Cool Drink Operating
Jim Todd (KC7OKZ)
on
February 15, 2004
View comments about this article!
My wife and I have retired and now live on our sailboat. We have for over eight years now. I have not tried the Internet connected radios yet but there is one new product that amazes me. It enables us to operate HF from the islands we visit without actually having to take the heavy and saltwater sensitive HF equipment to shore.
We are currently in the Marshall Islands on Kwajalein Atoll. We are generally anchored out in the lagoon and dinghy to shore. We love to work IOTA (V73KZ and V73SX) but hate lugging our HF equipment in our dinghy and through the surf to meet with IOTA's requirements that contacts be made from the land, not from a boat at anchor.
Kenwood has solved that dilemma with their TS-2000 transceiver with "Skycommand". Now we can just grab our HT's, dinghy across the lagoon to some shore side watering hole and make our IOTA contacts from the comfort of a lanai complete with cold drinks and "hamburgers in Paradise". Every part of the contact is via ham radio as our controlling transceiver and antenna are physically on the island. This is also a great way to keep our daily skeds with "Pacific Seafarer's Net" and the "Maritime Net" when they occur during our "exploring ashore" times.
The HT's are a convenient way for the wife and I to keep in touch with each other as we explore and sometimes the island will have a VHF repeater with a phone patch (as here at Kwajalein and also on Majuro) which really puts us in the local communications mainstream.
Editor's Note: Too bad Kenwood's "Skycommand" system is no longer available (or legal to use) in the United States... Perhaps if it could be redesigned to use 220 MHz or higher as a control frequency it would be brought back into production, as it seems like a great idea!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KK4KEN on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SkyCommand isn't available in the US versions of the TS-2000? Then why are the TH-D7A(G)s still setup with the menu options for SkyCommand? I just bought my D7A about a month or so ago and the menu for SkyCommand is there. Exactly why is it illegal? I can understand if it's only because it transmit control codes outside of 70cm, but if that's the only reason, can't Kenwood come up with a special frequency switch to allow the SkyCommand feature to be used on 70cm? If that's not the reason, then what is it?
Thanks,
KK4KEN
kk4ken@hotmail.com
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe that SkyCommand IS still legal in the USA, as I have heard command and control now is done on 70CM with the Th7DA HT. 73.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by SSBDX on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This kind of operation is bogus. Would the author of this thread think a satellite link from the island to a 1.5kw ssb station on a land station with yagis at 100ft. be the same as having that hf station on the island. Of course not. You are operating remote control from an island to a boat station whether you are on the boat or not while operating.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think amateur radio is going too far in all the "Remoting" of just about everyting that was "Normal" ham radio. From ILink and EchoLink to Yaesu "Wires" system and now the Kenwood "Skycommand".
I think this stuff should stay at the VHF and UHF levels where long distance is a novelty and not an everday occurance.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W5GNB on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So using this method, how well does it work on CW?? HIHI......
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My wife and I have retired and now live on our sailboat etc. Have room for two more ? The bags are packed . That sounds nice hope you guy's enjoy !
I have to agree with the above post .
We now have EchoIrlp.
In summary, it does not allow any form of cross linking between IRLP and EchoLink. What it does offer however, is the ability for IRLP nodes to also have full connectivity to the EchoLink network.
Is this two much ? I don't know but there having issue's on both sides over this one :)
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W4PC on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.eham.net/articles/1102
This explains why it's illegal still.
Part 97 remote rules.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What gets me is so many band cops claim this is illegal and that is illegal etc. Several dual band radios have crossband repeater operation, and Kenwood Skycommand links HF to a Dual Band HT etc. These radios have been type accepted by the FCC with those features in them, so they cannot be 100% illegal. There has to be certain situations in which they can be used. Also many of the Part 97 rules can be interpreted differently, as some are rather vague by today's legalspeak standards.
I for one have just bought a TS570 with the full intention of eventually using the Skycommand feature.
If I get a notice from Riley that it is Illegal to use it, Then I will have several questions for him, including why are these radios type accepted.
A lot of self appointed band cops seem to have the need to try and control something because in reality, they cannot control things themselves an hate being powerless. The same thing goes on in the code/no code debate. It's sad really. 73
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WD0M on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD and others seems to have confused type acceptance with operating practices that are controlled by Part 97 remote. As a parallel, owning a car capable of speeds in excess of 150 mph is legal - operating it at that speed in a 15 mph school zone is not. Not much difference. Too bad Kenwood didn't read the rules ahead of time and produce a radio for the US market with this feature that was in compliance - it would be a great asset for a number of hams and we wouldn't have the controversy surrounding it.
Enjoy your fun on the islands!
73,
Joe
WD0M
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W6JE on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, we can't have fun with any technology that's more recent than, say, 1937. And have you noticed the recent fall off in spark gap activity? Darn CW appliance operators!
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only ham gear that is subject to the
procedure formerly known as type acceptance
are "certain external RF amplifiers". The
rest get Part 15 certification of the receivers,
as does every receiver used in the US of A.
The FCC has spoken on the use of the Skycommand
on two meters and said NO. This was in a response
to a petition by the maker to allow auxiliary
use on Two Meters in addition to 1 1/4 Meters
and down legal.
It is not band cops
aka OOs that one poster refered too, that are
amking the rules.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KZ1X on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Umm, guys ...
Who said these folks are in US territory?
The Kenwood SkyCommand is illegal, period, in FCC jurisdiction. That isn't subject to negotiation.
In America, we have rules for a reason and if you think you can break them because "you're not harming anything" -- then you are no better than a litterbug, hoping you won't get noticed as you foul someone else's nest.
