Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

> Subject: Re: [aprssig] Transmitting data to a hot

Ray McKnight shortsheep at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 19 20:58:32 UTC 2005


Absolutely NOT!

The control operator issue USED to be much more of a burden.
For example, clubs that operated repeaters would have "shifts"
of licensed Hams acting as control operator, arranged in a schedule
to provide basically continual 24 hr monitoring of the repeater.  Wherever
they went they would carry an HT to access the repeaters control link
frequency (which BTW in the old days was merely by touchtone on the
same input freq used by all the other users!).  It was usually taken very
seriously, and all innappropriate stuff got squashed almost if not immediately.
Now I'm not saying someone had to listen intently 24hrs a day, but you'd
monitor periodically to make sure things were okay.  

Maybe using a voice repeater as an example is not the best choice, because
they are generally not under automated control, but actually remote control.
Remote control requires the control operator to be at the position where that
remote control can be affected.  Automated control means that you are not
at the immediate place where control takes place, but can access the transmitter
in a timely manner (the next visible satellite pass for example).

The current regulations are much more liberal.  Now, when a station is operated
under automated control, they merely must react to notification by the FCC.
The FCC monitors, hears something gone awry, and notifies the control
operator to shut if off or fix it.  The big quagmire is the interpretation of how
quickly you should be able to accomplish this.  I'm almost positive, but could
be wrong, that the word "immediate" used to be in that part of the regs, as far
as "shutting it off immediately upon notification".


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tad Burnett 
  To: TAPR APRS Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:52
  Subject: Re: > Subject: Re: [aprssig] Transmitting data to a hot


  But for the control operator to be responsible for the transmitter from a remote location
  wouldn't he need to also receive the signal...so I guess you could say he was the intended
  recipient ?????
  Tad N1QAG

  Rochte, Robert wrote:

(One way means there does not have to be an intended recipient.)
    
But if there *is* an intended recipient - and there is, in this case - and
that recipient is not a ham, then it is broadcasting, not telemetry.

Of course, it all depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is....

_______________________________________________
aprssig mailing list
aprssig at lists.tapr.org
https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig


  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  aprssig mailing list
  aprssig at lists.tapr.org
  https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig/attachments/20051019/98e99273/attachment.htm 


More information about the aprssig mailing list