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: [email protected] 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: [email protected] >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.