But these folks may be outside FCC jurisdiction. Who knows what kind of lax regulations there are where they are ... on housing, sanitation, labor, and, oh yes, on radio communications.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WB0UGO on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KT0DD--------- You are SO RIGHT !!!!!! My feelings exactly on the " Band Cops " and also add the Rubber Duckie Commandos. 73's Steve
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N9AVY on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that this sort of operation is questionable since the actual HF signal heard is offshore and NOT on the island. Wonder how DXCC would treat this ? If we put enough of these rigs with satellite links in all the rare DX locations, DXpeditions could be mounted from the comfort of one's easy chair.
Jerry, N9AVY
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, without getting into the cat fight about why it is illegal to use SkyCommand as it is currently configured, I ask this of our author...
"We are currently in the Marshall Islands on Kwajalein Atoll. We are generally anchored out in the lagoon and dinghy to shore. We love to work IOTA (V73KZ and V73SX) but hate lugging our HF equipment in our dinghy and through the surf to meet with IOTA's requirements that contacts be made from the land, not from a boat at anchor"
HUH? The rules say contact from LAND, ok, then are you logging these contacts as VHF (2 meter) contacts or HF contacts?
YOU on on VHF while on LAND, your boat is at anchor in the lagoon, right? and IOTA rules say "contact from land"? your HF gear is not on land, you are transmitting to a repeater/auxillary station.
Is this "in the spirit" of the rules?
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From KT0DD:
"What gets me is so many band cops claim this is illegal and that is illegal etc."
I just love it when people start complaining about so called "Band Cops". These complainers are usually the ones that wish they could operate illegally or feel they have a right to operate outside the FCC rules, but gosh darnit those silly little FCC rules and the band cops have a habit of getting in their way.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N9AVY on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's just toss out all the rules and we'll all do whatever we feel like. Oops ! Wait a second... that's 11 meters isn't it ???
Jerry N9AVY
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I still haven't seen a response stating why it is illegal. If it has to do with a control operator not being present at the control point, then all sattelite communications except those on the ISS would be illegal. And as far as the rude remarks from K2WH, once again I remind you I'm not the least bit interested in your perspective!
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N7BUI on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you for the very interesting article. It sounds like you have a very exciting retirement AND have Ham Radio to boot!
George
N7BUI
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By KT0DD on February 15, 2004:
"I still haven't seen a response stating why it is illegal. If it has to do with a control operator not being present at the control point, then all sattelite communications except those on the ISS would be illegal."
Umm, the FCC says so maybe. Hey, maybe thats a clue. What do you think? Then again, those nasty old rules get in the way.
But, if you check further up in this post, someone posted the FCC decision on this. I read it and it is plain English and should help you with your obvious confusion with reality.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe satellites are exempt due to the height above earth. Read the FCC decision.
K2WH
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KC7OKZ:
First of all, I don't think you have anything to worry about, if the RF governing body in the islands
your on has no specific clause against it. I just talked to a friend of mine in the Commercial business, and he didn't see anything wrong as long as you have a way of shutting it down remotely, and / or had it on a time out timer in case of a malfunction. It is no different than a repeater operation.
Secondly, as long as no command and control functions are executed using 2 meters and take place on 220 mhz and above, it is perfectly legal. The current Skycommand system available in the USA uses 70 CM for command and control, and only the recieve audio is transmitted back to the HT on 2 meters. So no where do I read that any rules are being broken. Pay no attention to the crochety old curmudgeons on here. They just want to see Amateur Radio remain stagnant like it wasd 40 years ago.73.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K2WH:
I love how you show off your ignorance. All you can do is say its illegal, but you cant quote any specifics as to why. Just like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe YOU need to brush up on the rules! Also some profesional help would do you a world of good!
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W5AU on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Following is the complete ruling by the FCC on the Kenwood Sky Command System. It is illegal.
.
.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001662.txt
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WD0M on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD et al....check this FCC web site reference for their determination that SkyCommand is NOT legal in the USA (it's a Word document that will download to your hard drive):
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001662.doc
73,
Joe
WD0M
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well Then I know of several stations that are using it so I guess they're Illegal. I'm going to call the FCC about this because I know that originally it was illegal because some command and control functions were done on 2 meters. However, since then Kenwood changed that to comply with the remote rules. That is an old article. Anyway I'm not out to seek approval from anyone. I'll do as I care. 73.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K0RGR on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As I recall, the problem with SkyCommand was that it uses an 'auxiliary link' on 2 meters, as an 'auxiliary link' is defined in the FCC rules. Those links have to be above 222.1 Mhz.. As someone previously stated, Kenwood petitioned FCC to amend the rules to allow this operation on 2 meters, as well, and FCC turned it down. There was a lot of opposition to this idea, because of fears that it would lead to a lot of interference on 2 meters.
That might not seem to be a reasonable concern until you consider that two meters is our most populated VHF band, and that many parts of the country experience fairly frequent band openings. For example, here in SE Minnesota, when we've had extended cold weather, and then have a warm front come through, the result is an air-temperature inversion. On those days, we can usually work distant stations from South Dakota to Indiana. Similar inversions also happen in the summer. So, an auxiliary link on 2 meters would be more likely to create interference with distant stations than if it were on a less populated band like 222 or 440.
Most awards and contests forbid the 'retransmission of signals' and I think that would cover this, too. But for general hamming - I think it's a great idea.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD, if you're not out to seek
approval from ANYONE, why are you gonna
call the FCC. Some one might answer the
phone, although more than likely a computer.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N4GI on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<It enables us to operate HF from the islands we visit without actually having to take the heavy and saltwater sensitive HF equipment to shore.>>>>
Yeah, lugging that nasty HF gear around the world is a real SOB.
Newsflash: you're not operating HF from the islands you're visiting. you're operating HF from you're yacht parked off-shore.
