[Elecraft] Re: Favorite K2 Remote Program? (g4ilo@qsl.net)

[W3FPR - Don Wilhelm]

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
>