eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
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
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Kenwood Sky Command

from Data from Kenwood Cust Svc on July 12, 2006
View comments about this article!


I've been trying to stay on top of the Kenwood Sky Command issue; a remote control feature that Kenwood has incorporated into the TS-2000, TM-D700A, HT-D7A HT, etc. For those of you that aren't aware Sky Command allows the operator to remotely control and utilize the TS-2000 via similarly equipped mobile or HT's radios.

I realize this has been an on-going issue for awhile now and I'm aware of the current regulations not permitting control signals below certain frequencies. I'm also aware of the pressure being applied to the FCC to change these regulations.

Granted, Sky Command would be a boost for Kenwood sales, but it doesn't take much imagination to realize that the feature could be utilized in numerous ways to assist amateurs in everyday and emergency communications operations. Plus, I'm sure if certain regulations were changed other manufacturers would continue to add to and improve upon features like Sky Command, on their future equipment.

I recently wrote Kenwood Customer Service to find out the latest. The letter below was my response. Based on the 2005 date noted, I assume it's a canned message in response to multiple inquiries.

I was surprised to learn ARRL is against Sky Command!? What the heck is up with the ARRL? And I'm a life member of this organization?

KF4HR

Dear Kenwood Customer: 

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the SkyCommand features in the TH-79AKSS, TH-D7A, TH-D7A(G), TM-D700A, and the TS-2000. Please understand that (Sky Command) all of these radio's are NOT illegal to use. Unfortunately, the ARRL disagreed with Kenwood and obviously influenced the FCC to NOT grant us our request for waiver.

 Kenwood has sent in a petition for rule change, it has been with the F.C.C. for close to two years. Kenwood is VERY optimistic for the rule change to be reality in 2005. 

 The F.C.C. recently sent out a document which states that it is in favor of Kenwood's request for rule change.  It is presently up for questions, and probably be on paper as a rule change in 2006.

 73's  If you need further assistance, please e-mail us again.

 Sincerely,

 Kenwood Amateur Radio Customer Support

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by W8JI on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
One of the FCC rules that has been around for many years (longer than 30 years that I know of)is that control and link signals for certain types of radio systems have to be on certain frequencies. The technical logic behind this is the FCC does not want users just putting control signals that often extend many miles beyond the necessary range anywhere they damn well want.

The FCC also wisely set published limits on the frequency bands where a radio, when used as a remote base, could rebroadcast transmissions. They put certain frequency areas off-limits to remote base systems.

What Kenwood did was design and market a system that clearly violated existing FCC rules. The rules were in the books, they are very clear, and everyone has had to follow them for many years.

Kenwood either never read the rules or thought they could get away with ignoring the rules everyone else has no problem following. Whatever the reason behind it, they chose frequency bands for the SkyCommand control system based on convenience and cost to themselves rather than considering FCC rules that have been on the books and that ten's of thousands of people have followed for many years.

Now that the system has been marketed, Kenwood has asked for a waver. This really amounts to asking the FCC to not enforce a particular rule everyone else has to follow just for Kenwood. This opens a huge can of worms, because if Kenwood is allowed to ignore a long term rule everyone else will want the same thing.

Why should I do my remote base on 70cm when Kenwood gets to use 144MHz?

Why should my repeater remote control be on 70CM when Kenwood gets to use 144MHz on thousands of radios at random locations?

Kenwood can cry and complain all they want about the ARRL, but the fact is they didn't read the FCC rules or care about the rules when they marketed the system, and now they are stuck.

Either the FCC rules should be changed to allow EVERYONE to put remote links anywhere they want on two meters, or Kenwood should simply follow the rules and keep the remote link on 220 MHz or higher.

We should never, based on cost to ONE manufacturer, grant that one particular manufacturer a waver to rules that have been in place since at least the 1960's.

We should not have rules that apply to everyone in the USA but do not apply to ONE specific manufacturer. That kind of thinking is stupid.

73 Tom
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KG4RUL on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Unless I have been misinformed, the transmitted 144 MHz signal in the 'Sky Command' system is VOICE only. So, following your argument, ALL repeaters which broadcast voice on 144 MHz should be illegal.

Dennis KG4RUL
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KA5VCQ on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dennis is right. The control signals for SkyCommandII are carried over 70cm. Only voice/audio information is sent over 144MHz.

The original SkyCommand had the control signals going out over the wrong band and Kenwood corrected the problem.

73,

Korey--KA5VCQ
Towanda, PA
Echolink RF Link 186881
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by N3PAQ on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Can someone post an overview of how the skycommand works, and what part 97 rule it violates or what the ARRL thinks it violates and why?

Thanks,
Joe
N3PAQ
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K0BG on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Tom did a VERY good job in explaining the problem, however, the frequency allocations he eluded to needs to be expanded a little.

It make little difference whether it is control signals or audio, it is still within the 2 meter band allocation. This fact not only clutters up a VERY crowded band, it extends the signals a lot further "out" than 70 cm would allow. This was one of the original topics of consideration when the NPR went out (1962 as I recall). A fact lost on most amateurs today.

The other part of this I don't understand, and that is Kenwood's marketing decision behind it Sky Command. Several folks (the now defunct Kachina Electronics was one of them) have marketed similar systems, and to my knowledge none of them have prospered. While the idea offers all sorts of possibilities as mentioned in the post, the problems associated with it all but negate the benefits. A fate shared by most Internet control systems too.

From a personal stand point, our VHF (and to a lessor degree our UHF bands) have become a vast wasteland in most major metropolitan areas. All one has to do is listen to just about any repeater. The amateur enforcement letters coming out of the FCC also prove the point. All we need at this juncture is a bunch of scofflaws cluttering up the HF bands as well (we have enough of them already).

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by W8KAR on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The problem is that 2 meters is used as an auxiliary station by the Sky Command II system. (97.201(b))
Thus, even though no control signals on 2 meters, it's being used as a wireless audio link, and thus not allowed under current rules.

My personal opinion is that this topic should be objectively examined in the present environment, along with other VHF spectrum management to encourage more spectrum reuse. This means examining the possibility of managing amateur spectrum in more of an interference-limited vs. noise-limited method as commercial wireless spectrum is generally managed.

