[TowerTalk] All Day Everyday Unattended FT8

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Although we are a brotherhood, the unattended/automated FT4/FT8
operation is still contrary to the rules as they operate, not
by answering stations specifically calling them but by soliciting
calls (calling CQ).  As such, if the owner refuses to cease the
automated operation, calls/official complaints to the FCC and
ARRL's Amateur Auxiliary (start with the Regulatory Affairs desk
at HQ, your Section Manager, and the Division Director) are in order.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

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
>>>