Two words: Satellite Phone
Blake N4GI
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'v read the article, and I agree with Kenwood, and feel the FCC is Being ANAL about it. Of course who ever said the FCC was smart. Look what they're doing with BPL. Sometimes there's a place for Civil Disobediance. I'm through with this Topic.
|
| |
|
Why not make anchored operation award-legal?
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why not just make anchored maritime mobile stations legal for IOTA and DXCC credit. After all, if you are anchored you are connected to land (hopefully firmly - as many sailors will attest). And you are always within a few hundred years of shore and aften within a totally enclosed lagoon of some sort.
|
| |
|
RE: Why not make anchored operation award-legal?
|
|
|
by N2WEC on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K2WH needs a copy of the FCC Rule Book. We are all supposed to have one........"don't ya think???" "That might be a clue???"
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating re: Z Antenna Systems
|
|
|
by K2YQ on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A bit off topic, but can't resist the coincidence:
Do you happen to know Bob Zimmerman? He is said to be located on Kwajalein Atoll.
I am trying to find a review of his Z Antenna System antennas. Or to speak to someone who has used them.
His antenna website is http://home.cogeco.ca/~zantenna
Here is the detail from the QRZ.com website about Bob:
Bob Zimmerman started working on Kwajalein Atoll during May 2001. He operates SSB, CW, and PSK31 from his apartment and enjoys all phases of ham radio - even more so now that he lives in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Skeds may be arranged by writing zimmerr@kmr.ll.mit.edu
Kwajalein Atoll is 12 hours ahead of UTC.
He sometimes operates from V73AX, the Kwajalein Amateur Radio Club.
He has requested callsign V73Z from the Marshall Island government, but as of 6-14-2001 it has NOT been assigned.
73 de k2yq
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K9PO on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KT0DD on February 15, 2004
"I still haven't seen a response stating why it is illegal. If it has to do with a control operator not being present at the control point, then all sattelite communications except those on the ISS would be illegal. "
Satellites are part of the Amateur Satellite servie and have different rules applied to them.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N8GNI on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello Jim
Wow. It's great that you can do all that island hopping. It sounds like you're having a great time too!
The Skycommand system sounds like a great tool for ham radio, sitting out by the lake and drinking a cold lemonaid while chatting on a HF net!
But according to the IOTA rules
http://www.rsgbiota.org/pdfs/rules02.pdf
#'s c.3.7 and c.3.8
The contacts made via Skycommand can not be used!
):
Here's hoping that you and the "crew" stay safe and continue to have fun!
73
N8GNI
|
| |
|
RE: Why not make anchored operation award-legal?
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From N2WEC:
"K2WH needs a copy of the FCC Rule Book. We are all supposed to have one........"don't ya think???" "That might be a clue???"
Why do you think I need a rule book?? I am not quoting any FCC rules here at all and I am not the one arguing about the legality of the Kenwood system. KT0DD is. He's the one that needs the rule book. In addition, he reads the FCC ruling on the Kenwood system and he refuses to accept it. What do you want from me? I'm just commenting here.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Why not make anchored operation award-legal?
|
|
|
by K6BBC on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe any configuration that would allow the operating station to in vibe alcohol should not be considered a “nonmetal operating mode.” I have encountered many inebriated hams over the years I can tell you it is not pleasant. Many hams are mean drunks and they take it out over the air waves – especially on Sundays after 2:30 PM. It is to the point that the situation dictates I not operated on any voice mode between 2:30 and 11:30 PM on Sundays as I do not wish to subject myself to the verbal abuse. So, as I say, alchole should not be encouraged, and especially not on Sundays between 2:30 and 11:30PM.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KR4WM on February 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD said:
>I'v read the article, and I agree with Kenwood, and
>feel the FCC is Being ANAL about it. Of course who
>ever said the FCC was smart. Look what they're doing
>with BPL. Sometimes there's a place for Civil Disobediance.
>I'm through with this Topic.
Got our shiny new Extra low-code license two months ago
and already you want to tell the captain how to run his
ship??? I got some news for you bud- I hope you have
extra deep pockets, and enjoy paying the fines that are
sure to accompany your style of operating! You're going
to make someone angry, they'll rat you out, and then
you'll be without license AND $. The FCC won't play
your silly games, but I can assure you, you'll play
thiers or they'll have your license AND your equipment!
Best to simmer down and act right, and abide by the
rules like everyone else.
As far as remoting from the island, I don't think
that should count for credit if the rules state that
you have to have your operation on land. You're using
a repeater, so your contacts are making contact with
your repeater, not with you.
-KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kwajalein, however, is a part of the Marshall Islands, an independent country, and is not under FCC jurisdiction.
So I assume Sky Command is legal there...
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So is a ship anchored in port considered to be part of the land, or is it a ship?
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating re: Z Antenna Systems
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K2YQ -- look here:
http://home.cogeco.ca/~zantenna/
Looks like he is in Canada now
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I may be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, using the skycommand feature is NOT illegal in the US as long as the remote link frequency is ABOVE 2 meters. From what I have read, using 2 meters as the link is illegal, (in either direction from the HF base) but using 70 cm or 220 or anything above 2 mtrs. is in fact legal operation. Man, retired in paradise....lucky folks! Good DX Jim and dont let the "rubber duckie commandos" ruin your day.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating I ASKED KENWOOD! HERES TH
|
|
|
by N2YTF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In June 2003 I asked kenwood if Skycommand was legal because I was thinking about buying a th-d7ag (I later did buy one & enjoy using it on APRS).
In brief Kenwood said that because the FCC did not grant them a wavier, "skycommand is not a reality". Kenwood said they would try to get a waiver again in 2003, but to the best of my knoweledge, none was granted..Im not even sure kenwood applied.
