Remotely Controlled Transceiver in Baghdad Soon

[g3zhi]

w7dxx plans to install a fully remotely controlled transceiver in baghdad in
the next month YI9DXX Baghdad

this will be available for any ham in the world who is registered with w7dxx
to use using voip over the internet for voice qso's

for more information http://www.lamonica.com/


73 Ian G3ZHI

http://www.qsl.net/g3zhi - many ham radio links

http://www.ukirlp.co.uk

G4NJI IRLP 5200 Echolink 135909
Rotherham simplex 145.2875mhz

GB3XN IRLP 5708 Echolink 153126
Langold 430.925 Mhz

Mobile 0783 338 0578

[KE4MOB]

Ummm......if I have a remote base set up in a foreign country and use VoIP over the internet to control it....I'm not under FCC Part 97 rules. I'm operating under the foreign countries' rules.

I think.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 27 2004,15:06)]Ummm......if I have a remote base set up in a foreign country and use VoIP over the internet to control it....I'm not under FCC Part 97 rules. #I'm operating under the foreign countries' rules. #

I think.
I would agree with that. #Sounds perfectly logical.

K2WH

[K2WH]

Ummm. How would one handle QSL info and if I am operating under the laws of the other country, do I need a license from that country even though I am sitting in NJ?

Lots of questions.

K2WH

[W9WHE]

Does that mean that you can work (and QSL) yourself?

W9WHE

[n1ese]

Funny, you click on the "Is this legal" link on W7DXX's site and it's a bad 404 link.

- JT

[WD8OQX]

What are the rules governing this in any other country from the US?

I'd think they should be the same. 3rd party included. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KE4MOB]

I don't think the concept of third party traffic applies here. A quick read of Part 97 defines third party as "A message from the control operator (first party) of an amateur station to another amateur station control operator (second party) on behalf of another person (third party)."

Note in the definition there's two control operators present. In this system, there's only one....the stateside operator at their computer.

How does Echolink handle the licensing requirements?

[N1EY]

Quote[/b] (KE4MOB @ Oct. 28 2004,11:06)]country and use VoIP over the internet to control it....I'm not under FCC Part 97 rules. #I'm operating under the foreign countries' rules. #
Perhaps one should consider that FCC can still
regulate YOU.

Bill

[k5co]

The US law and FCC don't enter into this one fellows. Iraq, not yet a government in full charge, is not a member of the International Telecommunications agreements. And Iraq has no laws re such on the books, so you can operate as an outlaw. As far as the FCC is concerned, you are just making a telephone call. Couldn't you just do all that VOIP in a chat room and leave the bands free?

[W9WHE]

W6EM:

I went out of my way to help you understand the legal doctrine of Federal Preemption and its application to state and local restrictions in the thread about the FCC affirming the penalty for Califirnia ham. Ignoring my previous Pro Bono work for the benifit of ham radio, you had the audacity to suggest that I was too greedy or too selfish to do Pro Bono work. You even had the timarity to tell me that the whole excercize wasn't worth YOUR time. Now, 2 days later, you want me to do you another favor?

Where do people like you come from?

W9WHE

[nt7c]

Ignoring the money aspect of this specific issue, how is this any different than IRLP or Echolink?

Assume for the sake of the question that the distant end station is sufficiently close to an international border as to make possible communications into an adjacent country.

I'm not asking this to make waves, but asking is there something in the rules (national or international) that specifically covers this or is it all classified as third party?

73's
nt7c

[K2WH]

With all the guessing going on here, I believe this just shows you how out moded and behind the curve the FCC rules and regs are with the explosive internet.

The FCC is constantly having to wrangle or should I say wiggle into issues that the rules don't address adequately or not at all. Or, maybe we are just thinking too hard.

K2WH

[W9WHE]

W6EM:

FIRST: You have NO IDEA how many individual hams and ham clubs I have helped over the years with ProBono legal work. YOU ARE CLUELESS. Till you do, why not save yourself alot of embarassment?

SECOND: So you "fully understood preemption" before I explained it?? #Wasn't it you that wrote:

"Last, but not least, thanks for the explanation of preemption"?

----
Wasn't it you that also wrote:

"Let's do a compairison. #No ARRL vs ARRL.... #Would we have the priviledges we have, including protection from some rather insidious state and municpal laws and regulations that have attempted to shut us down"

If you REALLY understood preemption, AS YOU NOW CLAIM, you would never have creditied ARRL for providing protection from "rather insidious state and municpal laws" instead of the supremicy clause of the U.S. constitution.

I persue this for one reason and one reason alone. People like you need to learn that you can't get away with making up facts, making false, baseless, un-informed personal attacks just because you hide behind a computer terminal or microphone. (see his rantings in: FCC affirms forfiture for California man). #
----


W9WHE

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 29 2004,13:37)]I persue this for one reason and one reason alone. People like you need to learn that you can't get away with making up facts, making false, baseless, un-informed personal attacks just because you hide behind a computer terminal or microphone. (see his rantings in: FCC affirms forfiture for California man). #
----


W9WHE
I hope your spelling is better in your pleadings. #Persue??? #Did you mean pursue or perhaps peruse? #:-)

The only ranting, my friend, has been done by you.

Now, stick to the subject, be helpful and give the folks your informed legal opinion as to whether remote operation of an amateur station in Baghdad by a US amateur complies with 41CFR97.

You haven't addressed the request, and its been made of you 3 times now.

Oh, by the way, I just thanked you on the other thread for your preemption treatise to be polite.

73,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

[w3mz]

With all due respect, I don't think ridicule is the best way to ask a man for legal advice. This is getting way off subject.

As to "Radio Baghdad", I don't understand the appeal of 1. Working DX over the phone or 2. Working DX with someone else's radio. DX from Baghdad would be, maybe, Ohio?

I don't mean to criticize internet Ham Communications, my friend really enjoys this. There are a lot of Hams with many different interests. But he would not call it "DXing".

My biggest problem with this is a US licensed Amateur in effect charging money for Amateur Radio Communications. The fact that it is international may confuse the issue, but if I were that Ham I would be a little nervous going to the mailbox every day.

73 All, Good DX , Mike W3MZ

[w3mz]

Quote W4AMP
"With 1500 checks coming in worth a 100$ a piece he probaly skips to the mailbox!"

Yes, I imagine he does, with bells on. But I think he should save some of those checks, as he may require the services of W9WHE before too long.

73 All, Mike W3MZ

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w3mz @ Oct. 29 2004,16:46)]Quote W4AMP
"With 1500 checks coming in worth a 100$ a piece he probaly skips to the mailbox!"

Yes, I imagine he does, with bells on. But I think he should save some of those checks, as he may require the services of W9WHE before too long.

73 All, Mike W3MZ
Perhaps he does 'skip to the mailbox.'

But how is his soliciting and collecting funds different than the thousands of us who 'contribute' frequently to support and use the 'closed' repeater of choice? (And, in turn, get to use the repeater and access codes to use the autopatch, etc.)

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

[g3zhi]

for many years now remotely controlled transceivers around the world
have been available to hams
you can use them to participate in local qso's on 2m 70cm or 75m
or tune them to a frequency and listen to local radio traffic
i sometimes use the w6pj radio to listen to knx news radio in los angeles
echolink now also has some hf gateways
the remote radio in baghdad will be at the home of the president of the new iraq amateur radio society
i welcome the gateway as it will allow american hams in baghdad to talk back to the usa using a 2m or 70cm h.t.

73 Ian G3ZHI

http://www.qsl.net/g3zhi - many ham radio links

http://www.ukirlp.co.uk

G4NJI IRLP 5200 Echolink 135909
Rotherham simplex 145.2875mhz

GB3XN IRLP 5708 Echolink 153126
Langold 430.925 Mhz

Mobile 0783 338 0578

[WA2ZDY]

47CFR part 97 has no authority. The transmitter is located in Iraq - a foreign nation with its own telecommunication laws. If the Iraqi laws permit users from another country to remotely control the transmitter, then it is legal. And whether W7DXX has authority to operate in Iraq at all is another area where FCC has no authority. Again, where is the transmitter located?

If Iraqi law allows the transmitter to be remotely controlled by others who do not have Iraqi licenses, then there is no third party issue. You, the control operator sitting at your computer whereever, are the control operator, not a third party.

Can you work yourself for DXCC credit? That would depend on ARRL's interpretation of the DXCC rules. Keep in mind also ARRL supposedly insists on evidence that an operation is legal before allowing it to count for DXCC credit. That would mean W7DXX will have to show he is legal in Iraq.

