|
"Leo Szumel" wrote
What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. I don't see a problem with that, as research is what interests Amateurs. Specifically, we would like to use AR equipment in sensor network research. Sensor networks are basically like APRS without people at the transmit nodes, and more than just position information is reported (maybe temperature, etc). Also, multi-hop relay may be employed. Conducted every day. I've examined Part 97 rules and tried to read as many applicable threads as possible. My interpretation is that: (a) automated transmissions are OK (with caveats) If you don't use a specified code, you must identify using a specified code. For example, if you design your own protocol (unspecified code), then you should design the system to ID every 10 minutes, or every transmission. (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes See below (c) AR can be used for data transmissions, using encrypted authentication, provided the data payload is unencrypted Yes. Phil Karn proposed a DES authentication many years ago, however, I don't see why just a plain old MD5 checksum of the data and the time-stamp wouldn't fit most requirements. Part (b) is the most shaky becaues it seems to dependon "reasonable use" and other gray terms. Certainly my proposed use is not "hobby" but it seems to me to fall into the category of "experimentation" and (hopefully) "advancing the field." I don't see a problem in what you are proposing, and I think you could enlist several amateurs who wanted to help. It goes without saying, that you would need a ham license yourself, but that is pretty simple these days on a no-code ticket. Even if the money you use to buy the equipment, and power the equipment, is grant money, it would be legal. Where you would begin to have problems, is if you made the data proprietary, or sold subscriptions/membership/access to say web sites where the data is stored. You could maintain a compilation type copyright, and restrict access to the raw data and software, if you provided say access to the processed data. I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. 73, Steve |
"Leo Szumel" wrote
What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. I don't see a problem with that, as research is what interests Amateurs. Specifically, we would like to use AR equipment in sensor network research. Sensor networks are basically like APRS without people at the transmit nodes, and more than just position information is reported (maybe temperature, etc). Also, multi-hop relay may be employed. Conducted every day. I've examined Part 97 rules and tried to read as many applicable threads as possible. My interpretation is that: (a) automated transmissions are OK (with caveats) If you don't use a specified code, you must identify using a specified code. For example, if you design your own protocol (unspecified code), then you should design the system to ID every 10 minutes, or every transmission. (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes See below (c) AR can be used for data transmissions, using encrypted authentication, provided the data payload is unencrypted Yes. Phil Karn proposed a DES authentication many years ago, however, I don't see why just a plain old MD5 checksum of the data and the time-stamp wouldn't fit most requirements. Part (b) is the most shaky becaues it seems to dependon "reasonable use" and other gray terms. Certainly my proposed use is not "hobby" but it seems to me to fall into the category of "experimentation" and (hopefully) "advancing the field." I don't see a problem in what you are proposing, and I think you could enlist several amateurs who wanted to help. It goes without saying, that you would need a ham license yourself, but that is pretty simple these days on a no-code ticket. Even if the money you use to buy the equipment, and power the equipment, is grant money, it would be legal. Where you would begin to have problems, is if you made the data proprietary, or sold subscriptions/membership/access to say web sites where the data is stored. You could maintain a compilation type copyright, and restrict access to the raw data and software, if you provided say access to the processed data. I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. 73, Steve |
(Message read and reply posted in rec.radio.amateur.policy)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:00:05 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: You may want to try Mr. Hollingsworth at FCC and see what he says. He is chief of enforcement, FCC. Or maybe he can direct you to the proper desk. Riley (who has plenty on his plate as it is) is in the Enforcement Bureau, not the Wireless Telecomm Bureau that issues ham licenses and interprets the rules thereof. He would not be involved in such before-the-fact interpretations - it's the folks in Bill Cross' shop at WTB who issue interpretations as to whether such operation is permissible or not, and then Riley sees to the enforcement. Off the top of my baldy bean, if there is any taint of remuneration or pecuniary interest, I would advise a ham client that it would not be permissable. Then again, the wizards and wonders at the FCC's Office of Engineering Technology have been known to issue Experimental licenses for things which are the equivalent of attempts to mate a zebra with a tiger. Contact Carl Huie who is a ham and the guy in OET who handles such things. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |
(Message read and reply posted in rec.radio.amateur.policy)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:46:45 GMT, S. Sampson wrote: I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. How do you think Tommy Lott developed ACSB when the land-mobile big-three folks turned him down flat and he did the "research" for the wannabee companies? Can you say 20 meters ? Lots of us knew what he was doing but nobody wanted to blow the whistle. Shame on me. Then again, best to let that "creation" stay dead.....it's been about 25 years, and it never caught on, primarily because the manufacturers who did fall for that scheme could never get the equipment to work properly. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
(Message read and reply posted in rec.radio.amateur.policy)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:00:05 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: You may want to try Mr. Hollingsworth at FCC and see what he says. He is chief of enforcement, FCC. Or maybe he can direct you to the proper desk. Riley (who has plenty on his plate as it is) is in the Enforcement Bureau, not the Wireless Telecomm Bureau that issues ham licenses and interprets the rules thereof. He would not be involved in such before-the-fact interpretations - it's the folks in Bill Cross' shop at WTB who issue interpretations as to whether such operation is permissible or not, and then Riley sees to the enforcement. Off the top of my baldy bean, if there is any taint of remuneration or pecuniary interest, I would advise a ham client that it would not be permissable. Then again, the wizards and wonders at the FCC's Office of Engineering Technology have been known to issue Experimental licenses for things which are the equivalent of attempts to mate a zebra with a tiger. Contact Carl Huie who is a ham and the guy in OET who handles such things. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |
(Message read and reply posted in rec.radio.amateur.policy)
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:46:45 GMT, S. Sampson wrote: I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. How do you think Tommy Lott developed ACSB when the land-mobile big-three folks turned him down flat and he did the "research" for the wannabee companies? Can you say 20 meters ? Lots of us knew what he was doing but nobody wanted to blow the whistle. Shame on me. Then again, best to let that "creation" stay dead.....it's been about 25 years, and it never caught on, primarily because the manufacturers who did fall for that scheme could never get the equipment to work properly. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Dan, Steve,
S. Sampson wrote: If you don't use a specified code, you must identify using a specified code. For example, if you design your own protocol (unspecified code), then you should design the system to ID every 10 minutes, or every transmission. That should not be a problem. I envisage we would use an unspecified code for our data transmissions, but we could self-identify with an RTTY broadcast every 10 min. This will all be computer-controlled so that should be easy. Yes. Phil Karn proposed a DES authentication many years ago, however, I don't see why just a plain old MD5 checksum of the data and the time-stamp wouldn't fit most requirements. Our motivation for authentication is that we are concerned with controlling access to the sensor network; for instance, we want to be the only ones who can give commands to the sensor nodes, like "turn off." I don't see a problem in what you are proposing, and I think you could enlist several amateurs who wanted to help. It goes without saying, that you would need a ham license yourself, but that is pretty simple these days on a no-code ticket. I should have mentioned, I have a NCT license: KD5SZT. Issued last summer. That's a great idea, getting hams involved. I think it would be a fun project. Even if the money you use to buy the equipment, and power the equipment, is grant money, it would be legal. Where you would begin to have problems, is if you made the data proprietary, or sold subscriptions/membership/access to say web sites where the data is stored. You could maintain a compilation type copyright, and restrict access to the raw data and software, if you provided say access to the processed data. I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. Our goal is to provide a "service" to researchers; no compensation would ever be accepted and the network is only for use in relaying sensor data and sending commands to said sensors. Data produced would be freely available. Sounds like our application is OK with the use policies. Steve, thanks for your input! Dan/W4NTI wrote: Do you have, or are you going to have, a ham license? Will all the stations involved have a ham