> lawyer may argue otherwise). I think the case can be made
> that the wireless Ethernet and Internet portions of the
> control link(s) in this case are the equivalent of land line
> based control such as dedicated telephone lines would be
> (ref. 97.213(a)).
That's correct. Part 97 regulates the type and emissions of radio links,
but not the type of non-radio control. Nor do I see anything within Part 97
that addresses "positive control" of the link to ensure that the transmitter
is under continuous control.
In several non-Part 97 systems (e.g., Part 73 - Broadcasting), the FCC
generally requires a watch-dog timer device of some kind to inhibit
transmissions when the control link is lost.
It would seem reasonable, albeit not a strict FCC requirement, to utilize a
TCP/IP polling method to inhibit Part 97 transmissions. If the transceiver
receives no polling command within a pre-determined period of time, the
transmitter becomes inhibited from further transmissions until control is
re-established.
For example, let's say you initiate the "TUNE" function on your tranceiver
from your remote location and at that moment, your link to the ISP vanishes.
You now have a transmitter operating completely out of control. And
although Part 97 may not specifically address Internet-based remote control
systems, you then become under attack from other areas within Part 97.
It would certainly make sense to include a similar timing device in the Omni
VII. I presume some additional coding would be necessary, but without any
further refinement in hardware.
Paul, W9AC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|