It's a messy one, but . . . it might be on the up and up. Of course those $100 memberships . . .

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 30 2004,02:45)]Of course those $100 memberships . . .
....are just like what some of us now pay to be able to use "closed" VHF and UHF repeaters systems here in the US.

Lee
W6EM

[k4sus]

NOT REAL HAM RADIO ! Will they give out Iraq DX qsls for contacts via this (not real Ham Radio), system as well?
Tom K4SUS

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (k4sus @ Oct. 30 2004,06:54)]NOT REAL HAM RADIO ! Will they give out Iraq DX qsls for contacts via this (not real Ham Radio), system as well?
Tom K4SUS
Gee, what's the difference between a phone line accessed remote base station here, and one 'over there' accessed via the web? Iraqi law governs, I would guess, since aren't you remotely controlling a non-US station?

Seems like its sure enough amateur radio to me (with an admission fee not unlike closed VHF and UHF repeaters).

Your DXCC question is a valid one, since I would think that the DXCC credit goes to the station licensee and call sign, not the remote operator. Of course, if the government of Iraq were to grant every 'member' of this set up their own Iraqi call sign, then it would sound like each could rack up their own contacts for the record.

W6EM

[W4WB]

Although it is interesting to consider operating a station in Iraq, Hong Kong, or wherever, there is another factor to address. #This is its DXCC credit.

Simple answer is that unless you are located within the entity's boundaries containing the remote station while operating the remote station, it doesn't count as DXCC for someone working you (or conversely).

The same is true if you have a remote station for your own use located in CONUS (assuming your residence is also CONUS). #As long as you are physically in CONUS, the contact counts for DXCC both ways. #What if you are on a trip in Canada and work that rare one you have needed for years? #You are out of luck (unless you lie). #This is per my past conversations with Wayne Mills.

Someone asked if you could work the remote station you are operating and get credit for it. #Nope as explained above. #However, it you are on a DXpedition to a rare one and need it yourself, you can have a qualified friend operate YOUR station (by permission) using your station call sign. #This would count for DXCC. #This is similar to situation of you being on a trip and needing to work a rare one that will be gone by the time you return home. #If you can locate a ham friend while on your trip that allows you the use of his station, then the contact will count IF you are still inside your home entity.

[w3mz]

Quote[/b] (W4WB @ Oct. 30 2004,09:40)]Although it is interesting to consider operating a station in Iraq, Hong Kong, or wherever, there is another factor to address. This is its DXCC credit.
Assuming this station will have one Iraqi callsign with multiple (1500) users, I think the ARRL would consider it a Club Station, and ineligible for individual DXCC credit. You would have to start from scratch anyway.

If this station is going to be used to allow US Servicemen to contact home, that's great, but it will be one very busy transmitter with 1500 users here and God only knows how many over there!

I see the point about paying for access to closed repeaters, don't you think that is in a gray area though? Is it dues or paying for Ham communications? Oh well, if enough Hams are interested in this to make it a success, God Bless them.

73 all, Mike W3MZ

[n2obm]

Ian,

Is this a function of the ULI board that I passed to Diya, YI1DZ?

I had hoped the Baghdad group would have used Echolink.

While I am sure that the 'other system' is functional.....I did not take risks just to have someone make a buck or two. That was not, or is not the intent of Jim.....or anyone else that was involved with that bonafide contribution to the Iraqi Amateur Radio Society.

It is also interesting that the YI9DXX callsign, (YI9's are issued to visitors for a period of not more than 1 year) would indicate that W7DXX (personally) is operating the station, as a visitor within the borders of Iraq. Please tell him to pass my best wishes to all of the YI1 gang!

It looks like I will be able to talk to them simplex soon.

[OD5TX]

Would anybody please explain where did the US$100 fee per operator info came from ?

This is totally untrue as far as I know.

73 de OD5TX also AI4EO Michel

[g3zhi]

w7dxx has done an excellent job with his software
and won the arrl innovation award in 2002

projects have costs and hams are prepared to help with donations

anyone running a repeater knows that

dave cameron ve7ltd has sold nearly 1500 irlp boards at $150 each thats $225,000

do people expect him to give them away

i enjoy using w7dxx remote bases and thank w7dxx for all his good work

i look forward to using the remote base in baghdad

73 ian

http://www.qsl.net/g3zhi

=====================================
ARRL Technical Innovation Award

The 2001 ARRL Technical Innovation Award will go to three amateurs. This award is given to an amateur or group of amateurs whose technical research and development accomplishments are of the most exemplary nature.

Keith Lamonica, W7DXX, of N Easton, Massachusetts; Bob Arnold, N2JEU, of Canastota, New York; and Stan Schretter, W4MQ, of Reston, Virginia, are the recipients of the 2001 award. They were cited for their development of Internet control of remote HF stations with new and unique software and a hardware interface. Their efforts were recognized in an article, "Remote-Controlled HF Operation Over the Internet," by Brad Wyatt, K6WR, which appeared in the November 2001 issue of QST.

The ARRL Technical Innovation Award carries a cash award of $500 and an engraved plaque.

[w4gov]

This is my response to the QRZ.com thread! Keep up the good work at the W7DXX station!



You know what? There is nothing better than listening to a bunch of amateur radio operator’s whine about money, DXCC credits and FCC laws…



First off, W7DXX and W4MQ have given the amateur community as a whole a internet based station. This was and still is a great thing to have. It provides flexibility and fun for those who travel or have a life other than amateur radio in there house. I for one enjoy using it from time to time..

Second, please stop all the crap about what the cost is and who is making the money. If you wanted to make money then you should have come up with the internet radio system yourself! As far as the cost, who cares if it is $100 dollars. The use of this system used to be free of cost at first. The equipment and entire station including groundbreaking software are maintained by a few people. These people GAVE us all a great station to play with. The first of it’s kind, ever! If you wanted to use it, you would gladly pay the $100 dollar fee, if that were the case. The money collected did not go straight into the pocket of the system admin. YOU MUST SEE THIS! He has dedicated so much equipment and expensive equipment to the primary use of the remote station! This takes money and time and is worth every penny. Keith lamonica has done a great job and should be rewarded for setting up and maintaining a world class station via remote. Do you expect him and the radio community to let the W7DXX team pay for this out of his own pocket? how is this any different from web sites and closed repeater systems charging or soliciting to help keep and maintain the system you are paying for? if you did not want to pay for it, then don't!



Now, as far as the remote station in Iraq is concerned, let me tell you all this. I am in the US Army and have been over there as well as other places in the past few years. I think it was a great idea to place and donate a station to the Amateur radio society in Iraq. SO many things can come of this. It fosters a relationship between Iraq and US amateur operators. It gets Iraq on the air for all of us to enjoy and it is legal. The FCC has blessed the W7DXX system to place a radio over there via remote. As we all know that the FCC has no authority in Iraq, Iraq does not have there own authority any more. There are so many positive things about this donation and station…GET OVER IT! The Iraqi people deserve amateur radio as much as we do. I do not see the rest of you helping in any way towards the war effort. We are at war, it is unfortunate but yet we are still at war. Complaining does nothing but hurt the effort. In this respect, it is just useless…



For those of you complaining about DXCC credit and QSL's for this station, WHO CARES? Can’t you just be happy that there is a station at all to be able to talk to? Can’t you just enjoy this as a hobby and realize that you are going to get to talk to someone who is getting into or has not been allowed to use this hobby for some time now? These people do not care about DXCC credit. They just want to talk to people like us and not have to listen to BS about petty things like DXCC credit.



I also know that the FCC has blessed this remote station. For those of you that like to look at Part 97, you should ask yourself if someone has already done the homework…YES THEY HAVE! If it were illigal in Iraq and the FCC has blessed it off on the US end, where is it illigal if Iraq has no governing authority over stations in there own country anymore? W7DXX has been placed as the control op for this station in Iraq. just be happy with it and have fun with it.

Oh yeah, one more thing, it is ham radio. Anything that has to do with this hobby is ham radio, CW, RTTY, SSB, VOIP to HF...whatever. IRLP is ham radio...lets stop being so closed minded and have fun with the forward progression of the hobby..

I have been in this hobby for over 13 years now, and it just never gets old on here at QRZ.com. You all better wake up and help out instead of all talking about ME ME ME and think about others. This hobby will die if we forget about helping others. This is helping Iraq and the ham radio community..



My 6 month old daughter whines less….