I specifically asked them if Kenwood ever made a legal skycommand system.
Here is the complete text of the exchange with Kenwood:
From - Wed Jun 11 16:00:36 2003
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <3EE78A60.BF3B2BB9@asan.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:00:32 -0400
From: Thomas <thomas@asan.com>
Reply-To:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KCC-Amateur <kcc-amateur@kenwoodusa.com>
Subject: Re: Feedback from Kenwood.net
References: <9A26DC0D55CAD611ABF80060CF2043D6013CC8F6@kenmail.kenwoodusa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thanks for the prompt and informative response! I honestly wasnt
expecting to hear from you guys for at least a day or two.
73, Tom N2YTF
KCC-Amateur wrote:
>
> 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 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's next step was to apply for a rule change from the F.C.C.The SKY
> COMMAND rule change has been with the FCC for more than a year. We are
> expecting the rule to be changed this year 2003, and for sky command to be
> reality very soon..........73
>
> If you need further assistance, please e-mail us again.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kenwood Amateur Radio Customer Support
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Tuminoo [mailto:null@kenwood.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:53 PM
> To: KCC-Amateur
> Subject: Feedback from Kenwood.net
>
> Thomas Tuminoo would like the following help:
>
> I know that the FCC found that the original SKYCOMMAND system was illegal
> and denied to issue Kenwood a waiver. I am interested in buying the th-d7ag
> but I want to know if Kenwood ever made a legal SKYCOMMAND system. If
> Kenwood has made a legal SKYCOMMAND system now, what changes were made that
> made it legal?
> Thanks and 73,
> Tom, N2YTF
>
> Contact Information:
> ------------------------------------
> Email address: thomas@asan.com
> Call Sign:
> Phone: (212)
Aparently Kenwood agrees that skycommand II (the latest incarnation) is illegeal currently. Even though it appears as a menu option on the only currently produced I know to have it, the th-d7ag, the menu option cannot be enabled. You cant use skycommand II on the th-d7ag even if you wanted to.
I bought a th-d7ag anyway and enjoy its APRS capability.
73 to all & hope weve put this one to bed,
Tom, N2YTF
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating I ASKED KENWOOD! HERES TH
|
|
|
by N2YTF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One more thing...I just emailed Kenwood to ask if anything did change in 2003.
Tom, N2YTF
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by BANACEK on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD whined:
"I'm through with this Topic."
YAAAAAAAY
73 to all,
Lance
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If it anchored in the territorial waters of
a country, it must follow the laws of that country.
If not, the laws of the country that it is flagged.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4ZHN,
Any wavelength BELOW 2 Meters is legal.
There is an inverse relationship between
frequency and wavelength.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Its not legal in the US on 2m
|
|
|
by KJ7XJ on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi -
Thank you to the folks who put the link
www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001662.txt
on this thread. I was wondering what all the negitivity was about so I read the above. Its true that Kenwood made a product that is controlled on a band that the FCC believes that might cause interference, therefore they have made it illegal in their juristriction. I am sure if the demand for this product is great enough, Kenwood would change ALL control frequncies to follow FCC guidelines so they could have a product usefull in this market. I have always used Kenwood products and believe in them. (realizing not all amateurs feel this way about this company)
I would ask that people look into the joy of the origional post. Jim is a satisfied customer of Kenwwod products. He is sharing his joy of ham radio in a legal environment. We are complaining becasue we are under different rules. If you want to use SkyCommand bad enough in the states (or FCC teritories), Then I would campain Kenwood, not Jim. Have fun Jim! Wish I could be there too!!
73 de KJ7XJ ..
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KD7ZNL on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't recall/remember seeing anything in the Author's article about him going for any awards... a.k.a. contesting... which would be when DXCC rules would matter... only that he likes to work IOTA (which, by the way, is Islands On The Air).
As long as they're ID'ing themselves the way they're supposed to in order to not IMPLY that they're in their boat, but rather in the island... what's the big deal??
And I'm sorry for those of you who bought the Kenwood rig and THEN found out that the SkyCommander feature is not legal to be used.
And to the Ham who claims that he/she is going to call the FCC on those "illegal stations"... by all means go ahead: that's what the FCC is there for. But be advised: you might have to prove specific dates/times of operation... as well as the reason(s) why you waited until NOW to say something (the FCC can be pesky in that way)... plus you might lose some friends in the process.
73.
|
| |
|
And for something completely off-topic...
|
|
|
by KD7ZNL on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
... when you're all done bickering amongst yourselves, take a look at KC7OKZ's web page at http://www.qsl.net/kc7okz/ (where else?) which has a couple of pictures of the "Morning Wings" (a.k.a. "the boat").
|
| |
|
RE: And for something completely off-topic...
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KT0DD Writes:
Sorry I got upset , but when you spend $1000 on a new rig becuse someone said the feature is legal now, only to find it isn't, it would piss anyone off. It's a stupid ruling IMHO.
=====================
I guess that makes me head & shoulders smarter than you. I bought a TS2000X and I knew that "Sky Command" was not legal because "I BOTHERED TO FIND OUT WHAT I WAS BUYING". No pity for you from this quarter.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W4TYU on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Only one individual deducted their location and license status. They are in the Marshall Islands and duly licensed by that government. They are using their equipment in accordance with the regulations of the Marshall Islands Government. The United States of America Federal Communications Agency has no juridiction over their operation and they are completly legal. For the information of some, it is completly legal to hold licenses issued by more than one government.
All of argument was completly out of place and personally I apologize to the writer of the article for the verbage and accusations of a few of the amateur radio operators in the USA
For the guy that said he passed 13 WPM, keep at it until you become a competent CW operator.
