Long distance, mobile HF communications inside the US.

[craig]

I disagree. They are two separate sentences.

(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.

The first sentence addresses the transmission of 3rd party communications when automatically controlled, including ORIGINATING transmissions. There is nothing in that first sentence to indicate otherwise. It doesn't even make sense if it is assumed to be an automatically controlled station such as a repeater. You are welcome to disagree, but my understanding here is that this sentence clearly states that automatically controlled stations can originate data transmissions. E.g. For example a weather station or a tracker.

The second sentence addresses retransmissions, such as a repeater and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

I also don't agree that it is a 3rd party communication. The person driving the truck cannot specify the lat/lon being broadcast. They aren't contacting me with their lat/lon and having me then send out their lat/lon for them. They aren't interacting with the unit to control their lat/lon. There is NO THIRD PARTY involved in the chain of communication. Sending out lat/lon data is no different than sending out "weather" data. If the unit could be opened and the 3rd person could specify their lat/lon I would agree with you, but that isn't the case with this setup.

Anyway, this is clearly a widely debated subject. At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. Automated trackers like these have been used by all sorts of people for over 30 years now and the FCC doesn't care. The FCC lead counsel stated that he doesn't have a problem with it. Even if there is some sort of letter of the law interpretation that prevents this sort of activity, which I don't believe there is, the FCC itself doesn't care.

My understanding is that the FCC is really only concerned with equipment that is misbehaving and insuring that it doesn't clobber everyone else. If I'm using one on the trail and someone asks me to shut it down I can have it shut down within 1 minute by calling someone on the radio near the offending truck and have it powered down. We are in the middle of the woods where we don't interfere with anything. I highly doubt the FCC is going to have an issue with us and our 5w trackers in the middle of nowhere.

I think all of this gets back to the *why*, or spirit of the law. The FCC just wants to make sure the radio waves are used properly. There is no reason to think that a Byonics tracker in a convoy is going to cause a problem that can't be addressed quickly in the field by me, the licensed operator.

Craig

 

[craig]

Going back to the frequency usage issue. I discussed this with a few folks today and it turns out that an APRS tracker is not classified as a Beacon, so those frequency bandwidth restrictions don't apply. 144.39 is OK.

A beacon imlies that the sole purpose is the observation of propagation and reception and related experimental activities, which would fall under the bandwidth restrictions. An APRS tracker doesn't meet this definition however. This is in accordance with 97.3(a)(9).

 

[gary in ohio]

The freq is 144.39, not 139.40, thats one is outside the ham bands.

 

[craig]

The freq is 144.39, not 139.40, thats one is outside the ham bands.

LOL.. Whoops! You're right.

 

[xtatik]

I disagree. They are two separate sentences.

(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled.

The first sentence addresses the transmission of 3rd party communications when automatically controlled, including ORIGINATING transmissions. There is nothing in that first sentence to indicate otherwise. It doesn't even make sense if it is assumed to be an automatically controlled station such as a repeater. You are welcome to disagree, but my understanding here is that this sentence clearly states that automatically controlled stations can originate data transmissions. E.g. For example a weather station or a tracker.

The second sentence addresses retransmissions, such as a repeater and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Anyway, this is clearly a widely debated subject. At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. Automated trackers like these have been used by all sorts of people for over 30 years now and the FCC doesn't care. The FCC lead counsel stated that he doesn't have a problem with it. Even if there is some sort of letter of the law interpretation that prevents this sort of activity, which I don't believe there is, the FCC itself doesn't care.

My understanding is that the FCC is really only concerned with equipment that is misbehaving and insuring that it doesn't clobber everyone else. If I'm using one on the trail and someone asks me to shut it down I can have it shut down within 1 minute by calling someone on the radio near the offending truck and have it powered down. We are in the middle of the woods where we don't interfere with anything. I highly doubt the FCC is going to have an issue with us and our 5w trackers in the middle of nowhere.

I think all of this gets back to the *why*, or spirit of the law. The FCC just wants to make sure the radio waves are used properly. There is no reason to think that a Byonics tracker in a convoy is going to cause a problem that can't be addressed quickly in the field by me, the licensed operator.

