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

[WB8TCR]

Remember though, there's more than just "agencies."
There's business users, marine, military. It doesn't matter who receives a distress call. The only thing that matters is that the message is received and help gets sent.

Good point. In one of my early posts here I mentioned extreme measures like carping together a spark gap transmitter that blasted across who knows what frequencies or bands, simply to garner someones attention in a catastrophic situtation.

 

[N4DES]

Well the definition is so broad of an amateur station we could only be guessing as to any intent. Fact is when the ARS was created, people had very crude equipment, much of which they made themselves. Sure, hams have always been charged with operating on their own frequencies only under "normal conditions" but when these rules were promulgated I doubt there was even a thought that equipment was programmed to amateur frequencies only, as we've come to experience with a lot of commercially made ham gear for decades now.

But this brings us full-circle to a Baofeng HT or other VFO transceiver designed for a wide range of VHF/UHF frequencies. It is an amateur station by this definition.

FWIW I think it is phrased as such as only a station can transmit, not an operator, who would be the control operator of said station. Then again, I could be wrong.

BTW I am not advocating "whackerism" and frankly don't see anything that suggests that any recent posters in this thread are either.

That is what I was thinking through the afternoon that the definitions didn't keep up with the changes in technology and even with changes in the rules themselves that the FCC has made. I just stumbled into it myself as I questioned why they referenced the station and not the operator, when in fact it is the operator that makes the distress call.

Oh well.....no biggie. I'm going to warm up more popcorn for the rest of the entertainment.

 

[mmckenna]

You quoted me but didn't understand a word I said. I did not promote whackerism, in fact quite the opposite. <snip> I spoke against modding ham rigs. I stated an idea I thought might help and you make personal attack. You seem to have the idea that 911 is for some other purpose than serving ppl in need of help

MTS2000des nailed it on the head.

This wasn't intended as any personal attack on you, it was a vent about the attitude of -some- amateur radio operators and an attempt to lay out what the issues are with what you proposed.

I've held an amateur radio license for 26 years, long before I started working in this field. I did the modified amateur radio equipment thing, thinking I'd be the one to save the day. I stopped doing that after about 2 years. When I started working in this industry I realized how silly it was, what a huge liability it was, and how dangerous it was for me -a civilian- to think I'd had any right to be doing that.

I've worked in LMR for a very long time, and I've been involved in building a new PSAP from the ground up. I've sat in the back and watched dispatchers attempt to handle the volume of traffic that comes in.

Two weeks ago I was there while there was a very serious medical call coming in. About 1 minute later a call came in for a guy wandering around in a parking lot with a machete. Moments later a centralized fire alarm came in. In the middle of 2 dispatchers trying to juggle all this, involving multiple agencies on multiple channels, inbound life flight, the "public works" channel came up with an employee inquiring about getting a illegally parked vehicle ticketed.

Experiencing all that first hand will quickly make you realize that the absolute LAST thing these professionals need is some well meaning hobbyist trying to elbow into the middle of the action.

If you ever have the chance to tour a PSAP, I strongly suggest doing it. When you observe the way the call flow is set up and all the methods use, you'll quickly realize that the system is designed in such a way to allow calls for help to be prioritized and handled in the most efficient way possible. PSAP dispatchers are not glorified telephone operators or radio operators. They have a vast amount of training and experience to handle prioritizing calls, handling scared/hysterical/confused public, all while keeping a calm and professional attitude.

To think that anyone communicating in through a "side door", bypassing call triage and potentially interrupting higher priority traffic involving imminent safety of life all because of a 35 question multiple choice test and a radio is absolutely 100% foolish, irresponsible and dangerous. To assume that your own emergency some how trumps everyone else's based on your hobby is just ignorant.

Rules, laws and procedures are in place for very good reasons. Ignorance or misinterpretation of the reasoning behind them does not justify the action.

You are welcome to take that all as a personal attack, but that is not what it is. It's a clear statement about what I've personally watched from inside the system and what I've experienced as an amateur radio operator myself.

 

[WB8TCR]

Here's how well it worked out for this guy when he used a part 90 radio on a public safety system while he chose to intervene in what he felt was an "emergency".

That article mentions "pulling over a driver and holding her at gunpoint." and nothing about transmitting illegally on a Part 90 radio. Even if he did, that would be the least of his problems. The article states "Carmichael had allegedly heard on a police radio . . ." For all we know he had a police scanner, something that seems to be pretty popular on these boards. He's clearly a whack-job and has little to nothing to do with this discussion, at least as far as that article discusses. Maybe you have more info than that article provided.

I actually asked a couple pages back if somebody could provide a link(s) to one of these cases that were prosecuted for illegal OOB transmissions and would still appreciate if somebody would please do that.

 

[rapidcharger]

Still nothing from the FCC in my mailbox today.

I think McKenna read way too much into that post.

I know that 911 centers are understaffed. And it's easy to see why they are when they go out and blow tens of millions of dollars on a DTRS and an entire full time geek squad to keep it all running. It's all about priorities.

There's a raging inferno 25 feet away from your kitchen window and you call 911 and nobody even answers. But they've got one heck of a great walkie talkie network. You can never have enough walkie talkie networks these days.

Not nice to suggest that someone is a whacker because you don't agree with them and that seems to be what people are resorting to in this thread when they are out of things to say. I was really hoping that letter was going to come today so we can put this to bed already.

I'm very against whackers or more accurately, I'm against posers but I still believe 911 should be there to serve the public and make accommodations for receiving different types of distress calls. And if they don't wanna because they're understaffed or they're not set up, or they spent all their money on digital encrypted secret trunking, that's where you have to rely on other amateur operators and the next time somebody says, "amateur radio operators don't help public safety anymore" or "You're going to need them, long before they're going to need you," well here's a perfect example of how hams can fill a vital role when there is a non-existent distress call monitoring station and a non-existent trained staff.

When I think about how the US Coast Guard monitors a whole slew of frequencies, mostly on HF, for maritime distress calls, it really makes me think that the two sections in part 97 were written and adopted at a time where ham radio was mostly HF. And they probably intended for people to make a distress call in HF and not interfere with something that was unforeseen at the time in VHF or UHF. But never the less, it needs clarification. I do believe as it is written, it gives blanket authorization to make your distress call where ever you can with the equipment you have and I am definitely not a poser or whacker. I realize that is probably not what they had in mind which is why it's time for a clarification.

 

[mmckenna]

There are better ways to do this rather than expecting a 911 PSAP to change the way they do business to support some hobbyists.

If amateur radio operators are concerned about life safety communications, then we (amateurs) need to come up with a way of dealing with it. Expecting the PSAPS to adapt to our own limitations isn't the way to do it.

REACT did something sort of similar with the .675/141.3 plan on GMRS. A really good idea. A common repeater pair/CTCSS tone that could be used in some areas for traveler information and some level of emergency use. Amateurs (ARRL?) could take a page from this book and design something similar. Organized monitoring by clubs, groups of clubs, individual operators could fill this need. Heck, Skywarn seems to be off to a good start in some areas.

Expecting FCC rules to bend/change to benefit a small group of hobbyists, or expecting a PSAP to supply a "special" back door into the system doesn't make any sense. It reeks of elitism/special treatment. Instead of expecting this, amateurs should band together and come up with a better and legal solution. If the amateur community was really concerned about emergency communications this could be done. Since it would entirely remain in the realm of the hobby, the liability and expectations could be managed.

 

[N8OHU]

mmckenna, what about 144.390/100 or 146.52/100?

 

[MTS2000des]

That article mentions "pulling over a driver and holding her at gunpoint." and nothing about transmitting illegally on a Part 90 radio. Even if he did, that would be the least of his problems.

Read the warrant, specifically charge number 8 of 8, felony theft of services then come tell me he didn't use a part 90 radio on a county 800MHz trunking system of which he had no authorization to do. "Emergency or not".

I know that 911 centers are understaffed. And it's easy to see why they are when they go out and blow tens of millions of dollars on a DTRS and an entire full time geek squad to keep it all running. It's all about priorities.

I knew this would come out. So, how much of a tax increase are you willing to pay to have all these obscure methods of reaching YOUR 911 center? You think it's expensive to have a "geek squad" to run a DTRS, wait until you add all the extra stuff like ham radios, light band communications, a full staff of people to monitor Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Oh we should also give every call taker an AnyTone Tech Termin8R so they can "legally" monitor FRS/GRMS and MURS. Add a marine band radio too! Oh wait, how about HF to monitor the international distress channel. And Unicom because in the small chance a plane is going down...where do you draw the line?

I'm against posers but I still believe 911 should be there to serve the public and make accommodations for receiving different types of distress calls.

So do you support a tax increase to fund it? Yes or no. Please don't give the same mantra about your anti-trunking stuff, because that isn't one of the choices. Either you support paying the additional taxes to pay for it or not.

And if they don't wanna because they're understaffed or they're not set up, or they spent all their money on digital encrypted secret trunking, that's where you have to rely on other amateur operators and the next time somebody says, "amateur radio operators don't help public safety anymore" or "You're going to need them, long before they're going to need you," well here's a perfect example of how hams can fill a vital role when there is a non-existent distress call monitoring station and a non-existent trained staff.

What does one have to with the other? You're still upset because you choose to live in a county that doesn't want you to listen to their radio traffic. How would ham radio change that?

Ham radio operators do have a role, no different than any other volunteer resource, but no other volunteer resource expects to have some special secret squirrel line into a 911 center. Those volunteers either should provide their own resources to fulfill their roles as instructed and get in where they fit in, or they just become a liability at that point.

Expecting FCC rules to bend/change to benefit a small group of hobbyists, or expecting a PSAP to supply a "special" back door into the system doesn't make any sense. It reeks of elitism/special treatment. Instead of expecting this, amateurs should band together and come up with a better and legal solution. If the amateur community was really concerned about emergency communications this could be done. Since it would entirely remain in the realm of the hobby, the liability and expectations could be managed.

BINGO

 

[Voyager]

mmckenna, what about 144.390/100 or 146.52/100?

That would tick off the APRS folks (144.390 MHz) or have too many users who leave CTCSS enabled when using 146.520 MHz.

Something more obscure would be needed - like 144.330 MHz. (No, I haven't checked to see if that has any common users). I forget where the balloon people are offhand.

What we need is a simple rule in Part 97 like "No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radio communication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available."


Oh, wait......................

 

[WB8TCR]

Read the warrant, specifically charge number 8 of 8, felony theft of services then come tell me he didn't use a part 90 radio on a county 800MHz trunking system of which he had no authorization to do. "Emergency or not".

That was not in the article you linked. This again had nothing to do with an emergency but rather a nut case who wants to play cop.

 

[mmckenna]

That would tick off the APRS folks (144.390 MHz) or have too many users who leave CTCSS enabled when using 146.520 MHz.

Something more obscure would be needed - like 144.330 MHz. (No, I haven't checked to see if that has any common users). I forget where the balloon people are offhand.

And that's an issue. Again, if amateur radio operators as a whole were really worried about life safety communications, we'd find a way to work around those issues. The very minds that think the current location of their wife's mini-van is more important than life safety communications should NOT be deciding that they have a back door into the -real- public safety radio networks.

Question would be "How many amateur radio operators pick up their radio to call for help in an emergency vs. how many pick up their cell phone?"

Is there really a need for this? Or could it easily be solved by existing resources (satellite phone, PLB, HF, etc)?

Maybe a wide area 146.52 system using the LiTZ system set up as mountain top remote bases might address this. It would include every amateur radio operator, not just those who know how to clip a diode in their radio or those willing to operate outside the rules as some of us interpret them.

The idea that all amateur radio operators should either modify their gear to work out of band or purchase a part 90 accepted radio to utilize public safety systems doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when there are existing means of getting help legally, reliably and open to EVERYONE. Expecting the FCC and PSAPS to modify rules, procedures and infrastructure for a small subset of misguided individuals of an already small/niche group of hobbyists seems misguided at best.

Expecting the government to reinvent the processes to satisfy the needs of a few cheapskate amateurs when suitable solutions already exist just doesn't add up.

 

[MTS2000des]

That was not in the article you linked. This again had nothing to do with an emergency but rather a nut case who wants to play cop.

In his mind, he was responding to what he thought was an "emergency" and used his radio to call for help, how is this any different from what many people in this thread say is perfectly okay to do?

You asked for a recent case of someone prosecuted for unauthorized use of public safety radio to report a crime. Mr. Carmichael saw a drunk driver/hit and run and used his cloned XTS5000 to actually call in to Smyrna 911 very much the same way one would use a Baofeng to call the po-po.

Ham license or not, doesn't matter. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use, ask him how well that's working out for him.

 

[MTS2000des]

And that's an issue. Again, if amateur radio operators as a whole were really worried about life safety communications, we'd find a way to work around those issues. The very minds that think the current location of their wife's mini-van is more important than life safety communications should NOT be deciding that they have a back door into the -real- public safety radio networks.

THIS^^^^^^

The idea that all amateur radio operators should either modify their gear to work out of band or purchase a part 90 accepted radio to utilize public safety systems doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when there are existing means of getting help legally, reliably and open to EVERYONE. Expecting the FCC and PSAPS to modify rules, procedures and infrastructure for a small subset of misguided individuals of an already small/niche group of hobbyists seems misguided at best.

Expecting the government to reinvent the processes to satisfy the needs of a few cheapskate amateurs when suitable solutions already exist just doesn't add up.

Of course it doesn't make sense. What it is is exactly what you called out: a few want to be elitists and expect that exceptions be made just for them, even though most sane people see it for what it is: whackerism. Plain as day.

It's the whole "when all else fails" prepper crap that really makes hams look bad in the eyes of those in public safety.

Hams need to know their place: want to help? Do what you are ASKED to do and stop with the "I'm special so let me talk on your radios" nonsense. If public safety needs for hams to be on their radio systems, then they will provide the method (and the authorization) to be on it, and for specific purposes.
​

 

[Voyager]

Question would be "How many amateur radio operators pick up their radio to call for help in an emergency vs. how many pick up their cell phone?"

Is there really a need for this? Or could it easily be solved by existing resources (satellite phone, PLB, HF, etc)?

Again, the entire issue is about when other means of communications are NOT available, such as cell phones, AND lives are at risk. How often do you come across such a case? RARELY. But, this is a rule that provides for those "once in a million" cases.

How many people routinely carry sat phones, PLB, HF with them? (especially HF)

Personally, I carry enough - Cellphone, Motorola XTS (on rare occasion two of them), Anytone dual-bander (that has Part 90 cert BTW), two pagers, BCD436HP, badge, wallet, and a couple pockets full of other things (flashlight, Leatherman, glass punch/seatbelt cutter combo, money, keys, extra batteries for the scanner (and sometimes radios if they are low). Do I want to add a PLB and/or Satphone? Not really. Also, how does the PLB notify 911 of the extent and number of injuries? Can you text on it? How does it work? I'm assuming via satellite? If it's Cellular you are back to being SOL.

The criteria is:
1. There is a life-or-death emergency.
2. No other means of communications are available.

That is the only time the rules in question apply. IF you have other means available, you must use those.

Another irony is that I often go to tower sites that have NO cell coverage! (they are too high, and are above the radiation patterns for Cellular). I can see dozens if not hundreds of sites, but not one is accessible (or I'm getting co-channel interference). And these sites are frequented by bear and poisonous snakes. My "first grab" would be an XTS, as it works.

 

[N8OHU]

Again, the entire issue is about when other means of communications are NOT available, such as cell phones, AND lives are at risk. How often do you come across such a case? RARELY. But, this is a rule that provides for those "once in a million" cases.

How many people routinely carry sat phones, PLB, HF with them? (especially HF)

Personally, I carry enough - Cellphone, Motorola XTS (on rare occasion two of them), Anytone dual-bander (that has Part 90 cert BTW), two pagers, BCD436HP, badge, wallet, and a couple pockets full of other things (flashlight, Leatherman, glass punch/seatbelt cutter combo, money, keys, extra batteries for the scanner (and sometimes radios if they are low). Do I want to add a PLB and/or Satphone? Not really. Also, how does the PLB notify 911 of the extent and number of injuries? Can you text on it? How does it work? I'm assuming via satellite? If it's Cellular you are back to being SOL.

The criteria is:
1. There is a life-or-death emergency.
2. No other means of communications are available.

That is the only time the rules in question apply. IF you have other means available, you must use those.

Another irony is that I often go to tower sites that have NO cell coverage! (they are too high, and are above the radiation patterns for Cellular). I can see dozens if not hundreds of sites, but not one is accessible (or I'm getting co-channel interference). And these sites are frequented by bear and poisonous snakes. My "first grab" would be an XTS, as it works.

If you have legal access to other frequencies, 97.403 does not apply in any way shape or form. And implying that 97.403 or 97.405 in any way legally allow hams to access Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies encourages whackerism, plain and simple.

 

[mmckenna]

Personally, I carry enough - Cellphone, Motorola XTS (on rare occasion two of them), Anytone dual-bander (that has Part 90 cert BTW), two pagers, BCD436HP, badge, wallet, and a couple pockets full of other things (flashlight, Leatherman, glass punch/seatbelt cutter combo, money, keys, extra batteries for the scanner (and sometimes radios if they are low). Do I want to add a PLB and/or Satphone? Not really. Also, how does the PLB notify 911 of the extent and number of injuries? Can you text on it? How does it work? I'm assuming via satellite? If it's Cellular you are back to being SOL.

It might be worth you researching so you can decide for yourself.
100% satellite based.
There are options depending on what you want to do. Either a "I need help, here, now" type activation using the GPS derived location sent directly to a dedicated search and rescue center designed/trained to do exactly this.
Or.
Text type systems that you could send specifics to a dispatcher.
Or.
Satellite phone, as they used to say, "reach out and touch someone".

If life safety is your concern, I'd suggest looking at all the gear you are carrying and decide which matters more? Personally I'd chose the PLB over the scanner/spare batteries any day. In fact, it's probably lighter and smaller than your scanner. Considering one could save your life, it's an easy decision.

We carry one when we are in the backwoods, always. It's the right tool for the job. Takes up little space, and there are no legality issues. It doesn't require modifying any rules or laws, and doesn't involve me having to explain why I consciously premeditated breaking the laws by modifying a amateur radio. Cost was a total of $200. Cheaper than most amateur radios. Waterproof/submersible. Easy to operate. No special training necessary.

Another irony is that I often go to tower sites that have NO cell coverage! (they are too high, and are above the radiation patterns for Cellular). I can see dozens if not hundreds of sites, but not one is accessible (or I'm getting co-channel interference). And these sites are frequented by bear and poisonous snakes. My "first grab" would be an XTS, as it works.

Yeah, been there, done that. Used the radio, but used it legally. I got the transportation I needed to the hospital from the back country where cell phones didn't work. Key was I thought through the process ahead of time. I knew I couldn't rely on a public safety system that I wasn't familiar with. Called predetermined contact and the rest went from there. No amateur radio modifications necessary.

 

[Spankymedic7]

No problem. I like what you said and how you said it.

Confusing a hobby with being a true public safety professional is a dangerous and slippery slope.

I've worked in telecommunications and LMR radio for a long time, and I've also been a licensed amateur as well as GMRS user for a long time also. I've run into some people that get into the radio hobbies to satisfy some inner desire to be a "hero", a cop, a fireman, etc. Truth is, most of them aren't, and don't want to put the work into learning those trades. What I see that annoys me is that some amateurs see the radio as a license to act like a jerk, a reason to act like a cop, or to drive around with emergency lights on a car. It is important to not confuse a hobby with being a public safety professional. Amateur radio is a hobby. The radio in the car or in your hand is a tool. A good craftsman has many tools, just like a fireman, paramedic/EMT or police officer will have many tools in "box". The idea that a two way radio suddenly gives someone the authority and/or duty to transmit on public safety frequencies is completely wrong.

Boy do I know how you feel, you hit the nail on the head! I can't tell you how many times my wife and I have said that, "so many people 'want to wear the t-shirt' (i.e. FD, EMS), but the same people don't want to EARN it." Some of these folks have more lights (and even sirens) in their vehicles than my wife and I do...and we're authorized to have them! I believe that these folks equate having radios to being, in some misguided way, a member of the public safety community.

I know this post is a couple years old; however, after stumbling across it, I felt compelled to comment.

Well said.

 

[buddrousa]

Number 1 our local 911 center gets $0 in tax money from our county or city.
Number 2 our local 911 center is funded 100% on a per phone charge landline and cell.
Number 3 our local 911 center monitors with a ham radio a ham channel for emergencies.
Number 4 our local 911 center does not buy pay for or control our local TRS or conventional radios.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE IF YOU WANT TO BE A RESCUE RANDY JOIN YOUR LOCAL RESCUE SQUAD GET ONE OF THEIR RADIOS GET TRAINED AND BE HAPPY. HAVE EVER BEEN TO A NIMS CLASS DO YOU KNOW THE Incident Command System WHO IS IN CHARGE AND HOW THE SECTOR OFFICER IS? IF NOT YOU ARE IN THE WAY.

 

[WB8TCR]

In his mind, he was responding to what he thought was an "emergency" and used his radio to call for help, how is this any different from what many people in this thread say is perfectly okay to do?

He impersonated a cop and drew a firearm on somebody that he chased down. If you can't see the difference between this and somebody on a lonely road in the back of beyond attempting to contact a logging operation a couple of miles away while providing first aid, I don't think I can help you. You have provided an example of an extreme outlier IMO and has little to nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You asked for a recent case of someone prosecuted for unauthorized use of public safety radio to report a crime. Mr. Carmichael saw a drunk driver/hit and run and used his cloned XTS5000 to actually call in to Smyrna 911 very much the same way one would use a Baofeng to call the po-po.

Ham license or not, doesn't matter. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use, ask him how well that's working out for him.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear but that is not what I am asking for. The discussion I believe we are having is about the application of

§97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

§97.405 Station in distress.

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.

as it applies to licensed amateur radio operators. I was led to believe earlier in this thread that there are cases where these have been prosecuted. So yes, ham license does matter as far as this discussion goes and the questions that RC has forwarded to the FCC.

If a licensed ham skips using his cell phone or calls in a cat in the tree on an unauthorized frequency, sure, burn him at the stake. When the stars align to meet the criteria spelled aboved, what then? Where are examples of those cases? The one you noted above is little more than a straw man argument based on what you have provided thus far.

-

 

[WB8TCR]

If you have legal access to other frequencies, 97.403 does not apply in any way shape or form.

Absolutely.

And implying that 97.403 or 97.405 in any way legally allow hams to access Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies encourages whackerism, plain and simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's a debating technique we all use, but you've got a long way to go to prove that point.