How To: Use crossband repeat legally on your base station

[AE7RS]

Wait a minute...the horse is alive!

Moleculo's angle seems to be that his HT and Base station constitute ONE "station."

But I read that his repeater is a station and his HT is another, different station.

Another one of Moleculo's angle seems to be that, regardless if he is using one station or 10 stations, he only needs to ID his communications on any one of the stations that provide equal or greater coverage than all of the others.

The rules leave quite a bit of room for interpretation and I'm sure nothing would ever come of it given the way the system is being operated. Who would ever know one way or another unless they really rolled up their sleeves and did some real investigation. Even at that, the most likely outcome would be a clarification of the rules.

I really don't see any room for interpretation. Every transmitter's RF transmission under your control must be identified. End of debate.

If I use a VHF/uhf/shf link to control or send audio to an HF rig the link frequency in use must be identified per 97.119 (a) (voice, cw, etc)

A person (or the FCC) listening to my VHF/UHF/SHF link frequency will expect to hear an ID on that frequency. Pretty straightforward stuff here.

The FCC a long time ago established that EACH transmitter is a station.

to reiterate ...

97.119 (a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.

 

[Moleculo]

It's not the end of debate, because the rules don't say "each transmitter". You are adding that in there. Nowhere does it say, "Every transmitter's RF transmission under your control must be identified." It says, "each amateur station". It even has a clear definition of the term "amateur station" which you are conveniently ignoring to make your case that "station" = "transmitter". They clearly do not mean the same thing and are not used interchangeably anywhere within these rules. I have already described how the "source of the transmissions from the station" can be handled under this scenario.

We're talking about a scenario where the "amatuer station", which is clearly defined by in Part 97 as, "...consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications", is being operate in a manner that the source of the transmissions - the station from which those transmissions are eminating - is being clearly known to those receiving the transmissions.

You cannot substitute the word "transmitter" for "station". If the FCC wanted to use the word "transmitter" in their definition of "amateur station", they would have done so. But they didn't and that word is nowhere to be found in the definition.

A person (or the FCC) listening to my VHF/UHF/SHF link frequency will expect to hear an ID on that frequency. Pretty straightforward stuff here.

Yep, and I've shown how you can do that. No argument there. Every monitoring station will hear an ID on each frequency in use.

The FCC a long time ago established that EACH transmitter is a station.

Oh really? It doesn't say that in Part 97 anywhere. So if it doesn't say it in Part 97, then the only way it is "law" is if there is case law established by a court. If you can show me record case law, then I will recant. Remember, just a "clarifying statement" issued by the FCC is not case law and is meaningless in court. It hast to be in Part 97 or it has to be case law.

As they say in Missouri...show me.

 

[regencycb]

CRossband ID ing

It's not the end of debate, because the rules don't say "each transmitter". You are adding that in there. Nowhere does it say, "Every transmitter's RF transmission under your control must be identified." It says, "each amateur station". It even has a clear definition of the term "amateur station" which you are conveniently ignoring to make your case that "station" = "transmitter". They clearly do not mean the same thing and are not used interchangeably anywhere within these rules. I have already described how the "source of the transmissions from the station" can be handled under this scenario.

We're talking about a scenario where the "amatuer station", which is clearly defined by in Part 97 as, "...consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications", is being operate in a manner that the source of the transmissions - the station from which those transmissions are eminating - is being clearly known to those receiving the transmissions.

You cannot substitute the word "transmitter" for "station". If the FCC wanted to use the word "transmitter" in their definition of "amateur station", they would have done so. But they didn't and that word is nowhere to be found in the definition.



Yep, and I've shown how you can do that. No argument there. Every monitoring station will hear an ID on each frequency in use.



Oh really? It doesn't say that in Part 97 anywhere. So if it doesn't say it in Part 97, then the only way it is "law" is if there is case law established by a court. If you can show me record case law, then I will recant. Remember, just a "clarifying statement" issued by the FCC is not case law and is meaningless in court. It hast to be in Part 97 or it has to be case law.

As they say in Missouri...show me.

And if you do put a cw or voice id on your crossband setup and it shows up on the repeater you are using. That opens up a big ole can of worms with the repeater owner. Can you imagine listening to a repeater with 3 or 4 stations crossbanding to it all with id's . The trustee would run you out of town, well maybee just his repeater. Food for thought.

RCB

 

[Moleculo]

And if you do put a cw or voice id on your crossband setup and it shows up on the repeater you are using. That opens up a big ole can of worms with the repeater owner. Can you imagine listening to a repeater with 3 or 4 stations crossbanding to it all with id's . The trustee would run you out of town, well maybee just his repeater. Food for thought.

