I’m
not sure that I completely agree with the interpretation below. Some thoughts for you guys
…
I
pulled Part 97 from the ARRL web page. The first section of interest is
§97.113 Prohibited
transmissions:
97.113f
- No amateur station, except an auxiliary, repeater or space station, may
automatically retransmit the radio signals of other amateur
stations.
IRLP
nodes mainly operate under Automatic Control (unattended). So they must then fall into either
auxiliary or repeater operation (obviously not space so I’ll ignore that one).
So, what defines
each?
§97.3
Definitions.
(a)
The definitions of terms used in Part 97
are:
(7) Auxiliary station. An amateur
station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting
communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations.
(39) Repeater. An
amateur station that simultaneously retransmits the transmission of another
amateur station on a different channel or channels.
I
believe that when the FCC wrote these rules that they
felt:
Auxiliary
is a point-to-point link. (For example: Between the CRA site on Conifer and the
CRA site on Lee Hill. Communications are limited to only include these two
stations.)
Repeater
is a traditional repeater and communications are sent “point to multi-point.”
(For example: 146.970 MHz on Pikes
Peak.).
I
suspect an IRLP nodes is more a “point to multi-point”, therefore might be
classified a repeater. But it is
not a traditional repeater, since the TX and RX are physically isolated and
under different parties control, so the repeater classification may not apply.
From these definitions it
seems not to be auxiliary, but also not to be a repeater. So what is it? I guess I state the obvious. J
On
a side note, I’m also concerned that if classified a repeater, then CCARC might
have to coordinate every IRLP and EchoLink node in Colorado. (Not something I am looking forward to
do!)
Regardless,
I think this is something that we need to determine and resolve. I am pressed for time today, thus wrote
this very quickly, so I hope my comments above make sense. J How do we get to the bottom of it?
73,
-
Doug
-----Original
Message-----
From: Jeff Ryan
[mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:12
PM
To: Doug Sharp; W0CP Walton
Stinson
Subject: RE:
Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info
Doug /
Walt:
John
Hennessee, ARRL's regulatory information specialist has responded that it is his
position that simplex links to IRLP nodes fall under 97.219-- they are "message
forwarding systems".
What
follows is my interpretation / expansion on John's
statement.
Part
97.221 tells us that if the message forwarding system transmits RTTY or data, it
can be automatically controlled. Since IRLP simplex links are transmitting
voice, they do not fall under 97.221, so they may not be automatically
controlled (unattended). A control operator must be present at the control
point at all times the link is forwarding messages (e.g., the link is active),
either locally or remotely.
If the
control operator is present locally, transmission (message forwarding) on 2
meters is permitted. If the control operator is present remotely, then the
remote location is an Auxiliary Station and control of the radio that interfaces
to the IRLP node must conform to 97.201(b) and ensure the 'link' frequency
is 1.25 meter and shorter wavelengths. Another point about auxiliary
stations is that the operation can not be "open" to just anyone--- each operator
must be specifically authorized to act as the Control
Operator.
Insofar as
the specific operation of the N0MFB IRLP simplex link, the messages I have
received do not indicate specifically how he is using the link. I did
notice on one of the IRLP node maps/web pages that there are many
other 2 meter simplex frequencies listed-- but this fact doesn't make it
legal.
An example
of another area that is replete with misunderstanding and misuse is
the operation of so-called dual band radios in "cross-band repeat"
mode. There are many hams across the U.S. that simply do not understand
some of the guidelines that must be followed and operate illegally because
they:
-- fail to
identify all transmissions emanating from the cross-band
'repeater';
-- use 2 meters from an HT or other mobile into the x-band
radio
-- fail to provide a method for shutting off the x-band radio should
the control link fail
(no time-out
timer)
In a
manner similar to these issues, it is my contention that many IRLP node
operators with a simplex link don't understand the rules under which they
should be operating. The ARRL is planning on including a 'sidebar'
about IRLP operation in the next edition of the Rule Book when published-- but I
don't think that will solve the problem. (ARRL ran an article about
cross-band 'repeater' issues but there are still
dozens--if not hundreds-- of people still violating Part 97
because they don't know any better).
So... this
is my take on the issue. If you see any flaws in my logic, or disagree
with my conclusions, please let me know.
73,
Jeff
-----Original
Message-----
From: Doug Sharp
[mailto:doug@dougsharp.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:38
AM
To: W0CP Walton Stinson;
Jeff. Ryan@WCom. Com
Subject:
FW: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info
Walt,
As we
discussed, IRLP nodes are coming on-line every day. Here is another example of a node (right
here in Boulder) that came on-line on a non-standard channel on the two-meter
band. Thankfully this guy was
willing to work with me (informally) to move him on-bandplan, but all are not as
cooperative!
J Although he is also
requesting a UHF repeater coordination, he stated that he wanted to leave his
node on VHF to give it more access to all.
As we
discussed, I am unsure of these unattended simplex nodes are proper on
two-meters. It appears that Jeff
has also asked someone at HQ for an opinion. I look forward to hearing that
opinion. I thought I'd
forward his e-mail to you since we discussed this item at the last hamfest, and
you may be also inquiring.
Thanks
& 73,
- Doug
Doug
Sharp
Longmont,
CO
doug@dougsharp.com
k2ad@dougsharp.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Jeff Ryan
[mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:39
PM
To: Gary
Geissinger
Cc: Skip Cubbedge;
Mike Lewis; Gary Mattie; K2AD@arrl.net
Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex
frequencies; Still more info
Gary:
The CCARC
Frequency Coordinator spoke informally with N0MFB about the IRLP node on
146.560. At this time it is still unclear whether or not this
is a matter for which the CCARC would be involved which is why the discussion is
categorized as informal; nevertheless, N0MFB has indicated he will move his
operation to 146.565 to comply with the Colorado band plan. This
should eliminate any interference to 146.550.
I have
requested the ARRL Regulatory Information folks give me their
opinion as to whether or not running a simplex IRLP link is auxiliary station
operation. (It is my opinion that a simplex link to an IRLP node is a
remote base, which falls under Auxiliary Station operation). If it
is, then N0MFB must move his operation to a frequency above 222.15 in
order to comply with FCC rules Part 97.201(b).
I'll keep
you posted.
73,
Jeff,
K0RM
ARRL
Section Manager,
Colorado
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gary
Geissinger [mailto:ggeissinger@digitalglobe.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:14
PM
To: 'Jeff Ryan'
Cc: Skip Cubbedge; Mike Lewis; Gary
Mattie
Subject: RE:
Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info
Jeff,
Here is some additional
research.
N0MFB has an IRLP
node. It is advertised to be on 146.560. See:
http://status.irlp.net/IRLPLowCPU.php3?option=3&refresh=-1
Well, what is the ARRLs
position on this activity and the 2 meter band plan?
I'll tell you this; if
he stays on 145.560, then both local simplex frequencies are going to be
useless.
Thanks and
73's,
Gary