- Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Friends Remembered
Survey Question

DX Cluster Spots

Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement

[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Using a HF transceiver over the Internet

Robert Arnold (N2JEU) on September 4, 2000
View comments about this article!

Using an HF transceiver over the Internet

By Bob Arnold N2JEU

Much has been published recently both here on and other places about CC&Rs - more commonly known as antenna restrictions. It seems as though every new housing development or even single homes now have something about restrictions in the deed. If this is the case for your home or even if you want to try HF and you don't have a transceiver yet there is now a way to connect to and use a ham HF transceiver over the internet.

It all started almost 3 years ago as a project to connect a shortwave receiver to the internet as a remote controlled radio. I needed a project to learn more about the Visual Basic programming language and decided that writing the control software was something that filled my need. I found out that the audio part of the project could be done with free products from Real Networks ( ) and all I needed was a way to accept commands from the user and convert them to the stream of serial port commands required by the radio.

I had an old Kenwood TS-440 SAT transceiver that I pressed into service as my first Web Controlled Receiver after writing the needed software to work with my web server system. It first went online in December 1997 and has had over 115,000 hits since then. The radio has changed several times from the TS-440 to a Yaesu FT-747, a Ten-Tec RX-320, a Kachina 505DSP and now an ICOM IC-R75 receiver. You'll notice that the majority of the radios used were actually ham transceivers used as receivers. I did realize the potential of two way communications over the Internet when I first experimented with the Kenwood rig in 1997. Early attempts at remote base operation failed since the Internet telephone type software of the day was rather limited and the processing power of the computers I had then was a bit lacking.

Since then the PCs and software have improved considerably. Early this year I had a Kachina 505DSP transceiver online in receive mode after getting it on loan from Kachina for experimentation. A fellow by the name of Keith Lamonica W7DXX became aware of the remote receiver project and contacted Kachina asking if it was possible to operate the radio as a full two way remote base from the Internet. Aubrey Stewart W6ODG at Kachina got Keith and I together and after a bit of discussion we decided that it was indeed possible. Kachina provided another 505DSP to Keith and I sent him a copy of the receiver control software. Since there was nothing it to prevent transmitter operation, after a few tries and bug squashing Keith got the radio online for what we think is the first Internet accessible two way ham radio station on HF frequencies.

Over the next several months I added transmitter control features to my software and Keith tweaked his hardware setup. Today the W7DXX Remote Base ( has a few hundred members and requests for login names and passwords keep flooding in from licensed amateur operators around the world.

Using the radio is easy. You'll need a copy of Microsoft's NetMeeting software from to use the radio. If you don't have it it's available free from their web site. If you have Windows 98 you can get it by clicking on the Start button and selecting Windows Update. One of the programs you can get from the update site is NetMeeting. Windows 95 and NT users can find it in the download area on the Microsoft web site.

Point your web browser at and look for the W7DXX Remote Base link. Once you click on it you'll reach the PC that runs the 505DSP. You'll need to apply for a login name and password. Keith will process your application (give him a few days to respond since he has LOTS of requests!) and send back a login name and password by return email. Once you have it return to the site and follow the on-screen information for logging into and using the system.

If you want to try out the web controlled receiver site you can connect to . You'll need the Real Network Real Player software downloadable free from their web site. You'll find a link to it from the ICOM IC-R75 page.

You can also find out more about how to operate your own Internet Remote Base and the software needed at The Kachina 505DSP version of the control software is nearing completion. Versions are likely in the future for the Kenwood TS-570SG and the Ten-Tec Pegasus transceivers. You'll find much more information on the project on the page above than space is available for here.

Just because you have antenna restrictions does NOT mean that you can't operate HF! All it will take is more hams running a remote base setup like the one at the W7DXX remote base site. The Internet is here to stay so we might as well add this resource to the amateur radio toolkit.

I'd like to hear your comments so please email me at

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
Isn't this missing the point ?  
Anonymous post on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Maybe we could cut out the need for a real radio altogether ! Have another intermediate program which could simulate propagation effects and perhaps a random noise and (tuner-up) heterodyne generator. Then we could use our virtual receiver's DSP and auto-notch to remove the noise. A kind of Internet Relay Chat with QRN and QRM ;-) I'm sure it was an interesting and fun project but I can't see the point. Yes, many of us have to put up with restrictive rules and regulations, but those of us who love RADIO get around them by operating QRP, using stealth antennas, or by operating mobile or portable. This is part of what makes amateur radio fun. If you just want to communicate then use a telephone, email, Netmeeting or IRC. If you love radio then get (or build) an HF transceiver. If the bug is there, you'll find a way to get on the air.
HF Radio and the Internet  
by W6WO on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
N2JEU should be commended for the effort, but I'm tempted to ask, is it art? I live with CC&R issues and persuaded the locals that Ham Radio is an asset in times of emergency and with a simple vertical can work just about any DX going. There is much we can do with computers and the Internet but as a substitue for HF communications— no thanks.
Use an hf radio on the internet?  
by AC3P on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with the previous posts.

