Here's what §97.7 says:
"§97.7 Control operator required
When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator.
The control operator must be a person:
(a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant
appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or
(b) Who is authorized for alien operation by §97.107 of this Part."
"Control Operator" is defined in §97.3.a (13):
"Control operator. An amateur operator designated by the licensee of
a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that station
to assure compliance with the FCC Rules."
In applications like WinLink where an unattended station
is "activated" by an attended station, the attended station's
operator cannot serve as control operator for the unattended station
because this operator has no real-time access to the unattended
station's receiver, and thus cannot assure that transmissions from
the unattended station will not interfere with an ongoing QSO, as is
required by §97.101.d:
"No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or
cause interference to any radio communication or signal."
Unattended WinLink PMBOs thus have no control operator and are in
flagrant violation of FCC regulations. The same is true for
unattended JT65 stations that transmit on schedule, or any other
unattended station where there's no control operator with real-time
access to the station's receiver output.
No one here or anywhere else has ever refuted the above facts and
logic. Dave K1ZZ, the ARRL's CEO, pointed out that you can sometimes
transmit on a busy frequency without QRMing the users of that
frequency -- which is true -- but when I asked whether that meant it
was okay to always transmit without listening he had no response.
Dave also implied that it was okay to bend the rules in order to
nurture a promising new technology, but when I asked how he felt
about the FCC doing that with BPL he again had no response.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Consider the following statements attributed to Hollingworth and
the FCC's
> Cross.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Hollingsworth offered good news and bad news. "The good news:
Nothing is
> wrong with Amateur Radio," he allowed. "It is a good service that
is showing
> its value to the public on a daily basis."
>
> The bad news, he asserted, making a comparison to "road rage,"
is "that
> there is an element of Amateur Radio that too often reflects
present society
> generally."
>
> Hollingsworth urged all radio amateurs to cooperate more and depend
less on
> the FCC to solve their operating issues.
>
> "We live in a rude, discourteous, profane, hotheaded society that
loves its
> rights, prefers not to hear about its responsibilities, and that
spills over
> into the ham bands," he said.
>
> Hollingsworth's bottom line: Be flexible in your frequency
selection and
> make regular use of the "big knob" on the front of your transceiver
to shift
> to any of the "thousands of frequencies and hundreds usable at any
given
> time of day or year" as necessary to avoid problems. "The world is
ugly
> enough -- don't add to it," Hollingsworth advised.
>
> "We can enforce our rules, but we can't enforce kindness and
courtesy or
> common sense," Hollingsworth concluded. "And a very wise person,
who happens
> to be standing to my left [FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
staffer
> Bill Cross, W3TN *-- Ed*] once told me: 'You can't regulate
stupid.' If we
> could, we'd be working for the United Nations instead of the FCC."
>
> *Amateur Radio Licensees Responsible for Rule Compliance*
>
> In his comments, Cross singled out the controversy that erupted
recently
> over fears that automatically controlled digital stations would
overwhelm
> the amateur bands, eclipsing most other modes. Cross cited §97.7 of
the
> rules, which requires each amateur station to have a control
operator and,
> in essence, to employ a "listen-before-transmit" protocol."
>
> When a station is under automatic control, regardless of the
transmission
> mode, Cross explained, the control operator need not be at the
control
> point, but must employ station control devices and procedures while
> transmitting that ensure compliance with the FCC rules and does not
cause
> harmful interference to ongoing communications of other stations.
>
> The operational rule, Cross said, is: "Your call sign, your
responsibility."
>
> -----------------------------
>
> Hollingworth's comments seem contradictory the those attributed to
Cross in
> this article, I suspect the editing altered the context of Cross'
words . I
> think Hollingsworth's intent , applied to the ALE-busy detect
issue we
> have been discussing, would be that we use common sense
and "cooperate
> more" rather than the hair-splitting that USA hams are famous
for. I
> can't say for sure, but I suspect that Hollinsworth would apply
his idea to
> ALE by agreeing with Steve's comments a week ago. Paraphrased: "a
little
> auto-attended beaconing for 12 seconds every now and again isn't
really too
> difficult to handle . If it does get to be a problem when hundred
of ALE
> stations are on the air, figure it out yourselves with voluntary
> guidelines" . I agree with his sentiments.
>
> So , that leaves us with Cross' words. When he " singled out the
> controversy that erupted recently over fears that automatically
controlled
> digital stations ", and "cited §97.7 of the rules, which requires
each
> amateur station to have a control operator and, in essence, to
employ a
> listen-before-transmit protocol.", was he really saying that "
> listen-before-transmit protocol" were essential? Or was he
indicating
> that on-going debate was "stupid" ? Was he implying agreement with
> Hollingsworth and suggesting that obsessive focusing on 97.7
should end
> and we should just get on with things ? After all, an absolute
insistence
> on "listen-before-transmit " would eliminate the ARRL's bulletins,
the DX CW
> beacons on HF, and DXpeditions . Surely , if Cross' remarks were
intended
> to signal that he thought unattended operations were bad, he would
have
> pushed legislation to clearly ban PACTOR, or proposed new laws
that would
> create a confinement camp of special frequencies for the PACTOR ,
ALE, and
> ARRL bulletin lepers of our society.
>
> I have always thought that a "QRL?" was the cornerstone of good
operating
> practice and the effective operator changes frequency when the
answer "yes"
> is heard. I think installing busy detection capabilities would
be "the
> right thing to do" but I wonder if both Cross and Hollingsworth
would
> expect us to "tolerate" the DX beacons, PACTOR mailboxes, and ALE
soundings
> ? If so, lets get on with a common sense approach to sharing the
world of
> attended and unattended operations. If not, lets get a ruling and
stop ALE
> , PACTOR, DX beacons, and ARRL beacons until they routinely QRL and
actually
> change frequency when met with a "yes".
>
> Maybe it is time to drop his office a line and ask for a
clarification. To
> be honest, I love to see the reaction if the response was that the
FCC does
> not really care and you guys should just figure it out among
yourselves.
>
> Andy K3UK
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/23/07, Rud Merriam < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > The other night I went through that PhD thesis you have posted on
HfDec.
> >
> > The main problems on HF, according to that author, are not AWGN
but fading
> > and multipath. He even indicated that the AWGN model is
inaccurate that
> > empirical measurements indicate the noise is Laplacian, which has
a
> > steeper
> > roll off that Gaussian. He also indicated that did not seem to
make much
> > difference.
> >
> > We seem to be on the same wavelength <groan> with no interest in
putting
> > down any protocol but in looking at them objectively. ALE, Pactor,
> > DominoEX,
> > Mt63, and all the others are doing well in various ways. Given
some theory
> > and this practical experience how do we develop something that
does even
> > better overall.
> >
> > Rud Merriam K5RUD
> > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> > http://TheHamNetwork.net
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%
40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com<digitalradio%
40yahoogroups.com>]
> > On
> > Behalf Of Rick
> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:35 PM
> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [digitalradio] ALE yes ... or no?
> > ...
> >
> > I have been spending a LOT of time researching the studies of ALE
and
> > the standards from the company claims. Many of these are computer
> > simulations and not real world tests. As one scientist put it,
they had
> > some modes that worked well with computer simulation but were
completely
> > useless when field tested. The one thing that you will find is
that the
> > high speed modes typically need a good strong, clear, moderate to
low
> > ISI signal.
> > ...
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andy K3UK
> www.obriensweb.com
> (QSL via N2RJ)
>
