Re: Favorite K2 Remote Program? ([e-mail])

[Web Williams]

I don't really want to "get into it" with others on
this subject, but I was in a friendly discussion
with another ham concerning remote-base operations
using an internet link to an HF set, and began
investigating the legality of such operation. I
posed a question to the ARRL regulatory branch to
see what their opinion was (John Hennessee) because
I saw that more than a few folks seem to be using
TRX manager and other software as a "package" to
operate their HF set from a remote location over an
internet link. Pretty amazing stuff if you ask me,
and I was about to see if I could get on the bandwagon
as well! Who wouldn't like the capability of jumping
on your home HF set from another state whenever you
please via a simple internet connection?

As it turns out, "remote base" operation in the U.S.
is ILLEGAL if it transmits below 29.5MHz. The link
to your HF set (which may only transmit ABOVE 29.5MHz)
may _ONLY_ be one of the following choices:

A. RF link above 222.15MHz
B. Hard-wire control from point to point
C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number

No regulatory precedence has been set, no rule written
into law, for using the internet to remotely control a
radio. Yes, this includes Echolink and IRLP, and other
variations on the theme.

Although using such a station in countries other than
the U.S. may be legal, here in the U.S. it's _ILLEGAL_.

No need to "correct me". If you feel the need to
"correct" someone, the thing for you to do is to get
a "petition for rulemaking" started, because this rule
is based in LAW, not OPINION. For it to be legal to
use the internet to transmit with your HF rig below
29.5MHz, you need to have the law changed, or have
a new law written, not change my opinion. Whether or
not the FCC is willing to enforce this rule is another
matter entirely.

You'll need two law changes:

1. Make it legal to transmit via remote base below 29.5MHz.

2. Recognize the internet as a legal means to control a
remote base.

73, -KR4WM


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Mike S-8]

At 06:59 AM 4/29/2005, Web Williams wrote...
>As it turns out, "remote base" operation in the U.S. is ILLEGAL if it transmits below 29.5MHz. The link to your HF set (which may only transmit ABOVE 29.5MHz) may _ONLY_ be one of the following choices:
>
>A. RF link above 222.15MHz
>B. Hard-wire control from point to point
>C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number
>
>No need to "correct me". If you feel the need to "correct" someone, the thing for you to do is to get a "petition for rulemaking" started, because this rule is based in LAW, not OPINION.

Law is a matter of opinion. The law itself recognizes that fact by calling legal decisions "opinions." (Beyond which, what you refer to isn't law, but regulation.) Law/regulation often flexes to accommodate new technologies which don't fit existing definitions. "Telephone" is literally "remote sound." A remote sound link via an unpublished number (IP address/port) sure sounds like #3.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 4/29/05 7:01:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> B. Hard-wire control from point to point
> C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number
>

Hmmm...

I guess it comes down to interpretation as to whether an internet link meets
the above criteria adequately.

Literally, an internet link doesn't. But at least some would argue that the
security of password protection, encryption, etc., is at least as secure as a
telephone line with unlisted number.

---

Be that as it may, I find some aspects of that kind of remote control to be
unsettling. Will we reach a point where few hams actually have stations in
their homes, and instead simply access a remote station?

Will anti-antenna folks use remote access/control as an excuse, or even a
legal argument?
 
What if someone builds a superstation, and then *sells* remote access time to
it? Would that be legal - or in the best interest of the ARS?

Maybe the most important question isn't whether something is legal, but
whether it's a good idea.

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Don Wilhelm-3]

Web,

Please provide the specific paragraphs of FCC Part 97 that you (or John
Hheenssee) are referring to - I find nothing that refers specifically to
anything called a "remote base".

Actually the situation is that a computer is locally controlling the
station, and the internet connection is providing the operator control of
the computer - I believe this operation will fall under 'Telecommand of an
amateur station'

I have found the frequency limitations you quoted apply to Repeater stations
(part 97.205.c) - this situation does not create a repeater, and the
allowable frequencies for an Auxilary Station RF link are covered in part
97.201.b, but we do not have an Auxiliary station either.

Remote control does apply here, and part 97.109.c states "When a station is
being remotely controlled, the control operator must be at the control
point.  Any station may be remotely controlled." -- My emphasis ANY STATION.