In those pre-internet years of the early '70s I operated from lots of apartments where antennas were not allowed. Got my share of DX and WAS.

I wonder if such a proposal is kosher with Part 97. The FCC does have a problem with who the control op is.

Back in those early 70's day's the radio club I belong to had two-way autopatch on its repeater. Ops could not only call from the car, but if someone wanted to call the ops all they had to do was dial the repeater phone number and the repeater would transmit a tone. Any club member would then punch in the access code to answer the call.

The Field Engineers were not amused. They ordered the reverse feature shut down because, in their eyes, non-amateurs were able to cause the repeater to transmit.

Better figure out who the control op is before hooking the ppt circuit to the internet.


CC&R and Internet radios.  
Anonymous post on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
This is cool also, but isn't a decent solution to the CC&R problem. Again, CC&R's are not just about ham radio.
They restrict storage sheds, owning pickup trucks, having RV's, specifying the length of grass, etc as well.
The real problem is that CC&R's have gotten completely out of hand.

As far as the audio remoting, I'd run, not walk, away from Real Audio products. They monitor your usage, and
report back to the mothership, and support from them is awful. MS Net Meeting isn't a lot better. Both have
way to much latency (buffering) in their streams to make live QSOs not annoying.

Take a look at free solutions such as Speak Freely or Icecast.. they are much better suited for this application than Real or MS products are.

Just another method of remote control  
by WF0H on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
This looks like just another method of remote control to me, although FCC will probably have a hissy fit because they have not pre-blessed it. And don't worry, somebody is sure to ask them if it's legal - every time there is something new, some dufus has to ask, and the answer is automatically 'NO'.

I think good remote control, whether by radio or landline or internet, is something with great potential value for ham radio. Why not take a radio like the Kachina, the TEn-TEc, TS-570, IC706 , etc., that can easily replace their from t panel with a computer display and remote it? I'd love to have a kilowatt and a big beam somewhere in cornfields around here, far away from the wide-open cable tv boxes, VCR's and videogames , and for that matter, the RF sensitive keyboards on my computers.

In my town, we have cable modems, so high speed connections are easy. It would be great if we could assemble some stations around the area that could be shared by those of us who live in non-linear rectifier Hell. Maybe the kids would stop downloading pirated music and porn long enough to listen to some ham radio.

I hope you have this programmed so that as many 'SWL's as possible can listen in while a licensed ham operates it!!! That's an advertisement ham radio's been missing since a.m. went the way of the spark gap. ARRL should contribute to that, and maybe if you presented it as a ham radio promotional effort by making it possible for kids to listen in on a real ham station in use, FCC would not pounce on you too hard. By the way, there are Internet security features that could be used to lock this whole thing up VERY securely.
RE: Just another method of remote control  
by N2JEU on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC is well aware of the effort. In fact several of their people are users of the W7DXX remote system.
We have also determined via the FCC that hams outside of the US CAN operate the remote system if their
country and the USA have a reciprocal license agreement. The operating frequencies are restricted to
those that are common between the users license in their country and the Extra class license in the USA.

There has been considerable interest in the software and overall concept by people that would like to have
a large station and just can't get past the local restrictions imposed on them. And it's true that if you really
want to get on the air with your own equipment you CAN usually find a way to do it. But what if you have
NEVER had the experience of operating on HF and are uncertain that you want to fight the battle to get
your own station on the air? Isn't this a way to get some experience to determine if you really want to win
the battle? HF stations are NOT cheap these days if you start with new radios. Even the prices on older
used HF gear have gone up. How many of us have bought equipment only to find out we
really didn't have the need or the time to use it?

Give this a chance to grow folks before you condem it.
RE: Just another method of remote control  
by W5HTW on September 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!

I agree with another person on here. Why not just get rid of the radio entirely? It should be very simple to graphically represent an HF radio, and associate links to each of the buttons, so if you want to call CQ DX, you just push the DX 20 meters button, and lo and behold, you are speaking instantly, via Instant Messenger, to someone on a remote island. No radio required, no license required, just create your own "call sign" a la Class D.

