Amateur radio and out-of-band transmit in the news

Status
Not open for further replies.

Golay

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
494
My thoughts after reading four pages? Who cares.
I've always been an advocate of letting first responders that have to purchase their own radios modify ham radios.
Yeah, 30 years ago it may of been an issue.
Does anyone truly think modifying a modern Yaesu or Kenwood or Icom radio is going to cause spurious transmissions?
Yeah, maybe a Bullfrog or some other CCR. But one of the Big 3? Please. Let them modify all they want.
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,465
Location
Indianapolis
Does anyone truly think modifying a modern Yaesu or Kenwood or Icom radio is going to cause spurious transmissions?

You are correct, sir, in your rhetoric. I have several Icom and Yaesu radios and all of them are in-spec with respect to Part 90 technical requirements regarding deviation and spurious emissions. I know because I put them on my scopes. I would not hesitate for a second to use these radios on my Part 90 LM frequencies or on GMRS, but I certainly would not advertise it. (If anyone thinks I'm doing something "wrong" by doing using these radios in such a manner, I'll just say I couldn't care less about what you think. Okay, got that out of the way.)
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,869
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
Does anyone truly think modifying a modern Yaesu or Kenwood or Icom radio is going to cause spurious transmissions?

It's not just spurious emissions. I agree, some of the newer radios run really clean. But we have to look at the capability of the average user. Most hams do not have access to a calibrated service monitor, so determining this would be left to a very small percentage of hams. Just because one cheap Chinese radio runs clean does not mean they all do. I've had some Baofengs on my service monitor and found them to be all over the place from acceptable to 'hell-no'.

Many/most/all of the older ham radios won't do narrow band. Most hams could not effectively explain narrow banding as it applies here. Just look at all the posts of people buying radios off E-Bay to use on their employers frequencies with zero knowledge of how they work...

There are some good reasons for these rules, and it's to prevent the average idiot with a radio from doing something stupid and then claiming "Gee, I didn't know….." We all know how easy it is to buy a Baofeng, and follow some directions on the internet to open it up to transmit outside the ham bands.

There's also the prohibition of VFO's and radios that can easily be adjusted in the field, again, goes back to the "average idiot" that will dial in any frequency they think isn't being used on the fly.

Yeah, there's a few of you guys that are smart enough, technically and logically, to do this right. But we have to remember, most laws are written because of the lowest common denominator. I've been a ham for a long time. Most of my extended family are hams, even though some of them got their licenses via ham-cram sessions. I've been around enough to know that the average ham radio operator fits the "amateur" thing to a T. An amateur license alone isn't any proof of knowledge or brains. Heck, anyone that can memorize enough to pass a 35 question multiple choice test with at least 70% passing grade can get one. Let's not confuse that with actual knowledge.
 

alcahuete

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Messages
2,488
Location
Antelope Acres, California
My thoughts after reading four pages? Who cares.


Obviously not you, because you don't have to deal with it. There is a "scanner" club here where I live, and the leaders were selling Baofengs to be used by the members as scanners. Great! Except that transmit was not disabled. Anytime somebody would go to stop their radio from scanning, they would do it by pushing the PTT. Now the repeaters weren't programmed in, but they were transmitting simplex on the output for the Sheriff, Fire Department, paramedics, etc. I heard it all the time. I still hear it to this day. When I brought it up to the club, I was banned from their website and Facebook group and removed. They didn't want to hear it, and didn't care. I passed it along to the FCC who likely didn't care either.

Fine example of stupid people, who have no idea what they're doing, potentially causing issues on public safety frequencies. Not okay.

In my professional life, 4 of the last 5 people we busted for interfering with air traffic control systems were using modified radios. Two were transmitting FM on airband frequencies. One was playing music and old school video games on VHF Guard (121.5), with a modified radio. One using a BAOFENG whose spurious emissions were interfering with the ILS. And the 5th, although not using a modified radio, per se, were two CB operators using unfiltered 1kw+ amps, and were bleeding over onto AM airband frequencies. This was not in the middle of nowhere. The interference was causing issues for some of the nation's busiest airports.

So who cares? I care! Sure, 9 times out of 10, people are going to modify their radios, use them on GMRS, MURS, etc., and never have issues. People run amps on their CBs all the time without issues. But the one time there are issues, lives can be at risk.
 

DeoVindice

P25 Underground
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
461
Location
Gadsden Purchase
My thoughts after reading four pages? Who cares.
I've always been an advocate of letting first responders that have to purchase their own radios modify ham radios.
Yeah, 30 years ago it may of been an issue.
Does anyone truly think modifying a modern Yaesu or Kenwood or Icom radio is going to cause spurious transmissions?
Yeah, maybe a Bullfrog or some other CCR. But one of the Big 3? Please. Let them modify all they want.

There is a very large difference between a ham radio and a public safety radio in build quality and UI/UX. Ham radios are built to be used by a semi-skilled hobbyist in a reasonably controlled environment; public safety radios are built to be used as a tool by an end user without any knowledge beyond "turn radio on, push button to talk".

Good used commercial equipment is so cheap now that there's no sense in messing with UHF/VHF FM ham radios on amateur, let alone Part 90 service.
 

krokus

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
5,994
Location
Southeastern Michigan
My thoughts after reading four pages? Who cares.
I've always been an advocate of letting first responders that have to purchase their own radios modify ham radios.
Yeah, 30 years ago it may of been an issue.
Does anyone truly think modifying a modern Yaesu or Kenwood or Icom radio is going to cause spurious transmissions?
Yeah, maybe a Bullfrog or some other CCR. But one of the Big 3? Please. Let them modify all they want.
I would not trust my TH-D72 in a fire, nor a HazMat situation. They are good radios, but not built to withstand that type of environment. EMS & LE have less likelyhood of being in a flammable/toxic/corrosive atmosphere, and might be able to get by with the ham gear. But my TK-290 cost less than a TH-D72, and is a much better solution for any public safety user. (Substitute any non-CCR type brands you wish, I just used two radios I own.)
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,465
Location
Indianapolis
Good used commercial equipment is so cheap now that there's no sense in messing with UHF/VHF FM ham radios on amateur, let alone Part 90 service.

Except for the fact that radios designed for hams are a lot more user friendly. They are, after all, designed for hams. I have all kinds of radios, ham and commercial and beyond, and the one I use and like the most is a Yaesu mobile. To each his own.
 

KD8DVR

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,305
Location
Columbus, Ohio
The problem (well...one of many) with the ARRL is that they push this "when all else fails" EMCOMM crap, because let's face it, a ton of new hams (possibly the majority) are getting their licenses for EMCOMM and SHTF scenarios. These new hams are way more likely to become ARRL members if they push the EMCOMM agenda. That's really the only reason they push it.

This article is another "when all else fails" example, and attempts to justify hams modifying their equipment to cover every frequency, because you just never know when you're going to have to put on your orange vest, jump on the public safety bands, and save lives.

Ah, whackers. The bane of our existence.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
Ah, whackers. The bane of our existence.
Well, I'm no "whacker" but I do have both yellow and orange safety vests in the trunk of my car. I wear the yellow one when working the Fourth of July parade and fireworks in Evanston, IL each year, and the orange vest when I'm working as a volunteer at the Dayton (Xenia) Hamvention. On any of the AERES callouts, I wear the orange vest as well.
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,465
Location
Indianapolis
Annnnnd alcahuete wins the prize for the most unsupported accusations and conclusions based on the known facts of this particular incident. See how many your can count. :D
 

Firekite

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
471
The provisions in Part 97 are to allow an amateur radio licensee to use their radio outside their license class, still on Part 97 frequencies.
There is absolutely nothing in Part 97 that grants hams the ability to transmit anywhere else.
It absolutely does not say that. “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal…”

So, since this is an "emergency" service, I'm going to drop 2 P25 encrypted repeaters on the 2 meter VHF band. After all, it's an "emergency" service.
No part says anything about public safety agencies doing whatever they feel like. The part you’re being sarcastic about is the rest of the paragraph from above. “…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.

I know, you deal with more radio stuff on a daily basis than most hams do in a year, some in a lifetime. And I know, with a big enough punch bowl you’re going to find some turds in it at some point. And yes, I definitely know that many hams overestimate the breadth and depth of their own knowledge within amateur radio, much less outside of it. And you were probably fully tired of it 20 years ago.

But I think level of sardonic condescension exceeds what’s required to discuss this topic.
All you have to do once is suggest that anyone with a radio who cannot reach the people they want to all come up on a random amateur radio frequencies.
You'll hear the howls of "they are not licensed!!!!".
Someone trying to remind their spouse to pick up milk on the way home does not constitute essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,869
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
It absolutely does not say that. “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal…”

A Part 97 radio station, as in ham radio, would be working under Part 97. The minute you transmit outside the amateur radio bands, you are no longer covered by Part 97. That's like you walking into my house, lighting up a cigar and flopping down with your muddy boots up on my couch. The rules in your home do not apply in mine.


No part says anything about public safety agencies doing whatever they feel like.

It's a joke, relax Francis.

But I think level of sardonic condescension exceeds what’s required to discuss this topic.

Oh, my sarcasm hasn't even shifted into second gear yet.

Someone trying to remind their spouse to pick up milk on the way home does not constitute essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property.

Hams need to remember they are hams. Confusing passing a 35 question multiple choice test with being a public safety professional is where the disease called whackerism starts.

If hams were really serious about communications, and using it in an emergency, they'd study up more on it. But unfortunately they get to 97.405, the brain shuts off and many go immediately into whacker mode.
If you expect to be in an emergency where ham radio isn't going to do the trick, then you need to be properly equipped. A PLB is about $200 (that's 10 Baofengs) and it'll get you emergency help quickly.

If the FCC wanted hams to have access to frequencies outside of Part 97, then that would be clearly spelled out in the rules, EXACTLY like they did in 97.401. But they didn't. Because they don't want hams to do that.

I've worked in public safety radio for a long time. I was talking with our PSAP manager once about this very subject. I asked her, hey, what would you do if some ham radio operator suddenly started transmitting on the dispatch channel?
Her reply:
1. We'd call you to find out what the hell was going on.
2. We'd ignore them, since that is what they are trained to do when they get interference like that (it happens enough that they are specifically trained on how to deal with it).
3. If it kept up and they actually provided useful info, we'd dispatch an officer.
4. If it was legit, we'd deal with it, then address the ham operator separately.

What hams fail to understand is how they fit into the system. Ham are not "special" and have access to public safety radio systems where non-hams do not. The PSAPS are designed to work a specific way to be efficient, triage the calls, and dispatch the correct resources based on that triage. Most PSAP's have a 'call taker' position who's job it is to interface with the public. They will ask the correct questions to get the info needed. They'll enter that info into the Computer Aided Dispatching system. That includes what the emergency is, which agencies are responsible for that area, what other calls have come in from that location.
Then the call gets handed off to the dispatchers. The dispatchers are often handling multiple calls at the same time. They are trained to get the right resources to the right place to do the most good.

So, now Mr. Ham pops up on the dispatch channel.
Mr. Ham bypasses the 911 system. Mr. Ham bypasses the call taker. Mr. Ham assumes that their emergency is the most important one in the world at that second. Now, a dispatcher that may be trying to juggle multiple calls has to deal with some random dude popping up on the dispatch channel without the aid of the call taker. There's zero CAD history. There is zero call information. The triage system has been bypassed. Now the dispatcher has to juggle an untrained individual jumping into the middle of the system with zero knowledge about what else is going on in their jurisdiction. Again, Mr. Ham thinks their call is the most important thing in the world. They have no idea what the dispatchers are dealing with, what calls need to take priority, and what else is going on.

So, sure, tell me again how the 35 question multiple choice puts you suddenly in charge of the processes in the PSAP? Tell me how you know your call takes priority over everything else?

Your argument does not fly when faced with realities. This is why so many of us who work in the industry have such a issue with the whacker attitude. It shows zero respect for first responders and the REST OF THE PUBLIC. It's more of the "me first, I'm important!" attitude.
 

Firekite

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
471
A Part 97 radio station, as in ham radio, would be working under Part 97. The minute you transmit outside the amateur radio bands, you are no longer covered by Part 97. That's like you walking into my house, lighting up a cigar and flopping down with your muddy boots up on my couch. The rules in your home do not apply in mine.




It's a joke, relax Francis.



Oh, my sarcasm hasn't even shifted into second gear yet.



Hams need to remember they are hams. Confusing passing a 35 question multiple choice test with being a public safety professional is where the disease called whackerism starts.

If hams were really serious about communications, and using it in an emergency, they'd study up more on it. But unfortunately they get to 97.405, the brain shuts off and many go immediately into whacker mode.
If you expect to be in an emergency where ham radio isn't going to do the trick, then you need to be properly equipped. A PLB is about $200 (that's 10 Baofengs) and it'll get you emergency help quickly.

If the FCC wanted hams to have access to frequencies outside of Part 97, then that would be clearly spelled out in the rules, EXACTLY like they did in 97.401. But they didn't. Because they don't want hams to do that.

I've worked in public safety radio for a long time. I was talking with our PSAP manager once about this very subject. I asked her, hey, what would you do if some ham radio operator suddenly started transmitting on the dispatch channel?
Her reply:
1. We'd call you to find out what the hell was going on.
2. We'd ignore them, since that is what they are trained to do when they get interference like that (it happens enough that they are specifically trained on how to deal with it).
3. If it kept up and they actually provided useful info, we'd dispatch an officer.
4. If it was legit, we'd deal with it, then address the ham operator separately.

What hams fail to understand is how they fit into the system. Ham are not "special" and have access to public safety radio systems where non-hams do not. The PSAPS are designed to work a specific way to be efficient, triage the calls, and dispatch the correct resources based on that triage. Most PSAP's have a 'call taker' position who's job it is to interface with the public. They will ask the correct questions to get the info needed. They'll enter that info into the Computer Aided Dispatching system. That includes what the emergency is, which agencies are responsible for that area, what other calls have come in from that location.
Then the call gets handed off to the dispatchers. The dispatchers are often handling multiple calls at the same time. They are trained to get the right resources to the right place to do the most good.

So, now Mr. Ham pops up on the dispatch channel.
Mr. Ham bypasses the 911 system. Mr. Ham bypasses the call taker. Mr. Ham assumes that their emergency is the most important one in the world at that second. Now, a dispatcher that may be trying to juggle multiple calls has to deal with some random dude popping up on the dispatch channel without the aid of the call taker. There's zero CAD history. There is zero call information. The triage system has been bypassed. Now the dispatcher has to juggle an untrained individual jumping into the middle of the system with zero knowledge about what else is going on in their jurisdiction. Again, Mr. Ham thinks their call is the most important thing in the world. They have no idea what the dispatchers are dealing with, what calls need to take priority, and what else is going on.

So, sure, tell me again how the 35 question multiple choice puts you suddenly in charge of the processes in the PSAP? Tell me how you know your call takes priority over everything else?

Your argument does not fly when faced with realities. This is why so many of us who work in the industry have such a issue with the whacker attitude. It shows zero respect for first responders and the REST OF THE PUBLIC. It's more of the "me first, I'm important!" attitude.
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal. If the FCC wanted to say sections of an HF band not already available to their ticket, they would’ve said that. Instead they explicitly said “any means of radiocommunication” because that’s what they meant.

You want to complain about whackers? Let’s do it! I have zero love or respect for them. You want to complain about hams walking around with an unearned sense of confidence in their own radiocommunication understanding and prowess? Great! Some hams need their king dork credentials checked.

But to act like a ham in an emergency using any radiocommunication at their disposal, whether equipment outside of Part 97 or on frequencies not available under Part 97 or both, is stupid or illegal or whatever else, is patently and literally incorrect.

In the story that started this thread, it wasn’t even hams committing the mortal sin of transmitting at the direction of the fire chief. It was them modding their own radios and setting them up to be used by the fire chief and his crew in a pinch when they had no better options at their disposal. Apparently it was successful.

That’s all. There’s not more to it. The fire chief isn’t still running ham rigs. They used what they had, to great effect.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,869
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal. If the FCC wanted to say sections of an HF band not already available to their ticket, they would’ve said that. Instead they explicitly said “any means of radiocommunication” because that’s what they meant.

Nope, you are totally missing it.

A ham radio station, as covered under Part 97, has no permissions under any other radio service. A ham radio station, as defined under Part 97 rules has no capabilities under other radio services.

§97.3 Definitions.
(a) The definitions of terms used in part 97 are:​
…..​
(5) Amateur station. A station in an amateur radio service consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications.​


"A station in an amateur radio service"

The minute you start transmitting outside the amateur radio frequencies, you are no longer covered under Part 97. At that point, the rule that you claim gives you permission no longer applies.

Again, if the FCC wanted you to be allowed to transmit outside the amateur radio bands, they would have spelled it out exactly how they did with the Alaska Emergency frequency under 97.401

This was covered above by the letter from the FCC where someone specifically asked this question. Don't believe, me, contact the FCC yourself.
And then contact your local PSAP, local fire department, local law enforcement agency, local EMS provider. Tell them that you want to transmit on their frequencies and let me know how that goes.


You want to complain about whackers? Let’s do it! I have zero love or respect for them. You want to complain about hams walking around with an unearned sense of confidence in their own radiocommunication understanding and prowess? Great! Some hams need their king dork credentials checked.

I feel the exact same way about hams that think they have the authority to transmit where ever and when ever they feel like it. Hams are NOT public safety professionals. Hams are hobbyists that passed a 35 question multiple choice test that covers precisely zero about emergency communications, zero about public safety and zero about how to be a first responder.
Acting like an amateur radio license gives someone authority to determine what constitutes an emergency and permits them to interrupt public safety communications and first responders is whackerism.

But to act like a ham in an emergency using any radiocommunication at their disposal, whether equipment outside of Part 97 or on frequencies not available under Part 97 or both, is stupid or illegal or whatever else, is patently and literally incorrect.

It is not permitted by Part 97. Again, Part 97 grants ZERO permissions outside the amateur radio bands. The rules in Part 97 do not apply anywhere else. The minute you transmit outside the amateur radio bands, you are no longer covered by Part 97. Part 97 rules don't apply in the Part 90 house, just like Part 90 rules don't apply in the part 97 house.
As an amateur, the frequencies you are permitted to transmit on are covered in 97.301, the ONLY exception to that is the specific frequency called out in 97.401, and that only applies in Alaska. If the FCC wanted you to have access to other frequencies for emergencies, they would have specifically granted it like they did in 97.401. But they didn't. You need to take step back for 97.403 and read the rest of the rules. While you are at it, go read Part 90.

In the story that started this thread, it wasn’t even hams committing the mortal sin of transmitting at the direction of the fire chief. It was them modding their own radios and setting them up to be used by the fire chief and his crew in a pinch when they had no better options at their disposal. Apparently it was successful.

That’s all. There’s not more to it. The fire chief isn’t still running ham rigs. They used what they had, to great effect.

The hams did the best they could with what they had and what they knew. If you go back and read the whole thread that's been covered many, many times. They didn't know what they were doing was wrong. The chief failed to understand what resources he had and what frequencies were available. We already established that they had an OES engine, which would have a radio programmed with the NIFOG frequencies, which includes a lot of simplex channels. The hams not knowing this doesn't change the rules. The chief should have known enough about his radio equipment to know what was available to him.

There's a lot of failures here, and constantly trying to justify them to show some sort of permission that doesn't exist just keeps going back to whackerism.
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,465
Location
Indianapolis
Well, I'll tell ya, I believe that everyone should abide the rules when possible. I was a Boy Scout for 10 years. Be Prepared is the motto. I believe in that with all my heart. But sometimes it's just not possible, no matter how much you think you've prepared, and that;'s the point the way I see it. Thank God the FCC doesn't give nearly the crap about any of this that some Barney Fife's do. I will do any reasonable thing in an emergency to save life and property, FCC regs and the opinions of Barney Fifes be damned. And so would any rational person.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,869
Location
Roaming the Intermountain West
I will do any reasonable thing in an emergency to save life and property,

Again, me too. I'd do any reasonable thing, like carry a PLB, part 90 radio, or satellite phone (when I'm working remotely).

I run radio systems at work. I have Part 90 radios issued to me.
When I'm working on our systems at work, I don't just key up on our systems. I still make the point of telephoning the dispatchers directly and asking them if it's OK if I do some testing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top