Michael A. Volz W8KAR
http://www.egr.msu.edu/~volzmich
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA1SCI on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I am not sure of the legal status of Skycommand, but I have played with it using 5 watts out on the TS-2000 into magnetic mount mobile antennas in my attic so that it has a limited range. I have tried it in my backyard using the TS-2000 and HT-D7A. My comments are that it is a bit tricky to configure the first time. There are a number of items that must be set correctly for it to work. Once you have set it up a few times, it is not too bad. As for the sky command itself, while it does work well, I have found it pretty clumsy for just tuning around the band. It is ok for monitoring or working one frequency. It also times out after 10 minutes of non-use. That is to say that if you do not send some sort of control signal to the TS-2000 every 10 minutes, the hand held's reciever will go quiet, and you have to push the #0 key to reset the radio for another 10 minutes. This is an annoyance if you are using it for monitoring one frequency, which is one of the best uses for the feature. I use my computer to send a command string to the TS-2000 to re-configure it for different operating modes (including sky-command) at the touch of a single button. The latest details for configuring skycommand are available on Kenwood's website in the operating manual download area.
 
RE: arrl against Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Unfortunately, the ARRL disagreed with Kenwood and obviously influenced the FCC to NOT grant us our request for waiver".

This surprises you?
arrl does not care what the average ham thinks. Forget that Sky Command is a fun & useful. Forget that it might be helpful in a disaster. ARRL DID NOT INVENT SKY COMMAND AND CAN'T MAKE MONEY OFF IT. Therefore, arrl is against it. Simple.

No big surprise.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by N9XY on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The following should shed some light on the situation regarding the WT Docket 04-140 which among other things, would make the SkyCommand system "legal":

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/16/100/

See Para 2.1 in these minutes:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_479.html

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/05/17/6/

Here is the FCC proposed change.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-79A1.pdf

73
Michael
N9XY
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by K0RFD on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"I was surprised to learn ARRL is against Sky Command!?"

That's because it's not Winlink.
 
RE: arrl against Kenwood Sky Command  
by K5RMD on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
One other thing I might mention. Kenwood sells radios in other countries besides the United States.
Is "Sky Command" legal in all the other countries?
Is it being used in other countries? That this software it is not used in the U.S. and is used in other countries could be a big possibility. Sure, the U.S.A. is one of Kenwood's favorite but not only market for equipment and software.

K5RMD
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command - how it works  
by N9XY on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Here is a Kenwood PowerPoint slide set that details the setup of Sky Command:

http://kenweb1.kenwoodusa.com/KenwoodPortal/KenwoodComm/Resources/AMA_InstructionManuals/256,1,Slide 1



Page 83 of this manual has a block diagram that outlines what bands are used for the control and audio for Sky Command.

http://kenweb1.kenwoodusa.com/KenwoodPortal/KenwoodComm/Resources/AMA_InstructionManuals/TS-2000%20Rve2.pdf

You will note that audio moves on both the VHF and UHF bands.

73
Michael
N9XY
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by WW5AA on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Just like everything else in this world, give it to me now I don't care if it breaks the rules! Thank you ARRL.

73, de Lindy
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KC5FOG on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If they changed the rules for skycommand it would have effects well beyond just sky command radios it would let people link repeaters on 2 meters. This is something we don�t need/want because there is not enough space on 2 meters as it is. 70cm has been the primary linking band for years because there is room for it and allocated regions but there are no allocations on 2 meters for it and no room to make any allocations either. To change the rules just to make Kenwood�s sky command work would cause allot of collateral damage, but too many hams have this self serving "I want my favorite mode and the hell with everyone else's " attitude these days.
 
ARRL position clarified  
by AI2IA on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"The League has called Kenwood's Sky Command System "a fine product" that would be of interest to many hams if designed for frequencies on which auxiliary operation is legally permitted. "

Before you all go off on an ARRL witch hunt, take the time to research the position taken by the ARRL. The experts on the radio spectrum are the FCC. All others must appeal to their authority. There is a sane and logical forum for introducing new concepts to radio communications. I purchased and use Kenwood HF transceivers, but I still say that they went about introducing their idea the wrong way. They still have a means of presenting their concept the right way and all of you still have input to the FCC thanks to our American way of government. The ARRL is just as concerned about the conservation of our spectrum as we are. Do the right thing - always!
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KC5FOG on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"ARRL DID NOT INVENT SKY COMMAND AND CAN'T MAKE MONEY OFF IT. Therefore, arrl is against it. Simple" <--- Another perfect example of a self serving ham that doesn't look at the wide spread effects of a rules change. The ARRL's stance aginst sky command is for good reason.
 
RE: arrl against Kenwood Sky Command  
by KG6AMW on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think Tom and Alan nailed it. Kenwood wants to break the law and sometimes making money shouldn't be one's only priority.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by K0RGR on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Around here, a key slogan is: "Never attribute to evil intent that which can be explained by simple incompetence."

In this case, I don't believe Kenwood intended to violate the FCC's rules. Unfortunately, their engineers didn't research it thoroughly enough. Perhaps our restriction on where auxiliary transmitters can operate is unique or unusual in the world. In my experience, I think that most other countries tend to be a lot more restrictive than we do, particularly in Europe where the 2 meter band is only 2 Mhz. wide.

And you ARRL critics are laughable on this one. If, as you constantly cry, the League is beholden to the commercial interests, why would they slap the hand of one of their biggest advertisers? Clearly, Kenwood is offended and has decided to blame the League for opposing their request for a waiver. I wonder if it has influenced Kenwood's development plans for new ham rigs. This is not a way to fill your pockets with gold.

The fact is, we could accomodate 1000's of Sky Commands out here in Minnesota, and nobody would notice, let alone care. But in New England, the band is somewhat more utilized - at least according to ARRL. If you're going to be angry at the League for anything, be mad because they want to protect 2 meter users in densely populated areas like New England and San Francisco at the expense of the rest of us. Then be really mad at the FCC for not getting off the dime and actually enacting some of the proposals they've already approved in principal.

Personally, I hope to see more 'Sky Command' type systems, regardless of what bands they operate on. I believe that in my forseeable future, my hamshack will be remote from my residence, and I'm going to want the best possible remote control system. But I don't want one that violates the rules.

I hope that as part of the 'omnibus' restructuring, FCC addresses this issue. There is a similar one with EchoLink, where the uplink to a 2 meter repeater might be considered an auxiliary station, too.
 
RE: arrl against Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9PMZ on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
This is an amusing post.

Kenwood is producing type accepted radios that have a feature that is under the rules is forbidden.

So Kenwood is put on the pillory for implementing this feature.

It's encumbent on the user to insure compliance to the rules.

So let's see using some of the logic spewed here. If I transmit on a type accepted radio and have a QSO I am opeating the radio legally. But, I could broadcast music. So we should condem all of the other radio manufacturers that produce radios that transmit as well?

Look at cars, most cars go faster than the speed limit. Let's start yelling at the auto manufacturers for implementing an illegal function.

