Why is out of band transmit illegal? (was: Stupid question)

[DaveNF2G]

but it also exempts a station from all other rules including the need to be a licensed operator.

This is a prime example of misreading the rule to fit an agenda. The rule applies to licensed ham operators. There is no reasonable (in the legal sense) way to interpret it as suspending the requirement for a license.

 

[rapidcharger]

This is a prime example of misreading the rule to fit an agenda. The rule applies to licensed ham operators. There is no reasonable (in the legal sense) way to interpret it as suspending the requirement for a license.

Actually there is and I don't have an agenda. I could care less either way.
Read it.

 

[N8OHU]

Actually there is and I don't have an agenda. I could care less either way.
Read it.

Sure, IF you remove it from the context of Part 97, which the FCC has and always will interpret it as part of. This is why I keep saying that if the FCC intended for us to use other frequencies in an emergency, they would have specifically indicated by Part what other frequencies we could use.

 

[rapidcharger]

Sure, IF you remove it from the context of Part 97, which the FCC has and always will interpret it as part of. This is why I keep saying that if the FCC intended for us to use other frequencies in an emergency, they would have specifically indicated by Part what other frequencies we could use.

In my line of work, I deal with products that can be legal or illegal depending on where you are and I read the laws and if there is a clause that exempts the user of said products from the rest of the section or if they are not even mentioned at all,they are legal. Simple as that. There is no trying to figure out what they meant or what they invisioned. Its either legal or it's not. So that is why I read the rules and interpret them just as how they asre written rather than the intentions of the f.c c.
That is why I wrote the letter to find out what those intentions are as they are obviously not published anywhere.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[Voyager]

That someone was me and I am not biased either way.
In fact I do believe that, as it is written, it not only grants permission to talk out of band.... Not just part 90, but anywhere else

That belief is a bias.

That said, did you cite a specific example of a life-and-death situation as the basis for the question? Or did you just leave it general in nature (such as "Can hams transmit on Part 90 frequencies?")

 

[rapidcharger]

That belief is a bias.

That said, did you cite a specific example of a life-and-death situation as the basis for the question? Or did you just leave it general in nature (such as "Can hams transmit on Part 90 frequencies?")

I gave a great real world example.
It was a four page letter.
Sorry you feel I am biased. I think I am rather objective about it.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[Voyager]

This is why I keep saying that if the FCC intended for us to use other frequencies in an emergency, they would have specifically indicated by Part what other frequencies we could use.

And the other side of the coin is that if they had intended it to be restricted to Part 97 frequencies only, they would have said as much, or some statement like "any means of radiocommunications in Part 97.301".

Hence the ambiguity. They don't say either way, so it is up to the reader to interpret it, and any ambiguity in a court case must be resolved in the favor of a defendant should they try to enforce that rule in a way other than the way the reader interprets it.

As it is, it reads "any means of radiocommunication". Lacking any specific definitions in Part 97, the interpretation defaults to the Webster definitions of the terms. Any means any. Radiocommunication means "communication by means of radio waves". So, unless you want to argue that Part 90 does not use radio waves, the current wording covers Part 90.

 

[Voyager]

I gave a great real world example.
It was a four page letter.
Sorry you feel I am biased. I think I am rather objective about it.

Don't take it too hard. I only say that you are biased because you said you believe it reads one way, and not the other. I am biased the other way. That does not mean I could not write an unbiased letter, nor that you could not - just that we are both biased and the tendency is to write a question that supports your desired belief.

Glad to hear it was so detailed, but that does leave the FCC open to pick parts of the question to answer that we both would feel are not relevant.

Regardless, I don't see any result where the FCC will state that the rules are more important than a human life. As such, I expect them to evade the point to the greatest extent possible. They may even ignore the letter entirely.

 

[rapidcharger]

duplicate- delete.

It was tapatalk's fault

 

[rapidcharger]

Don't take it too hard. I only say that you are biased because you said you believe it reads one way, and not the other. I am biased the other way. That does not mean I could not write an unbiased letter, nor that you could not - just that we are both biased and the tendency is to write a question that supports your desired belief.

Glad to hear it was so detailed, but that does leave the FCC open to pick parts of the question to answer that we both would feel are not relevant.

Regardless, I don't see any result where the FCC will state that the rules are more important than a human life. As such, I expect them to evade the point to the greatest extent possible. They may even ignore the letter entirely.

Think positive!

I asked two specific questions and I will be expecting answers to both. If I don't get one, I will ask again.

Im annoying like that. [emoji1]

I also asked for an example of what would be permitted under those rules of my interpretation was incorrect.

The original letter will be posted along with any response.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[buddrousa]

RAPIDCHARGER
Full Definition of BIASED

1: exhibiting or characterized by bias (see 1bias); especially : prejudiced
2: tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment <a biased coin>
3: having an expected value different from the quantity or parameter estimated <a biased estimate>

 

[robertmac]

I once heard a local ham come on a Forestry frequency which lead to a lot of discussion about why. He wanted to report an accident that was not serious. I do not know if he was using an modified amateur radio as this was not asked. He was asked how he knew the frequency and the codes. His reply was he was with Search and Rescue [but not at the time he went onto their frequency]. We have been requested by the RCMP to use their frequencies but have said we would have to use something other than our amateur radios. So there should be little excuse to have to use modified amateur radios. There are other radios out there that can be legal or illegally used which ever way one wants to go. But don't expect the service to acknowledge you or immediately act on your request [as others have said].

 

[sloop]

Rapidcharger, Voyager, and others...since most public services have moved or are moving to p25 or some other digital mode your assumptions are almost moot. As to your 'loop holes' in the law I would refer you to post #20 by WB4CS and the reply post #38 in this thread.

I think that the time has long past for this thread to be closed.

 

[rapidcharger]

Rapidcharger, Voyager, and others...since most public services have moved or are moving to p25 or some other digital mode your assumptions are almost moot. As to your 'loop holes' in the law I would refer you to post #20 by WB4CS and the reply post #38 in this thread.

I think that the time has long past for this thread to be closed.

For the ONE MILLIONTH time!
That email did not ask about the same sections in the rules.

And speaking of assumptions, most public services moving to P25 or some other digital mode is an assumption in an of itself but so is assuming that one would need to make a mayday call to a public safety agency and not, say, a taxi company or forestry or logging operation. There is a whole world out there to make a distress call to on a frequency agile radio.

To come in here and say the thread should be closed even though you obviously haven't read beyond page two is a little disrespectful.

 

[buddrousa]

You both have your own opinion and I have mine so stop being mad because people do not see things your way.

 

[AK9R]

We have been requested by the RCMP to use their frequencies but have said we would have to use something other than our amateur radios.

Useful info, but, obviously, the rules are different in Canada.

 

[AK9R]

For all of you, I have left this thread open and will leave it open as long as the debate is healthy and productive. When all you are doing is stating the same thing over and over again, the debate starts to get old and tired.

Keep it fresh. Keep it positive. If you are posting just to say the same thing you said, or someone else said, 20 messages ago, you might think twice about it.

 

[rescue161]

Rapidcharger, Voyager, and others...since most public services have moved or are moving to p25 or some other digital mode your assumptions are almost moot. As to your 'loop holes' in the law I would refer you to post #20 by WB4CS and the reply post #38 in this thread.

I think that the time has long past for this thread to be closed.

To add to what Sloop said, there is also this little rule under Part 90 which makes it illegal to program frequencies for which you are not licensed.

§90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.

(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with §90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.

Amateur Radio Part 97 rules do not allow you to use other services.

 

[Voyager]

Post deleted, as the rule is in Part 90, not Part 97.

I will point out that there is a difference between licensed and authorized.
Most Part 90 mobiles and portables operate under a blanket license, so there
is a license for the frequency when used to communicate with the licensee.

 

[rescue161]

Part 90 licenses have a number of transmitters that they are authorized to use. The license states how many fixed stations and how many mobiles. Your Part 90 license does not make it legal to program in another Part 90 license holders frequencies. When you do that, you are in violation of the rules.

Plus, this argument is about hams that want to transmit out of band.