Mr

[Guest Tedgrener]

Sometimes I hear Morse code from repeater that I have tuned to. Is this an identifier for the repeater or does it signify something else. Thanks in advance!

[WRTC928]

There's no way to know for sure without more information, but some repeaters do use Morse code to identify.

[OffRoaderX]

2 hours ago, Guest Tedgrener said:

Is this an identifier for the repeater

Yes, with a probability of 97%

[nokones]

1 hour ago, WRTC928 said:

There's no way to know for sure without more information, but some repeaters do use Morse code to identify.

And some use recorded audio

[RayDiddio]

11 hours ago, nokones said:

And some use recorded audio

And some use both! 

[RayDiddio]

13 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

Yes, with a probability of 97%

You leave your expert opinions out of this! 

[Northcutt114]

Is there a reason that one would choose to do this? Morse Code, in 2025?

[amaff]

19 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

Is there a reason that one would choose to do this? Morse Code, in 2025?

There are still hams mad that CW isn't required anymore to get your license, so.....

[SteveShannon]

8 hours ago, Northcutt114 said:

Is there a reason that one would choose to do this? Morse Code, in 2025?

Many repeaters have the ability built in so it’s fairly easy to configure.  Sometimes (especially on digital repeaters in ham radio) the Morse Code ID is sent without CTCSS tones, so those who use a receiver tone do not even hear the repeater ID.

Personally, I prefer a repeater that IDs using a voice ID because I still haven’t trained myself to copy CW, but as long as the FCC allows Morse code to be used it will be.

[dosw]

18 hours ago, Guest Tedgrener said:

Sometimes I hear Morse code from repeater that I have tuned to. Is this an identifier for the repeater or does it signify something else. Thanks in advance!

It's the repeater identifying the license under which it operates. At least that's by far the most common reason you would hear Morse code on a GMRS repeater, and the only Morse I've ever heard on a GMRS repeater.

In Amateur radio you may hear CW (Morse) beacons which send out a call sign plus location and power information; CW for realtime communications; Morse identifiers on 2m or 70cm repeaters, so many other use cases. But for GMRS is nearly always just a repeater identifying by the license of its owner.

Here's how you can know, though:

1. Record the transmission: Use a VOX recorder plugged into your radio, or plug your radio into your computer and record with Audacity or some other recording software, or use an SDR and SDR software with recording capabilities.
2. Trim down to the relevant section of the recording using Audacity or some other software.
3. Reduce noise using Audacity or some other software.
4. Upload to one of many websites that will transform audio samples of Morse code into plain text.
5. Once you see that it's a call-sign, use the FCC tool to look up the call sign's owner, if interested.

The whole process takes just a few minutes and can be kind of fun to work through once or twice.

[dosw]

9 hours ago, Northcutt114 said:

Is there a reason that one would choose to do this? Morse Code, in 2025?

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1751

Quote

 

Each GMRS station must be identified by transmission of its FCC-assigned call sign at the end of transmissions and at periodic intervals during transmissions except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. A unit number may be included after the call sign in the identification.

(a) The GMRS station call sign must be transmitted:

(1) Following a single transmission or a series of transmissions; and,

(2) After 15 minutes and at least once every 15 minutes thereafter during a series of transmissions lasting more than 15 minutes.

(b) The call sign must be transmitted using voice in the English language or international Morse code telegraphy using an audible tone.

(c) Any GMRS repeater station is not required to transmit station identification if:

(1) It retransmits only communications from GMRS stations operating under authority of the individual license under which it operates; and,

(2) The GMRS stations whose communications are retransmitted are properly identified in accordance with this section.

 

So if the repeater is only retransmitting communications for people operating under the authority of the same license, and they properly identify themselves, the repeater doesn't need to identify itself. But if anyone else is using it under a different license, or if anyone using it doesn't identify, the repeater is supposed to. Of course we know there's really virtually no enforcement in this area, but nevertheless, people often like to try to do the right thing.

Why Morse, I can see two reasons: First because many repeaters can do that automatically. Second, because cognitively, Morse is out of band from human speech, and therefore less intrusive, less confusing than a spoken voice coming through at 15 minute intervals interlaced between the primary voice communications taking place on the repeater.

This concept derives from the Gestalt Psychology's Law of Similarity  which suggests that visual processing benefits by grouping similar things to have similar appearance, and different things to have different appearance. Software developers try to make similar concepts in code look the same in code, and different concepts in code look different, as that helps developers spot things that might be incorrect, missing, or out of place. And user interface designers attempt the same thing; browser buttons on a website should have visual similarity when they do similar things, and other elements should be visually distinct or dissimilar when they do different things. It helps end users grok a user interface more readily. Our brain processing language and sound benefits from the same considerations, so it makes perfect sense to keep rule compliance interruptions out of the cognitive load of the actual primary conversation.

 

[Northcutt114]

9 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

Many repeaters have the ability built in so it’s fairly easy to configure.  Sometimes (especially on digital repeaters in ham radio) the Morse Code ID is sent without CTCSS tones, so those who use a receiver tone do not even hear the repeater ID.

Personally, I prefer a repeater that IDs using a voice ID because I still haven’t trained myself to copy CW, but as long as the FCC allows Morse code to be used it will be.

So is the idea, specifically with CW, that it's already hardwired into the repeater, Station Identification is required, and therefore CW is the easiest way to accomplish that?

[Northcutt114]

33 minutes ago, dosw said:

Why Morse, I can see two reasons: First because many repeaters can do that automatically. Second, because cognitively, Morse is out of band from human speech, and therefore less intrusive, less confusing than a spoken voice coming through at 15 minute intervals interlaced between the primary voice communications taking place on the repeater

That tracks for me. Thanks for the response!

 

[SteveShannon]

3 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

So is the idea, specifically with CW, that it's already hardwired into the repeater, Station Identification is required, and therefore CW is the easiest way to accomplish that?

Like @dosw said!

[WRTC928]

11 hours ago, Northcutt114 said:

So is the idea, specifically with CW, that it's already hardwired into the repeater, Station Identification is required, and therefore CW is the easiest way to accomplish that?

Yes. My repeater has that as a selectable option in its software. To use a voice ID, I would have to buy another device. And, as @dosw said, I find it less disruptive than a voice when I'm having a conversation. Most of the ham repeaters I listen to use a Morse code ID, but a couple use voice ID. The voice ID is fine when it's just a periodic voice on the air, but in the midst of a conversation, it's more confusing.