Ole man JEAN W4TYU since 1951
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WV8WC on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re: W4TYU
Reading through this I felt I had to toss my two cents on your comment about CW competency. Before I jump in let me offer the definition of competent that I am basing this on, from Merriam-Webster:
1. having requisite or adequate ability or qualities
2. legally qualified or adequate
For 1, I would say that if you can send and receive all the necessary characters, which is necessary to pass the test, that's adequate ability in my book.
For 2, if you indeed passed the test, you're legally qualified according to the FCC.
Sorry if this sounds picky, but I took exception to being considered incompetent in CW simply because I only passed 13 WPM. I'm not /proficient/ at it, but I'm competent. There's a difference.
Shane
WV8WC
|
| |
|
New Operating Test can prevent this...
|
|
|
by NE1Z on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
READING, spelling & sentence structure will keep out the trash, not CW. This thread is clear proof since the most clueless are already tested & still have no knowledge or clue at all.
These people aren't even in the US or its' waters, so just who is affected in the US?
Stay out of their life & mind your own business unless they call you!
NE1Z/Bill
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KB0GU on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My short answer, for HF operations, keep a live operator at the transceiver who is actually aware of what the station is doing in real time live.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by N9AVY on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thought KT0DD said he was "...through with this Topic...".
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I am sure if the demand for this product is great
>enough, Kenwood would change ALL control frequncies to
>follow FCC guidelines so they could have a product
>usefull in this market. I have always used Kenwood
>products and believe in them. (realizing not all
>amateurs feel this way about this company)
My understanding is that Sky Command only uses 440 for control. And the 2M channel is used only to send audio back to the HT. So, seems like it'd be legal if you used a wireless intercom or a really loud speaker to send the audio back to the pool rather than 2M. Now, why is a cross band repeater with control on 440 and an output on 2M legal, while sky command isn't? I've never understood this.
Obviously at the ARRL's request, this has been interpreted as illegal, but still I always found the aux rules pretty confusing. This is not clear cut. Anyway, 2M is pretty quiet lately. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Because the x-band repeater, as you say, has control
on 440 MHz. The SkyCommand has control
on 144 MHz and is an auxilary station.
Control of auxilary stations and repeaters
is only allowed above 222 MHz.
Depending on the ID of the 440 MHz output,
the typical x-band repeater has legal problems.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by OBSERVER11 on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO KD7ZNL:
the author said... We are currently in the Marshall Islands on Kwajalein Atoll. We are generally anchored out in the lagoon and dinghy to shore. We love to work IOTA (V73KZ and V73SX) but hate lugging our HF equipment in our dinghy and through the surf to meet with IOTA's requirements that contacts be made from the land, not from a boat at anchor....
Maybe I am reading too much into what he said here, reading between the lines, but he said "we love to work IOTA"... and in the very same paragraph said that "...IOTA's requirements that contacts be made from the land, not from a boat at anchor...." OK, then, I read that as he is giving out contacts with meeting the requirements, his radio gear is still on a boat at anchor, but his feet may be dry.
If I were the IOTA administrator, I would disallow any contacts made with the author.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Because the x-band repeater, as you say, has control
>on 440 MHz. The SkyCommand has control
>on 144 MHz and is an auxilary station.
>Control of auxilary stations and repeaters
>is only allowed above 222 MHz.
My understanding is that Sky Command has control on 440. Only audio is on 2M.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, gee, hearing what is going on is part of
controlling the radio. Have you ever tried
controlling an auxilary station without
hearing the results of your control codes
or conversing with someone and not hear his/her
(not the pervert kind, ok, maybe in 6 land)side of conversation????
I almost did not answer this, as it seems so
obvious!
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
x banding
|
|
|
by KJ7XJ on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE6I -
The FCC's concerns (or how I read the docket) was that 2m can not be used in a cross band mode due to interference. Im sure there those who disagree.
KJ7XJ
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Well, gee, hearing what is going on is part of
>controlling the radio. Have you ever tried
>controlling an auxilary station without
>hearing the results of your control codes
>or conversing with someone and not hear his/her
>(not the pervert kind, ok, maybe in 6 land)side of
>conversation????
Okay, but then say you had a 2M repeater, and controlled it with an aux channel on 440. That should be illegal right? Because the only way you can hear what you're doing on the control side would be to listen on the 2M receiver. Maybe if some of these illegal repeaters were taken off the air, we could clear up some frequency space for Sky Command. :)
Practically, legal issues aside, we just dedicated a few channels to sky command and everyone with this kind of system took turns, it would probably work out okay.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on February 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Repeaters and auxiliary stations two different things.
Different rules.
Try reading Part 97, KE6I.
Over here we say apples and oranges, all y'all
probably say fruits and nuts :-)
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I still want to go on the boat:). Send me a few pics if you have a digital camera. kf4vgx@hotmail.com
You folks enjoy your hobby.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by NE0P on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I personally think that Sky Command is legal, but no, I am not using it yet. The TS2000 is still an awesome radio because of the ability to do crossband repeat. You can crossband repeat into 10 meter FM, where you can work worldwide DX while driving around town, or walking around the house, with an HT. I have even made some 10 meter FM contacts from the office at work using an HT. Now the FT8900R (another great radio) will do the same thing, but the real power of the TS2000 is that it will do crossband repeat for any band and mode. You can crossband repeat from UHF to 6 meter SSB. I have checked into our local 6 meter SSB net a couple of times using my yaesu VX5R. Can't wait until this summer when E skip hits. It will be great working 6 while bicycle mobile back and forth to work. Yes the SSB signal has to be loud enough to break the squelch, but it beats being QRT because I am away from the radio.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W3DCG on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I think, in my unconsidered opionion, people sometimes get a bit too huffy about this wireless remote thing.
