Yes this is the case and has been for a while now, but in the mid 90s sure made for a lot of excuses to have that MARS/CAP thing.
Yep! Exactly.
FCC enforcement
- Thread starter mmckenna
- Start date
- Status
A simple solution to this whole issue of “I can transmit on any frequency I want to in an emergency” issue is to simply change these two sentence above to any “amateur radio frequency”. A simple change of two sentence. Unfortunately for the government to change a sentence in a rule it takes years and usually never gets done. 🙂
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Yes, something like that would be a clarification. But it is covered in the existing rules. The rule part that says that is in Part 97, and like I've said a few times, Part 97 is for the amateur radio service, and the amateur radio services is -only- made up of amateur radio frequencies, as 97.301 says.
In addition, Part 2, which is the "general rules and regulations", covers this well, as I've linked to previously.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Thanks for the part 2 reference and clarification BTW. It's funny how they pointed out amateurs, but left out C.B. in the "except" part.
Kinda hard to get into much trouble with a channelized radio service and using type accepted equipment.
More importantly not really caring to do it to begin with. Ham radio fills a specific desire, outside of that desire and I'd have to do more research.
Maybe the part 2 info should be part of the 35 question test.
Thanks
Joel
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
In an ideal situation, hams would continue to study and learn the rules. As we've seen, rule knowledge often comes from hearsay on the internet, rather than direct from the source.
If only there was an accurate source of FCC rules, maybe on the internet, or something….
Federal Register :: Request Access
www.ecfr.gov
I agree that amateur radio operators have a responsibility to know and understand the rules.
But, do you think it realistic for the average individual studying for an amateur radio Technician license to know and understand all of Part 97?
Do you think there are rules in Part 97 that could be more clear or direct? 97.405 has been interpreted to mean "hams can transmit on any frequency" as long as I've been licensed (35 years). If I hadn't read conversations here about 97.405, I would probably still harbor what I now see is an incorrect interpretation.
And, the more I read 97.405, the more I wonder just what scenario the FCC had in mind. "Amateur station in distress". "Any means at its disposal". Should those two phrases be clarified? Is "station in distress" used anywhere else in FCC rules? Was "any means" intended to be confined to Part 97 or does it really mean "any means"?
All that said, I must put on my moderator's hat and point out, for the third time, that the amateur radio operator in this case was using a Part 90 radio and wasn't trying to apply 97.405. Have we pummeled the deceased equine yet again?
But, do you think it realistic for the average individual studying for an amateur radio Technician license to know and understand all of Part 97?
Do you think there are rules in Part 97 that could be more clear or direct? 97.405 has been interpreted to mean "hams can transmit on any frequency" as long as I've been licensed (35 years). If I hadn't read conversations here about 97.405, I would probably still harbor what I now see is an incorrect interpretation.
And, the more I read 97.405, the more I wonder just what scenario the FCC had in mind. "Amateur station in distress". "Any means at its disposal". Should those two phrases be clarified? Is "station in distress" used anywhere else in FCC rules? Was "any means" intended to be confined to Part 97 or does it really mean "any means"?
All that said, I must put on my moderator's hat and point out, for the third time, that the amateur radio operator in this case was using a Part 90 radio and wasn't trying to apply 97.405. Have we pummeled the deceased equine yet again?
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Yes, I think it's realistic, and a duty of all hams. The best way for everyone to share the resource is to all be working on the same set of guidelines.
Hey, we're kind of good at that, don't ya think?
But, yes, what it comes down to is someone pulling a stupid with their radio. No reason what so ever why someone who is not authorized to be transmitting on that frequency should have the frequency programmed in the TX side with correct PL tones (if used). That wasn't a mistake, someone programmed that into the radio.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Maybe the FCC should put one of their real winning public notices, you know, like they tried to do with GMRS (and yet many still don't get it, NO LINKING OF REPEATERS) cautioning licensees that UNAUTHORIZED TRANSMISSIONS MADE BY HAMS OUTSIDE THE HAM BANDS are a bad bad thing. Cautioning licensees that having ANY frequencies OUTSIDE THE HAM BANDS with transmit capability is a liability and licensee may be subject to penalties both under 47 CFR 97.xxx and other applicable CFRs as well as local AHJ action.
Oh fork it, nevermind. The whackers gonna whack. The preppers gonna insist THAT WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS I CAN TALK WHEREVER I WANT....
(and I say...IT'S ALL GOOD...UNTIL IT'S NOT). Sheesh.
I think it's more important to identify and know the rules that are applicable. Knowing ALL of the rules is a little burdensome. Why should I "know" the rules for satellite operations if I don't intend on using satellites.
The same can be said of drivers laws, or property laws, it's unimportant to know the rules about cutting down trees near bodies of water (in Maine) if you don't plan on cutting down any trees by the water in Maine.
(There's apparently a point system in Maine where you have to have a certain number of points per section of water, the points being assigned by tree diameter).
I'm just pointing out that knowing ALL of the rules probably isn't important, or possible... but everyone should know that if they are going to do something different, then a little investigation is probably warranted.
I'm using trees by the water because they are kind of weird rules to me and shouldn't trigger anyone. The tax code would be another good example for illustration purposes, but people can get pretty wound up about taxes.
Thanks
Joel
It puts me in a tough spot because I think it's a good discussion, but how many times can we say the same thing?
Remember after the January 6th protest/riot/attack when the FCC put out a very clear notice saying that doing illegal stuff with your radio was illegal? That was a direct statement to the people to which you refer.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I can agree with that.
No, I'm not expecting anyone to memorize the rules. I would personally expect people to look them up at the source, not rely on someone on the internet to tell them what the rules are.
Well, I don't want to do that. This has been a good discussion and other than an exuberant dose of equine pummeling, it's been pretty respectful all around, I think.
I think we can agree that said individual should not have had the radio programmed to transmit anywhere they were not licensed. That would have prevented this entire situation. It's not hard to do, just takes a bit of discipline and considering the possible outcomes.
Change the words a little "The whackers gonna whack, the preppers gonna prep, the fakers gonna fake, I just wanna talk, talk talk talk talk." and Taylor Swift may jump on it.
Too much fun (this is where I usually get posts deleted or threads ended.)
Thanks for the informative discussion though. I propose the next one being if PACTOR IV follows ham rules since the algorithms aren't published as to when to switch modes and communications speeds.
I'll be quiet now.
Thanks
Joel
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Nah. We like making fun of whacker much more.
I have a strong opinion about this, but don't get me started.
I'm not going to say he's a whacker. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he did not understand how his radio worked. With freedom comes great responsibility. He stepped out of bounds and got caught. Hopefully, others get the message.
A YouTuber (who I generally like) issues a warning about the Audio Relay (simplex repeater) feature:
I don't think the average licensee will ever know all of Part 97. Even if they do, the forgetting curve says that they won't retain it. Still, they are still responsible for the rules whether they retain them or not. Much like driving. I see drivers every day who obviously forgot what they learned in driver's ed, and they will still be cited for an infraction.
I've forwarded that video on to a couple I know that run that particular unit. The last week or so, we've had something similar going on, on a ham repeater here. We're not sure if it's accidental or malicious at this point. Thanks for the post.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
I'll call him a whacker....it's out there on his LinkedIn and he got called out...
There it is.
I posed a question on the weekly net once to see who knew about Line A and the restrictions associated. Nobody recalled what Line A was, and we live ON the line.
- Status
