters must discontinue transmitting within FIVE SECONDS of the input going inactive was removed. Yeah, with that rule gone I'm surprised at how many repeater controllers still enforce it. I'd prefer longer hang-times for less transmitter cycling, really. Might as well leave it up for up to 30-60 seconds, as long as the controller is properly ID'ing it. Less thermal cycling (or at least a longer up and down wave with less bumps)... less shock to the transistors in the PA... lots of things. For those that do commercial repeaters... any rules left in the commercial rules about transmitter hang times? It would seem that with busy trunked systems, the transmitters are up most of the time, anyway... during peak load times... as designed... -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
John, Ancillary functions are functions not needed to perform required control functions to meet FCC rules. Being able to turn off the repeater are required to meet FCC rules. Making a patch, setting the time, etc are not. One must have control of a repeater or any Ham transmitter and it must be done on the proper control link, most of 2 meters and 222 MHz and above, by wire (phone line, etc) and in person. Until December, 2006, a proper control link could not be on 2 meters, but Ancillary functions could be done one reason was for autopatches. This did not mean one could not turn on/off the repeater on 2 meters, just have to have proper link if needed. In December the FCC added some of 2 meters for a primary control. So the input of a 2 meter repeater can be used for the control link not requiring 222 Mhz and above. Use to be the input or output of a repeater, no matter what band, could not be used for control, but this went away years ago. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: John Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 02:57:14 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control According to Part 97.205e, ancillaryfunctions (phone patch, etc) are not considered remote control⦠which seems tolimit the meaning of remote control to enabling or disabling the repeater as aunit. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 20072:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder]Part 97 question reference to Repeater control Isn't any operator on the repeater in RF control ofthe repeater when they are using it? Also isn't the DTMF tone control through the normal repeater pair remote control? Vern On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 13:54:32 -0600 (GMT-06:00) George Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 7, 2007 1:28 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control But where does it require a control link (AUX station) to control the repeater? (or landline ot local) Joe M. 97.7 states that EVERY amateur station (remember, a repeater is an amateur station: see 97.3(a)(39)) must have a control operator: §97.7 Control operator required. When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by §97.107 of this part And Station control is defined in 97.109: §97.109 Station control. (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point. (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled. (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled. (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically designated elsewhere in this Part may be automatically controlled. Automatic control must cease upon notification by a District Director that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the District Director. (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. And 97.205(d) states that a repeater may be automatically controlled. So, taking them all together, a repeater MUST have a control operator, MAY be under automatic control, and at all times when NOT operating under automatic control, MUST be either locally (someone physically at the control point) or remotely (RF or wireline) controlled. If remotely controlled over RF, the control link is in auxiliary operation, and may only be carried out in the frequency segments specifically authorized in 97.201, which, as someone else already pointed out, were recently expanded to include certain sub-bands on 2 meters. George, KA3HSW Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Joe, You might have a point. I cannot find either. Use to be for RF was on Auxiliary frequencies only, most of 222, most of 420-450 and above. Cannot find it is now required. Might be able to control on 14.313, hi. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/11/07 Wed PM 01:19:27 CST To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control This is the part I'm looking for in the rules. I can no longer find it. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: It can be in person, setting at the tx, or by wire (a phone line, etc) or on 222 MHz and above. Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Ron Wright wrote: A hang time is good. How long well it depends. Many repeater users I know use it to govern the time between transmissions by letting the repeater drop before they take it. They do this to allow breakers. Some think it resets the timeout timer. If long say 10 seconds would be slow QSO. Ron, the only thing that will slow down our users around here is timing out the repeater! (They're going to get a rude surprise if the time-out timer follows the courtesy tone instead of user-unkey someday. LOL!) I've actually had people say to me that they are scared to try to join in on our busiest ragchew/drive-time VHF machine because it flows so fast. It's somewhat amazing. Since its a stand-alone with no links to anything, and sitting at 11,440' MSL... it covers a lot of ground and a round-table is regularly 8-10 hams deep... it can move right along... Most controllers allow for programming the hang time. I still keep mine at 3 seconds. Some want no hang time. I have ours at the S-Com maximum for the 7K's, and