The Closed Repeater Issue: A Remedy Proposal, by Avery Davis, WB4RTP Copyright (C) 2002 by Avery R. Davis A few days ago, I was listening to one of the many repeater systems in my home state owned and operated by a Closed Repeater Association (CRA), and I overheard a member of the CRA trying to be very nice about explaining to a non-member who had been peacefully using the repeater that he had stop. He semed to be a bit uncomfortable or embarrased, so he went out of his way to be polite about it, but the rules of the CRA were clear that use of the repeater by non-members was not to be tolerated. I think that his discomfort was due to his subconscious realization of a fundamental inconsistancy between the general operating standards of Amateur Radio, and the rules interpretation that permit CRAs to operate closed repeaters. In the articles and posts on the "closed repeater debate" that I have read, I have not seen a concise explanation of what I see as a clear destinction between two aspects of this debate: First, whether a CRA should be allowed to practice "discrimination"; second, whether a CRA should be allowed to monopolize frequencies. I assert that CRA is a private organization that has every right to be as selective as they want for their membership. What should be debated is whether the FCC rules should allow a CRA to extend that selectivity to the use of Amateur Radio frequencies. The CRAs base their practice of limiting the use of their repeaters on the following regulation paragraph: Sec. 97.205(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible. A broad interpretation of the second sentance of 92.205(e) would give the control operator of a repeater station full authority to exclude anyone from using his repeater (the reason why ancillary functions [e.g., autopatch, voicemail, links, etc.] are differentiated from control functions is that control functions are considered "remote control" and only the control operator may use them - this way, any user may use the ancillary functions). I have seen two two ways that CRAs justify excluding non-members from their repeaters. The first is a property rights argument that says that the owner of a repeater station has the right to decide who can use it and that he can't be forced to make it available to the public. This is an apparent contradiction to a more general regulation paragraph: Sec. 97.101(b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. Thus, while the Amateur Radio repeater equipment may be privately owned property, the frequencies it uses are publicly available to all licensed Radio Amateurs. Moreover, Amateur Radio is a service to the public, and the FCC intended that repeaters be used to enhance the level of service provided by all amateurs. Thus, a "members only" repeater selfishly reduces the usefulness of the Amateur spectrum resources, limiting the level of service that the Amateur Service can provide to the public. The FCC explicitly states that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in Amateur Radio communications. Thus, anyone desiring private communications must apply to the FCC for a license to the exclusive use of a specific frequency, that is, something other than an Amateur license. The second justification is based on technical grounds, and goes this way: Since the ancillary functions of the repeater are very sophisticated and powerful, a user without the proper training could potentially enter a sequence of commands that might cause transmissions in violation of FCC rules, or even damage the equipment. Since only CRA members have the proper training, therefore only CRA members may be allowed to use the primary and ancillary functions of the repeater. This is an obvious non-sequiter logical fallacy: What does a lack of training in the use of the ancillary functions of a repeater have to do with being able to use the primary function (relaying radio transmissions)? Technically, the only way to automatically limit repeater access is through the use of encryption, but that would violate Sec. 97.113(a)(4), so CRA members have to resort to verbal abuse or manually shutting down the repeater to discourage non-members. A variant of this argument is that all users of the CRA repeater have to be control operators because of the complexity and technical sophistication of the CRA repeater is such that only operators trained to the level of a control operator can be entrusted to use the CRA repeater without violating FCC regulations. I think that if a system can only be used by control operators, then it is a remote base or auxiliary station, and should not be coordinated with a frequency intended for a repeater. I propose the following new language (IN ALL CAPS) to 97.205(e): Sec. 97.205(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station. Limiting the use of THE ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS OF a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible. THE USE OF CODES AND CIPHERS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR TELECOMMANDS OF ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS AND REMOTELY CONTROLLED FUNCTIONS OF THE REPEATER. This clarifies a limited interpretation of the current language in 97.205(e), and allows robust protection of the ancillary functions. With this change, the primary function of a repeater would be open to all Radio Amateurs, while the "ancillary functions" would be closed to all except repeater association members. This seemed to be common practice in the state where I grew up (Georgia), and numerous radio clubs and repeater groups prospered under this practice, adding more and better "ancillary functions" to attract new members, and getting enough new members and renewals to continue to upgrade and enhance their repeaters. I think we should petition the FCC to make this change in the wording of Sec. 97.205(e). Some relevant links to the web: For additional discussion of The Closed Repeater Issue, browse to: Some good examples of a multiple-site linked repeater networks that are NOT closed: The Closed Repeater Coordination Society home page: Las Vegas Repeater Association - Closed Repeater Discussion: Avery Davis, WB4RTP Tucson, Arizona August 2, 2002 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 97.205(e) of the Commission's Rules Regarding Repeater Operation in the Amateur Service To: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PETITION FOR FULE MAKING This Petition for Rule Making seeks two modifications of the Commission's rules governing the amateur service, Section 97.205(e). First, to clarify that the commission did not intend to permit closed or private repeaters in the amateur service. Second, to explicitly allow encryption of telecommands for the ancillary functions and remote control of a repeater station. This proposal will bring the operation of repeater stations in line with general operating standards of amateur radio in Section 97.101(b), as follows: Section 97.101 ***** (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. ***** I propose the following new language (IN ALL CAPS) to 97.205(e): Section 97.205 ***** (e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station. Limiting the use of THE ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS OF a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible. THE USE OF CODES AND CIPHERS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR TELECOMMANDS OF ANCILLARY FUNCTIONS AND REMOTELY CONTROLLED FUNCTIONS OF THE REPEATER. ***** **more to come - not finished yet***