|
"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 |
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") |
What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. 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. I would say find a comercial frequency and use it. YOu did not mention the frequency that you would be using . If under 30 mhz it will be would wide. If in the UHF and above you may go ok. Just remember you will be subject to a shared frequency and others may use that frequency. Sounds like one way or beacon modes to me. |
"Ralph Mowery" wrote
I would say find a comercial frequency and use it. What does that mean? That his application is illegal, or you just don't want him to experiment on the Ham bands? You did not mention the frequency that you would be using . The only frequency he could use would be VHF and shorter wavelengths, due to the automatic features he needs. If under 30 mhz it will be would wide. World wide?? What does that have to do with anything? If in the UHF and above you may go ok. Just remember you will be subject to a shared frequency and others may use that frequency. Duh... Although most VHF and UHF bands are about as empty as the U.S. treasury, and two people using the same frequency would be as likely as being hit with a metorite. Sounds like one way or beacon modes to me. That's because you're very ignorant of the rules: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...s/news/part97/ |
Leo Szumel wrote:
Hi, What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. ... I've examined Part 97 rules and tried to read as many applicable threads as possible. My interpretation is that: ... (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes ... Part (b) is the most shaky becaues it seems to dependon "reasonable use" and other gray terms. Certainly my proposed use is not "hobby" ... Section 97.113(c) prohibits transmission of "Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects? I would think that the University already has or can easily get non-amateur resources (both hardware and spectrum allocation) that would support your research projects. The challenging task is finding out who may have such resources. In addition to checking with the project lead faculty, you may need to check with the department head and the college dean. An often overlooked channel for information is contacting the purchasing persons at the department/college/campus levels. They know who requisitioned what. From there you can go to the requisitioners and find out what administrative activities they went through for licensing. Good luck, Duane Allen N6JPO |
Leo Szumel wrote:
Hi, What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. ... I've examined Part 97 rules and tried to read as many applicable threads as possible. My interpretation is that: ... (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes ... Part (b) is the most shaky becaues it seems to dependon "reasonable use" and other gray terms. Certainly my proposed use is not "hobby" ... Section 97.113(a)(3) prohibits transmission of "Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer." Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects? I would think that the University already has or can easily get non-amateur resources (both hardware and spectrum allocation) that would support your research projects. The challenging task is finding out who may have such resources. In addition to checking with the project lead faculty, you may need to check with the department head and the college dean. An often overlooked channel for information is contacting the purchasing persons at the department/college/campus levels. They know who requisitioned what. From there you can go to the requisitioners and find out what administrative activities they went through for licensing. Good luck, Duane Allen N6JPO |
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:54:46 GMT, Duane Allen wrote:
I would think that the University already has or can easily get non-amateur resources (both hardware and spectrum allocation) that would support your research projects. The challenging task is finding out who may have such resources. In addition to checking with the project lead faculty, you may need to check with the department head and the college dean. An often overlooked channel for information is contacting the purchasing persons at the department/college/campus levels. They know who requisitioned what. From there you can go to the requisitioners and find out what administrative activities they went through for licensing. Yes, UC does have such resources, and the source of who has what where throughout the UC system is the Office of the Vice President of Administration, located on the UC Berkeley campus. At least that's who we used to deal with concerning radio spectrum assignment and licensing matters for the UC system. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:04:25 GMT, S. Sampson wrote:
Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects? Graduate students aren't considered employee's of a University. However, when I did my graduate research at UCLA 40+ years ago, the result was considered "for" the University, not for me as a private individual. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote
S. Sampson wrote: Are you being employeed by UC to conduct university research projects? Graduate students aren't considered employee's of a University. However, when I did my graduate research at UCLA 40+ years ago, the result was considered "for" the University, not for me as a private individual. I would put it this way: If the University intends to patent any part of the research, then the ARS should not be used. |
Note: The following is just my interpretation of the rules.