73
Adam Forman
KA1ZFE/KG4BB

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w4amp @ Oct. 30 2004,21:31)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 29 2004,20:51)]Quote[/b] (w3mz @ Oct. 29 2004,16:46)]Quote W4AMP
"With 1500 checks coming in worth a 100$ a piece he probaly skips to the mailbox!"

Yes, I imagine he does, with bells on. But I think he should save some of those checks, as he may require the services of W9WHE before too long.

73 All, Mike W3MZ
Perhaps he does 'skip to the mailbox.'

But how is his soliciting and collecting funds different than the thousands of us who 'contribute' frequently to support and use the 'closed' repeater of choice? (And, in turn, get to use the repeater and access codes to use the autopatch, etc.)

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL
Let me know of a repeater here in the United States that garners the control operator 150,000$
Perhaps your *extreme* interest warrants a challenge to all voluntary contributions for the priveledge of using someone else's remote equipment.

So, if his collecting fees to support his costs of operation of the station in Iraq bothers you that much, why don't you file a Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC to ask for a revision to Part 97 requiring that all repeater and remote base station owners prepare and submit annual financial statements to the FCC (to make sure none are making a dime more than it costs to operate their gear)?

What would trips cost him to go there and do maintenance, repair or modification of the equipment? #Power costs? #Telco costs? #To say nothing of the possible risks to his personal well being!!!

Your comparison with K1MAN's activities appears way off the mark.

73,

Lee
W6EM

[W4WB]

Quote[/b] (ka1zfe @ Oct. 30 2004,10:28)]For those of you complaining about DXCC credit and QSL's for this station, WHO CARES? Can’t you just be happy that there is a station at all to be able to talk to? Can’t you just enjoy this as a hobby and realize that you are going to get to talk to someone who is getting into or has not been allowed to use this hobby for some time now? These people do not care about DXCC credit. They just want to talk to people like us and not have to listen to BS about petty things like DXCC credit.

My 6 month old daughter whines less….

73
Adam Forman
KA1ZFE/KG4BB
Adam KA1ZFE,

Who is whinning about DXCC credit? #There are a lot of facets to amateur radio, and those interested in the DXCC Award are one group. #It can be rather disappointing to someone thinking they worked a station at a QTH they need only to find out that it isn't valid. #Yes, that is important to many and not to others.

In reading your posting, it appears that you have excellent skills in whinning that perhaps your young daugther will not pick up from you.

73,
Barry W4WB

[w4gov]

W4AMP,

I have not paid for the W7DXX station. It used to be free when if first came out. I have not paid for it since it became a paid service because I CHOOSE not to. No comprehension issues here!

You are not the only one disabled from a war. That picture was taken in Cuba, before I went to the next overseas spot. I now am disabled. Thanks for your stupid remarks on that issue.

By the way, I sure as heck know that people have served in many wars. I am not stupid, nor should you make remarks as such. Get off your horse.

I realy was there. Do I have to prove it? I think not. I have been in the Military for over 11 years now. I know a thing or two about sacrafice, just as you do.

All I am saying is let it be. I understand that people want DXCC credit, but this is a bit different. Make a contact in that country with someone else if you need the points. By you taking personal stabs at me and my family are NOT going to help you in any way. I hope it makes you feel better though.

The Major General in that picture is the Multi National Forces, Deputy Commander in Iraq. I follow him whever he goes. Have you ever been in that country? I think not. I am not saying anything bad about the Iraqi people. I like the Iraqi people and want them to be on the air just like everyone else.

I have not been brain washed by anyone. DO not ever judge me.

Do you know me? You do not....nor my daughter...

Enough said. Personal plugs at me and my intelligence must make you feel big and tough....good luck and god speed...

73
Adam
KA1ZFE/KG4BB

[w3ab]

I've been involved with the W7DXX remotes bases for a couple of years now. I may even have been involved since Keith and Stan first developed the use of VoIP for the remote base, W7DXX. Now there are many remote bases out there thanks to Stan's software. I see these as clubs folks, just like your local ARC. You pay dues to join. The dues cover the various expenses and hopefully allow a cushion for unforseen expenses. Keith doesn't ask for a set dues amount. Some of the participants have paid lots more dues than I have, some have paid less. Some have donated equipment and/or time. I thank those hams who have helped make the remote base programs successful.

W7DXX conferred with the FCC over the inception of YI9DXX before it was announced. He has sent the letters and responses out to the general memebership for viewing and comment.

