I believe that your analysis of part 97 is correct.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andy has some very good points,
>
> If you are a human operator and listen on the frequency for a
period of
> time, ideally at least a few minutes if you do not use QRL or a
voice
> equivalent, and do not hear any other activity, you may be fairly
safe
> in assuming the frequency is not in use. It is not 100%, of course,
> since the hidden station could be transmitting and you can not
detect
> that station.
>
> Unlike voice or CW, the 12 seconds (or whatever you have the
parameter
> set to in the program), is quite a lengthy period of time. One
partial
> solution would be to have a shorter QRL type of mode. In fact, it
could
> even be QRL? in CW, since that is the only mode that can be used on
all
> frequencies that digital modes can be used in the voice/image and
text
> digital portions of the bands. Similarly, there would have to be
some
> way for other stations to respond immediately that the frequency is
in
> use and that would be very difficult to do without some major
design
> changes in our digital programs. But it could be done if it was
mandated.
>
> Incidentally, this is one of the benefits of ARQ operation between
two
> stations. A third station will hear one of the two sides of the
> conversation so they know that the frequency is in use, even if
they can
> not monitor the content.
>
> Unattended operation is considered illegal by the FCC here in the
U.S.
> and this seems to be glossed over by the proponents of these kinds
of
> automatic modes. As the FCC enforcement folks have said that all
> stations must have a control operator even if they are not at the
> control point. Mr. Hollingsworth has stated:
>
> "Furthermore, "automatic" control does not mean "unattended"
> operation." and also "Unattended operation is not authorized under
the
> rules." And this is referring to repeater operation which many of
us
> think of as being basically unattended much of the time. What he
seems
> to really mean is that even if you are not directly controlling at
the
> control point, you are always held responsible for your station
> activities because you are still the control operator.
>
> But realistically, there are "unattended" operations. Even ARRL has
uses
> the word, even if the FCC does not. (There is no such thing as
> unattended operation in Part 97.) Some may think of beacon
operation as
> being "unattended." But beacons are normally not legal under Part
97,
> below 28.0 MHz, even though an increasing number of stations are
> effectively operating as beacons if they are transmitting without a
> human operator present and are doing it for such things as
propagation
> studies.
>
> 97.3(a)(9)/ Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications
for
> the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other
> related experimental activities.
>
> This is exactly what PropNet and part of the time what ALE is
doing, is
> it not?
>
> 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 lower frequencies where automatically controlled
beacons
> are permitted by licensed radio amateurs in the U.S. If the control
> operator is present, then it is not automatically controlled and
could
> be legal, as long as you listen before transmitting to insure the
> frequency is not in use.
>
> I have developed a number of questions that I will be forwarding to
the
> FCC for help in understanding how the rules are being applied (or
not
> being applied?). Before doing that, I have forwarded these
questions to
> ARRL Regulatory Branch as of this morning, for their help in
> understanding why there seems to be a discrepancy between the rules
and
> what is actually happening on the ham bands as of late. Depending
upon
> their response, I will then contact FCC enforcement and find out
their
> understanding.
>
> If a group member believes that I am not understanding Part 97
> correctly, then please point out my error(s). I have asked this
several
> times, and except for private e-mails on the subject, no one seems
to
> want to deal with this issue.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> > PC-ALE , and I assume Multipsk ALE, is designed to work in
attended
> > mode for almost all applications other than two likely scenarios.
> >
> > 1. Soundings: This now referred to as "station ID" by the
HFLINK web
> > site ( http://hflink.net/qso/). I think this is a fair
description,
> > since it simply sends the callsign "this is K3UK" for a 12 second
> > period (approximately). It is likely that the station's ID will
be
> > sent , once, on all HF bands over a 5 minute period, usually once
per
> > hour
> >
> >
> > 2. Individual Call: A station manually initiates a call to a
station
> > but PC_ALE uses look-up tables to determine which band to start
on ,
> > and moves up or down the bands until al link is found , or all
bands
> > have been tried once and the attempt is ended. This is a longer
> > call, similar yo a voice station sending "P5DX de K3UK" for a 20-
30
> > second period .
> >
> >
> > Both scenarios are likely unattended. When I do this I am
actually in
> > the shack and usually need to make sure the SWR on all bands
is "good"
> > while I am calling. I am guilty of sometimes heading to the
kitchen
> > for a quick snack and arrive back at the shack to find that I
have
> > already transmitted on a couple of bands.
> >
> > As Bonnie mentioned last week, ALE has no busy detect for none
ALE
> > signals. So yes, Soundings and certain other aspects of ALE
cause
> > QRM. However, what is the REAL difference between sending your
> > callsign a few times via ALE , versus picking up the Mic and
asking
> > "is this frequency in use" ? I wonder if ALE soundings consisted
of
> > "QRL? QRL ? de K3UK K3UK K3UK K " and then stopped , would we
object?
> >
> > Andy.
> >
> >
> > On 10/1/07, *Rick* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > After the contact, I switched over to ALE 141A and listened
for quite
> > some time in unproto mode. Later on I heard an eastern station
> > calling
> > the HFN, which must be the HFLink Network. This can not be an
> > automatic
> > station as it was outside the automatic subband. I am not
suggesting
> > that it was the eastern station since I could not monitor ALE
> > while in
> > Olivia mode.
> >
> > This frequency turns out to be Channel 21, which is one of
the 40 HF
> > "channels" that is claimed by the HFLink group.
> >
> > It is still possible for the first operator to hear a mode
being
> > used on
> > a given frequency and then when the second operator turns it
over
> > to the
> > third operator, and the first operator can not hear the third
> > operator,
> > they may incorrectly assume that the frequency is not in use.
This is
> > one of the fairly downsides to having many digital modes that
can not
> > understand the content of most other modes (except for CW and
voice).
> > Even having an identifier would not help if they do not
realize
> > that the
> > two stations are having a QSO.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Rick, KV9U
> >
>