RCB

If you put an auto id on your "private" (440mhz typically) side, it won't key the repeater. Lots of stations put auto-cw iders on their station that are using repeaters...I hear it all the time. It's annoying, but I hear it. Personally I don't like trying to talk to someone while the auto CW ider is going off. But, it's legal because it's always legal to ID using CW.

 

[C2]

That's not what 97.119(a) says. It says, "each station", not "each transmitter". And I already quoted the part where it defines an "amateur station" - it's defined as all of the "apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications". By that definition, "station" includes the coax, mic, key, power supply, antenna, computer, transceiver, etc.

you left some things off the list...

it also includes the main club repeater up on the hill and all the other club member's transmitters, for all of this apparatus is necessary for carrying on radiocommunications.

where are you going to logically draw boundaries around such an open ended definition? That is all rhetorical...

I've also seen the argument where some claim that repeaters don't need to ID.

BTW, Moleculo, I see your station as the HT and your x-band repeater as a repeater, two separately defined terms.

(39) Repeater. An amateur station that simultaneously retransmits the transmission of another amateur station on a different channel or channels.

A repeater is an amateur station, not part of an amateur station; your HT is the "other station" of which the repeater retransmits its transmission.

Why don't you just switch your HT over to 2m every 10 mins and ID into your x-band repeater and be legal?

 

[Moleculo]

Why don't you just switch your HT over to 2m every 10 mins and ID into your x-band repeater and be legal?

I suppose you could do that if you really wanted to, but what's the point? You are already making your station's call sign heard on all frequencies in use to any station monitoring those frequencies. The source of the transmission is known. If you've set it up properly, anyone monitoring just one of the frequencies would never even know that you were crossband repeating and would never know that there was more than one transmitter in use at your station. Even if the FCC didn't "like" it, does anyone really think you would receive a NOV for operating in this manner? No way. The worst thing that would happen is some other ham would complain, saying "hey! you can't do it that way". Then some hams would have to petition the FCC to clarify that "station" really means "transmitter" and the FCC would sit on the request, considering it for years.

There could be a strong argument made that the personal station I described is really an uncoordinated repeater (it IS called crossband repeating, after all). However, in this scenario, the station is not under remote control, so some of the typical requirements we think of with repeaters are not applicable.

 

[KD8LWX]

Hmm, since I am using a VX-8R with bluetooth, am I already cross band repeating?

2.4 GHz for bluetooth

 

[Moleculo]

Hmm, since I am using a VX-8R with bluetooth, am I already cross band repeating?

2.4 GHz for bluetooth

Not exactly, the bluetooth is just being used as a wireless speaker/mic. It sorta is the same thing though, if you stop and think about it. I'm sure sooner or later somebody will say this is illegal since the amateur radio service is being rebroadcast onto the public 2.4ghz unlicensed spectrum.

 

[KD8LWX]

Not exactly, the bluetooth is just being used as a wireless speaker/mic. It sorta is the same thing though, if you stop and think about it. I'm sure sooner or later somebody will say this is illegal since the amateur radio service is being rebroadcast onto the public 2.4ghz unlicensed spectrum.

And I am using encryption.

 

[Qwazyone]

And I am using encryption.

What is the effective distance of bluetooth, 32 feet? I haven't read all of the FCC rules regarding the amateur service but it seems that the crossband repeating radios would not be covered by the rules covering stations under direct control and the rules governing operating a station under automatic or remote control would apply, like traditional repeaters with their auto ID

 

[Moleculo]

What is the effective distance of bluetooth, 32 feet? I haven't read all of the FCC rules regarding the amateur service but it seems that the crossband repeating radios would not be covered by the rules covering stations under direct control and the rules governing operating a station under automatic or remote control would apply, like traditional repeaters with their auto ID

Bluetooth distance? Good question. I'm guessing 20 or 30 feet?

If you're at station control, then it is not under automatic or remote control. Remember, we're discussing a scenario where you are close enough to walk over to the crossbander and turn it off or change frequency.

 

[C2]

Bluetooth is using a different radio service, so ham radio rules should not apply.

Quite often, especially in simplex, I can identify different radio stations by various background sounds and other artifacts around the keying sequence. An astute observer should be able to quickly identify the repeater from your HT. At that point, how would they know you were the op for both stations? I've been quite surprised to find how far my HT signal has been picked up on even just 1/2 watt.

You are most likely correct about everything else you say. The FCC is likely to do nothing. They might issue some sort of notice if they received the right type of complaint. Any sort of formal change to the rules or case decision would really require quite a bit of gruff over the issue and probably years of some serious leaning by folks with more time on their hands than...

 

[Qwazyone]

Bluetooth distance? Good question. I'm guessing 20 or 30 feet?

If you're at station control, then it is not under automatic or remote control. Remember, we're discussing a scenario where you are close enough to walk over to the crossbander and turn it off or change frequency.