In article , Leo Szumel writes: 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. I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available. ID is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped monitoring station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption. Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control commands. So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming from the remote sensors. 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
Hi Jim,
N2EY wrote: I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available. ID is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped monitoring station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption. Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control commands. So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming from the remote sensors. I see your point. How about this, though: 97.217: "Telemetry transmitted by an amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface is not considered to be codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of communications." 97.3(45): "Telemetry. A one-way transmission of measurements at a distance from the measuring instrument." Also, 97.309(b) indicates that unspecified codes can be used so long as the purpose is not to obscure the meaning of a communication. Thanks for your input, -Leo -- Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis | KD5SZT Email: |
In article , Leo Szumel
writes: Hi Jim, Hello Leo N2EY wrote: I think there's a problem with using a code that is not publicly available. ID is not enough; if the message cannot be read by a suitably-equipped monitoring station (read: FCC) what you have is a form of encryption. Amateurs are not allowed to intentionally encrypt or otherwise conceal transmission meaning or content, with one exception: remote control commands. So the "turn off" command would be OK to encrypt, but not the data coming from the remote sensors. I see your point. How about this, though: 97.217: "Telemetry transmitted by an amateur station on or within 50 km of the Earth's surface is not considered to be codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of communications." 97.3(45): "Telemetry. A one-way transmission of measurements at a distance from the measuring instrument." Also, 97.309(b) indicates that unspecified codes can be used so long as the purpose is not to obscure the meaning of a communication. Good point! As I interpret it, what this means is that the telemetry message doesn;t have to be self-explanatory. For example, a remote sensor might report "534A0" as a telemetry message in, say, ASCII, which is a "specified code", but there's no need to have the remote sensor indicate what the symbols mean. Thanks for your input, You're welcome! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Just go ahead and do it !!!
Don't worry about the "barracks lawyers". Hams are the biggest bunch of wannabe cops that exist. Your research will be a better use of the bandwidth than 99.999% of the mindless jabber on the amateur bands today, |
Moron.
"keep-it-clean" wrote in message ... Just go ahead and do it !!! Don't worry about the "barracks lawyers". Hams are the biggest bunch of wannabe cops that exist. Your research will be a better use of the bandwidth than 99.999% of the mindless jabber on the amateur bands today, |
"keep-it-clean" wrote
Now then, I take it you disagree with my advice to the original poster. That really wasn't "advice," it was just noise. |
|
Leo Szumel wrote
I am being paid by UC to do research in general. I would not receive compensation as a result of this specific research, so in my mind I have no pecuniary interest in the project. If you are doing this research project within the scope of your paid position, then you DO have a pecuniary interest, and Amateur Radio is not an appropriate communications medium. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
go for it. as long as u share your info and results with the ham
community..and it wouldn't hurt to get ur ticket.. 73's de n0mnb "Leo Szumel" wrote in message ... Hi, What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. 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. 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) (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes (c) AR can be used for data transmissions, using encrypted authentication, provided the data payload is unencrypted 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." What do you think of using AR bands for relaying sensor information for research purposes? Would an FCC Special Temporary Authority be appropriate/required? Sincerely, -- Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis Email: |
I believe that you have to have a properly
licensed control operator, at a control point, for any transmission made on amateur radio except in the case of emergency. Emergency is further defined as threat to life and property. I have, on various boy scout camporees, place a two meter, rock controlled radio, set on 52, in the disaster sight. The boys were on there own, but there was always someone with a stronger radio, close at hand, to monitor, w/o the boys realizing it. Never had a problem, and did some sole searching about definition of control point. Decided that the stretch, if any was worth it, and I was willing to defend my decision if necessary. -- 73 es cul wb3fup a Salty Bear "Bill Frovik n0mnb" wrote in message ... go for it. as long as u share your info and results with the ham community..and it wouldn't hurt to get ur ticket.. 73's de n0mnb "Leo Szumel" wrote in message ... Hi, What we'd like to do is use amateur radio for some university research projects. 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. 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) (b) AR can be used for educational (non-commercial) purposes (c) AR can be used for data transmissions, using encrypted authentication, provided the data payload is unencrypted 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." What do you think of using AR bands for relaying sensor information for research purposes? Would an FCC Special Temporary Authority be appropriate/required? Sincerely, -- Leo Szumel | ECE Graduate Student, UC Davis Email: |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 23:54:02 -0500, Bill Frovik n0mnb wrote:
go for it. as long as u share your info and results with the ham community..and it wouldn't hurt to get ur ticket.. 73's de n0mnb Leo and I kicked this around in private e-mail, and because of lots of facts that you don't know, the use of amateur radio for this project is NOT proper. Gotta' know the whole story before you dispense quasi-legal advice.....especially when said advice is incorrect. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Principal Attorney Communications Law Center San Francisco, CA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com