Craig

Craig, you can disagree, but you're not disagreeing with me. Here is a complete excerpt from the ARRL's current Extra Class License Manual covering automatic control on Pgs 3-12 and 3-13. This excerpt wraps up their coverage of the issue on pg. 3-13:

"There are special rules about the third-party messages and automatically controlled stations because of the power of message forwarding networks. Third-party traffic is not limited to radiograms- it can be e-mail, digital files, or even keyboard to keyboard chat sessions if the content is transferred on behalf of someone who is not a licensed amateur. Automatically controlled stations may only relay third-party communications as RTTY and data and are never allowed to originate the messages. These restrictions are in place to be sure Amateur Radio does not become an extension of the commercial data networks."

By placing this on someones vehicle you are transmitting and originating an automatically contolled RF data signal on behalf of an unlicensed third-party.

 

[xtatik]

I also don't agree that it is a 3rd party communication. The person driving the truck cannot specify the lat/lon being broadcast. They aren't contacting me with their lat/lon and having me then send out their lat/lon for them. They aren't interacting with the unit to control their lat/lon. There is NO THIRD PARTY involved in the chain of communication. Sending out lat/lon data is no different than sending out "weather" data. If the unit could be opened and the 3rd person could specify their lat/lon I would agree with you, but that isn't the case with this setup.

Anyway, this is clearly a widely debated subject. At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. Automated trackers like these have been used by all sorts of people for over 30 years now and the FCC doesn't care. The FCC lead counsel stated that he doesn't have a problem with it. Even if there is some sort of letter of the law interpretation that prevents this sort of activity, which I don't believe there is, the FCC itself doesn't care.

My understanding is that the FCC is really only concerned with equipment that is misbehaving and insuring that it doesn't clobber everyone else. If I'm using one on the trail and someone asks me to shut it down I can have it shut down within 1 minute by calling someone on the radio near the offending truck and have it powered down. We are in the middle of the woods where we don't interfere with anything. I highly doubt the FCC is going to have an issue with us and our 5w trackers in the middle of nowhere.

I think all of this gets back to the *why*, or spirit of the law. The FCC just wants to make sure the radio waves are used properly. There is no reason to think that a Byonics tracker in a convoy is going to cause a problem that can't be addressed quickly in the field by me, the licensed operator.

Craig

You may have a point in this first paragraph. But, your argument would seem more logical if the person was unaware you were originating a lat/long message on their behalf. By placing this on their truck you're saying "hey, unlicensed person, would you like me to transmit your coordinates for you?" If they say yes and allow you to mount it on their truck...is this not originating a data transmission from an automatically controlled device on their behalf??

As for your other points, you're probably right. The FCC really doesn't want to have to police the amateur service. For the most part, we're suppose to do that amongst ourselves. But, your analogies are a bit loose on this subject.... If I decide I want to go 120 mph on the freeway because It's 3:00 AM and noone is around, I can't legally. I can't justify it by telling myself that the "spirit" of the law is written so that people don't collide into each other and cause harm, therefore I can do this because I won't hurt anyone, people speed all the time and have done so for years, and noone is around to stop me. I understand there is a huge difference in consequence to my analogy. But, I also understand that unlike the freeways, the FCC and amateur radio doesn't have the benefit of patrol cars to keep things in check. That's our job.

Anyhow, I think we've addressed the OP's issues. But, I'm checking out on the tracker subject except to say that it might serve someone like myself, or other licensed amateurs. I believe the Byonics 2m device was designed for licensed amateurs that may want to be tracked by others (others, including the unlicensed), like the all-in-one package, don't want to add significant equipment to their inventory and who can legally originate automatic data signals on their own behalf....basically APRS as usual.

 

[gary in ohio]

Automatically controlled stations may only relay third-party communications as RTTY and data and are never allowed to originate the messages.[/B] These restrictions are in place to be sure Amateur Radio does not become an extension of the commercial data networks."

By placing this on someones vehicle you are transmitting and originating an automatically contolled RF data signal on behalf of an unlicensed third-party.

I have to disagree on this one. If your callsign is on the APRS tracker the message is coming from a licensed ham and therefore legal. If you put a PC in the car and allow the non licensed driver to inject messages in to the APRS system then you would not be legal as that would be 3rd party messages. The tracker is legal as long as its not originating messages for a non-licensed person.