licensee on hand? If not you will run into difficulties with the third party rules. I do have a NCT license. I can imagine getting my advisor to get a license, but I'm interesting in seeing if I can get around that. As I see it, there would be several autonomous transmitters (relay devices) and one control station, all of which would be under my control. As I do sleep some of the time, is that a problem? :) What you describe may fall under 'experimental'. But I would check with the FCC. We want to design our system so that any manner of communication means could be used to ferry the sensor data (internet, etc). But for our initial experimentation, I think ham radio would be (a) very appropriate and affordable and (b) fun. We will probably use ISM for short-range communications and only rely on ham for longer range xmits. You may want to try Mr. Hollingsworth at FCC and see what he says. He is chief of enforcement, FCC. Or maybe he can direct you to the proper desk. Great, thanks for the reference. I will contact him. Regards, -- Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis | KD5SZT Email: |
Dan, Steve,
S. Sampson wrote: If you don't use a specified code, you must identify using a specified code. For example, if you design your own protocol (unspecified code), then you should design the system to ID every 10 minutes, or every transmission. That should not be a problem. I envisage we would use an unspecified code for our data transmissions, but we could self-identify with an RTTY broadcast every 10 min. This will all be computer-controlled so that should be easy. Yes. Phil Karn proposed a DES authentication many years ago, however, I don't see why just a plain old MD5 checksum of the data and the time-stamp wouldn't fit most requirements. Our motivation for authentication is that we are concerned with controlling access to the sensor network; for instance, we want to be the only ones who can give commands to the sensor nodes, like "turn off." I don't see a problem in what you are proposing, and I think you could enlist several amateurs who wanted to help. It goes without saying, that you would need a ham license yourself, but that is pretty simple these days on a no-code ticket. I should have mentioned, I have a NCT license: KD5SZT. Issued last summer. That's a great idea, getting hams involved. I think it would be a fun project. Even if the money you use to buy the equipment, and power the equipment, is grant money, it would be legal. Where you would begin to have problems, is if you made the data proprietary, or sold subscriptions/membership/access to say web sites where the data is stored. You could maintain a compilation type copyright, and restrict access to the raw data and software, if you provided say access to the processed data. I'm being vague, but the gist of it, is that you can't make money, and I never heard of a research program that did. Our goal is to provide a "service" to researchers; no compensation would ever be accepted and the network is only for use in relaying sensor data and sending commands to said sensors. Data produced would be freely available. Sounds like our application is OK with the use policies. Steve, thanks for your input! Dan/W4NTI wrote: Do you have, or are you going to have, a ham license? Will all the stations involved have a ham licensee on hand? If not you will run into difficulties with the third party rules. I do have a NCT license. I can imagine getting my advisor to get a license, but I'm interesting in seeing if I can get around that. As I see it, there would be several autonomous transmitters (relay devices) and one control station, all of which would be under my control. As I do sleep some of the time, is that a problem? :) What you describe may fall under 'experimental'. But I would check with the FCC. We want to design our system so that any manner of communication means could be used to ferry the sensor data (internet, etc). But for our initial experimentation, I think ham radio would be (a) very appropriate and affordable and (b) fun. We will probably use ISM for short-range communications and only rely on ham for longer range xmits. You may want to try Mr. Hollingsworth at FCC and see what he says. He is chief of enforcement, FCC. Or maybe he can direct you to the proper desk. Great, thanks for the reference. I will contact him. Regards, -- Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis | KD5SZT Email: |
In article ,
says... snip What do you think of using AR bands for relaying sensor information for research purposes? Would an FCC Special Temporary Authority be appropriate/required? I think you need to get your Technician-class (or higher) ham license. That, at least, would be a good start. -- Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute. (Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR, Owner and Head Hardware Heavy, Blue Feather Technologies -- http://www.bluefeathertech.com) kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech dot c=om (Reassemble to use). "Raf tras spintern. Raf tras spoit." (Keith Laumer, "The Galaxy Builder") |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com