I'm in conversation with my O-O Coordinator now. He's digging his archives for the 'official read' from the FCC, but seems to recall it being described as being too gray to enforce, as written.
I stand by my initial assessment as the the legality of using /R, but also understand that it's virtually unenforceable. It's a shame when U.S. Code is written in terms that are subject to interpretation. Mike WM4B On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM , Paul Plack wrote: > This is one of those willful fabrications of gray areas that clutter > rule discussions. This is why nobody discusses "remote bases" in > polite company anymore. > > With all due respect, Larry, your "ONE QUESTION" is a test unrelated > to what the rule says. The rule itself says it applies to the > additional self-assigned identifier separated by the "/", so the > question is the conflict posed by "R," not "/R." If the "/" was > included in the conflict test, there would be no reason for the rule, > since no country is allocated "/" or other non-alphanumerics as part > of its national call letter pool. > > Nothing in the rule limits "conflict" to the amateur service. If > another country has the authorization under international treaty to > give broadcasters, ships at sea, or long-range baby monitors a > callsign beginning with (or consisting of) "R," we can't legally use > it following a "/". Sure, it's a one-size-fits-all rule, but what's > new? > Mike, thanks for pointing this out. > > Good amateur practice would suggest the shortest legal repeater ID > regardless, to reduce the time you're occupying the spectrum. If the > "/R" is not required, why would anyone use it? To distinguish the > repeater from all the other Morse chatter you hear on 2m FM? Do you > hold the contract to supply the 1N34 diodes used in Hamtronics matrix > boards? Then, why? > > (BTW, that's a rhetorical question. My last repeater's polite ID > signed /R, even though I knew it wasn't required. If I'm being honest, > after all the hassle of getting a pair, negotiating a site and > building the thing, it brought me great pleasure to hear my callsign > followed by Morse for "repeater." If there's any other reason for > hanging onto "/R" I'd love to hear it.) > > If you're really willing to fight to give up the "R," what about other > separators? If you leave a between-word space before the "R," or even > before a "/R," have you made it part of your callsign? Lots of > repeater IDs include a city, PL frequency, or other information in > their IDs, separated by a space from the callsign itself. We may have > something here! > > All that said, Larry, I don't think you're in danger of an imminent > enforcement action. The FCC doesn't have time to chase violations that > draw no complaints. In fact, in the current political environment, if > the Russians made a fuss, the feds would probably enjoy it. > > If the FCC starts cracking down on 10-codes used on 2m, maybe worry > then. > > Maybe, since they're all unassigned, we could use one of the > non-alphanumeric Morse characters to mean "repeater." > > ". - . . ." might be appropriate on machines inhabited by users who > make you wait forever to join the morning commute roundtable. > > ". . - - . ." might be appropriate for repeaters which are never used, > but sit there taking up a pair. > > " - - - . . . " if the repeater licensee is a real butt-head, etc. > > RIP, Horse. If anyone finds an example of when this rule has been > enforced, that would be interesting! > > Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm running late for my spark-gap sked with > a guy from Guam. We agreed to meet on 20, 30 and 40 meters at the same > time. Yeah, I know what the rule says, but I think I've concocted a > plausible loophole, and I really hate change... > > 73, > Paul, AE4KR > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Wagoner To: > [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 440 Repeater Project > > > > > Ask yourself this *ONE* question. > Is /R the way Russian stations identify themselves? > No? Then it is NOT an ASSIGNED identifier, nor is it an attempt to > confuse or hide identity. > .
