Assuming manufacturers will limit the capabilities of their equipment to the
letter of the Part 97 law has proven unreliable.
Manufacturers of imported dual-band mobiles provided capability for aux
operation using 2m as the control side years before it was legal, and lots of
ACC-controlled 2m repeaters were used as "remote bases" back when aux operation
was limited to 220 and up.
I also recall the whole "control" debate that led the FCC to create the term
"ancillary function" to distinguish an autopatch from a signal disabling a
transmitter, etc.
I have at times been frustrated by limits designed into ham equipment by
Part-97-observant manufacturers who did not anticipate some adaptations which
would have repurposed their boxes for unusual, but legal functions.
73,
Paul, AE4KR
----- Original Message -----
From: larryjspamme...@teleport.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:43 AM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?
There's a discussion on the list about how HF "Remote Base" stations are
most likely not legal. Trying to reason with some of these people is an
excercise in futility. But if that was the case, why do almost all new
higher-end Repeater Controllers (and even some of the older 1980's controllers
like the ACC RC-85 and SM-100 "ShackMaster", AEA Radio Link unit, etc.) have
direct control of various HF transceivers' capability?
.