I worked a guy who was using the Internet, operating a station in North Carolina. Great signal. Funny thing was, to make the FCC happy, he required a US license. So, as his daughter was in Atlanta, he used her address.
I am in Atlanta.
So when he told me, he was operating a Laptop in Rome, and his WA4 callsign turned up an Atlanta address in the FCC ULS, he must have been confused when I said how cool and yet ironic it was, that he was just up the road on I-75, yet his signal was originating in North Carolina. Anyway, it was a wonderful thing.
Turns out he was within 3 miles of the Vatican.
Whether it is remote via Internet or remote via VHF/UHF, it seems the same in concept:
REMOTE.
Either way, it is pushing the envelope of technology, and I cannot see why we should have a problem with such Advancements to the State of the Art.
In the case of Kenwood's Skycommand(tm), I should think this is even more so in keeping it radio- as the links are RF links.
I see no problem here, while I think high-speed internet remote has more potential as a means to operate a great station remotely. Wireless PC to high-speed internet may be a "purer" form of ham radio operation, but in any remote case, I don't see how any of it warrants negativity.
But this is my unconsidered, shoot from the hip opinion.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KD7ZNL on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OBSERVER11:
Double-check the article. KC7OKZ specifically specifies that he's not using the gear in his boat in any way (not even as a relay station)... but rather, that he's taking a portable transceiver/antenna set up to the island.
|
| |
|
Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K8YOY on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I too do not understand the FCC's ruling regarding Sky Command. Refering to the article on VOIP in the February 2003 QST issue, page 45, second bullet point from the bottom in the RH column, it states that a node is monitored on 2 meters and it is remotely controlled on 220 by the auxiliary station. The auxiliary station with sky command remotely controls the base station on 440. If this situation described in the article is legal, can someone explain why sky command is not? This really does not make sense that one is legal and the other is not! Thanks in advance for your insight!
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KR4WM on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just thought I'd let everyone know- don't bother to say anything about KT0DD. He'll send you a rude e-mail that is a lame attempt to defend his indefensible position, then put you in his kill-file so you can't reply. When I was little we used to call other children who acted in this manner a "mama's boy". Grow up, son!
-KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>I too do not understand the FCC's ruling regarding Sky
>Command. Refering to the article on VOIP in the February
>2003 QST issue, page 45, second bullet point from the
>bottom in the RH column, it states that a node is
>monitored on 2 meters and it is remotely controlled on
>220 by the auxiliary station. The auxiliary station with
>sky command remotely controls the base station on 440.
>If this situation described in the article is legal, can
>someone explain why sky command is not? This really
>does not make sense that one is legal and the other is
>not! Thanks in advance for your insight!
Exactly. Thanks to the ARRL pushing the FCC on Sky Command, now, this kind of station is obviously illegal too. Why would they promote an illegal mode in QST? Sigh. The 2M link is now an auxillary link and isn't allowed. What's at work here, is the 'old fart' instinct of wanting to make absolutely sure that no one else has any fun, even if it doesn't cause any trouble.
What Kenwood should do is apply for an exemption for Sky Command, provided that the 2M downlink took place on a frequency coordinated for that use, and the ARRL should go along with this. And then basically we set aside 1 or 2 channels on 2M for Sky Command, and practically, on the air, there won't be any problem at all.
|
| |
|
KENWOOD REPLIES, RULE CHANGE COMING IN 2004
|
|
|
by N2YTF on February 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi folks,
Earlier I posted my email exchanges with Kenwood in 2003 regarding SKYCOMMAND. In 2003 Kenwood said there would probably be a rule change in 2003 allowing skycommand to be legal.
I emailed Kenwood again to see if anything changed in 2003 and they replied that nothing changed in 2003 but they are "98% sure there will be a rule change in 2004" to make skycommand legal.73 to all de Tom,N2YTF Here is the text of the exchange:
Subject: RE: Feedback from Kenwood.net
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:50:35 -0800
From: "KCC-Amateur" <kcc-amateur@kenwoodusa.com> Add to Address Book
To: "Thomas Tumino" <forpossiblespam@yahoo.com>
Dear Kenwood Customer:
The RULE change has been at the FCC for almost 2 years, Kenwood is
still waiting for the rule change, and is almost 98% sure that a rule
change will occur in 2004.
If you need further assistance, please e-mail us again.
Sincerely,
Kenwood Amateur Radio Customer Support
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Tumino [mailto:null@kenwood.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:42 PM
To: KCC-Amateur
Subject: Feedback from Kenwood.net
Thomas Tumino would like the following help:
Hi there,
In June 2003 I asked Kenwood if they were ever going to make a legal
version of skycommand and kenwood replied that they would try to get a
ruling in 2003 to make skycommand legal. Did kenwood try to get a
ruling? Is skycommand now legal in the USA?
73 and thanks for the info de Tom, N2YTF, I am a mostly happy th-d7ag
owner...I have included the text of the kenwood response below:
> 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 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's next step was to apply for a rule change from the F.C.C.The
SKY
> COMMAND rule change has been with the FCC for more than a year. We
are
> expecting the rule to be changed this year 2003, and for sky command
to be
> reality very soon..........73
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W4WLZ on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You may want to read part 97 and then you will understand why it is illeagle !!
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What gets me is so many band cops claim this is illegal and that is illegal etc."
The increase in that kind of attitude bothers me.
All we need are a large group of operators who think rules and regulations are somehow the problem, and who put the blame on rule violations on those who encourage following the written law.
I certainly people start rethinking the nasty things they say about OO's and other people who encourage proper and LEGAL use of our bands, before amateur radio turns into CB.
Sky Command is illegal within enforcement jurisdiction of the FCC and we should also maintain some sort of order in what is fair and proper in working DX. Without that, we might as well all use telephones or CB radios.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see.
1.) Kenwood builds a control device that does not comply with existing FCC rules.
2.) The ARRL warns Kenwood, and they argue.
3.) Someone asks the FCC for an opinion, and they agree the ARRL legal department knows how to read part 97.
4.) Kenwood says the "ARRL influenced the FCC to NOT grant a waiver".
Now here are the facts. The FCC NEVER grants waivers of rules without very compelling reason. Making money on a new feature or toy is NOT a compelling reason.
I can give an example. MFJ Enterprises came up with a small QRP amplifier kit. It was only parts. When MFJ sent the kit to me to check out, I told them the kit was illegal because:
1.) It failed to meet 25-35MHz restrictions.
2.) It had an automatic RF actuated internal transfer relay.
3.) It required less than 50W drive for full output.
MFJ asked me to ask the FCC for a waiver, and the FCC very clearly said something to this effect: "Hey, rules are rules. We don't give waivers unless there is a very compelling need for the waiver. Next time read the rules BEFORE you design something and buy all the parts."
So let's not let anyone bend the truth and whine and complain about the ARRL. If Kenwood wanted a SkyCommand for use in the USA, they had any number of LEGAL options to use. It is NOT the ARRL's fault Kenwood failed to look at the legalities of the design before they finished and sold the systems.
The FCC doesn't grant waivers for US manufacturers or anyone else as a matter of policy, NOT because of the ARRL. It isn't the ARRL's fault KW never read the rules.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K2WH on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From KR4WM:
"Just thought I'd let everyone know- don't bother to say anything about KT0DD. He'll send you a rude e-mail that is a lame attempt to defend his indefensible position, then put you in his kill-file so you can't reply. When I was little we used to call other children who acted in this manner a "mama's boy". Grow up, son!"
I got the same email from KT0DD calling me names with a suggestion that I perform a sexual act on him. The guy is dangerous and a loose cannon.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Me, I'm side with Kenwood on this one.
97.a(7) Auxiliary station. An amateur station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations.
This is pretty broad. The definition of 'Auxillary station' could be read to cover anything that's not either packet a repeater or simplex FM/SSB. It's also pretty vague too.
What seems has happened is that the FCC at the ARRL's insistence has now expanded the definition of 'Auxillary station' to cover audio links and not just the control links of anything that's not a repeater. And that has the potential to shut a lot of other innovative operation on 2m.
Aside from the 'rules are rules' nonsense, what is the compelling reason for this? I don't know. Seems to me that bands are dead enough. This kind of rules-lawyering just locks us in more deep into being stuck as the living museum of retro-70's technology, seems to me. Great plan there.
If the technology is sincere and harmless and unlikely to cause trouble, I personally see no harm in the FCC just making it legal.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Me, I'm side with Kenwood on this one.
That people should be able to build systems that don't comply with existing rules, and then ask for a waver?
That sounds even worse than the argument BPL made. They at least complied with rules and asked for a waiver before going full production.
Didn't work for BPL. They have to follow part 15 PLUS they now have restrictions. They didn't get the increased power they asked for. They got slightly increased regulation!
Maybe we should allow any or every business to set the rules for whatever the majority wants? After all, if KW sees no harm what about BPL?
<<What seems has happened is that the FCC at the ARRL's insistence has now expanded the definition of 'Auxillary station' to cover audio links and not just the control links of anything that's not a repeater. And that has the potential to shut a lot of other innovative operation on 2m.>>
It always has been that way, and the restrictions are for a reason. Two meters is full of things sensitive over great distances to poor operation of links. All we need is a bunch of people setting up radio link controls on repeater inputs, packet frequencies, weak signal areas, etc.
There are some nearly empty bands with much shorter range much more suitable for "innovative operation" or experimental operation. Someone with some engineering common sense has to set rules, and that happened LONG ago. It happened long before KW made a system without reading the rules.
<<Aside from the 'rules are rules' nonsense, what is the compelling reason for this? I don't know. Seems to me that bands are dead enough.>>
You need to listen on an antenna. The bands are crowded on and below 2 meters. Try to coordinate a new repeater pair!
If you get everyone owning repeaters on a band useful for moderate distance mobile and portable operation to abandon a segment of the band for someone to use over a few feet or a few blocks, and get that area set aside for experimentation or for Kenwood radio use, then you are accomplishing something!
Then we can move all the longer distance stuff like handhelds and mobiles up to 450MHz, where it doesn't work as well and use the longer distance band, 2 meters, as a local control band.
That "sideways thinking" is why the FCC and other technical groups never expect casual users to understand why certain technical requirements are needed. That's why regulation of things like medical, science, and communications it isn't operated as a democracy where people wanting things can just "do what they like". This is at the root of why the FCC and other agencies are allowed to set their own rules, which are enforcable. Without that, things would be a real mess.
<<This kind of rules-lawyering just locks us in more deep into being stuck as the living museum of retro-70's technology, seems to me. Great plan there.
If the technology is sincere and harmless and unlikely to cause trouble, I personally see no harm in the FCC just making it legal.>>
That's what rule making proceedures are for. You file a techinal argument, it gets commented on. After a comment period you might convince the FCC you have a compelling reason.
On the other hand Kenwood wanted the FCC (and ARRL) to say "OK Mr. KW, even though no one else (including repeater or remote base owners) was EVER allowed to use 2 meters as a control frequency for any reason we will permit you to do it because it is easy for you."
Thank goodness the FCC regulates by engineering (or at least it did prior to the present times) instead of popular opinion.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KE6I on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>You need to listen on an antenna. The bands are crowded
>on and below 2 meters. Try to coordinate a new repeater
>pair!
