[TowerTalk] All Day Everyday Unattended FT8

Wed Apr 10 10:51:16 EDT 2024

Well said, Mike!

73, Pete N4ZR

On 4/10/2024 10:22 AM, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:
> The FCC seems to be pretty selective on who they go after.  They 
> really never went after the nut jobs that have taken over certain 
> frequencies.  I think we all agree that what is going on is not optimal.
>
> My neighbor ham had a 10m beacon that essentially made it pretty tough 
> to operate cw on 10m.  He is probably a half mile away.  I talked to 
> him.  He assured me that the radio was operating properly etc.  The 
> beacon was important to him so I let it go and did my best to work 
> around it.   He recently passed away and the only way I would have 
> known is that the beacon was turned off. Now I kinda miss that 
> beacon.  I was also able to help the family out as they try to sell 
> off the huge amount of stuff he had.  It was his crank up mast that I 
> was able to buy. His legacy will live on a bit.  No I did not ask for 
> the beacon but maybe I should.
>
> Growing up I lived in a rural neighbor that was a magnet for hams.  
> Two or three other hams lived in the exact neighborhood. Other 
> contesters and dxers with decent stations were close probably another 
> 5 or so.  We all had to learn to get along. Thankfully not too many of 
> us were on 160, 10m had plenty of room.  Otherwise we dealt with each 
> other and tried not to get in each others way.
>
> Moral of the story.  We are hams, we are a brotherhood, go talk to the 
> guy unless he is a known problem.  Nobody talks to each other 
> anymore.  If my dog barks and bothers you, come talk to me first 
> before involving the police.  It it the right thing to do.  We are in 
> the communications field..........Communicate.
>
> Jumps off the soapbox
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 4/10/2024 12:09 AM, Lee K. Brown MD via TowerTalk wrote:
>> FCC rules:
>> § 97.109 - Station control.
>>
>> (a) Each amateur station must have at least one control point.
>>
>> (b) When a station is being locally controlled, the control operator 
>> must be at the control point. Any station may be locally controlled.
>>
>> (c) When a station is being remotely controlled, the control operator 
>> must be at the control point. Any station may be remotely controlled.
>>
>> (d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the control 
>> operator need not be at the control point. Only stations specifically 
>> designated elsewhere in this part may be automatically controlled. 
>> Automatic control must cease upon notification by a Regional Director 
>> that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful 
>> interference to other stations. Automatic control must not be resumed 
>> without prior approval of the Regional Director.
>> [54 FR 39535, Sept. 27, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 26001, May 16, 
>> 1995; 69 FR 24997, May 5, 2004; 80 FR 53753, Sept. 8, 2015]
>>
>> § 97.221 - Automatically controlled digital station.
>>
>> (a) This rule section does not apply to an auxiliary station, a 
>> beacon station, a repeater station, an earth station, a space 
>> station, or a space telecommand station.
>>
>> (b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a 
>> RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on 
>> the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 
>> 18.105-18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 
>> 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments.
>>
>> (c) Except for channels specified in § 97.303(h), a station may be 
>> automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission 
>> on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that:
>>
>> (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under 
>> local or remote control; and
>>
>> (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station 
>> occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.
>> [60 FR 26001, May 16, 1995, as amended at 72 FR 3082, Jan. 24, 2007; 
>> 77 FR 5412, Feb. 3, 2012]
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, so the interpretation of the above is beyond me. It 
>> would seem that this op is compliant with § 97.221 but only if 
>> transmitting on the designated frequencies listed above. Others may 
>> be more informed about this than me- I've never operated FT8.
>>
>> However, in my opinion this op is causing "harmful interference to 
>> other stations," e.g. to your friend's station, which is prohibited 
>> by § 97.109.
>>
>> Lee, KI7UR
>>
>> Lee K. Brown MD
>> Clinical Professor of Internal Medicine andEmeritus Professor of 
>> Internal MedicineDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep 
>> MedicineUniversity of New Mexico School of MedicineAssociate Editor 
>> and Founding Editor (“Emerging Technology”), Journal of Clinical 
>> Sleep MedicineCo-editor, Section on Sleep and Neurobiology, Current 
>> Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineChair, New Mexico Advisory Board for 
>> Respiratory CareChair, Polysomnography Practice Advisory Committee of 
>> the NM Medical Board
>>
>>      On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 09:16:23 PM MDT, Mike Ryan 
>> <mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>     Billy and the others who have responded, thank you all. Adding 
>> filters or hanging whatever in front of a radio (my friend's in this 
>> case) to compensate for someone else's inconsideration would (in my 
>> case) be completely out of the question. PERIOD. No one should be 
>> allowed to operate a station..NON STOP for more than 96 consecutive 
>> hours (so far this week) basically unattended. It would appear that 
>> the operator intends to work DXCC on 20m without even being in the 
>> room with the radio.  Some say that FT8 is not 'real ham radio'.  I 
>> disagree but in this case, the kind of operating that is going on 
>> (did I say OPERATING) should not be allowed, condoned, or attempted. 
>> The op in question is a GENERAL class operator. So I suppose the 
>> question pool for licensing such individuals should be changed to 
>> clearly and better explain the rules and what the consequences are 
>> not only to himself but the ham community that has to suffer his 
>> inconsideration.
>>            I'm sorry again to air this kind of stuff on the reflector 
>> but I have appreciated all your responses which I have passed along.  
>> '73 Mike, K4CVL
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Billy Cox [mailto:aa4nu at comcast.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2024 10:38 PM
>> To: Mike Ryan
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] All Day Everyday Unattended FT8
>>
>> Hi Mike, well that's not good news is it ... bummer ...
>>
>> OK, perhaps "pretend" the situation is like a multi multi contest 
>> station
>> and what has to be addressed now is the QRM/QRN "between stations", 
>> not a
>> best solution (good luck with that as to the FCC or ARRL assisting), yet
>> one that at least allows your friend to do something to reduce the 
>> bother
>> and raise his/her level of enjoyment, all things considered?
>>
>> Here's a link that may help toward that goal?
>>
>> http://www.vibroplex.com/techdocs/INRAD/MII_W2VJN.pdf
>>
>> 73 Billy, AA4NU
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 04/09/2024 8:11 PM GMT Mike Ryan <mryan001 at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Gentlemen, Please excuse the detraction from tower / antenna 
>>> related affairs
>>> typically noted on this most valuable reflector, but a situation has 
>>> emerged
>>> at a friend's QTH and he has asked my help in dealing with it. My 
>>> friend is
>>> dealing with a neighboring ham who is enamored with operating FT8 to 
>>> the
>>> degree that he is allowing his unattended station to operate all day 
>>> and
>>> night, every day, calling CQ and letting the auto mode answer and 
>>> then begin
>>> again. Robot mode. This has been going on for some weeks or months. 
>>> As my
>>> friend is within WALKING distance from the other operator, depending on
>>> which band the auto operated station may be on, it basically puts my 
>>> friend
>>> out of business due to the desense. Has anyone had such experience 
>>> and/or
>>> anyone with a suggestion(s) on dealing with such please contact me 
>>> of course
>>> OFF LIST. Thanks in advance.    - Mike, K4CVL
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>    _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk