Last of the scanners: Are police security measures and new technologies killing an American obsession?

[zz0468]

I think they are referring to 97.403 and 97.405...

I'm familiar with those rules. That's NOT what they say or allow.

 

[nd5y]

I think they are referring to 97.403 and 97.405, which allows anyone to transmit on any frequency or any mode and allows anyone to respond with assistance, where property or human life is in danger.

The rules say an amateur station, not anyone.

If you're going to post rule links you should at least post current ones, not .PDFs from 2016.

 

[belvdr]

I'm familiar with those rules. That's NOT what they say or allow.

What's your interpetation?

The rules say an amateur station, not anyone.

If you're going to post rule links you should at least post current ones, not .PDFs from 2016.

An amateur station, as defined in 97.3.5, is nothing more than the hardware:

(5) Amateur station. A station in an amateur radio service consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications.

As opposed to an amateur operator, as defined in 97.3.1:

(1) Amateur operator. A person named in an amateur operator/primary license station grant on the ULS consolidated licensee database to be the control operator of an amateur station.

So, yes, 97.403 and 97.405 says anyone with the means to operate the amateur station. I doubt the rule is suggesting the hardware knows about a human life or property safety issue and should broadcast on any frequency or mode.

It's a legitimate government web site and even says so at the top of the page. If you can find any changes between what I posted and now, feel free to update. I'm guessing this rule hasn't changed in a long time.

In case you're wondering, it hasn't changed. Here's the latest:

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

 

[zz0468]

What's your interpetation?

It means a novice can come up in the Extra subands, or something of that nature.

Consider...

1. A non-licenced person is not subject to part 97.

2. Non-Amateur frequencies are not subject to part 97, with one notable exemption specifically spelled out in the rules.

If one must come up on a non-licensed frequency to save a life, just do it. But don't hide behind Part 97 saying it's OK.

 

[belvdr]

It means a novice can come up in the Extra subands, or something of that nature.

Consider...

1. A non-licenced person is not subject to part 97.

2. Non-Amateur frequencies are not subject to part 97, with one notable exemption specifically spelled out in the rules.

If one must come up on a non-licensed frequency to save a life, just do it. But don't hide behind Part 97 saying it's OK.

I think we're in agreement and it was a misunderstanding of my post.

When I said "any frequency and any mode", I meant any amateur frequency or mode, as part 97 covers those. I wouldn't suggest part 97 says you can key up a commercial or government frequency.

In that light, if a non-amateur had no other means of communications except an amateur station, they could, by what is stated in the part 97, use the station to get assistance.

 

[w4amp]

You don't think the government is going to let you listen while they come get your firearms do you?

 

[zz0468]

I think we're in agreement and it was a misunderstanding of my post...

Ok. Makes sense.

A lot of these discussions go sideways because an assumption is made because of certain verbiage within the rules. One must remember that Part 97 only pertains to Part 97 frequencies and, by definition, does not convey any emergency authority outside Part 97 frequencies.

The other bad assumption made is in defining an amateur station. A amateur radio owned by a non-licensed individual is not an amateur station. It's just a radio. So, again, Part 97 does not apply.

In spite of all that, the FCC doesn't want someone to die just because of strict adherence to the rules. If one isn't licensed for anything, but a life must be saved, do what you have to do. Just don't hide behind the rules and say it's OK because the rules say so. They do not.

We've drifted quite off topic here.

 

[N8IAA]

Wow! Posts 79-85 have absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Lets see how far off topic this thread will go before being closed . Good Grief!

Larry

 

[allend]

Many threads on this site go off topic due to the decline of this hobby. There is no where else where people can vent their frustration.

It's not anybodies fault on this site that enjoyed such a long history of this hobby and its tanking by the moment each day. I know there is nothing nobody can do about it except chime in and discuss issues they are feeling and the narrowing of their time they spend on this hobby and enjoyment.

 

[mule1075]

Many threads on this site go off topic due to the decline of this hobby

I think not.

 

[radio3353]

Okay, back off a little. I don't think I ever mentioned encryption, expressed any dissatisfaction in what was available for listening or suggested that any of those things were a substitute for public safety. I know about the other services. Ft. Benning is 5 miles away, my daughter is a pilot and I am not interested in railroads. I deal with communications (operation, not repair). That mobile command post has marine, aircraft, programmable public safety UHF and VHF, ham, an on-board VHF repeater, 800 mHz P25 Phase II (local public safety system) and 8 satellite phone lines plus a Raytheon ACU-1000 to tie them together, if necessary.

Ummm, not sure how your or your daughter's occupations or the mobile command post ties in with this topic, but I will sign off here and move on. You may have the last word if you wish.

 

[radio3353]

Many threads on this site go off topic due to the decline of this hobby.

It is the nature of social media, not any particular hobby.

 

[cdurand]

While I agree encryption is the future and I don't like it there's little we can do about it.

The public doesn't understand their role in maintaining an ordered society. We're constantly giving up freedoms in the name of safety.

We all know how that ends.

 

[Hans13]

While I agree encryption is the future and I don't like it there's little we can do about it.

The public doesn't understand their role in maintaining an ordered society. We're constantly giving up freedoms in the name of safety.

We all know how that ends.

I agree.

 

[KC2zZe]

While I agree encryption is the future and I don't like it there's little we can do about it.

The public doesn't understand their role in maintaining an ordered society. We're constantly giving up freedoms in the name of safety.

We all know how that ends.

cdurand, are you suggesting that one of our freedoms in our society includes the ability to monitor law enforcement? Scanning is somewhere in there with no longer having to quarter soldiers, or keeping all the powers that were not delegated to the United States, or the states themselves?

I agree that the public indeed does not understand their role in maintaining an ordered society. Just look at what's happened so far this month has a result of the elections that took place last November ("We're gonna impeach the mother-fu*%er!!"). There are a number of factor as to why that is - mainly our piss-poor public and higher education systems. But I hope that you aren't suggesting that the act of my teenaged daughter eavesdropping on the local cops with her RadioShack portable scanner is, in any way, helping to maintain an "ordered society." She just wants to know which roads are avoid due to wrecks, so she can get to school on time.

Yes, we as scannists have had the freedom to monitor public safety agencies for a good number of decades now. But, in the past, what we heard, essentially, went in one ear and out the other. Reread the portion of the original article in the original post - the part where it says "Others, such as Henney, showcase the hard-won news items — like gem hunters would a stone — on their social media feeds." In one ear and out the other isn't happening anymore. People are now streaming audio so that a far wider audience can hear what's happening (some for nefarious purposes, as suggested in posts above). Worse still, people are now archiving what it is that they are streaming, so that what was one time, not too long ago, lost into the ether once the microphone was unkeyed, is now available to be used in litigation (as explained in other posts above) or to be rebroadcast on the six o'clock news - often out-of-context (and usually garbled).

There is a sub-set of the scanning community that is actively destroying the hobby for us. Agency leaders watch the national TV news and hear audio traffic being played of the entry team about to breach the door to the hotel room where the shots where fired from during the Route 91 Harvest music festival shooting in Las Vegas. Yes, it was dramatic audio - and ties perfectly into the "if it bleeds, it leads" mindset that today's drive-by media wallows in. But stuff like that also sticks in those leader's minds. They know where stuff like that comes from (it certainly isn't the PD's public information office). So when a salesman comes around, showing his wares, when that leader's current two-way system reaches it's end of life, and mentions that "with the click of a mouse in this column, when programming this radio, these channels will now be encrypted full-time," what decision do you think that leader will lean toward?

 

[MrBoZ]

First time poster here. I'm almost 50. In the 90's and early 2000's, I loved scanners. My 750 XLT Trunk Tracker was great! But I got away from the hobby when I realized I would need to keep up with the technology. I believed that scanning was dead. I did not buy any more scanners.

But I decided to jump back into it this year. I figured, if there are scanners for sale still, after twenty years of digital progress, there must be something to listen to. There is! Lots!

I am so happy I got the SDS100 and the software upgrades. Sure, I can't hear all the DE State Police calls, but during the recent possible shooter at the mall, there were plenty of "eyes" for me. DelDot busses, for one, were rerouted. The traffic management division helped out. The DART drivers had questions.

Likewise, I found I could actually listen to Elkton PD. The FIRST system in Cecil County lots of traffic. Chester County has plenty of things to listen to, both digital and some VHF. The local businesses can be a curiosity, and yes, they are not all I would want to listen to.

My favorite use of a scanner is to know what is going on around me, both in my immediate area and surrounding. I am thrilled with the amount of things I can listen to. Sure, I can't hear eveything. I miss listening to Newark (DE) PD and the University PD. In a college town, those were fun. But that is out of my control.

Threads like these are what made me not want to buy a scanner. These threads also make me worry about the one I have now. Maybe it's age. Maybe it's because I have more money now that I am older, but I am just going to enjoy what I have now and see what the future brings.

Thanks for listening!

 

[ActionJackson]

a) scanner listeners rarely monitor input frequencies or are close enough to pick up anything

You're right that a lot of scanner listeners don't routinely monitor inputs but the ones that do, like myself, do so because when in close proximity to the TX'ing unit the audio is a lot better than the "repeated" audio. Especially if it's in your back yard and you have an outside antenna on a 30' pole.

b) a trunking radio will not TX voice if it can't hit the repeater, so monitoring the inputs will do no good

Not true. San Bernardino County used an 800 MHz analog system and I had one scanner that was programmed to the input freqs because their simulcast system was terrible even with an outside antenna. The sheriff's air unit would come in crystal clear on the input freqs as well as the units who were in the area.

VHF high band Analog worked so well and it still does.

BANG BAYBEH !!!

 

[allend]

Yup this is how the CHP is in the desert communities. If you want to know that they are close you program in the input frequencies. Most of the time you can't hear them on the output frequencies anyways in rural areas.

 

[WRCM]

I agree.

So do I.

 

[WX9RLT]

Pointless to spend $600 on a scanner, when you can't listen to PUBLIC SAFETY anymore.

We don't spend $600 to listen to taxi's or businesses......SMH