TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] An accessory idea for the new Omni VII

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] An accessory idea for the new Omni VII
From: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:10:55 -0400
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>