Just as well. I don't know about where you are, but out here repeaters outnumber the hams. The last thing we need are more dead 2M repeaters. It seems to me we're killing off the new stuff, in order to preserve a bunch of dead machines that just beep their morse ID all day, that nobody uses. What a waste. If anything, I think the band would be better used if we shut down some of the lesser used repeaters and then used that channel space for other more interesting stuff.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K8YOY on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Everything else aside, 2m is not the control frequency with sky command. 440 is. 2m is just used to retransmit the hf frequency. That is my point of confusion.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W8JI on February 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, change it all to remote link. Still works the same.
If I were going to sell something, I'd check to see if it was legal BEFORE designing it.
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KF4VGX on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I got the same email from KT0DD calling me names with a suggestion that I perform a sexual act on him. The guy is dangerous and a loose cannon.
K2WH
Are you sure you wanted to post that last one ? Maybe just read and delete might be better .May Spare the group undeserved humor. :)
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by W9RAY on February 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the Matter of
Kenwood Communications Corp.
Request for Declaratory Ruling to
Determine Compliance With Applicable
Sections of Part 97 of the Commission's
Rules or Waiver of Applicable Rule Sections
Excerpt’s of FCC Findings...
Section 97.213(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that if radio is used for
the control link between the control point and the station, the control link must use an auxiliary station,and Section 97.201(b) limits auxiliary stations to transmitting only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, with the exception of certain frequency segments. In this regard, we note that Section 97.213(a) does not distinguish between radio control links used by the control operator for telecommand and radiocontrol links used for other purposes, i.e., the distinction Kenwood draws between the VHF and UHFlink. Moreover, it is our view that the return transmissions from the HF station to the remote control point are part of the telecommand function being performed over the control link. In this regard, we notethat the information transmitted from the HF station to the control operator informs the control operator as to whether the HF station is functioning in the manner the control operator desires and this information may cause the control operator to initiate, modify, or terminate functions, such as changing the HF transceiver's memories, setting or changing frequencies, or turning off the remotely controlled HF transceiver. We also
note that the VHF link is integral to Sky Command and that without these VHF return transmissions, Sky
Command is not of any use to an operator because the operator cannot hear what the HF station is
receiving. We agree with BEARS that ignoring the return transmissions in the system, which are on the 2
m amateur service band, is at best a tortured interpretation. Moreover, we note that Section 97.3(a)(7)defines an auxiliary station as an amateur station "transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations," and we note that "communications point-to-point within a
system" would include all communications between the location of the HF station and the station at the
remote control point. Thus, we conclude that Sky Command does not comply with Section 97.201(b) of
the Commission's Rules because Section 97.201(b) does not authorize auxiliary stations to transmit on the
2 m band.
As noted above, the rules require an auxiliary station totransmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except the 219-220 MHz, 222.00- 222.15 MHz,431-433 MHz, and 435-438 MHz segments. Kenwood concedes that it could have designed SkyCommand to operate on the 222 MHz band rather than the 144 MHz band. It states that it chose the 144 MHz band because many amateur service licensees already own dual-band equipment operating in the 144 MHz and 440 MHz bands, and Kenwood wanted Sky Command to be compatible with existing equipment.
Similarly, ARRL states that Kenwood currently markets a radio in Japan that transmits on the 440 MHz and 1296 MHz bands and can be used with Sky Command, but which Kenwood has chosen not to export to the United States. Kenwood, however, in response states its belief that there is no market for this radio in the United States because reconfiguring Sky Command's VHF channel to transmit in a higher frequency amateur service band ignores the marketplace reality that the amateur service community demands a VHF/UHF dual-band transceiver for Sky Command application. We conclude that Kenwood's analysis of the market and marketing decisions are not sufficient bases upon which we can
conclude that Kenwood has no reasonable alternative to the 144 MHz band for Sky Command operations.
Indeed, it appears that Kenwood prefers to use a VHF/UHF dual-band transceiver that it already markets
for its Sky Command system because this VHF/UHF dual-band transceiver also can be used for other
amateur radio applications, such as packet radio and voice communications. Therefore, we believe that
grant of this requested waiver is not warranted because a reasonable alternative exists that would be
consistent with the Commission's Rules.
I think thats why.... basically.. Link systems are not allowed on 2 meters..
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by K8YOY on February 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
TO W9RAY Thank you for the report! In my mind however, the HT is the auxilary station, not the base. Thus, the HT never transmits any commands on 2M, it just receives the retransmitted HF on 2m. The rules seem somewhat open to interpretation. That is the way I would have interpreted it. But I don't make the rules. What can I say?
|
| |
|
RE: Cool Drink Operating
|
|
|
by KK4KEN on June 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a quick note to this article. Upon further reading of the document which was linked to from the FCC website, it appears that the use of the 2 meter band to retransmit the audio is being considered a part of the auxillery station transmissions. So, even though the transmission is only audio (voice, hopefully) it is *still* considered auxillery control.
Any word on whether or not Kenwood has adapted SkyCommand to stay above 222 MHz? I don't see why they can't transmit the audio from the HF rig back on 70cm? It would make the setup legal and there would be no complaints. Plus, 70cm is not as active usually as 2m. Granted, 222 MHz would be an even better choice since I can't even think of a local repeater on that band, but 70cm radios are somewhat more common. :)
KK4KEN
Ken Livingston
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
The Good Bad and Ugly on PSK31
My First QRP Remote
Mobat Announces New Ham Rig
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
Are K1MAN Bulletins Useful?
Other Operating Articles
Safety First
My First Date with Olivia
D-STAR/Analog Interference Experience
Using Twitter During Mobile Operation
First HF Contact and Other Stuff
|
