Archive
 
 
  Topic: Links/ Gateways Good or Bad idea? (13 replies)
#1     Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:49 pm
W7RJR
Spokane, WA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Subject: Links/ Gateways Good or Bad idea?

What do the members of QSOnet think about this? Does setting up a link or gateway seem to be welcome or not? Does it spoil the original intent of the program? Should links be limited to RF links, not other VOIP services such as Echolink? Should they only be allowed on certain bands/frequencies?

Personally, were I to start any kind of link, especially an RF link I would not leave it unattended at any time. I would not allow it to constantly key up a frequency making it unavailable to others. I would certainly not put it anywhere near a calling frequency! I would also make a concerted effort to approximate the same audio clarity that occurs with CQ100. Nothing worse than hearing a tinny replicated voice with beeps, boops and other associated noises like one hears on Echolink.

I do think that a well thought out and designed HF link might be a good idea. Again, there would be issues both technical and legal that would have to be addressed. Putting an HF link on 29 Mhz with no sunspots makes little sense, but putting it on 20 or 17 meters could open many new vistas.

What are your thoughts?

73
__________________
#2     Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:54 pm
K9FB
Kokomo, Indiana
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12
Subject:

I believe potential QSONet linking falls into several categories, and each deserves individual consideration. Here are some of the types of links that immediately come to mind.

1. Personal UHF/VHF RF links which permit the registered users to access their own CQ100s using a hand-held transceiver at short range.

2. Community UHF/VHF RF links which permit registered CQ100 users and community hams to communicate with one another via medium-range simplex or repeater frequencies.

3. Cross-links with other VoIP systems such as Echolink and eQSO, which may have RF links connected at the other end of their connections.

4. HF links which permit registered CQ100 users and other hams to communicate with one another over long range HF frequencies.

There are probably other possibilites beyond those listed above. Each of these links with the RF world has its own legal and practical issues that should be considered separately. Presumably, the control operators of the linked RF transmitters are ultimately held responsible for meeting all the legal requirements associated with the resulting transmissions from their stations over the airwaves. Those requirements should already be governed by international law and the laws in each country and jurisdiction.

Beyond that, the remaining question is how to best coordinate and govern these different types of links within the QSONet bands.

73
__________________
#3     Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:28 pm
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

Since there is far more then enough room for everyone using CQ100, I am in favor of allowing any legal Ham mode, links, digital, etc., to be utilized with the program. It is my understanding that Doug invites any and all as long as Ham related, but respectfully operated in its suggested bands and assignment areas. If there would be any chance of drawing newcomers to Ham Radio, a sample of everything going on just might catch a few now and then. At any rate, it makes this a multi option program and should make it more fun to everyones interest.

Steve - W0SDG
__________________
#4     Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:03 pm
KC6UVA
West Monroe LA USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 29
Subject: Legality with Links?

Doesn't linking up a system such as this - which has no oversight by a governing agency - cause a problem when HAMs are free to venture to any frequency offered? Or, is it ultimately the Amateur Operator's responsibility to make sure he or she is not broadcasting over "real world" airwaves via CQ100?

This is definitely an area needing clarification. (Something to "chew on".)
__________________
#5     Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:04 am
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

I know this is an issue but it does not have the legal ramifications as it does on the air. It would just be annoying at minimum. I know Doug wants to keep this as clean as possible and maybe that is the concern here. I guess, in general, I am in favor of links as it is part of the Ham world as long as it is ok with Doug and falls under his expectations. I know of an issue where there was some rebroadcasts of police calls over a repeater link, but that really isn't a legal issue here on the internet to my knowledge because we are all able to find scanner traffic from almost every major city in the US via the internet. I really don't know what is illegal here on the internet, if anything, unless it affects national security??

Just some random thoughts.

Steve - W0SDG
__________________
#6     Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:55 am
KC6UVA
West Monroe LA USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 29
Subject:

After thinking about it, as long as the "real-world" frequencies that are being linked are open to all Amateur Radio licenses, it really doesn't matter. Maybe the only problem would be when trying to link-up frequencies that are open to only General or Extra Class (for an example). (???)
__________________
#7     Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:03 am
K9FB
Kokomo, Indiana
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12
Subject:

I would think the control operator of each RF link transmitter is responsible for the legality in his jurisdiction of all RF transmissions from his link station. Any violations of national or international regulations ultimately are the responsibility of the RF station licensee, so it would seem to be wise for the control operator or his designate to monitor all RF link transmissions originating from QSONet and be ready to pull the plug if necessary to avoid any violation.
__________________
#8     Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:19 am
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

It is my understanding that the licensed operator of the hardware station is solely responsible for transmissions from his station. As long as he is "at the controls", the VOIP traffic is considered like a phone patch. The transmitting station must identify. I recently heard that some countries (example UK) do not allow phone patch. In these countries, only the voice of a licensed operator may be transmitted. A friend in the shack is not allowed to speak unless he is licensed.
__________________
#9     Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:12 am
KC6UVA
West Monroe LA USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 29
Subject:

True enough when concerning a Control Operator and monitoring activity on his or her rig. However, there would need to be a way for an operator using CQ100 to know when they may actually be transmitting on a real-world frequency if that frequency is not allowed by their license. Otherwise, because CQ100 does not restrict usage based on license, how would the operator know they are in violation?
__________________
#10     Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:54 pm
W7RJR
Spokane, WA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Subject:


KC6UVA wrote:
Otherwise, because CQ100 does not restrict usage based on license, how would the operator know they are in violation?


They wouldn't know. I believe it would be prudent for the CQ100 link owner to post this info in the station ID, e.g.
"Link operating on 14.250 Mhz". As to what is allowed to be conducted /who is responsible over such links one must refer to each country's rules and regulations. Generally speaking if only licensed amateur radio operators are involved there is no potential for third party agreement violations. This can change if a non-licensed person speaks on-the-air.
__________________




Copyright ©2013 Cormac Technologies Inc.