RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[Pointman]

Well then, a 444 MHZ repeater controlling a 10 meter remote base would be 
perfectly legal then!!!
DE KM3W

--- On Fri, 9/4/09, mwbese...@cox.net  wrote:

From: mwbese...@cox.net 
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 12:50 PM












 
 





   Somebody needs a new copy of Part 97.
MikeWM4B

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM , larryjspammenot@ teleport. com wrote:
   From the tenmet...@yahoogrou ps mailing list (mainly a group of people who 
participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) 
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? 
Here' s one of the responses: 
"Is it legal to have a "remote base" with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz?" 
"No. If you look at the rules regarding the frequencies available for auxiliary 
operation, you will conclude that there is no such thing as a legal "remote 
base" which uses frequencies anywhere in the 2-meter band for the "uplink" and 
"downlink." Those systems that go from 2-meter FM to 10-meter FM, or from 
2-meter FM to 6-meter FM, for example, are not technically "remote bases," even 
though some hams like to call them that. They are really "crossband repeaters" 
and they are legal only if both ends are within authorized repeater segments of 
both bands. Repeater operation (including all input and output frequencies) is 
prohibited on all HF amateur bands, except the top end of 10 meters. Likewise, 
there is no such thing as a legal 2-meter FM to 75-meter SSB "remote base," 
since auxiliary uplinks and downlinks must all be above 222.15 MHz [97.201(b)]. 
" 

 
 

  




 






















  

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[Paul Plack]

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?


  . 

  

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[David Jordan]

I'm glad to see EL was enhanced.  When we had trouble a few years ago it did
not have those features.  

 

Best,

dave

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Delancy
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:19 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

 

  

Echolink has the capability to not transmit over active frequencies. 
You can also shut off the announcements if you desire. If you use COR 
instead of VOX with echolink, it works even better.

James

MCH wrote:
> EL is just another control link method - in his case land line.
>
> That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active 
> frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not 
> necessarily the operator.
>
> Joe M.
>
> David Jordan wrote:
> 
>> Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote 
>> Amateur Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 
>> 2m-70cm antennas.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR 
>> stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of 
>> the stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 
>> 425ft above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 
>> 50-60 miles away; lots of fun.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials 
>> and there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. 
>> It is not a problem!
>>
>> 
>>
>> Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF. 
>> The end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link 
>> connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net 
>> on 40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool 
>> to have Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come 
>> in over top on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was 
>> not a good use the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the 
>> folks at Echo Link have since create an application that offers better 
>> controls that eliminate unwanted interference. Not sure about that part 
>> of it.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Wa3gin
>>
>> 
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From:* Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com 
>> [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of 
>> *larryjspammenot@ <mailto:%2Alarryjspammenot%40teleport.com> teleport.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM
>> *To:* Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>> From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people 
>> who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.)
>>
>> There's a discussion on the list about how HF "Remote Base" stations are 
>> most likely not legal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[David Jordan]

Well, the operator knows that EL broadcast immediately after the IP
connection is established. SO, in my view the operator should know better
than to place the radio on top of a net freq.  I'm speaking of 'control'
operator, not the user at the remote end of the Internet connection.

 

Best,

dave

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

 

  

EL is just another control link method - in his case land line.

That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active 
frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not 
necessarily the operator.

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[James Delancy]

Echolink has the capability to not transmit over active frequencies.  
You can also shut off the announcements if you desire.  If you use COR 
instead of VOX with echolink, it works even better.

James


MCH wrote:
> EL is just another control link method - in his case land line.
>
> That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active 
> frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not 
> necessarily the operator.
>
> Joe M.
>
> David Jordan wrote:
>   
>> Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote 
>> Amateur Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 
>> 2m-70cm antennas.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR 
>> stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of 
>> the stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 
>> 425ft above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 
>> 50-60 miles away; lots of fun.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials 
>> and there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. 
>> It is not a problem!
>>
>>  
>>
>> Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF.  
>> The end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link 
>> connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net 
>> on 40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool 
>> to have Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come 
>> in over top on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was 
>> not a good use the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the 
>> folks at Echo Link have since create an application that offers better 
>> controls that eliminate unwanted interference. Not sure about that part 
>> of it.
>>
>>  
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Wa3gin
>>
>>  
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of 
>> *larryjspamme...@teleport.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM
>> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people 
>> who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.)
>>
>> There's a discussion on the list about how HF "Remote Base" stations are 
>> most likely not legal.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>   

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[MCH]

EL is just another control link method - in his case land line.

That said, EL should be smart enough to not transmit on active 
frequencies. That's a shortcoming of EL or the interfacing, not 
necessarily the operator.

Joe M.

David Jordan wrote:
> 
> 
> Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote 
> Amateur Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 
> 2m-70cm antennas.
> 
>  
> 
> Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR 
> stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of 
> the stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 
> 425ft above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 
> 50-60 miles away; lots of fun.
> 
>  
> 
> Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials 
> and there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. 
> It is not a problem!
> 
>  
> 
> Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF.  
> The end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link 
> connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net 
> on 40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool 
> to have Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come 
> in over top on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was 
> not a good use the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the 
> folks at Echo Link have since create an application that offers better 
> controls that eliminate unwanted interference. Not sure about that part 
> of it.
> 
>  
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave
> 
> Wa3gin
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of 
> *larryjspamme...@teleport.com
> *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM
> *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people 
> who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.)
> 
> There's a discussion on the list about how HF "Remote Base" stations are 
> most likely not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[David Jordan]

Here in Arlington County, VA OEM/RACES we have two Internet Remote Amateur
Radio (IRAR) Stations build around the Kenwood TS2K w/ 80-6M and 2m-70cm
antennas. 

 

Our RACES volunteers check-in to the weekly exercise nets using the IRAR
stations when they are traveling for business or just for fun. One of the
stations has antennas mounted on the roof of the court house about 425ft
above sea level. That station on VHF-UHF can hit most repeaters 50-60 miles
away; lots of fun.

 

Riley Hollingsworth has toured the stations as have other FCC officials and
there is no regulation issue involved with operations of this type. It is
not a problem!

 

Where there is a problem is when folks attempt to use Echo Link for HF.  The
end user has no control over the freq. and the minute the Echo Link
connection is made it announces itself over the HF station. Our HF net on
40m had a problem with a ham up in Erie, PA who thought it was cool to have
Echo Link on his HF radio but the damn announcements would come in over top
on-going conversations creating a lot of confusion. That was not a good use
the Internet and it created some ill will. I think the folks at Echo Link
have since create an application that offers better controls that eliminate
unwanted interference. Not sure about that part of it.

 

73,

Dave

Wa3gin

 

  _  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
larryjspamme...@teleport.com
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:43 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

 

  

>From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people who
participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) 

There's a discussion on the list about how HF "Remote Base" stations are
most likely not legal. 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[Eric Lemmon]

The latest version (October 2008) of Part 97 is available in the RBTIP,
here:



73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
 

-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mwbese...@cox.net
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 9:51 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

  

 Somebody needs a new copy of Part 97.


Mike
WM4B



On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM , larryjspamme...@teleport.com wrote:


   From the tenmet...@yahoogrou ps mailing list (mainly a group of people
who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) 


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? 


Here' s one of the responses: 


"Is it legal to have a "remote base" with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz?" 


"No. If you look at the rules regarding the frequencies available for
auxiliary operation, you will conclude that there is no such thing as a
legal "remote base" which uses frequencies anywhere in the 2-meter band for
the "uplink" and "downlink." Those systems that go from 2-meter FM to
10-meter FM, or from 2-meter FM to 6-meter FM, for example, are not
technically "remote bases," even though some hams like to call them that.
They are really "crossband repeaters" and they are legal only if both ends
are within authorized repeater segments of both bands. Repeater operation
(including all input and output frequencies) is prohibited on all HF amateur
bands, except the top end of 10 meters. Likewise, there is no such thing as
a legal 2-meter FM to 75-meter SSB "remote base," since auxiliary uplinks
and downlinks must all be above 222.15 MHz [97.201(b)]. " 



<http://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJucmJzMDAyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzME
Z3JwSWQDMTA0MTY4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MzEwOARzZWMDbmNtb2QEc2xrA2dyb3VwczIEc3Rp
bWUDMTI1MjA4MjYxNw--> 

Re: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[MCH]

They are not crossband repeaters. They ARE remotely controlled stations. 
The AUX links are on 2M or above which is perfectly legal.

