Not to pick nits, but with that logic any repeater need not be IDed since it is retransmitting the user's callsigns. What if the user doesn't ID within 10 minutes? What if during his ID there was another stronger station covering him up? There is just too much of a chance that the ID could be missing.
Aside from that, if some 3-leter agency comes to Joe Ham and tells him his repeater was causing interference to aircraft, and he tells the FCC/FAA that he has no repeater, where do they look? For 10M the actual repeater could be thousands of miles away! The TX can be knocked down with a simple TT-decoder if you really want to disable the link-to-TX path. After all, it technically should have a tone-out timer on it, too. Besides, the link should be guarded via CTCSS/CDCSS and should not pass interference. The odds of the same tone/code being used is low in most areas. I would rather have the link properly IDed, and I would hope all others would feel the same. I hope you take these comments into consideration when building future systems since it's just as easy to put the controller on the RX end - especially so it can put the repeater in CTCSS decode, too. Joe M. Scott Zimmerman wrote: > > It could be and *should* be to be legal, I guess. In my opinion, it would be > more in the spirit of good amateur practice to be able to shut off the Tx in > case of interference on the link, rather than to ID the link frequency. If > the user's audio is being passed completely, their callsign is being > transferred on the link frequency as well. While I agree, if someone wanted > to press the issue, that the user's callsign cannot ID the link; but it *is* > being ID'd by an amateur operator. The best way to handle the situation > would be to use two controllers, one on each end. Doing this would allow > shutdown of the system in many ways from either end. But to me it's a waste > of money to spend the extra $$ for two controllers. > > Not to get into a rules discussion, but I think that the issue of ID'ing > linkback frequencies for split site machines and remote receivers should be > FCC ruled separately than Remote Base linking between two sites. It would > definitely make it easier as far as linking equipment is concerned. I don't > know how to accurately define one purpose from the other to propose a > rewrite to the rules. Other than FCC rule, I personally see no reason why a > remote receiver link or split site link would need to be ID'd locally. In my > opinion, the user's ID should suffice to ID any audio path his audio would > take. In other words, the amateur is ID'ing the transmission, not the > equipment he is using. > > Scott > > Scott Zimmerman > Amateur Radio Call N3XCC > 612 Barnett Rd > Boswell, PA 15531 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MCH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater > > > Shouldn't the controller be at the 10M RX site so the link is ID'ed too? > > It's the 10X TX site that can be 'dumb'. That's the way mine is. > > > > > > Joe M. > > > > Scott Zimmerman wrote: > >> > >> Tom, > >> > >> The method I have built for customers is using split sites. (transmitter > >> at > >> one site and receiver at another) These sites should be separated by > >> about > >> 1/2 to 1 mile. A UHF or 220 link is used to go between the two sites. We > >> use > >> GE MII equipment for all the Tx's and Rx's. Basically it requires two > >> radios: a 10M MII and a UHF MII. We swap the 10M Rx into the UHF radio > >> and > >> the UHF Rx into the 10M radio. The result is a 10M -> UHF and a UHF ->10M > >> cross band repeater. The 10M Rx end is usually made to be dumb. Whatever > >> comes in on the 10M Rx goes out on the UHF link channel. (CTCSS, Voice, > >> etc.) This end of the system is simply controlled by COS logic on the 10M > >> Rx. > >> > >> The system controller is located at the 10M Tx site. Since everything is > >> coming back on the UHF link, you can run CTCSS on the system (helpful to > >> eliminate co-channel users) The CTCSS decoder nicely interfaces with the > >> on-site repeater controller. The other advantage is that you have a UHF > >> frequency that you can run a control signal into to shut the system down > >> if > >> needed. > >> > >> This is a basic overview, but it will give you some ideas. > >> Scott > >> > >> Scott Zimmerman > >> Amateur Radio Call N3XCC > >> 612 Barnett Rd > >> Boswell, PA 15531 > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "tom_kd8deg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:23 PM > >> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] 10 Meter Repeater > >> > >> > Hi All, > >> > > >> > HELP > >> > > >> > Is there anyone out there with any knowlage with building a 10 meter > >> > repeater. My self and another ham want to put up a 10 meter repeater > >> > and finding nothing in the great World Wide Web on how to go about it. > >> > > >> > 73 > >> > > >> > de Tom KD8DEG > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. > >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.13/1246 - Release Date: > >> > 1/27/2008 6:39 PM > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: > > 1/28/2008 10:59 AM > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