You know the rules, they are in Part 97, follow them and buyer beware.

If you want the rules changed, work to change them and quit complaining.

73,

Carl - W9PMZ
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WB6RXG on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC's issue with Sky Command is not the audio link on 2 meters, if it was then there are many illegal repeater systems with remote base systems attached to them. The FCC determined that while tuning the SSB reciever remotely using the 440 mHz control link and getting feedback that the tuning was correct via 2 meter audio that part of the control link is on 2 meters and therefore a violation of the rules.

Stuart Schaffert
WB6RXG
 
RE: arrl against Kenwood Sky Command  
by KB9RQZ on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
somehow I thought was trying to change the rules one fot he ways to do is public opinion
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K8MHZ on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I need to look a little closer at the features of my TM-V7A.

I can remote control it using my Yaesu FT60. I do not have the voice chip installed in the V7A but if I do, according to the manual, the V7A will report the settings in voice back to the HT.

What I don't know is what band that happens on.

Without digging through the exceptions....why are control tones allowed on 2 meters for phone patches, and a report back via voice on same?

Ok, here is another one. What about EchoLink and IRLP? Are you not sending control tones when you punch in a repeater node #? And are you not getting voice confirmation when you hear "connected?" All this is being done on 2 meter repeaters.

From the little I have read about SkyCommand it appears that you can use your dual bander as a repeater to extend the range of your already available one stop repeater control.

If the SkyCommand system is at all close to what is already allowed on 2 meter repeaters, perhaps a few changes would allow for the system to be used without asking for a change in FCC law?
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
arrl took a stand against Sky Command.
Why take a position against expanding capabillity? Its one thing not to endorse a concept, but to be against it is quite another.

arrl should have kept silent.
Afterall, if arrl is as influential as it wants us to believe, then support from arrl might have made the difference in Kenwood's efforts to get a waiver!

Afterall, we know how influential arrl is with the FCC!
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by N1KDO on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Kenwood can "fix" SkyCommand by using the 23 cm and 70 cm bands, instead of 2M and 70 cm. Their product is a great idea, but cursed with an implementation that is not compliant with the laws of what could be their biggest market.

The rule prohibiting auxiliary operation on the 2M band is a good rule and Kenwood should not be given a waiver, nor should the rule be changed. 2M is too crowded to open it up for auxiliary operation.
 
It's not crowding that's the issue  
by KF6IIU on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
There's no security on the system, and in any given metropolitan area there are going to be a few of these systems left open on the air, at least for a while. Any dumbass with a TH-D7 can now jam HF as well as UHF/VHF. Great.

Can SKyCommand actually tune the TS2000? It's not clear from the documentation. Does naything prevent a jammer from setting the TS2000 to 10 meters and then keying down at full load into your antenna tuned for some other band?
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA1RNE on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Kenwood's brochure spells out operation very concisely:


> You control the TS-2000/2000X/B2000 from the portable Commander (CMD).

> Voice is transmitted from the CMD unit on the 440MHz band.

> Control signals are also sent from the CMD unit on the 440MHz band.

*** >>> The HF signal received by the TS-2000/2000X/B2000 is relayed to the CMD unit on the 144MHz band.

> You can confirm the HF frequency on the LCD of the CMD.


Aside from how many amateurs will actually want to take advantage of this feature - which seems pretty limited - the issue involves "Auxilliary Station" operation, 97.201.


But if you consider the absolute QRM nightmare that could ensue should Winlink take hold and other more complicated remote station operations are allowed in part 97 rules, i.e. Space Operations, this Auxilliary Station rule is just plain outdated and should be changed.


Boy, 2 meters is really going to suffer from the "deluge" of Kenwood Sky Command users!


Maybe it will put 2 meter operation back on the map as a utilized amateur band.


Chris, WA1RNE
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W6ZF on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I have a TS-2000 and TH-D7 but have yet to take the time to learn the Sky Command operation. My question..since everyone is worried about the legality...has anyone ever been busted using Sky Command? I don't know of anyone myself.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by KG6WLV on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
As a TS-2000 owner, I think the simple reason Kenwood utilizes 2-meters and 60cm for Sky Command is that it utilizes the same circuit resources as the "Satellite" function -- that is, split band operation on 2-meters and 60cm. This is the only logical choice since the rig has no other VHF/UHF pair available other than 6-Meters/60cm. Use of 1.2GHz is an add-on option, but would not be practical as one would need an HT or mobile rig to make the system work.
I'm not sure I agree that 2-meters is a "crowded" band. Certainly there are many repeaters on it, and probably a demand for more spectrum for that function, but there is no question that the FM simplex allocations are under utilized in most areas. Perhaps a few simplex pairs could be reallocated to repeater operation upon a showing that they are nearly always vacant.
I'm not suggesting this because I want somebody else's ox gored; I use FM simplex frequently, and sideband as well, and have dabbled in satellite communications, too. I also make use of repeaters. I use all of the capabilities of 2-meters. I just think that we need to reallocate some of them for higher uses for greater benefit for all.
Sky Command sounds like a great idea with poor execution, but whether or not it would lead to overcrowding in an allegedly crowded band is debatable.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by KF4HR on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
In developing Sky Command think about what Kenwood had to deal with, (based on the current rules); the 220 band wasn't an option because the band isn't legal in most countries and the higher frequency bands are not as popular with the majority. In both cases, not financially viable alternatives for Kenwood. And in-band 70cm Sky Command would have brought on a whole slew of engineering issues and expenses. So because of the current rules; we should totally disregard potential technology improvements? (What happened to Part 15 and BPL?)

Could Kenwood have developed SC via a different avenue? Possibly, although I'd bet any other path would have met with similar resistance - and again, what popular alternative band could have been used? I'm guessing Kenwood management knew what they were up against and rationalized that a common sense would prevail.

What amazes me most is why the ARRL doesn't recongize SC as something that could benefit the amateur community and petition the FCC for some type of compromise to the current rules; rather than taking on the "rules are rules" mentality.

What would be wrong with the ARRL recommending SC be utilized only a small portion of the 2 meter band, over a test period (say 6 to 12 months), to determine if SC would actually cause any negative effects? My guess is, it wouldn't bother a thing. Two meters is already subdivided into all sort of segments; low signal, CW, SSB, FM, experimental, digital, etc, and rarely is the entire 2 meter band fully utilized, even in big cities.

For all you that say, "Rules are rules - never to be challenged." Can we assume it's safe to say none of you ever intensionally exceeded the speed limit? (Read: get real.)