Legally the HF station is no different than one you're sitting in front 
of. The only difference is that the controls are extended. This can be 
done via landline or RF - no legal difference. If done via RF, the AUX 
frequencies must be chosen to be in a band segment legal for AUX 
operation. As of a year ago, this includes the 2M band.

Does the remotely controlled station repeat? Yes.
It it a repeatER? No.
Part 97 clearly makes this distinction.

It's a station using a control link - period.

Therefore, Remotely Controlled Stations (commonly called Remote Bases) 
are perfectly legal.

Joe M.

larryjspamme...@teleport.com wrote:
>>From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people who 
>>participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> Here' s one of the responses:
> 
> "Is it legal to have a "remote base" with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz?"
> 
> "No. If you look at the rules regarding the frequencies available for 
> auxiliary operation, you will conclude that there is no such thing as a legal 
> "remote base" which uses frequencies anywhere in the 2-meter band for the 
> "uplink" and "downlink." Those systems that go from 2-meter FM to 10-meter 
> FM, or from 2-meter FM to 6-meter FM, for example, are not technically 
> "remote bases," even though some hams like to call them that. They are really 
> "crossband repeaters" and they are legal only if both ends are within 
> authorized repeater segments of both bands. Repeater operation (including all 
> input and output frequencies) is prohibited on all HF amateur bands, except 
> the top end of 10 meters. Likewise, there is no such thing as a legal 2-meter 
> FM to 75-meter SSB "remote base," since auxiliary uplinks and downlinks must 
> all be above 222.15 MHz [97.201(b)]."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: [Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[mwbesemer]

 Somebody needs a new copy of Part 97.

Mike
WM4B

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM , larryjspamme...@teleport.com wrote:

   From the tenmet...@yahoogrou ps mailing list (mainly a group of 
people who participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.)


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?


Here' s one of the responses:

"Is it legal to have a "remote base" with an output on HF below 29.5 
MHz?"


"No. If you look at the rules regarding the frequencies available for 
auxiliary operation, you will conclude that there is no such thing as a 
legal "remote base" which uses frequencies anywhere in the 2-meter band 
for the "uplink" and "downlink." Those systems that go from 2-meter FM 
to 10-meter FM, or from 2-meter FM to 6-meter FM, for example, are not 
technically "remote bases," even though some hams like to call them 
that. They are really "crossband repeaters" and they are legal only if 
both ends are within authorized repeater segments of both bands. 
Repeater operation (including all input and output frequencies) is 
prohibited on all HF amateur bands, except the top end of 10 meters. 
Likewise, there is no such thing as a legal 2-meter FM to 75-meter SSB 
"remote base," since auxiliary uplinks and downlinks must all be above 
222.15 MHz [97.201(b)]. "

[Repeater-Builder] HF "Remote Bases" - Illegal?

[larryjspamme...@teleport.com]

>From the tenmet...@yahoogroups mailing list (mainly a group of people who 
>participate in the 10-10 Club awards programs.) 

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?


Here' s one of the responses:

"Is it legal to have a "remote base" with an output on HF below 29.5 MHz?"

"No. If you look at the rules regarding the frequencies available for auxiliary 
operation, you will conclude that there is no such thing as a legal "remote 
base" which uses frequencies anywhere in the 2-meter band for the "uplink" and 
"downlink." Those systems that go from 2-meter FM to 10-meter FM, or from 
2-meter FM to 6-meter FM, for example, are not technically "remote bases," even 
though some hams like to call them that. They are really "crossband repeaters" 
and they are legal only if both ends are within authorized repeater segments of 
both bands. Repeater operation (including all input and output frequencies) is 
prohibited on all HF amateur bands, except the top end of 10 meters. Likewise, 
there is no such thing as a legal 2-meter FM to 75-meter SSB "remote base," 
since auxiliary uplinks and downlinks must all be above 222.15 MHz [97.201(b)]."