RE: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
That would depend on your definition of "unattended". Remote-controlled operation is definitely permissable under FCC rules; is this "attended" or "unattended"? The key requirement is for every station to have a control operator who performs specific duties. If those duties can be reliably performed remotely, then the operation is permissable. 73, Dave, AA6YQ -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jack Chomley Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 5:15 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ? At 07:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote: Right here - As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit "test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes." Should that not read " appear to be illegal operations if they are being run unattended " I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station. John So..you can't leave your APRS turned on, when your leave your car to go into a shop, or parked in your driveway?? You can't leave your digipeater function turned on in your TNC, in case someone uses it for a link, or even leave you Packet Station turned on, in case someone connects to its mailbox, while you are outside, mowing the lawn :-) You can't put up a dedicated digipeater anywhere, even for test purposeswithout being in attendance? WHAT rock has the ARRL been sleeping under, not to move with the times and petition the FCC? OR have I got this all wrong... 73s Jack VK4JRC (In a country where auto and unattended is allowed)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
At 07:47 AM 1/6/2008, you wrote: Right here - As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit "test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes." Should that not read " appear to be illegal operations if they are being run unattended " I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station. John So..you can't leave your APRS turned on, when your leave your car to go into a shop, or parked in your driveway?? You can't leave your digipeater function turned on in your TNC, in case someone uses it for a link, or even leave you Packet Station turned on, in case someone connects to its mailbox, while you are outside, mowing the lawn :-) You can't put up a dedicated digipeater anywhere, even for test purposeswithout being in attendance? WHAT rock has the ARRL been sleeping under, not to move with the times and petition the FCC? OR have I got this all wrong... 73s Jack VK4JRC (In a country where auto and unattended is allowed)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
John, The FCC Part 97 has no such reference. Could you please explain why you are making such as statement? 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > It is one thing to be " automatic " and " attended " > and another to be " automatic " and " unattended ". > > The rules say you can't be " unattended " > > > > Roger, W6VZV had written: > > >> A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at >> the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the >> issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is >> activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is >> "attended" because it was activated by the distant station. This is >> "unattended" transmitting because the distant station cannot check the >> channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. >> >> So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant >> activating station "attending" a remote transmitter is incorrect. >> >> de Roger W6VZV >> >>
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
At 03:02 PM 1/5/2008, you wrote: >Sorry if you misunderstood that. I am not sure where you saw me make >such a claim and you might want to point me to such a statement. Right here - As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit "test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes." Should that not read " appear to be illegal operations if they are being run unattended " I think we all know that you *CAN'T* run a unattended station. John
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
Sorry if you misunderstood that. I am not sure where you saw me make such a claim and you might want to point me to such a statement. My point frequently has been that unattended operation is not permitted in the U.S. and Riley Hollingsworth has stated this publicly. What I have said is that the ARRL (and others) have incorrectly used the term unattended. Realistically though, I often wonder if this is a distinction without a difference. I am not sure how much "control" is going on with automatic stations. It might be wise for PropNet to not use the term "beacon" and call it a test transmission since only a few world wide coordinated beacons are legal below 28 MHz here in the U.S. They obviously can never leave the station unattended without a rules violation, unless we hear differently from the FCC. 73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > Rick > You keep lumping " automatic " together with " unattended " > > As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave > your station untended as well as the WL2K site. > > > > > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
It is one thing to be " automatic " and " attended " and another to be " automatic " and " unattended ". The rules say you can't be " unattended " At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: >A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at >the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the >issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is >activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is >"attended" because it was activated by the distant station. This is >"unattended" transmitting because the distant station cannot check the >channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. > >So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant >activating station "attending" a remote transmitter is incorrect. > >de Roger W6VZV > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > >View the DRCC numbers database at >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > > Rick You keep lumping " automatic " together with " unattended " > > As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station > untended as well as the WL2K site. A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is "attended" because it was activated by the distant station. This is "unattended" transmitting because the distant station cannot check the channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant activating station "attending" a remote transmitter is incorrect. de Roger W6VZV
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
Rick You keep lumping " automatic " together with " unattended " As you may know the ProrNet site says to NEVER leave your station untended as well as the WL2K site.
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
I am just talking about sending the FLARQ "beacon" while in the shack. On Jan 4, 2008 11:09 PM, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon. > > 97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting > communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and > reception or other related experimental activities. > > Here are the frequency bands that they may be operated automatically: > > 97.203 (d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is > transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 > MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm > and shorter wavelength bands. > > There are no HF or MF frequencies below 28 MHz that permit radio > amateurs to run a beacon automatically. > > As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be > for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet > appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It > is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit > "test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to > the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes." > > This is why Bonnie, KQ6XA freaked out so strongly with her personal > attack on me for daring to actually ask the FCC for some answers to > these very questions, but yet did not have one shred of technical > information to suggest otherwise. > > These issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the FCC can change the rules > to allow such operations in the future, but should the rules be ignored > for now? I wonder if the OO program has been involved with any of these > violations? > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > Russell Blair wrote: > > My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does > > it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. > > For me my beacon has not be on the air without being > > here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a > > spot up on 10m. > > > > Russell NC5O > > > > > > -- Andy K3UK www.obriensweb.com (QSL via N2RJ)
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
The FCC is pretty clear on the definition of a beacon. 97.3 Definitions/ (9) Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications for the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other related experimental activities. Here are the frequency bands that they may be operated automatically: 97.203 (d) A beacon may be automatically controlled while it is transmitting on the 28.20-28.30 MHz, 50.06-50.08 MHz, 144.275-144.300 MHz, 222.05-222.06 MHz, or 432.300-432.400 MHz segments, or on the 33 cm and shorter wavelength bands. There are no HF or MF frequencies below 28 MHz that permit radio amateurs to run a beacon automatically. As I have pointed out, a number of ham activities that are claimed to be for the purposes of propagation, especially PropNet and the HFLinkNet appear to be illegal operations if they are being run automatically. It is stretching the rules rather thin but you could probably transmit "test" transmissions as the FCC says, "on any frequency authorized to the control operator for brief periods for experimental purposes." This is why Bonnie, KQ6XA freaked out so strongly with her personal attack on me for daring to actually ask the FCC for some answers to these very questions, but yet did not have one shred of technical information to suggest otherwise. These issues need to be addressed. Perhaps the FCC can change the rules to allow such operations in the future, but should the rules be ignored for now? I wonder if the OO program has been involved with any of these violations? 73, Rick, KV9U Russell Blair wrote: > My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does > it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. > For me my beacon has not be on the air without being > here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a > spot up on 10m. > > Russell NC5O >
Re: [digitalradio] Beacon's ?
At 10:56 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: >My Question, is a beacon a beacon if is maned, or does >it have to be unmaned to be a beacon. >For me my beacon has not be on the air without being >here at the PC. So do we scrip the testing or find a >spot up on 10m. > >Russell NC5O > >= >IN GOD WE TRUST ! >= >Russell Blair NC5O >Skype-Russell Blair >Hell Field #300 >DRCC #55 Some software has an Auto CQ. As far as I am concerned, I use that function while I am in attendance of my station location, that is the room where my equipment is. I would call it a CQ beacon, as soon as I leave the room, whilst it is still running. But what would I know? I ain't a lawyer :-) 73s Jack VK4JRC