would prefer it longer. I think. I'll explain below. Cycling of the tx is not a problem. Might be with tube or big PAs. If it were a problem then many rigs would die quickly especially HF CW rigs, hi. I could be way out on a limb here, but we're just working our way through gathering data on a multi-year PA issue that keeps coming up on the VHF Mastr II PA's. I'm thinking more in terms of thermal cycling. Some of our sites are very cold overnight. When the morning crowd fires up, it'd be nice if the repeater would just stay up and come up to continuous-duty operating temperature and stay there, and it would be stable at some temperature and not changing sooner -- if the PA kinda stayed in lock- to-talk mode. One of our common failure modes of MASTR II PA's is the physical junction between the final and low-pass filter boards, and the best scientific theory we've seen is the modification available here on RB that makes that connection more flexible... but if the PA simply came up and stayed up... it would heat up and stay heated... less thermal cycling of that joint location. In theory -- if the tail were real long -- folks would just talk fast or slow and the PA would just stay on... for the few hours of morning or afternoon drive time, and then go down, meaning roughly 4 large- scale thermal cycles (full cold to full hot) per day for that joint, versus an unknown number with a short TX tail. (I know I could do something as silly as program the TX to come on and stay on during certain times of day, but that'd be -- well... goofy repeater behavior.) I'll also admit that I've never measured how fast/slow a M2 PA cools off when sitting in a very cold room, but I am looking forward to trying out the new A/D inputs on a 7330 up at that site someday. (That site isn't slated to get our first 7330 or our second... maybe later.) Telemetry or announcements of PA temperature extremes might be interesting data no one's had from up there before. (There are a number of other folks using M2 PA's up there that I'd be happy to share the temperature numbers with.) So far, we've only done one PA repair where we put that flexible- jumper modification in, and we're waiting to see the long-term results. These failures are spread out over a year or more -- sometimes two. It's not something that happens often, but often enough if you have to make a trip annually to every site just for the PA, and then add in another general tuning/tweaking trip, and then another trip or two for new projects and/or changes and/or antenna maintenance... you end up with a lot of trips. I love going to the sites, but 10-16 trips a year is a bit much some years. Other years, it's fine. (I doubt many fledgling repeater operators really realize it can be that many...) Since getting to mountain-top sites is difficult, risky and/or impossible (without a helicopter) in mid-winter, you end up doing that all in the summer... and 10 trips crammed into May through October with a couple trips outside the repeater season means two trips a month to sites, so you start to really think carefully about what you're putting up there and hoping it can go one whole season (and later, two seasons, and later three...) without intervention. I'm constantly thinking about questions like... How do I engineer that site to go 3 years without a visit? Is it possible? Thus the reason why we're using Mastr II Stations in the first place... if there's anything more bullet-proof, I'd be happy to hear what it is. I haven't seen/heard any stories from anyone saying that they've got anything more stable that has run for 3-5 years without being touched, other than friends who have M2 Stations that get a lot less use than ours. But always willing to listen and evaluate ideas.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
On Nov 7, 2007, at 7:54 PM, John Barrett wrote: Do you guys see a problem running the control link on 144.390 (APRS) or one of the 145.* packet freqs ?? As a packet mode link ?? I’m sure the 2.4g WiFi control link is fine, just want an opinion about running control capability piggy-back with the APRS and Winlink radios I’m going to have on board. All the packet, wifi, and repeater controllers are going to be hooked to a single computer… thought it would make a nice centralized way to manage the trailer remotely in all its features. Since a VERY large number of people have receivers listening to 144.39 full-time, it doesn't lend itself much to being able to control things discreetly or quietly. Same thing with the other packet frequencies, if they're active in your area. And, pretty much everyone monitoring any packet frequency has the ability to read your commands which raises the possibility that someone could mess with your system you're supposed to have control over. Many are logging all received traffic into a PC hard disk, too. Packet for control is not a good idea, if you ask me. My preferences are in this order: 1. When I can get it, wireline control... phone line and DTMF... or IP via commercial service to an on-site DTMF encoder or serial port on the controller (yay to the controller manufacturers who have either put this in or are starting to!). 2. When I can't have wireline control due to costs or whatever (no phone lines), an obscure but legal/smart receiver on a control frequency and DTMF. Oh, and we learned the hard way that DTMF over a VoIP phone line... sucks for programming controllers. It only takes a couple of missed digits in a half-hour programming session to have key macros not work. (LOL!) Don't use them at either end for programming! (Good old POTS works the best still, of course!) Additionally -- for another layer of things, the vast majority of common control functions are done with pre-written macros in the controllers. Putting the master DTMF password over the air in any fashion is a last-resort type of thing. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Nate, You'd have fewer thermal cycles, but a wider range of extremes between hot and cold, since continuous duty for four hours would get the joint to a higher peak temp. Am I missing something? 73, Paul AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Ron Wright wrote: A hang time is good. How long well it depends. Many repeater users I know use it to govern the time between transmissions by letting the repeater drop before they take it. They do this to allow breakers. Some think it resets the timeout timer. If long say 10 seconds would be slow QSO. Ron, the only thing that will slow down our users around here is timing out the repeater! (They're going to get a rude surprise if the time-out timer follows the courtesy tone instead of user-unkey someday. LOL!) I've actually had people say to me that they are scared to try to join in on our busiest ragchew/drive-time VHF machine because it flows so fast. It's somewhat amazing. Since its a stand-alone with no links to anything, and sitting at 11,440' MSL... it covers a lot of ground and a round-table is regularly 8-10 hams deep... it can move right along... Most controllers allow for programming the hang time. I still keep mine at 3 seconds. Some want no hang time. I have ours at the S-Com maximum for the 7K's, and would prefer it longer. I think. I'll explain below. Cycling of the tx is not a problem. Might be with tube or big PAs. If it were a problem then many rigs would die quickly especially HF CW rigs, hi. I could be way out on a limb here, but we're just working our way through gathering data on a multi-year PA issue that keeps coming up on the VHF Mastr II PA's. I'm thinking more in terms of thermal cycling. Some of our sites are very cold overnight. When the morning crowd fires up, it'd be nice if the repeater would just stay up and come up to continuous-duty operating temperature and stay there, and it would be stable at some temperature and not changing sooner -- if the PA kinda stayed in lock- to-talk mode. One of our common failure modes of MASTR II PA's is the physical junction between the final and low-pass filter boards, and the best scientific theory we've seen is the modification available here on RB that makes that connection more flexible... but if the PA simply came up and stayed up... it would heat up and stay heated... less thermal cycling of that joint location. In theory -- if the tail were real long -- folks would just talk fast or slow and the PA would just stay on... for the few hours of morning or afternoon drive time, and then go down, meaning roughly 4 large- scale thermal cycles (full cold to full hot) per day for that joint, versus an unknown number with a short TX tail. (I know I could do something as silly as program the TX to come on and stay on during certain times of day, but that'd be -- well... goofy repeater behavior.) I'll also admit that I've never measured how fast/slow a M2 PA cools off when sitting in a very cold room, but I am looking forward to trying out the new A/D inputs on a 7330 up at that site someday. (That site isn't slated to get our first 7330 or our second... maybe later.) Telemetry or announcements of PA temperature extremes might be interesting data no one's had from up there before. (There are a number of other folks using M2 PA's up there that I'd be happy to share the temperature numbers with.) So far, we've only done one PA repair where we put that flexible- jumper modification in, and we're waiting to see the long-term results. These failures are spread out over a year or more -- sometimes two. It's not something that happens often, but often enough if you have to make a trip annually to every site just for the PA, and then add in another general tuning/tweaking trip, and then another trip or two for new projects and/or changes and/or antenna maintenance... you end up with a lot of trips. I love going to the sites, but 10-16 trips a year is a bit much some years. Other years, it's fine. (I doubt many fledgling repeater operators really realize it can be that many...) Since getting to mountain-top sites is difficult, risky and/or impossible (without a helicopter) in mid-winter, you end up doing that all in the summer... and 10 trips crammed into May through October with a couple trips outside the repeater season means two trips a month to sites, so you start to really think carefully about what you're putting up there and hoping it can go one whole season (and later, two seasons, and later three...) without intervention. I'm constantly thinking about questions
[Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
Part 97 debates are not allowed on the list, but this is not a debate. It used to be that repeaters had to have some means of control (Control link or telephone), and that they had to cease operations within 3 minutes of failure of the control link. Is that still in Part 97, and if so... WHERE? I can no longer find it under any rules that apply to repeaters. I can only find any such reference under the Telecommand Station rules. Please cite the specific section that requires control (other than Automatic Control) of repeaters. Was that section removed? Thanks, Joe M.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Part 97 question reference to Repeater control
At 11/6/2007 22:04, you wrote: Part 97 debates are not allowed on the list, but this is not a debate. It used to be that repeaters had to have some means of control (Control link or telephone), and that they had to cease operations within 3 minutes of failure of the control link. Is that still in Part 97, and if so... WHERE? I can no longer find it under any rules that apply to repeaters. I can only find any such reference under the Telecommand Station rules. Correct. If the amateur station is under telecommand (remote control, see 97.3(a)(43) ), the 3 minute control link malfunction rule applies. So if a repeater is being operated under remote control, this rule applies. Bob NO6B