 

[craig]

I have to disagree on this one. If your callsign is on the APRS tracker the message is coming from a licensed ham and therefore legal. If you put a PC in the car and allow the non licensed driver to inject messages in to the APRS system then you would not be legal as that would be 3rd party messages. The tracker is legal as long as its not originating messages for a non-licensed person.

Exactly.

For all reading this thread, the wiki page I linked to previously was put together by an experienced amateur radio operator (author of Xastir) and a lawyer with experience in FCC regulations.

 

[craig]

As for your other points, you're probably right. The FCC really doesn't want to have to police the amateur service. For the most part, we're suppose to do that amongst ourselves. But, your analogies are a bit loose on this subject.... If I decide I want to go 120 mph on the freeway because It's 3:00 AM and noone is around, I can't legally. I can't justify it by telling myself that the "spirit" of the law is written so that people don't collide into each other and cause harm, therefore I can do this because I won't hurt anyone, people speed all the time and have done so for years, and noone is around to stop me. I understand there is a huge difference in consequence to my analogy. But, I also understand that unlike the freeways, the FCC and amateur radio doesn't have the benefit of patrol cars to keep things in check. That's our job.

Anyhow, I think we've addressed the OP's issues.

My examples might be weak, but my intent wasn't to suggest that anyone should be able to break a clear law because the police don't enforce it. I'm saying, there is some debate as to how to apply the regulations here and the actions of the FCC help clarify their position on the subject. The lead counsel for the FCC has said it is OK both in words (see the wiki article) and in action.

I agree that we've gone way overboard on this. It is a subject I've avoided discussing publically because I new it was going to be sensitive. I think it is good that we have put all the rules/regulations, etc out there so those looking into this technology can form an opinion on their own.

Thanks to everyone for letting us indulge ourselves a bit on the subject.

For the record, I've never actually run a Byonics tracker standalone on someone's vehicle (I have one on my truck though). Part of the reason I engaged this thread was because it gave me the opportunity to look into the legality of it more completely before getting one. I've been having a discussion with the guys on the NWAPRS mailing list as well and it has been very good to finally get to the bottom of the regulations affecting this type of tracker.

 

[xtatik]

I have to disagree on this one. If your callsign is on the APRS tracker the message is coming from a licensed ham and therefore legal. If you put a PC in the car and allow the non licensed driver to inject messages in to the APRS system then you would not be legal as that would be 3rd party messages. The tracker is legal as long as its not originating messages for a non-licensed person.

Dangit Gary,
OK, I understand what you're saying. But, aside from the callsign, is the unlicensed injecting or manipulating/controlling the content of the message every 1-15 minutes by simply driving? Both parties would certainly know the unlicensed would be in local control of the message content. This is the only instance I can think of where the unlicensed would have more local control of the message content without even touching the transmitter. Could this somehow be relaying rather that origination? If it is, that raises other issues.
I'll ask Gordo sometime this coming week. He's been doing the APRS thing here in town with our MESAC ARES group for years. He may know....or not!

And, Craig I agree on your points regarding airing the issue as well. It's a "sticky wicket" for sure. I'm certain these types of issues have risen in the past as hams push the tech curve ahead of the pace of FCC review. But, that is also suppose to be one of the reasons for amateur radio.

 

[xtatik]

Yes, it looks like 144.39 is out of bounds for automatic control. I wouldn't personally use 144.39 for a group of trackers when on the trail anyway but it is a legitimate point to make.
Edit: After reviewing this more carefully, it turns out that an APRS tracker is not classified as a beacon or auxillary station, so these bandwidth restrictions do not apply. I've included more info in my post below.

After coming full circle on this issue....I agree. But, the device would fall under the definition of an automatically controlled station, and without serving as either beacon or auxiliary, has no limitation within the amateur spectrum. I think we all got crossed up on "control" and "station type" at this point.

 

[craig]

After coming full circle on this issue....I agree. But, the device would fall under the definition of an automatically controlled station, and without serving as either beacon or auxiliary, has no limitation within the amateur spectrum. I think we all got crossed up on "control" and "station type" at this point.

Yeah, I did too.

 

[Mash5]

I would just like to thank everyone for engaging in a lively discussion without letting it deteriorate to the level of a pair of seven year olds. While it is not on topic it has been useful and fun. It's a credit to this forum and perhaps to amateur radio in general. On many other forums I'm sure this would have become a pissin' contest.
Thanks