If thats the distance your talking about, where you are close enough to walk over to it, it shouldn't matter if you ID using the crossbanding radio. I thought you were more along the lines of driving to a park or something, leaving a radio on in the vehicle and then going for a hike

 

[ke7vvt]

What if I had two HTs and I tx on one and then every 10 minutes pick up the other just to ID; is that OK?

No, not OK. You think your ID is going out with the "nearly identical" transmission. C2, I don't know what side you were taking on that point but it is a good question.

I consider a "station" as inclusive of the antenna AND exclusive of other stations; i.e., two HTs constitute two different stations and each must ID their transmissions.

Agreed. Both need to be identified, both are going to have different operating characteristics.

In your case, I belive that the base station must ID on 440, even if you have crippled the base station's antenna and presume that your HT (many feet away) will cover the same TX range. The first part of this statement is also important, "No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station."

Here is the catch, we are pretty sure that we have got things covered but the stations are not (and can never be) identical.

I do not believe that I could set up my base station to auto ID every 10 minutes and then walk around my property all day TXing on my HT and never ID, and still be legal, even if it was all done on the same frequency.

Err, right. But that is not what Moleculo's how to describes, or suggests doing.

I disagree completely. Look at it this way: I have two HF antennas installed that cover some of the same bands. I have a coax switch that allows me to switch back and forth between them depending on which one I feel like using. If I apply your reasoning, then I must make sure I ID on each antenna I talk on.

Yes, identify on each antenna.

However, If I'm talking on one antenna and then start talking to a different station and switch antennas because it allows me to hear that station better, there is no requirement that I switch back the first antenna I started on and ID there within ten minutes.

Err, right. I wouldn't think you would have to, unless you wanted to TX on that first antenna again. But you would want to identify whilst using the second antenna.

If you with your HT and your base operating at the same location, then yes as long as it's being done on all the frequencies in use. This is exactly the reason why some of the newer crossband repeat rigs started coming with the ability to auto-id on both bands.

Ya, sounds good.

The rules don't say that you have to ID using every radio/antenna/piece of equipment that you operate on at the station. It says that the Control Op must ID on every frequency in use and you can do it using CW or whatever other mode you're using.

If that is the rule, then OK...

The distinction that you're making is that you believe that your HT is a self contained station separate from the base. I'm saying that when you set it up like I have described, it is now a single, integrated system and as long as long as you're within a distance that you can easily control both rigs in use, you are at the station control.

I think that each station should still be TX'ing the ID though, which sounds like it does if there is an auto-id.


I think the operator/owner should be ID'ing on each TX frequency from each transmitter. It sounds like the rules leave enough room to allow a few ways to get that done (which is part of what some of the argument has been about). Why should the operator/owner ID on each transmitter frequency? Regardless of what the official rules say (they are confusing), I think the transmissions should be identifiable if someone wanted to contact the owner (by other means) if there was a problem with one of the transmitters. So ID'ing from the HT on 440.00 and having that same transmission TX'd again from the repeater is OK, but as soon as the repeater wants to TX again on 440.0, there should be another ID I think. Unless you are sure that your HT does provide greater coverage, and the repeater operating correctly.

An example why,

Similar to the first quote above by C2, I wouldn't TX ke7vvt on my 8r, set it down, pick up a new mic and then take up a conversation on a home brew repeater with a low gain antenna (I really am brewing one) without TXing my ID again. There is no way that I would get it (the repeater) right the first time!

Moleculo's idea of dumbing down the range of the crossband repeater on the 440 side does sound like it should make the system work, especially if your pretty sure everything is working correctly (which is where other parts of argument have come from) But is it really legal? I don't know, I don't care if someone else does it, you and your station and the other person you are talking to are bound to reveal ID's at some point and you probably will be able to be contacted if something goofy is happening. I wouldn't try that suggested antenna/duplexer technique without the auto-id, but only because I know I wouldn't do it right. If you are doing it and everything is working great then kudos!

I think the Kenwood D-710 might be able to do this. We usually have an operator at that "base station" on our expeditions, so even if it doesn't auto-ID on the output back to the HT's, the operator can ID for it. Thanks a for all of the great info from all parties esp. AE7RS, Moleculo, and C2.

edit: Kenwood D710 does do cross band repeat, and it looks like it can do single band also (if you set it up right I imagine)

 

[ke7vvt]

Why don't you just switch your HT over to 2m every 10 mins and ID into your x-band repeater and be legal?

That is unnecessary if there is an ID @ the HT on 440.00 before the repeater repeats it again on 146.00.

Also, hopefully I didn't take anyones comments out of context when I quoted them. Especially this last quote, maybe you meant something else C2?