With cell phones and the internet taking over as the "method of choice" for our youth, now is not the time to be limiting amateur technology. My suggestion to the ARRL is to rethink the Sky Command situation and find a way to promote it - at least for limited test period.

Promote more amateur activity on our bands, don't limit it.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<..but it doesn't take much imagination to realize that the feature could be utilized in numerous ways to assist amateurs in everyday and emergency communications operations.>

I think it is the other way around, amateurs use the features built into the gear they buy.

Waving the emergency communications flag, to justify something, is worn out.

Yes. Kenwood sent a "caned" response. Do you really think they should pay people to personally respond to, in essence, identical questions?

Who cares if Kenwood blames the ARRL for FCC decisions. Poor Kenwood. How could such a small company understand FCC regulations?

<What the heck is up with the ARRL? And I'm a life member of this organization? >

Horror upon horrors. The ARRL doesn't think it conforms to FCC regs. How could they do that when a lifetime member, likes Sky Command.

Better to complain on eHam than going over their review of Sky Command, and then contacting the League about why you disagree with them.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by N0AH on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Then what is in this box I just received from MFJ titled "Ocean Journey Command" ??
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by N0AH on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You know Alan, (K0BG) Tom knows a lot. And I never thought I would say this about him. But maybe, just maybe, he knows a bit more about the subject. I just don't get it with either of you but at least he has his facts down.

Tom 1 pt
Alan 0 pt
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by KE7AKS on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think too many hams get hung up on OLD TRADITIONAL Rules and regulations. Sky command sounds like it could make a radio more useful to me. I fail to see that it can cause too big of band clutter excepe in major cities, where clutter is already a problem. If we are to be slow to change rules to take advantage of new technologies, then rember that at one time if you came to an intersection with a horseless carriage, and it spooked the horse of another wishing to use the intersection, you would have to dissmantel your carriage and hide it from the spooked horse. Horses were here first and some laws regaurding right-of way and such are still on the books...
What about the EVERGREEN INTERTIE on 2M repeaters, and the use of PHONE PATCHES that are controled by DTMF tones on 2 meters? Why do strictly 2M FM radios have DTMF microphones, and some of the older radios have DTMF pads on the front? How about POCKET PAGER feature on most 70CM and 2M dual band rasios? There is a page feature on the ICOM V8000 that turns on an alert even if you are not at the radio, but of course it must be turned on.. does that violate the NO CONTROLE CODES ON 2M RULES? No voice needed to turn that PAGER icon on on my V8000... What other useful features ... APRS ..no voice to send coordinates..
is APRS illegal on 2M ? What about WIRES and that feature that the FT 8800 has that lets another user know if I am in range I think it is referred to as ARTS, is it an illegal feature? No voice commands run the ARTS system on 2M....
The OLD RULES may need to change, unless you want to ride horses and communicate using smoke signals.
73's HARV KE7AKS
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W8JI on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
RE: Kenwood Sky Command Reply
by KG4RUL on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Unless I have been misinformed, the transmitted 144 MHz signal in the 'Sky Command' system is VOICE only. So, following your argument, ALL repeaters which broadcast voice on 144 MHz should be illegal.>>>

Not if we read part 97. That's something both you and Kenwood need to do!

Even without control signals on 2 meters, they still have receive audio linked back on 2 meters. That's still a no no.

I can't link audio to another system on two meters, even if it is one way audio.

Why should Kenwood get a waiver and not the rest of the world? Don't blame it on the ARRL. Kenwood didn't read the rules, not them. The FCC had some pretty harsh words for Kenwood, and they deserved them.

73 Tom
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by AB2UV on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ok to answer a few about the features, and functionality of the TS-2000 and sky command. I have both the TS-2000, and TH-D7A.

To answer the one person that said that any one in nearby range with a TH-D7A being able to jam the TS-2000, and HF that it is tuned to. That can't happen, unless of course the jammer just happens to know exactly how the owner of the TS-2000 has both the base and HT setup. You have to set both the 2m and 440 freqs and PL tones, as well as set callsigns for both the "commander" and "transporter" radios, then the comm speed of the control packets. You have to set all this up in the menus of both radios before activating the sky command feature, or they won't "talk" to each other. So knowing all this, what are the chances that a jammer is going to get all these right without doing some experimenting to figure it all out?

The other person that mentioned about the echolink, IRLP, etc on 2m. The technical answer to that is those node owners are NOT permitted to make those control adjustments over the air. They need to either use a seperate higher then 220 freq, or use an internet based webpage to do the controlling of their nodes. As long as they control the node that way, it may "live" on 2m.

One idea I thought about for the auxiliary link audio being on 2m. Why not use a transverter to convert the 2m freq to an upper band, and then in essence your not transmitting on 2m anymore. Now skycommand would be operating legally. The control signals are on 440, and the audio is being transverted to let's say 902, or 1200. Now there's an idea!
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W4CNG on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The problem is links and commands and the rules. Those of us back in the early 70's would have given anything for a dual band HT for repeater control. We had to settle for sometimes a 2 meter rig and a tripler module to get to use 440 for a control link. 220 is good only in the US, so a dual band HT with 440 and another band above it is highly unlikely. Kenwood just missed the boat here, great idea, stupid implementation and now the whinning. By the way there are several ways around this issue, it just takes more than one HT to do it. BTW there is no problem with using 2 meters or the input frequency of a repeater for a control link, as long as you have a Dedicated seperate 220 or above link functional that will over-ride the secondary link, also been doing this for years.
Good Luck, do not own any Kenwood but hear it is good stuff.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K2LES on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What do you expect from an organization that still fosters the use of CW and 1200 baud digital communications in this day and age when I can access broadband speed internet on my Treo 700 smart phone?

The ARRL is a dinosaur stuck in the 1950's. Of course they're going to shoot down Sky Command.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W1RU on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OK, so some of us are STILL not getting this.

KF4HR and others to the same effect write:

"What amazes me most is why the ARRL doesn't recongize SC as something that could benefit the amateur community and petition the FCC for some type of compromise to the current rules; rather than taking on the "rules are rules" mentality."

and

"I was surprised to learn ARRL is against Sky Command!? What the heck is up with the ARRL? And I'm a life member of this organization? "

and from K2LES

"What do you expect from an organization that still fosters the use of CW and 1200 baud digital communications in this day and age when I can access broadband speed internet on my Treo 700 smart phone?

The ARRL is a dinosaur stuck in the 1950's. Of course they're going to shoot down Sky Command."