Some of us like radio. Some of us like computers. And some of us, judging from this and many other sites, like both. Merging them may sound good, but it actually takes us many more steps toward the end of ham radio and the beginning of ham computer.

Someone said one could use this technique to determine if he really wants to put up the with QRM, QRN, etc. of HF radio. I'd say that, if he has gone to the trouble of getting an HF license, he has already made that decision, and the answer is "yes." He wants the challenge of those problems, and despite his automatic DX Bopper Radio, he still wants a small amount of personal skill involved, other than typing and "press this key."

Computers are not radios. The internet is not 20 meters. You can enjoy both, but they are different animals. Kind of like taking a bowling ball to the golf course. Or trying to get a strike by driving your 16 pound ball down the lane with a 5 iron.

Let's push radio for the sake of ham radio, and computers for the sake of the internet. Let's not forget there are millions and millions of computer users who are already "working DX" and have never heard of ham radio. I hope we don't join them.

I have both seen and used the virtual scanners and monitors on the web. But I don't want to confuse them with my hobby of ham RADIO. I use ham repeaters, and I keep in mind the only skill I have to have to use one is the ability to press the PTT switch and make a noise with my mouth. Someone else has done all the technical goodies, by installing the repeater, making it work, and making it available. That's how I view the internet radios. No skill, no challenge, no thrill. Just another "press here." Someone else did the work. The fun of HF is doing the work yourself.

Otherwise, why bother?


Computer based radio  
by N1KFC on September 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds like a great idea. Computer based hamming will not even be debated in 10 years. It will be a reality. Is amateur radio more about the electronics and circuits, the physical properties of radio, or communication between people?
RE: CC&R and Internet radios.  
by W9JCM on September 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
YADA YADA.. internet is ok but why the heck do i want to rely on it? What if your server is down or what if the power is off or what if your computer has a problem. NO THANKS> I would rather operate with ugly indoor antennas and or use a HT.
Remote Control  
by WF0H on September 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
80 years ago, hams learned that they had to build a cover around their spark gap so that the noise would not disturb their neighbors. 50 years ago, they learned that they had to 'ground it, shield it, or forget it...' in order to keep from interfering with their neighbors who were trying to watch Uncle Milty on Channel 2. Now, many of us live in postage-stamp neighborhoods surrounded by neighbors with thousands of dollars of modern assembled-in-China electronics. It seems that all of these devices are severely allergic to any form of RF. ( I think the worst are the new digital cable boxes - not even shielded and you can knock 'em dead with a 2 meter HT from next door.)
Remote control is a way for the urban and many suburban dwellers among us to participate in the hobby without resorting to flea power or staying up well past midnight every night,as so many actually seem to do. It is not a desirable alternative to having a good home station, and it is not a suitable accomodation as required by PRB-1 in zoning disputes. But I have always liked the idea of club stations and this could be an extension of that.
No, don't eliminate the radio in this picture - instead, use high-speed digital radio links where practical. Now that's ham radio!

RE: Remote Control  
by KE4AQP on September 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Bob, I think this is a great idea and would like to thank you for putting in the work on it. I have been a ham since 93 and recently upgraded, and I have every intent on buying my own HF gear. I am researching and reviewing various rigs, spending a lot of time figuring out how I am going to install my antenna on my small suburban lot.

While I saving up for my HF shack, I have often wished I could borrow or rent an HF rig to use for a week or so with a quick and dirty ladder-line dipole to get the juices flowing again. I've toyed with buying a low-cost used rig just as a temporary measure, but the 16 year old web site designer in the family found your site and brought it to my attention. Your efforts in making this available to us over the internet are appreciated, please process my application as soon as you have a chance, and keep up the innovative thinking!!

RE: Remote Control  
by MW5EPA on September 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Guys, I'm not going to get too deep into the ethics of Radio / Computers but here in the UK, the Ham bands are getting quieter & quieter while the internet get's slower and busier. One thing the remote RX's are good for though is checking your signal is getting somewhere. I know I've give a few blasts out on my HF RTX while tuning in an RX over the web just to see if my signal was getting over there and at what level. You can't always expect the help of others with audio / signal reports so it's a good way to set up your station to the required level without help.