I believe part 97.213 Telecomand of an amateur station does apply.
paragraph (a) defines the control link, and states that "A control link
using a fiber optic cable or another telecommunications service is
considered wireline" - while we may debate whether an internet connection is
'another telecommunications service', we do know that a telecommunications
service is involved in the means to connect to the internet.

As far as I can see, where most installations fail the requirements for
'Telecommand of an amateur station' can be found in part 97.213.b and c
which require provisions be incorporated to limit transmissions to no more
than 3 minutes in the event of malfunction in the control link, and
protection against making, willingly or negligently, unauthorized
transmissions.

Entire post repeated below for clarity.

73,
Don W3FPR

> -----Original Message-----
>
> I don't really want to "get into it" with others on
> this subject, but I was in a friendly discussion
> with another ham concerning remote-base operations
> using an internet link to an HF set, and began
> investigating the legality of such operation. I
> posed a question to the ARRL regulatory branch to
> see what their opinion was (John Hennessee) because
> I saw that more than a few folks seem to be using
> TRX manager and other software as a "package" to
> operate their HF set from a remote location over an
> internet link. Pretty amazing stuff if you ask me,
> and I was about to see if I could get on the bandwagon
> as well! Who wouldn't like the capability of jumping
> on your home HF set from another state whenever you
> please via a simple internet connection?
>
> As it turns out, "remote base" operation in the U.S.
> is ILLEGAL if it transmits below 29.5MHz. The link
> to your HF set (which may only transmit ABOVE 29.5MHz)
> may _ONLY_ be one of the following choices:
>
> A. RF link above 222.15MHz
> B. Hard-wire control from point to point
> C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number
>
> No regulatory precedence has been set, no rule written
> into law, for using the internet to remotely control a
> radio. Yes, this includes Echolink and IRLP, and other
> variations on the theme.
>
> Although using such a station in countries other than
> the U.S. may be legal, here in the U.S. it's _ILLEGAL_.
>
> No need to "correct me". If you feel the need to
> "correct" someone, the thing for you to do is to get
> a "petition for rulemaking" started, because this rule
> is based in LAW, not OPINION. For it to be legal to
> use the internet to transmit with your HF rig below
> 29.5MHz, you need to have the law changed, or have
> a new law written, not change my opinion. Whether or
> not the FCC is willing to enforce this rule is another
> matter entirely.
>
> You'll need two law changes:
>
> 1. Make it legal to transmit via remote base below 29.5MHz.
>
> 2. Recognize the internet as a legal means to control a
> remote base.
>
> 73, -KR4WM
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Mark J. Schreiner]

Hmm, I have an unlisted telephone number that my DSL service is connected with, so does that apply?

Mark, NK8Q

>
>> B. Hard-wire control from point to point
>> C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number
>>
>
>Hmmm...
>
>I guess it comes down to interpretation as to whether an internet link meets
>the above criteria adequately.
>
>Literally, an internet link doesn't. But at least some would argue that the
>security of password protection, encryption, etc., is at least as secure as a
>telephone line with unlisted number.
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N8LP]

For a number of reasons, not legal since I was unaware of any
limitations, I have always used ISDN for my remote base operations.

Total privacy and security (you have to not only know the phone numbers,
but the passwords as well).

Much better sound quality (good enough fr PSK).

Redundancy.

Better availability in rural areas.

Larry N8LP




Web Williams wrote:

> I don't really want to "get into it" with others on this subject, but
> I was in a friendly discussion with another ham concerning remote-base
> operations using an internet link to an HF set, and began
> investigating the legality of such operation. I posed a question to
> the ARRL regulatory branch to see what their opinion was (John
> Hennessee) because I saw that more than a few folks seem to be using
> TRX manager and other software as a "package" to operate their HF set
> from a remote location over an internet link. Pretty amazing stuff if
> you ask me, and I was about to see if I could get on the bandwagon as
> well! Who wouldn't like the capability of jumping on your home HF set
> from another state whenever you please via a simple internet connection?
>
> As it turns out, "remote base" operation in the U.S. is ILLEGAL if it
> transmits below 29.5MHz. The link to your HF set (which may only
> transmit ABOVE 29.5MHz) may _ONLY_ be one of the following choices:
>
> A. RF link above 222.15MHz
> B. Hard-wire control from point to point
> C. A telephone link via an unlisted telephone number
>
> No regulatory precedence has been set, no rule written into law, for
> using the internet to remotely control a radio. Yes, this includes
> Echolink and IRLP, and other variations on the theme.
>
> Although using such a station in countries other than the U.S. may be
> legal, here in the U.S. it's _ILLEGAL_.
>
> No need to "correct me". If you feel the need to "correct" someone,
> the thing for you to do is to get a "petition for rulemaking" started,
> because this rule is based in LAW, not OPINION. For it to be legal to
> use the internet to transmit with your HF rig below 29.5MHz, you need
> to have the law changed, or have a new law written, not change my
> opinion. Whether or not the FCC is willing to enforce this rule is
> another matter entirely.
>
> You'll need two law changes:
>
> 1. Make it legal to transmit via remote base below 29.5MHz.
>
> 2. Recognize the internet as a legal means to control a remote base.
>
> 73, -KR4WM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[g4ilo-2]

When people first contacted me about using K2Net to access their radios
over the net, I got a bit scared. Computers can crash. Software can
crash. What do you do if your K2 is stuck in key down at 100W due to
some malfunction and you're 40 miles away?

Although my software could technically be used to operate the radio from
miles away I really wrote it originally so I could use my K2 from the
garden via my wireless network on one of our all-too-few sunny days. I
later added password protection for open access, because I thought that
some K2 owners might put their radios online for others to access, just
for fun or to hear what the bands sound like from another part of the
world. That's why the program has an RX-only mode. You can allow TX too,
but I wouldn't personally advise anyone to use it unless there is
someone present in the shack.

73,
--
Julian, G4ILO
G4ILO's Shack: http://www.tech-pro.net/g4ilo

[hidden email] wrote:

Hmmm...

I guess it comes down to interpretation as to whether an internet link
meets
the above criteria adequately.

Literally, an internet link doesn't. But at least some would argue that the
security of password protection, encryption, etc., is at least as secure
as a
telephone line with unlisted number.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Charles Greene]

Julian and All,

Referring to VHF repeater control.  This is what a well designed repeater
control system would have.  Some of this may apply to the control of a HF
rig on remote.

A separate control link is provided different from the normal control link
that operators use in accessing the repeater, that the control operator can
use to access the repeater controller and shut it down if necessary.  We
first used a telephone line and control was done by the use of touch tones
that the repeater controller responded to.   As the telephone line had to
be dedicated and was expensive, we replaced it with a UHF receiver that the
control operator could access with a UHF transmitter and touch tone pad.

The hardware also had a count down timer that turned the transmitter off it
it got stuck in transmit or if some operator held it in transmit too
long.  It would reset after about a 30 seconds, and it would restore the
repeater to use without control operator intervention.

Back to the K2 remote, you could have a fail safe relay that if the
computer did not periodically reset it , would open killing power to the
transmitter.  The control hardware should provide for that.  A count down
timer that started when the transmitter went on and shutdown the
transmitter after a period of time like the VHF repeater would also
work.   With the VHF repeater we always had to worry about some person with
a grudge or maybe just to see it he could do it, holding the transmitter in
transmit.  You could get around this by the use of a password, and only
give the password to persons that you trusted.  With one of these
safeguards, I don't see a need for a separate control link.

At 02:01 PM 4/29/2005, Julian, G4ILO wrote:

>When people first contacted me about using K2Net to access their radios
>over the net, I got a bit scared. Computers can crash. Software can crash.
>What do you do if your K2 is stuck in key down at 100W due to some
>malfunction and you're 40 miles away?
>
>Although my software could technically be used to operate the radio from
>miles away I really wrote it originally so I could use my K2 from the
>garden via my wireless network on one of our all-too-few sunny days. I
>later added password protection for open access, because I thought that
>some K2 owners might put their radios online for others to access, just
>for fun or to hear what the bands sound like from another part of the
>world. That's why the program has an RX-only mode. You can allow TX too,
>but I wouldn't personally advise anyone to use it unless there is someone
>present in the shack.

73,  Chas,  W1CG

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com