I have not yet used the remote bases to make a QSO. But I have snopped around in RX. Kind of nice, and fun, to be able to hear from another location while at home or another QTH that doesn't have RF access. I still pay my dues for the priviledge of accessing the equipment.

Rather then venting publically without any information, a little investigation and education will help understand the issue(s).

Remember what our mothers always told us, "If you can't say anything nice, it's best not to say anything at all". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

73 de GEO, W3AB

[w6pj]

I have been a control operator at W7DXX for almost four years now. Like many hams these days I face antenna restrictions at my QTH which make HF operation difficult at best. Thanks to the work of Stan, W4MQ, who developed the fine remote control software we use and Keith who has built and maintained his excellent remote controlled station in Boston I have been able to enjoy our fine hobby and be active on the HF bands by operating remotely controlled ham stations.

I am a dues paying member of the W7DXX remote group and wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the issues raised by Ian's initial post. I don't have answers to all the questions raised, but let me address one of them.

This $150,000 figure has been stated so often that people are starting to believe it. This figure appears to be the result of multiplying two unrelated numbers. The 1500 control operators mentioned in Keith's QRZ bio is the number of hams who were issued passwords when the station was available for free. The number of dues paying members is roughly 30. The membership cost figures currently published on Keith's web site are $35 a year for basic membership and an additional $75 for use of the Alpha 87A amplifier. This puts his total support for the station in the $2K to $3K a year range. This money goes toward equipment maintenance costs, the internet bill, electricity for the Alpha and tube reserve. Any money left over is used for station upgrades. Keith is NOT getting rich running this station.


73,
Pete, W6PJ

[kf6iiu]

The DXCC rules are perfectly clear: "9. All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC Entity. The location of any station shall be defined as the location of the transmitter. For the purposes of this award, remote operating points must be located within the same DXCC Entity as the transmitter and receiver."

Assuming there is pretty much the same proportion of jerks and cheaters in the ham community as in the population at large, I'm sure someone will abuse this system to cheat on their DXCC or Honor Roll. Well, you know who you are and you can live with that.

But it looks like someone could get DXCC with this system assuming all contacts are made from Baghdad. Good luck and I salute the first person to get DXCC from YI, be they Iraqi or American.

[kf6iiu]

OOPS (before I get corrected) looks like it's NOT legal to try DXCC with the control point and transciever is separate DXCC entitites.

[yi1dz]

To all,
Please back to the site of www.lamonica.com and you will find what you discuss about .

Our respect with 73 to all.

Diya YI1DZ:)

[w4amp]

ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM

We shall see...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[g3zhi]

http://www.lamonica.com/lic.htm

الهيئـة الوطنية للاتصـالات والاعـلام

The National Communications and Media Commission





Amateur Radio License





Name:
Dr. Keith Lamonica

Call Sign:
YI9DXX

Station Location:
Baghdad, Iraq

Date of Issue:
31 Oct 04

Date of Expiration:
31 Oct 09

License Number:
20041030-A10

Class:
Not Applicable

Comments:
This license allows full amateur radio privileges within the high frequency bands specified by the International Amateur Radio Union Region I. VHF operations are authorized only from 144.0MHz through 146.00MHZ. UHF and 6 meter operations within Iraq are not authorized with this license. Mobile and portable operations are authorized while in possession of a copy of this license.




By: Siyamend Othman, Chief Executive Officer
73 Ian G3ZHI

http://www.qsl.net/g3zhi - many ham radio links

http://www.ukirlp.co.uk

G4NJI IRLP 5200 Echolink 135909
Rotherham simplex 145.2875mhz

GB3XN IRLP 5708 Echolink 153126
Langold 430.925 Mhz

Mobile 0783 338 0578

[w4gov]

http://www.lamonica.com/lic.htm

[w3bny]

Yeah thats all I need to hear now....

CQ CQ CQ american pig-dogs, this is radio binhoochie....radio binhoochie calling CQ for capitalist great satan pig eating americans. :rock:

[k7ov]

Good morning all, I hope this posting finds you all in good health and prospering!


Sometimes is helps to just stand back and start with the basics.