73's Rob MW5EPA
W7DXX remote base site  
by K8YD on September 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I recently became a member of the W7DXX remote base site. Although the controls are somewhat rudimentary it is definitely "workable", I'm sure that better displays and control will follow as demand increases. I have noticed some "latency" breaks in the audio from time to time and other products other than RealPlayer and NetMeeting may want to be considered. I have a modest HF setup but have still used the remote system as a supplement to my shack. One thing that I've used it for is to listen to my own signal, how many of you have actually heard what you and your station sounds like on the air! The remote station has allowed me to tweak settings to improve my main station. Overall I believe that it is a good idea and hope the endeavor to continually improve the system continue.
internet control of ham stations  
by N7DC on September 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
WOW We are getting deeper and deeper into remote control of amateur equipment everyday, and this sounds great to me. Come on guys, its just another, but more sophticated, way of controlling rf equipment from somewhere else. This means I can go tdy/vacation etc. and still get on radio from wherever I am, without carrying the radio. Now to some that may not seem like radio, but whats the difference between being able to reach over the tweak the receiver on the rig, or reaching over and tweaking it by clicking a mouse? Many commerical transmitter sites today are run by remote control, heck I cant even get ahold of anyone at our local AM/FM commercial radio station here in town after 6PM, they are running it by satillite from someplace out of state.(Not that that is a good point- it just happens).
Gosh, the new computer controlled transceivers are already using it, and no one complained about that. Consider that this is only moving the computer a few hundred or thousand miles away. Its the placement of the tranceiver/antenna that counts for the country you have worked (to or from), not the actual location of the operator. Wouldnt it be great to have the spotting net on your computer at work- see a country you need- call up your rig- work him.
Hmmm maybe thats not so good, you will be in there calling with me, while I set at home retired, trying to work him. Never mind. Just keep complaining and resisting the new updated procedures and leave the dx to me.
RE: internet control of ham stations  
Anonymous post on September 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Oh yeah ? What kind of DX might that be ? Maybe keying-up someones 2 meter HT in Australia via your computer in the USA and talking on their local repeater ? Wow ! 500 MHz was hot this morning !! (500 MHz Clock Speed that is !!!). GM OM RIG HR IS PENTIUM III ES ANT IS 56KBPS HAYES COMPATIBLE BT QTH IS ERRR...UMMM ... NOT EXACTLY SURE OM ... CALLSIGN DOESN'T MATTER AS I COULD BE ANYBODY ... Who said that Ham Radio wasn't being dumbed-down ? Point, Click, Point Click ...
Some additional information on my Article......  
by N2JEU on September 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Hi, I'm the author of the article. There have been loads of comments about the concept of the Internet Remote Base. Let me clear up some mis-information.

First, to access the remote you MUST have a valid amateur radio license from the FCC or one of a number of countries that have signed reciprocal operating agreements with the US. You must then apply to the operator of the remote system (W7DXX) for a login name and password. The license and class are verified using the FCC database for US hams and other means for foreign hams. The login name and password are REQUIRED to gain access to the control functions of the software. Another password is REQUIRED to gain access to the live audio stream for both receive and transmit audio. No passwords = NO ACCESS.

Second, the FCC is fully aware of the remote system and has OK'd the operation as it is currently run. We did this early in the operation to prevent any type of mis-understanding and to make sure that proper security was in place to reduce the chances of an un-authorized person controlling the radio.

The Internet Remote Base system never was and never will be a total replacement for having your own HF/VHF/UHF station. There are simply too many limitations imposed by the connectivity limitations of the Internet to have the same quality of operation that you would experience setting in front of your own equipment.

What it and the Web controlled receiver site DOES provide is a way for beginners in the hobby to experience the thrill of making that first HF contact or working another country. Now many hams have we lost because they could not justify spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to build their own station? Isn't it better to provide a low cost/no cost way for a new ham to get "hooked" on HF/VHF/UHF operation and then go on to build their own station? Isn't it better to have a way for a teacher using ham radio in a school to get his/her students interested in the hobby by using the Internet when funds don't exist to build an HF station? This is just a couple of the applications that people have suggested after learning of the system.

And what about emergency uses? Recently I was contacted by someone participating in an emergency drill. His organization happened to be in California and the drill was taking place on the east coast. The scenario was a hurricane hitting Florida. The band conditions prevented the organization from directly participating from their location even with a full size rotatable log periodic antenna and commercial grade transceivers. By using one of my remote controlled receivers (a Ten-Tec RX-320 and a 100 foot wire antenna) they were at least able to listen in on the drill. Have there been other instances where having a remote conrtrolled receiver or ham station in another location would have made emergency communications easier due to bad propagation conditions? The organization was so impressed with the concept that they're talking about putting up a string of receivers and remote base stations for their own use in disaster communications.