But as AI2IA pointed out above, from the ARRL more than 2 years ago:

"Expanded Auxiliary Operation

Although in opposition to an earlier, broader proposal, the League now says it supports an amendment to §97.201(b) to permit auxiliary operation on 2 meters above 144.5 MHz--with the exception of the satellite subband 145.8 to 146.0 MHz--in addition to frequency segments already authorized. Kenwood Communications had asked for the change in 2001 as part of an effort to make use of its Sky Command system legal in the US. Sky Command permits users to operate certain Kenwood equipment remotely via a VHF/UHF handheld transceiver. The ARRL said it's now convinced that the proposal "is timely and should be adopted" and would "enhance the development of sophisticated amateur communication systems.""

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/06/16/100/

N9XY provided the link. Why not read it?
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WB4PAP on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting opinions about the legality of Sky Command and the ARRL's position against using it. Bottom line is the FCC type certificated all the Kenwood radios having this feature before they went to market so you can't lay all the blame on Kenwood. Icom was forced to disable the video receive capabilities of the IC7000 because the FCC felt it would be unsafe while driving. Kenwood either got lucky or the FCC missed the Sky Command legalities as well. Makes sense that they would approve it in hindsight.

73's

Tom, WB4PAP
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on July 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Don't confuse people with facts in opposition to their opinions.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K8MHZ on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The FCC approves many cross band repeaters that, in order to be legally operated, must have a licensed control operator AT THE UNIT acting as a repeater.

How many cross banders are really used this way? Is this reason to ask the FCC to change the law?

BTW, the only cross banders that can be legally operated remotely are made by Kenwood, as far as I can tell. Those can be shut down remotely if they are set up to do so.

As remote control becomes cheaper and more available, there will indeed be some pressure on the FCC to make changes to accomodate it.

SkyCommand is just the first one that tried.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by K0RGR on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for posting ARRL's current position. Perhaps they should sue Kenwood for defamation, since they are now supporting Kenwood's position?

The rules spell out a difference between autopatch and other 'ancillary' functions of a repeater, and primary control of that repeater. The prohibition against remote control below 222 Mhz. does not apply to 'ancillary' functions, like autopatch.

Now, EchoLink and the other linking systems may be a different kettle of fish. If they are directly part of a repeater system, they would fall under the 'ancillary' clause, most likely. But if they are not, then they are questionable. So far, FCC has chosen not to take any action, and both the League and the Commission have stated that the rules need to be updated to address reality.

Again, it's the Commission that's dragging its' feet.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Other than "certain external RF
amplifiers", that must go through
the procedure formerly known as
type acceptance, the only certifcation
is Part 15 for the receiver, just like
any other receiver in the US.

The FCC is proposing to do away with
the "certain external RF amp.." provision
too.

73 de Ronnie
 
ARRL VOTES AGAINST SC BEFORE VOTING FOR IT  
by W9WHE-II on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Although in opposition to an earlier, broader proposal, the League now says it supports an amendment to §97.201(b) to permit auxiliary operation on 2 meters above 144.5 MHz..... The ARRL said it's now convinced that the proposal "is timely and should be adopted" and would "enhance the development of sophisticated amateur communication systems."

Just so everyone is clear:

ARRL VOTED AGAINST SKY COMMAND, BEFORE IT VOTED FOR SKY COMMAND.

I guess the endless quest for MONEY from advertises overcame ARRL's "Not Invented Here" mentality.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WN3VAW on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KB1ATA,

Nice try, but it's pointless to apply logic to the situation.

Without singling out any one individual... and there are more than one... no matter what the facts are, there's always someone who will blame it all on the ARRL.


73
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K8GU on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The me-first mentality is what drives the logic or lack of logic in these threads. The point is that there is a rule on the books that forbids auxiliary operation on 2 meters. It doesn't matter how stinking enchanted the technology is unless you can convince the rulemakers that there's reason to change.

Petition the FCC. Or, even better, you could look-up the QST article from 15 years ago and build your own Sky Command to operate on whatever band suits you. Rules clearly haven't stopped much worse bad behavior in ham radio.

Until you can operate CW on it, I'm not interested. Maybe you could "text it" like SMS. Oh wait, CW's still faster...darn.
 
RE: arrl flip flops on Kenwood's sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
".....no matter what the facts are, there's always someone who will blame it all on the ARRL"

No matter how much arrl screws up, there is allways someone defending it. What is wrong with pointing out that arrl did a John Kerry sized "flip-floped" on Sky Command?


arrl is to blame for arrl decisions. Or for some reason is "siociety" at fault for arrl's political and economic decisions?


W9WHE
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by KC2MMI on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Let's see now...In July 2006 Kenwood sent you a badly written form letter which tells us they "expect" (future tense) a ruling in 2005...which was last year.

I have seen better letters written by sixth graders. Obviously someone at Kenwood (US or Japan?) doesn't give a damn, their boilerplate is an insult to the US English speaking market and to US hams in general.
 
RE: arrl flip flops on Kenwood's sky Command  
by W7SWL on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Just so everyone is clear:

W9WHE-II/W9WHE/whatever has never changed his mind. If he does in the future, there has to be a diabolical profit driven motive behind it.

Geez, folks on both sides of what apparently is a hot-button issue have presented some well reasoned and presented discussions. How does the knee-jerk anti-ARRL rant shed any technical light?
 
RE: arrl flip flops on Kenwood's sky Command  
by K1OU on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
And when you think flip-flop, fly to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/congress.guantanamo.ap/index.html
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WN3VAW on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ok, fine. So let me ask the proverbial dumb question here:

Given:
-- SkyCommand is the greatest thing since sliced bread
-- FCC rules on auxilliary station control forbid using 2 meters for control
-- SkyCommand uses 2 meters for control, therefore making it illegal to operate in the US

Why hasn't someone built an after-market transverter to permit SkyCommand auxilliary control on a band where said aux control is legal?

This sounds like a perfect use of 222 MHz in much of the country where it's currently a wasteland (yes, I know there's plenty of 222 activity in some parts of the country, but not all). And it would be a straight +/- 82 MHz mix, nothing too awful fancy. So this should work... right?

Or am I missing the obvious here?
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Actually, using 222 mhz for links is a great idea! At least the band would be used for something, anything!

W9WHE
 
RE: arrl flip flops on Kenwood's sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W6RJC writes:

"How does the knee-jerk anti-ARRL rant shed any technical light"

arrl's flip-fop is less about "technical" issues then it is about a flip-flop for profit. I'm confident that Kenwood (one of arrl's biggest advertisers) was quite unhappy with arrl's poorly thought out position on SC.

