Public Safety Rebroadcast

[jeffmarshall911]

The area fire departments that are part of our mutual aid compact have many independent dispatch facilities and are on different frequencies and different bands. What I would like to do is take a scanner loaded with 3 or 4 of the area FD frequencies as a receiver and rebroadcast this audio on a licensed frequency. Ideally, I would use a 5w transmitter and it would be located at our dispatch center and intentionally only serve a local audience.

I know of a PD that does this in the state.

I’m pretty comfortable with the hardware issues and solutions necessary. While I have read Part 90 a few times nothing jumped out at me as being improper, but I’m far from an expert. So the question is: is this totally non-compliant or is this rebroadcasting acceptable to Part 90?

Thanks,
/Jeff

 

[northzone]

I know of 2 large fire agencies in California that do just that. Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire and San Ramon Valley Fire (both output VHF/UHF traffic on Lowband).

 

[zz0468]

It would probably require a letter of concurrence from all the agencies involved, to be presented to the frequency coordinator during that part of the process. The coordinator needs to know what the purpose of the system is, prior to issuing the required coordination that gets filed with the FCC application. I can't think of anything in Part 90 that would specifically prohibit that, but I'm not about to dive in too deep looking.

 

[RKG]

Your question ("Is it legal?") subsumes two different issues.

No. 1: "is it legal" to rebroadcast audio that has previously been transmitted over an FM channel, unencrypted, by a Part 90 licensee on a Part 90 frequency? Yes. Such broadcasts are in the public domain.

No. 2: "is it legal" to transmit such broadcasts over a new Part 90 channel? Yes, if you get that channel licensed, which in the main means: (a) is there an available frequency in your area? and (b) are you an "eligible" licensee for the type of channel you want to license? Part (b) depends, in part, on who you are. If you are a Fire Department, you are an "eligible," and that's all the coordinator has to know. If you are a private, then you are probably not an eligible unless you are going to try to make money from the exercise.

 

[DaveNF2G]

If you are going to try to make money from this, then the "is it legal?" question jumps elsewhere in the law, like the Communications Act and ECPA.

 

[RKG]

If you are going to try to make money from this, then the "is it legal?" question jumps elsewhere in the law, like the Communications Act and ECPA.

Both of which put transmissions of the type defined in the public domain.

 

[rfradioconsult]

Probably not legal to re-broadcast a part 90 public safety broadcast in industrial/business pool, or re-broadcast in the part 95 frequencies. Any such re-broadcast could be interperted as "repeating" a broadcast on a frequency not licensed for repeater operation.

 

[zz0468]

Both of which put transmissions of the type defined in the public domain.

Not for the purposes of retransmitting, particularly if it's without the permission of the licensees of the original traffic. ECPA and The Communications Act of 1934 As Amended only make it clear that we're allowed to listen, not retransmit.

 

[greenthumb]

Rather than speculating about FCC rules, it would be better to call the FCC directly, open up a case with your question, and receive an official answer. They are very good about addressing inquiries from the public in a timely manner.

 

[Thunderknight]

I concur that a question to the FCC is probably the best way...but nothing jumps out as illegal to me. A part 90 licensee retransmitting another part 90 licensee. Doesn't that happen "like all the time"? Think about console patches, gateways, cross band repeaters, etc.
If the agencies you are rebroadcasting are in agreement with this idea, a letter from them saying so for your files is probably a good idea (even for non FCC reasons).

 

[DaveNF2G]

A commercial entity rebroadcasting anyone's intercepted communications and receiving a fee for doing so (unless the fee is paid by the orginating entity itself) would be violating Section 705 of the Communications Act.

The intercepted traffic is not "in the public domain" as that phrase is meaningless in this context - that is part of copyright law, not communications law. Even if it were relevant, simple authorization to listen in on radio traffic does not alter the originators' "property" rights to their transmissions, or grant any such rights to any third party.

 

[RKG]

A commercial entity rebroadcasting anyone's intercepted communications and receiving a fee for doing so (unless the fee is paid by the orginating entity itself) would be violating Section 705 of the Communications Act.

The intercepted traffic is not "in the public domain" as that phrase is meaningless in this context - that is part of copyright law, not communications law. Even if it were relevant, simple authorization to listen in on radio traffic does not alter the originators' "property" rights to their transmissions, or grant any such rights to any third party.

I believe that if you take a close look at section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act and U. S. v. Rose (1st Cir; forget the exact date and citation), you will find that Congress repealed section 705 (then section 605) insofar as it applies to communications that are FM, in the clear, by Part 90 licensees on Part 90 channels. The term "in the public domain" has been applied to such broadcasts to mean that anyone can do what they want with them.

 

[jeffmarshall911]

Thanks for all the responses and detail. Exactly what I needed.

All the area departments are friends so I don't see any issues with an MOU. We're just in a slight valley and I have to worry about frequencies in the VHF-Low, VHF-high and UHF bands for just our primary 4 mutual aid departments. I doubt 5 watts off the center of our town will be heard very far. All non-encrypted traffic, all fire-based. Just an idea that I'm floating for budget season.

/Jeff

 

[DaveNF2G]

I believe that if you take a close look at section 2511 of the Safe Streets Act and U. S. v. Rose (1st Cir; forget the exact date and citation), you will find that Congress repealed section 705 (then section 605) insofar as it applies to communications that are FM, in the clear, by Part 90 licensees on Part 90 channels. The term "in the public domain" has been applied to such broadcasts to mean that anyone can do what they want with them.

You are conflating two different provisions of the Act.

It is ok to intercept and monitor. Divulgence appears to be more acceptable now. But making a profit from someone else's intercepted traffic is still prohibited.

 

[RKG]

You are conflating two different provisions of the Act.

It is ok to intercept and monitor. Divulgence appears to be more acceptable now. But making a profit from someone else's intercepted traffic is still prohibited.

By what?

Edit: the citation for U. S. v. Rose is 669 F.2d 23 (1982), and a full copy of that decision can be found at http://openjurist.org/669/f2d/23/united-states-v-rose

 

[DaveNF2G]

Making money from intercepting radio communications still violates 47 USCA 605. Accepting money for such intercepted traffic is not authorized under Title III, so it is not materially affected by the "except as authorized" predicate.

Also, the First Circuit interpretation is only law in the First Circuit (the New England states and Puerto Rico).

The interception issue was not appealed, and the only Supreme Court citation of this case relates to the deportation/due process issue.