I fully understand that there are many of you that claim that this isn't REAL RADIO. That's quite true. It does NOT compare to sitting in front of your OWN STATION twiddling the knobs digging a rare one out of the sludge on 20 meters. The are however many other applications where this type of operation fills a gap or some need. If you don't want to use this type of station NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO DO SO. Just please get out of the way of the many people that DO want to try out this new technology and make up their own minds.

Bob Arnold N2JEU - Internet Remote Base author.
RE: Some additional information on my Article.....  
by NN2X on September 8, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I think it is great, the idea of using various transmission medias to communicate.

Further, the knowledge one obtains by using and developing the software, protocols, and of course the HF spectrum.

Let me coin the phrase, "Bridging Internet with HAM Radio”; I am sure someone else already coined it.

The problem I see, is that when HAM radio began it was the cutting edge technology, as time went on other types of technology advanced and HAM radio also advanced but in my opinion has matured, the only changes is more compact and few more bells and whistles. To further the problem the (Other) technologies has changed more rapidly, which caused the young adults to seek other avenues (Other than HAM radio), The technologies I am addressing of course is the Internet, Network Protocols, software, and others. So I feel if we are to capture some of “POTENTIAL MARKET” than we simply need to bridge the technologies. And for the folks who disagree with my casual observance, just go to your next HAM meeting and see the “AVERAGE AGE of a HAM radio operator. The point is to KEEP our bands, we need numbers, and the best way is to attract the young by using the cutting edge technology. Hey, that what we all did when HAM radio was out, it was the cutting edge technology. The same thing can happen now, by simply bridging the Internet with HAM radio, we can learn various software, protocols, streaming schemes etc.. The goal to keep HAM radio alive, keep our frequencies. it is a natural fit if HAM radio is to keep the interest by cross-pollinate the technologies " HAM radio & Internet (Stream Protocols, Visual basic and host of others)

Side Note: Kachina (I hope I got the spelling Right) has been going the right path, they have ability for remote access via internet, I feel every radio should be equipped for this function.

Just for fun, can you image using ICQ, and Teleconferencing, plus remote HF radio at the same time. How about using the Amateur Radio, with multicast technology transmitting through the internet and using TDMA/Spread spectrum return channel for on demand teleconferencing through Microsoft net meeting, and using at the same time HF radio remotely .

This would be fun!


Tom Wright
RE: Isn't this missing the point ?  
by WA2AEH on September 9, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Yes this is missing the point. Why use a radio at all. For the past year, I have thought about virtual Amateur Radio via the internet for non-hams to get them interested in the real thing. Imagine this. Set up a web site that mimics actual band condtions utilizing readily available propogation charts, sunspots #'s, K index etc. You type in your location, the country you want to work (england in this example), the band, power and mode. Band conditions with static, fading etc. are added to the path using real time data. People who have signed on to the web site from Europe, are calling cq and you in the USA work him under actual band conditions! Or you call cq onto the net and get and answer from someone else just like the real thing.

Add a virtual rig on your screen, (any manufacturer), using the sound card speakers, attach a mike, and you are off. You could even use this mode/site for trying or testing new rig templates submitted by manufacturers before you buy them! Sounds crazy, but this could be done right now. We just need someone to do it. You could probably make some good money off a site like this also with advertising and usage fees. Just something I was thinking of.

Remote via internet  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on September 10, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Way to go. Sounds like a challenging and fun project. Since we are fortunate to be living where we have choice, those people who don't like it, can choose not to use it. I don't use nets for DXing, and I don't care if anyone else uses them. I think it is great that people who can't have a tower in their back yard, or can't run linears in their neighborhoods have another option for remote operation.
have FUN
RE: Remote via internet  
Anonymous post on September 10, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Yes, I agree. Maybe we could also have little radio controlled model boats (controlled via the internet !!) which would carry written messages overseas for us. Another alternative is to use the internet to make other peoples garage doors go up and down *remotely*. Then we could use them to communicate by semaphore ! Yes, move aside you radio hams and let us hip dudes play computers.
by KA4OWW on September 11, 2000 Mail this to a friend!

I made my first HF contact through the remote the night after I recived my upgrade to Genreal Class.
Keith was a great deal of hepl that night.
Sence then I have had severial good rag chews on the remote.
I now have a HF station at home and use the remote to demo Ham Radio tho the folks I work with.
keep up the good work Bob
Anonymous post on September 12, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Doesn't heelp you to speell thogh do it ?
Using a HF transceiver over the Internet  
Anonymous post on November 12, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Amateur Radio is all about communicating and having a project to stimulate ones interest. Congratulations to N2JEU. If the project helps stimulate some youngsters into the hobby well even better.

Using a HF transceiver over the Internet  
by KE4JCG on November 19, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Bob Arnold N2JEU

Well done. This is a great tool you have given
to the ham community. The usefulness of operating
your own HF rig remotely is apparent with even a
little bit of thought...

Operate your at-home HF rig from a classroom where you can introduce school kids to the world of ham radio.
(Much easier than dragging an HF rig, tuner and antenna to the classroom)

For ARES use, set up a remote HF rig with solar/battery power at remote site. Use
packet to control HF transceiver, send voice via

Create a web site with remote Ham HF receiver, specifically designed to attract internet users,
teach them about Amateur radio and then funnel them into the local ham radio club for their area.

Use a laptop PC and your remote software to operate my at-home HF rig, so I can still work HF while away on a business trip.

These are only the obvious ideas.

Ignore the few who would rather complain than actually create something useful.They are everywhere, and they only get in the way. Keep at it. We need more hams who aren't afraid of playing with new technology.

73 de KE4JCG
Web Commerce Developer
Atlanta, GA
Using a HF transceiver over the Internet  
by VE5TNC on November 24, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
First off.. reguardless of what some think.. this is what the hobby is about.. experimenting. Hats off to this project.. Great idea.

If.. if I lived in a cc&r community.. I would love to have this software. Install the radio, antennas and control equipment at a friends or relitives yard.. Bang! Kinda like thumbing your nose at the cc&r gods.

Now for someone living in a cc&r enviroment.. What the hell were you thinking when you signed on the dotted line?

For the ones who joined while in a cc&r.. Either move, or get real good at building some of the coolest hidden indoor antennas.

RE: Some additional information on my Article.....  
by KB8OKH on November 26, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
I have to say that I really like this idea! I have been just as turned off as all of the above guys with regards to the "EchoLink" system, as I think that in itself is a mistake. But to operate a "remote base" this idea is a little different in that it makes sense. I had never thought of operating someone else's station several states away via internet. But I have been looking for advice and methods to implement such a system for my own personal use. Maybe some of you guys who think its a bad idea may want to just rethink the way it is used. Personally I would love to have a system like this that is totally restricted to my access so that I can remote control my home station from work/friends house/vacation or anyplace I can get online. In a sense I just see this as being a replacement for the technology that ACC (Advanced Computer Controls) device that they produced back in the early 1980's that was the telephone interconnect for your home shack. The system N2JEU is using here is just a far more advanced version of the same thing many were doing 15 to 20 years ago. How many repeater owners have ever used the "reverse autopatch" to talk through their systems from remote locations where they didnt have a radio? How is this different? This is just a far better method of "control" is the digital version of the analog stuff hams have been doing for years.

RE: Some additional information on my Article.....  
by AB1AW on February 19, 2004 Mail this to a friend!

Ignore the naysayers. Keep on innovating. The folks who can adopt, adapt and meld together these new technologies are the ones who are advancing the state-of-the-art. Our youngsters who are potential engineers should be exposed to this type of ham radio. It's knowledge of these technologies that will get them hired (and keep them employed).

RE: Some additional information on my Article.....  
by KI4FOY on August 14, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Has anyone run into a problem while using the W4MQ Remote Base software on Windows (XP or otherwise) as follows:

After tuning around awhile, perhaps tuning continuously across a large part of the ham and adjacent bands (today I tuned from below 160 meters continuously to Mhz.

Suddenly it gets stuck in the 100's Khz section of the dial on the following pattern in order:

330, 346, 366, 371, 403

No matter where you put your highlight cursor to tune up and down with the arrow keys on your keyboard, it only changes in order between those numbers exactly.

I'm thinking this must be a bug. The only way to fix it is to run "regedit" and remove all instances of "Web Transceiver" and "W4MQ" from the registry. Somewhere in the W4MQ registry entries is where this problem is stuck at. Just uninstalling and re-installing the software doesn't fix it.

Alan Spicer (KA4UDX - vanity) [was KI4FOY for a short time this year]
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
The FXTenna Portable HF Antenna
The Radiant Barrier Myth

Other Operating Articles
I'm On FT8! Now What?