Since when is arrl's public position on a regulatory matter off limits? arrl presents itself as the voice of amateur radio. It seems that whenr a voice of dissent appears, people come out of the woodwork to squelch dissent. HOW DARE ANYONE POINT OUT ARRL FOLLY!

W9WHE

 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by AB2MH on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
> What do you expect from an organization that still
> fosters the use of CW and 1200 baud digital
> communications in this day and age when I can access
> broadband speed internet on my Treo 700 smart phone?

I have a Treo 700(p) and still operate CW. I surf the web, get my email and even remotely administer my linux servers via ssh. But CW is getting back to basics. It even beat text messaging on the tonight show.

But who cares if you can go online with a treo 700, a Treo 650 or any one of those gadgets that require infrastructure? With ham radio I can talk to the other side of the world with nothing more than a radio and antenna.

Beat that with your Treo 700!

Back on topic. I do, however, think that people are afraid that NCT's are going to get proxy access to HF via Kenwood skycommand. That is what they're most afraid of. I am surprised though that the ARRL would be against it if this were the case.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by AC0H on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If you want to operate HF go sit your butt down in front of the radio and operate HF. Personally I don't see why anybody would want to use Sky Command other than the "gee whiz" factor.

BTW, how would one send CW with a TH-D7A?
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KX8N on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"HOW DARE ANYONE POINT OUT ARRL FOLLY! "

How long do you think Amateur Radio would exist if the ARRL closed their doors for good tomorrow morning? We'd be stripped down to one or two bands and handed a list of 10-codes.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Believe it or not, some hams live where they cannot put up the antennas they would like to.

Setting up a remote station would be ideal under those circumstances.

Its sorta hard to set up beverage antennas for 75 and 160 on a lot that is 360 x 120.

Around here, there is a lot of open land, but NO water--ideal for an antenna farm, but not suitable for a home.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by N3OX on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I like WN3VAW's ... now something else.. W3WN, right?

I think his transverter suggestion is a good workaround for now... plus then you've got 222 capability.

Although you could make it with a nonlinear RF amp since it's FM and potentially make it pretty cheaply.

AE7G: as far as serious remoting goes, you can do SO much more with a fast internet connection, and if you live within 440MHz range of your station, you probably could also boost up some 802.11g gear with better antennas and more power and just have a 54Mbps connection directly to your rig... and it's not limited to Kenwood.

The Kenwood stuff is, I think, an somewhat interesting toy... if I had two SkyCommand capable radios, I'd probably want to try it... but there are better ways to remote control your station. You can't do any serious DXing or contesting using SkyCommand.

73,
Dan
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by W7ZZT on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It seems there are a lot of issues with this topic. I have the Knwd TS-2Kx, TM-D700A, and the TH-D7AG and one of the reasons I invested in these radios was the cross-band capibilites. As it turns out, I rarely use this control option...in my experience remote control is fun to demo but little practical use. My opinion on the FCC type-approval is that the Gov accepted (conciously or not) the capabilities of these radios and accepted this functionality "eyes wide-open." If an operator wants to use this feature, the onus is on the Gov to prove Knwd and the operator wrong and personally, I do not think that will happen.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W1RU on July 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Type acceptance" is not required for amateur transceivers. (It is for CBs and FRS toys.)

"Type acceptance" isn't a factor in this issue and these aren't "type accepted" radios.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by AA4PB on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Type acceptance is no more. It is now called "certification". The receivers in some amateur transceivers do indeed require FCC certification.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"How long do you think Amateur Radio would exist if the ARRL closed their doors for good tomorrow morning?"

Now that's funny!
If you think arrl is some powerful, influential .org, think again. FCC routinely ignores FCC "demands", which arrl claims are based upon the law. Even arrl's implied threats to sue are ignored! arrl is, by and large, impotent with Federal regulators. Disagree? just look at arrl's LACK of success with: a) BPL, b) the antenna bill, c) the spectrum bill. arrl's regulatory successes are about as common as French millitary victories!

If you think that the only reason that ham radio exists is because arrl has FCC cowering in fear, you are a victim of arrl propiganda. arrl could not protect ham radio from UPS, which sought a slice of 220 Mhz, and that was during a time when ham radio was FAR more valuable then today. If a commertial entity came along wanting a slice of 440 Mhz, think arrl could stop it? NOT A CHANCE.

W9WHE
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The ignorance of some shines through again! :-)

70 cm is primary to NTIA and secondary to
FCC for hams. If someone wanted a slice of
70 cm, ARRL would not even have to say anything.
That is why the ARRL doesn't say anything about
quiet zones, wind shear indicators, carrier radar
systems that leave some 70 cm repeaters in
Norfolk useless when as carrier is at NORVANAVSTA,
etc, etc.

NTIA would just tell the FCC NO. If you think
NTIA doesn't have sway with the FCC, just look at
the BPL issue, even ole Major Powell (BTW the only
son of a 4 star I know of who never got flag rank)
quaked in his boots and said why certainly
we'll exclude your frequencies.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W9WHE-II on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You miss the point.
arrl has no more abillity to "protect" ham radio from FCC then it can control the wheather. arrl is, by and large, impotent.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
well, pardon me, I read your point as it would
be up to the ARRL to defend the 70 cm band.

Maybe my reading skills aren't what they used to be.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by DA2KI on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The Amateur Radio Service is the only radio service that is not required to use FCC Type Certified (formerly "Type Accepted") radio equipment. That means you can build your own radio from scratch if you like - as long as it meets the technical specifications for the Amateur Radio Service.

That being said, the catch is that the FCC requires all COMMERCIALLY produced radios to be Type Certified, even if they are designed specifically for the Amateur Radio Service. That's why you see the fine print on some of the magazine ads for new ham radios coming out, "This device has not been approved by the FCC. It may not be sold or leased, or offered for sale or lease, until approval of the FCC has been obtained." They can advertise it and drum up public interest prior to a big event such as Dayton, but they still have to wait for FCC Type Certification prior to actually selling them.

This loop hole allows hams to build their own radio equipment if they so desire. But the commercial manufacturers must abide by the FCC requirement to obtain Type Certification for their products.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KE6I on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
[quote]From a personal stand point, our VHF (and to a lessor degree our UHF bands) have become a vast wasteland in most major metropolitan areas. All one has to do is listen to just about any repeater. The amateur enforcement letters coming out of the FCC also prove the point. All we need at this juncture is a bunch of scofflaws cluttering up the HF bands as well (we have enough of them already). [/quote]

Repeaters around here (SF Bay Area) seem mostly okay from what I've listened to. There were some nasty machines, like about a decade ago, but lately it doesn't sound that bad to me. My issue is more that it's often just kind of quiet on the radio. There are a lot of repeaters out there, but a lot of them are dead.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KE7HLR on July 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
> That being said, the catch is that the FCC requires
> all COMMERCIALLY produced radios to be Type
> Certified, even if they are designed specifically
> for the Amateur Radio Service. That's why you see
> the fine print on some of the magazine ads for new
> ham radios coming out, "This device has not been
> approved by the FCC.

