Interference on 2m simplex frequenciesFine, Dave. This isn't an urgent situation. However, it is causing a great deal of discussion out here. Have any of the other divisions figured this out? If so, what's your take on this? 73, Walt W0CP ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7901] Re: Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Walt, sorry I was not able to respond sooner. I'm not an expert on Internet linking and I hadn't previously heard it was being done except by repeater. In principle it's no different than connecting by telephone. Picture a repeater with autopatch, then picture a simplex autopatch. It seems to me that the frequency and control issues are similar with Internet linking. However, I'm not going to be able to devote any more time to this until I get a couple of other projects done, which have to be done today (before I leave for the QCWA National Convention early tomorrow). 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Stinson, Walt (Dir, Rocky Mtn) Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:34 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7884] Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Dave, The Echolink and IRLP nodes are popping up on 2m out here, as I'm sure they are elsewhere. No one seems to know quite how to classify them and there even a question as to whether they are legal (see below). Do we have an "official" position on the classification of this activity? Is there an NFCC position on coordination of this activity? 73, Walt W0CP ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Sharp (EWU) To: 'Jeff Ryan' ; W0CP Walton Stinson Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info 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