First, any transmission by radio must sign the call sign of the control operator Whether the “control operator” pushes the PTT button on a microphone, or controls the transmit function remotely, he is still the “Control Operator”, by US and International agreement. (Not rocket science!). This being said, the only question left, is where is the transmission (RF wise) originating? If it is in a foreign country, the “Control Operator” must have a valid license from that country to operate, unless their laws must make it “legal” for a any foreign ham, or in this case, specifically, for the purposes of our discussion, a U.S. Ham, to access a transmitter in the “host” country without a reciprocal license and transmit. As a U.S. Ham, violation of foreign radio laws can be addressed by the FCC, if the foreign country makes a formal complaint against the operation of U.S. ham. How much power they have is for the attorneys to argue over. So, if you are using a remote link to a transmitter in a foreign country, you must have reciprocal operating privileges, BY US LAW, and most likely under the laws of that country. #If there is no reciprocal agreement between the US and the foreign country a US ham wants to operate, he must 1) get a license for the country in question, and 2) make sure that remote operation is legal in that foreign country. If the actual transmission is being controlled by a ham in another country, he becomes the control operator and the audio being transmitted now becomes “Third Party Traffic” and an agreement between both nations must be in effect for that transmission to be legal. Most likely the “Third Party” will not get into trouble, but the “Control Operator” in that country could get into trouble with his or her government.

Second, traffic, whether it is through the station microphone, or a “phone patch” which includes any audio from a telephone or Voice over IP audio, it is still a “third party emission” if not originated by the “Control Operator” So, to be in compliance, a US Ham, using a remote link would sign either the call sign issued to him by the “Host” country, or if a reciprocal agreement exists between the two nations, his US Call Sign plus the foreign designator as required by International Agreement. It makes no difference for the purposes of the Radio Emission whether the actual person transmitting it actually in that country or not, but what country the transmission is coming from. You could view it as a very long microphone cable if you like. These questions are covered quite thoroughly in the question pool to qualify for an Amateur license, even at the basic level.

That being said, I have only two other comments. First, it is sad we can’t discuss these or any issue concerning Amateur Radio without insulting one another. Part of the heritage of being an Amateur Radio is diplomacy. That is why, at least in the past, we have been called “Ambassadors to the World”. #If we can’t treat one another politely and in a friendly manner, how will we be able to do this on the air as “Ambassadors to the World”? I would hope we all would consider the “Friendly” approach and leave the vinegar for others outside our sphere.

I have a past with Keith Lamonica (W7DXX) from his living here in Washington State that dates back to 1976, so I know a little of his past. Keith is one of those hams who is involved with some “neat” aspects of Ham Radio. But, Keith has always been, at least a controversial person. It would do well for anyone wishing to associate with his projects to tread carefully. After all, if you do something illegal, you will pay the price, not him.

73,

Mike Eakins – K7OV

[N1EY]

Quote[/b] (g3zhi @ Oct. 31 2004,04:03)]dave cameron ve7ltd has sold nearly 1500 irlp boards at $150 each thats $225,000
In the USA, the $225,000 would be considered personal income subject to taxation. Hams can not charge for running a radio station. Your example is not the same as the issues behind collecting money to run a repeater. The FCC regs has nothing to do with selling equipment for repeaters to other hams.

I do not really care about the issues with the FCC regs and I think that people are generally following them. However, I would like people to cough up the dough to the taxman when they are selling stuff. It wouldn't hurt if they collected the sales tax as well.

Bill

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (w4amp @ Oct. 31 2004,20:07)]ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM

We shall see...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Please refrain from posting profanity in Latin.

Thanks.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

[w4amp]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Nov. 01 2004,16:59)]Quote[/b] (w4amp @ Oct. 31 2004,20:07)]ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM

We shall see...

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Please refrain from posting profanity in Latin.

Thanks.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.
You just posted the same thing...

[w6bgr]

I have been a user of the W7DXX, W6PJ remote base systems for a couple of years now. I mostly RX and have also transmitted the system. I donate for the continued upkeep of the system and its user base.

This thread is every bit a reflection of the same old cry babies who (no matter the topic) have nothing better to do than sit at a keyboard and put-down others. No axe to grind here just thankfull that the majority for the U.S. ham population is not refected in the QSZ forum.

It's obvious that these are just a small number of people who have no business in a hobby who's intent it is to protect and help others.


73

Joe

W6BGR

[w4amp]

http://www.digitalend.com/pics/here%20are%20the%20people%20who%20care.jpg

[w6bgr]

Your comment proves my point.
What's holding you back Jim?
Enough said

[KB7ZZ]

Ham Radio is for all..all types of personalities and interests. W7DXX is NOT this time, nor has he at ANY time ..solicited..for money. In fact Keith has offered this station..at HIS own great expense to those of the amateur radio community that wish to participate in its operation. Helpful financial contribution..and or..equipment to the 'remote base' are totally up to the individual amateur. Seems to me there are some sour grapes here..as well as a group of hams that just don't want to enter the 21st century! As for the YI9 License ..I am CERTAIN without a shadow of a doubt that the license is legal both by US and whatever present govenment rules the YI desert on this date. W7DXX and several other stations have already 'accumulated' gear for the project. It will continue until its on the air sometime early next year...seems to me support for a terrific idea would be more productive than knocking something you know nothing about! If you don't like it...too bad...sorry that you're not willing to join the fun..but its your choice..continue to enjoy our hobby...there are many aspects to enjoy...So many say CW is a dead mode..its strives in QRP and home brew circles around the world...FM is many cities is dead or dying...IRLP and Echolink have saved the FM bands...thank goodness for NEW technologies that continue to keep Ham Radio the King of Hobbies!
Enjoy the Fun!
73 to all!
Dave
KB7ZZ
NV4AA-L Echolink #2206http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[w3mz]

There seems to be a lot more information about this project now than there was at the beginning. If it has the blessing of the FCC, and there is hardware and software included in the deal, and the cost is less than first thought, and it is to defray the cost of maintaining the station, and if interested Iraqi Hams or prospective Hams are allowed to use the station, and if W7DXX has developed a system that will be useful to many Hams in the future, if all these things are true, then what in the world are we complaining about?

I have never used IRLP myself, but I know it is very popular with a lot of Hams. Like I said before, if enough people are interested in this to make it work, God Bless them.

I hope to one day work an Iraqi Ham who got his (or her) start on this station.

73 All, Mike W3MZ

[k7ov]

Hi again,

I have been reading the threads and thinking about the situation and some things come to mind. First, I think I remember reading somewhere, that the FCC has Ok'd communication with IRAQ, but I didn't read that third party traffic was included. Whether legal or not, the only people likely to get into trouble with the FCC is the control operator, and only if the transmissions originate in the United States or it's territories. If the control operator is Keith W7DXX, and he wants to persue this course, I don't feel it is any of my business.

If the transmissions are originating in a foreign country, then that is the business of those hams and that country. As a Ham Operator in the U.S. as long as the foreign station I am talking to is legally licensed in the country he is transmitting from, I have no problem talking with him, regardless whether or not he is actually in his own station. If Keith installs equipment there and the transmitter signs his call sign, I hope he has a license for that country. But, once again, that is his decission, not mine. I personally hope he is able to put together a legally operated system. In this case, it might be pretty easy for him to get the permissions needed, as the US pretty much controls what is happening there from an administrative standpoint.

73,

Mike - K7OV

[g3zhi]

As soon as I receive the new computer and RigBlaster for the YI9DXX
remote base I will program it, test it out, and ship it to Baghdad. Once
it gets there we should be on the air in no time.

Tom, NN2X has offered to set up a satellite system Internet for the remote.

I have bought a Kenwood transceiver.

Stan, W4MQ, has offered to buy the computer.

Pete, W6PJ, has offered to buy the RigBlaster.\

Pablo, EA4TX, is supplying one of his ARS antenna contollers.

All we need to finish the project is:

12 VDC 20 amp supply that operates off 220 VAC at 50HZ

UPS supply (also 220 VAC)

Shipping and insurance costs. (It has to be DHL)

There may be a couple of minor items I have forgotten. But, that should
do it.

Please RSVP if you will take care of any of the items remaining.

Keith, W7DXX/YI9DXX

[n3ca]

I think this relates to a question I've had for a while about Echolink. I just got my license less than a month ago, and Echolink was my first means of communicating with the ham world - even if the RF didn't technically originate to me while using the software on my computer. The reason I've stayed away from foreign repeaters is the legality of the contact. Technically, are the transmissions originating from the US or from that country? The other issue is the HF gateways. Some people have told me that I can transmit on those gateways if there's a control operator present. I still haven't, and I'm still not sure of the legality of this as well as the Baghdad transceiver. Where do the transmissions originate?