Really?

All the manuals I have state only that "this device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules" and may not cause harmful interference and must accept any interference received, and that the "receiver in this equipment is incapable of tuning, or readily being altered, by the User to operate within the frequency bands allocated to the Domestic public Cellular Telecommunications Service in Part 22."

It says *nothing* about being "Certified" or "Type Accepted" for operation on the frequencies it transmits on...

73,

Dan KE7HLR
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KD5PSH on July 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I have been a ham for only about four years. But, it has become clear to me that the ARRL does not truthfully represent HAMs. They (ARRL) are far more interested in their little publishing empire and advertising dollars. The ARRL not only does not represent us honestly, it distorts any figures and opinions it likes to suit the needs of its tight little center group.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WF7A on July 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dan, do "all the manuals" you're referring to come from a single manufacturer or more than one? If it's the former, then it could be their manual writer's misinterpretation of the FCC's interference clause (especially if the manual was written by a non-English fluent person); it wouldn't be the first time a technical writer messed up. *blush*

Ciao,
Rich
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W1RU on July 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hasn't this become interesting. Parts 97 & 15 and equipment certification were at one time well covered in Novice classes, but times have changed and that's probably not really necessary today. The manufacturers understand what's required of them and they take care of it well.

"transmitters intended for operation on frequencies allocated to any of the FCC authorized radio services listed above, except the ARS, must be type accepted by the Commission for the particular radio service(s) in which they are intended to operate prior to their importation, marketing or use. The Commission considers that the transceivers discussed above are intended to be operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is required, because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating frequency range. Transmitters designed and intended for use only in the ARS must comply with the applicable technical standards contained in part 97 of the Commission's Rules but are not required to be type accepted."

- FCC public notice 62882. If you have part 97 (and all amateurs should) you can read it to see what the "applicable technical standards" are. It's also available online.

2.803 Marketing of radio frequency devices prior to equipment authorization is in Title 47, which I found at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=41a8308932ed736858138f540f6262ba&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.3&idno=47#47:1.0.1.1.3.8.213.2 contains:

"(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (f) of this section, a radio frequency device may be advertised or displayed, e.g., at a trade show or exhibition, prior to equipment authorization or, for devices not subject to the equipment authorization requirements, prior to a determination of compliance with the applicable technical requirements provided that the advertising contains, and the display is accompanied by a conspicuous notice worded as follows:

This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained."

The ad copy mentioned is for products still under development and is a whole separate thing, which is because what manufacturer could certify that a receiver was intended as an ARS device and can't receive cell phone transmissions etc. until its design and manufacture process is complete?

A lot of words, but the bottom line is "Transmitters designed and intended for use only in the ARS must comply with the applicable technical standards contained in part 97 of the Commission's Rules but are not required to be type accepted." The "certification" is that the manufacturer or an outside agency certifies that the equipment is designed and intended for use in the ARS, not that it passed any test, or met any standards outside of part 97 (and sometimes 15) and not that the FCC certified any of that.
 
Kenwood Sky Command  
by KF4HR on July 16, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks to all for your comments and updates. It's good to see that the ARRL is finally coming around on this issue. Perhaps it was because of the pressure applied by many amateur's submitting written support for the technology.

Based on how many comments this thread generated, (albeit the science or politics behind the topic), it's defintitely a popular subject!

I hope to see the rules changed to where the SC mode is eventually permitted. That will surely lead to other manufacturers picking up the ball and making improvements to remote control technology for our future amateur gear.

Sometimes it makes good sense to challenge the rules.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W8JI on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
There is no FCC certification required for amateur radios, either commercial or not.

If the radio has a microprocessor, it requires certification under part 15 but ANY device with a microprocessor requires that.

If the radio receives certain frequencies, like CB, it requires compliance testing for receiver radiation. Amateur bands do not.

The part 15 sticker on an amateur radio means ONLY that it passes EMI testing as an incidental radiator, nothing else.

As for Sky Command,it is good to see that Kenwood now understands the law and is doing things the right way, rather than asking for a special exception to following rules.

73 Tom
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ok, Tom, that is about what I said way back when.

I knew that the FCC was gonna drop the procedure
formerly known as type acceptance for certain
"external RF amplifiers", but did not know
that they had already done so.

I guess they limit the Part 15 ceritification
now to equipment with microprocessors because
no one builds equipment without them? Used
to be, of course, all receivers were checked
for compliance with Part 15 to make sure IF
oscillators, etc were not to strong.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W8JI on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm speaking ONLY of transceivers or transmitters, not external power amplifiers.

Since I've been doing this 30 years or so, there has NEVER been a requirement to verify HF transceivers meet any type of FCC emissions spec.

The exception to this is any device that contains a digital computing device or that covers certain frequencies, CB being one that comes to mind. In that case a receiver that covers CB has to pass radiation tests.

I don't know where the idea comes from that HF radios are tested for legal compliance to emissions rules, but they are not. An HF amateur radio manufacturer doesn't have to do anything if it is not something that covers or can easily cover CB. The exception is super regen receivers and equipment with digital computing devices inside, like a micoprocessor.

The CW keyer on your desk can actually have to go through more emissions testing than a HF transceiver.

If the FCC enforced transmitters meeting all parts of 97, virtually every radio would need recalled.

73 Tom
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Tom, it probably comes from all the Part
15 stickers on receivers. For example,
I have in my hand a 1972 model GE analog
AM-FM transistor radio, from back when they
really had transistors and discrete
parts, that says:

This device with Part 15 of the FCC rules.
Operation is subject to the two following
conditions: (1) This device may not cause
harmful interference and (2) this device must
accept any interference received including
interference that may cause undesired operation.

Now this is a certification of the manufacturer,
I believe, and a like statement has been on
any commercially made receiver, including
TVs, not made for
the government that I've owned over the past
almost 50 years. I was told when I was a
baby ham that this was to make sure any
local osc, IF osc, etc did not radiate
in excess of the Part 15 limits. This knowledge is from the 1960 time frame, so in fact and in
deed, the rules may have changed to only
affect receivers that cover 11 meters and
have microprocessors. I'll be honest, I have
had no need to keep up with it.

Anyhow, that is probably why hams think that the
receiver portion of a transceiver has to be Part
15 certified. I certianl do (did).

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I guess I shoulda added that the
guvment certification for emmissions
from equipment is/was the TEMPEST
standard, that prohibits the receiver
from radiating anything that would
compromise the traffic being received.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by N0GV on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Actually you can remotely operate the ICOM IC-2800H IF you have the DTMF decoder board installed and use the 440MHz side for your control link.... I am uncertain if you can remotely control the Kenwoods in this manner or not....

Grover Larkins
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on July 17, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<Around here, there is a lot of open land, but NO water--ideal for an antenna farm, but not suitable for a home. >

<AE7G: as far as serious remoting goes, you can do SO much more with a fast internet connection,>

Around here, its hard to get a fast internet connection in populated areas.

Areas not suitable for habitation don't have fast internet connections; sometimes, no phone lines; sometimes no power lines.

The only way I can get faster than 22K is to pay for 300K DSL, which never runs faster than 160K. I live within 4 miles of a local QWorst repair/switching building.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KB3MMX on July 19, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Let me see if this is correct:

Voice from HF is transmitted on 2 meters..?
Control is sent on 70CM ?


How much is this really different than a HF/VHF cross band repeater?
I guess I don't understand the fuss other than people that don't want the technology to evist/develop or be used on amateur radio.
Stagnation of the ARS? Lack of "thinking outside the box" will surely gaurantee that Amateur radio dies.

I thought this technology was pretty neat personally.
I also wish I had a "SKY COMMAND" SETUP!!


Way to go Kenwood!


Also, those that are up to speed with current regs should post the exact regulation from the FCC that states the limitations of remote control.
All I have found is that is must be on a different band than what is being transmitted.


Please post the exact FCC text, Thanks..


 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 19, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm NOT going to type out what you
can read for your ownself. Turn your
eyes to 97.201.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by WA4MJF on July 19, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, and if you're operating on
1.25 Meters and below it can be
on the same band. Only on 2
Meters and above must it be on
1.25 Meters and below.

Lest you get confused, there is an
inverse relationship between
frequency and wavelength.

73 de Ronnie
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KF5OK on July 19, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
2m is in no danger of over crowding. I now work in Portsmouth VA and over the last year I have driven back and forth to my home in NY at least 8 times. I stay on the simplex freqs. And scan the band a lot. There is not that much activity on 2m where having some control function aloud would disrupt anyone. I have never heard a Hi-powered EME station on my earthly domain listening range on 144.1.

I really don’t know why people like to point fingers so much. This skyCommand is some very interesting technology and we should be able to use it. Laws and rules change every day so why not change them. I am not a one company loyalist. I buy what works for ME. I have a VX-7r because I ski in the winter. I have a TH-F6 because it is small and light. I typically like Icom for HF of witch I have an 706mkIIg because it represents the best value for mobile HF. I recently purchased a TS-2000 because of its undeniable versatility and documented solid performance. I didn’t by it because of SC. But after reading the manual I thought I would realy like to use it so I just got a TH-D7. No I haven’t tried it yet but I want to.

I kind of like the statement of the gentleman that said if you want to operate HF sit in front of your rig and do it. However I also thought what if the dog needs to go and you have a sched. What if you just discovered your prescription ran out and the drug store is about to close. I believe that SC is a good thing for our hobby much like the Code speed reduction (maybe not quite the same.) Some of you will laugh but I did pass my 20wpm and have only made one CW contact many years ago. What is a CW “F”?

The ARRL may be an advertising cash cow, Kenwood may have over looked some FCC rules but I can still MARS/CAP my rig and still be perfectly legal to use it on the amateur bands. So get over it and find a way to put it to use.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by KF5OK on July 19, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
2m is in no danger of over crowding. I now work in Portsmouth VA and over the last year I have driven back and forth to my home in NY at least 8 times. I stay on the simplex freqs. And scan the band a lot. There is not that much activity on 2m where having some control function aloud would disrupt anyone. I have never heard a Hi-powered EME station on my earthly domain listening range on 144.1.

I really don’t know why people like to point fingers so much. This skyCommand is some very interesting technology and we should be able to use it. Laws and rules change every day so why not change them. I am not a one company loyalist. I buy what works for ME. I have a VX-7r because I ski in the winter. I have a TH-F6 because it is small and light. I typically like Icom for HF of witch I have an 706mkIIg because it represents the best value for mobile HF. I recently purchased a TS-2000 because of its undeniable versatility and documented solid performance. I didn’t by it because of SC. But after reading the manual I thought I would realy like to use it so I just got a TH-D7. No I haven’t tried it yet but I want to.

I kind of like the statement of the gentleman that said if you want to operate HF sit in front of your rig and do it. However I also thought what if the dog needs to go and you have a sched. What if you just discovered your prescription ran out and the drug store is about to close. I believe that SC is a good thing for our hobby much like the Code speed reduction (maybe not quite the same.) Some of you will laugh but I did pass my 20wpm and have only made one CW contact many years ago. What is a CW “F”?

The ARRL may be an advertising cash cow, Kenwood may have over looked some FCC rules but I can still MARS/CAP my rig and still be perfectly legal to use it on the amateur bands. So get over it and find a way to put it to use.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by K6RQR on July 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hello all -
This has been a very active forum topic and I just wanted to give my opinion in favor of Sky Command. I am in a situation where it would be a blessing. I live on a boat in a marina and on the HF frequencies there is persistent 10 over S9 RFI that defies any noise blanker or DSP I have tried. SC would permit me to have a Kenwood rig such as the TS-480HX or TS-2000 in my car which is parked away from the RFI and be able to operate it. Based on my operating experience on 2 meters I agree with those who believe that this will not lead to overcrowding or interfering signals on the 2 meter band. I would also suggest that the FCC make Sky Command legal for a fixed period of time in order to evaluate its implementation. If there is excessive interference and complaints then it could be dropped. I think that if it is permitted then it will be just another useful system that we can enjoy. In my case, it would be most welcome.
 
RE: Kenwood Sky Command  
by W6ZF on July 26, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Until Sky Command is legalized I plan to operate my TS-2000 as a cross-band repeater from VHF or UHF to HF. I can walk around my property with a handheld working HF...of course on a preselected set of frequencies since there won't be any control away from the 2K.
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
Radio User Rewarded for Public Service:
Amateur Radio Roundtable Live Show Tuesday:
The ACMA's Approach to Spectrum Reform:
Grimes County Volunteer Firefighters Train at Disaster Simulation:
Delaware Amateur Radio Operators to Hold EXPO and Convention in Georgetown: