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

[Voyager]

Based on this statement I can gather that no matter what the FCC says, you are going to do this anyway.
Am I right?

You know what they say about assumptions...

My question to you, and anyone else who thinks along this same line is:
-What have you done to prepare yourself for acting in an emergency, other than doing the out of band modification to your radio?

If you're going to count training, well, I don't know what the post limit is on the site, but I would likely exceed it. I'm talking formal training, not online courses. I am 'light' on EMS training, by choice, but I do have the basics as mandated by state law.

-What training have you put yourself through in preparation?

See above.

-What other equipment do you carry with you for emergency response needs?

Let's put it this way. I drive a Crown Vic. I can only fit two people in it, as the rest is full of emergency response gear. (trunk and rear seat)

-What other radio equipment do you own that would be suitable for this use? PLB? Part 90 radio? Part 95 radio? Satellite phone? Or did you just stop at amateur radio and go no further?

I can transmit on just about any band in just about any mode, and on several trunk systems. Yes, even down to the FRS portable which is in a 'go bag'. No sat phone.

Scenario:
A major accident happens in front of your home. I have no other means of getting help. I assume there is first aid supplies inside your home.
I take a hammer and break your window to gain access to your home and said first aid supplies.
Would you hold me accountable for the broken window?

Yes, I would. You or the person's insurance would replace it. But, you had better be sure there are first aid supplies or it's your donkey. I've been in such situations many times - having to make a judgement call. I try to make sure I'm correct before acting because I know it's my donkey if I'm wrong. I often err on the side of caution.

Would you press charges for "breaking and entering"?

As an ethical matter, I would not provided that was your reason and all you took. Also provided I was not home to assist.

Would the local PD/Sheriff press charges for breaking and entering?

That depends on the local PD/SO. They likely would not if I didn't want to press the matter, but some might anyway. Once you have decided that you are taking action to save a life, you are obligated to do anything possible to accomplish that task. The laws don't specify 'do anything legal you can' - they say 'anything you can' (note: NOT direct quotes of the laws).

Or, would you see it as "I did what was necessary" to save a human life.

Not trying to trap you with this question, just trying to get behind the mindset.

No problem. And yes, I WOULD see it as you had no choice. Would I be happy about it? No. But, I would understand and would not take action against you beyond asking for the cost of the window repair which would most likely come from the insurance company, not you personally.

Likewise, I would expect you would not take action against me for the injuries you may sustain from dog bites, or should you cut yourself on broken glass, or any other "Stella Award" issues.

Speaking of Stella, isn't it AMAZING that people can sue for stupid things like being injured while breaking into a house, but convicted for operating in a gray area of FCC rules? Says a lot about this country, doesn't it?

 

[Voyager]

So, within the context of part 97, "radio communication" is understood to mean "radio communication on part 97 frequencies.

That's an assumption.

I believe that rule was put in Part 97 to allow someone who has the ABILITY to summon help to save a life the authorization to do so. If they meant Part 97 only, it would have said something to the effect "any radiocommunication within the confines of this part".

And from a legal standpoint, ANY definition that is not contained within a law DEFAULTS to the Webster definition, and I'm quite sure the definition of "radiocommunication" has no Part 97 limit in Webster.

It's not really a valid question, in fact it's pushing the boundaries of absurdity. I think what you'll end up finding is that the FCC will NEVER put forth in writing that it's ok to operate unlicensed and out of band under any circumstances. And out the the other side of their mouth they would state that no one should die as a result of FCC rules. Why must it be an either/or thing?

Because in the court of law it IS an "either/or thing". Either you are guilty or you are not guilty. There is no 'semi-guilty' verdict.

The way to handle your scenario is forget about it. And if, on the off chance you have to come up on some local PD channel to call for help because nothing else is available, just do it and save a life.

In that, we are in agreement. I believe the original intent of the law was to allow such an act over blind "letter of the law" politics.

You used the phrase "pushing the boundaries of absurdity", so let's explore that for a minute...

Under the alternative definition of the law (and the one you endorse), it is stated that "any means of radiocommunciation" applies only to Part 97. So, please tell me what the chances are that you will get help in the Extra part of the band, but not the General part of the band. That IS the alternative reasoning. Is that any less "pushing the boundaries of absurdity"?

 

[mmckenna]

I believe that rule was put in Part 97 to allow someone who has the ABILITY to summon help to save a life the authorization to do so. If they meant Part 97 only, it would have said something to the effect "any radiocommunication within the confines of this part".

Then it would say it here:

§97.301 Authorized frequency bands.
The following transmitting frequency bands are available to an amateur station located within 50 km of the Earth's surface, within the specified ITU Region, and outside any area where the amateur service is regulated by any authority other than the FCC......

Nothing said about being allowed to transmit on any other frequencies.

But: the FCC Part 97 rules DO specifically spell out when and where you can operate out of band:

§97.401 Operation during a disaster.
A station in, or within 92.6 km (50 nautical miles) of, Alaska may transmit emissions J3E and R3E on the channel at 5.1675 MHz (assigned frequency 5.1689 MHz) for emergency communications. The channel must be shared with stations licensed in the Alaska-Private Fixed Service. The transmitter power must not exceed 150 W PEP. A station in, or within 92.6 km of, Alaska may transmit communications for tests and training drills necessary to ensure the establishment, operation, and maintenance of emergency communication systems.

If they wanted you to operate on Part 90 frequencies, they would have spelled them out like they did with this frequency, but they DIDN'T.


I think most sane people would agree that in a life or death emergency you would do whatever it takes to save a life. However, 97.403 doesn't mean you can transmit wherever you want with impunity. You can't just pick and choose which parts of the law support your opinion and ignore the rest.

 

[mmckenna]

I can transmit on just about any band in just about any mode, and on several trunk systems. Yes, even down to the FRS portable which is in a 'go bag'. No sat phone.

Then there ya' go. Why would you need to use a hacked amateur radio transceiver when you have the right tool for the job?
Leading amateur radio operators to believe that 97.403 means they can transmit wherever they want, even outside the amateur bands, if they feel threatened is not OK.

 

[mmckenna]

I think it would be really interesting to get a very specific answer from the FCC on this. I strongly believe you are interpreting the rules incorrectly, but I doubt we will ever agree on that. None the less, it is an interesting exercise. It really makes me wonder how many amateur radio operators have -really- read all the rules that pertain to them. I think we'd find that the answer would be in the low single digit percentile.

As an aside, I ride ATV's a lot in fairly remote areas. It is rare that we have cell phone coverage in these locations. Even with part 90 radios I doubt we'd have much luck. For this very reason we carry a PLB. This is because we fully understand the risks we are undertaking and we are not going to fool ourselves into thinking that a cell phone or amateur radio is going to be the saving grace.
In addition to the PLB, two full trauma kits and enough tools and spare parts to get us out of damn near anything. I think what tees me off so much about this whole discussion is the attitude that some have that a hacked amateur radio is being sufficiently prepared.
I've got to hand it to you Voyager, sounds like you are well equipped, and that would appear to be a rarity in this day and age. I've got an up to date first responder certification and one of the guys that often rides with us is a retired EMT/fire chief. Two more have been through first aid courses recently.
I pity those that head out into the wilderness unprepared and rely on pure chance as their safety net.

 

[Voyager]

Then there ya' go. Why would you need to use a hacked amateur radio transceiver when you have the right tool for the job?
Leading amateur radio operators to believe that 97.403 means they can transmit wherever they want, even outside the amateur bands, if they feel threatened is not OK.

I never said I would need it. I have a window punch and I hope I never need that for self-extrication. Carrying one does not show any intent to drive into a lake (someone else eluded to intent of expanded ham rigs in another thread). BUT, I feel either is a good tool to have available.

One point I must make is that I never meant to imply that OOB is for when you feel threatened. My interpretation is that there must be a clear life safety issue involved. IOW, someone is in imminent danger of dying.

Not sure what you meant by PLB before, but in that context I know now - Personal Locator Beacon. I wonder how long until everyone is required to carry one.

All this said, I appreciate the discussion. That's how we all learn things.

One more hypothetical that I will specifically ask that you not answer, as there is no clear answer to the dilemma:

When you are a firefighter, you get drilled into your head that you never go into a house without a partner. When you are an officer who responds in a POV, you are often the first one on scene. With that in mind, the scenario is that you see someone unconscious in the living room in a burning house. They are clearly in imminent danger. Do you go against your training and rescue them by yourself or do you obey the letter of the 'law'. If you are successful, you will likely be heralded a hero. If you get trapped yourself you will perish a fool. What is your choice? (disclaimer: I left out a lot of variables)

Again, I will specifically ask you not answer that because there is no right answer. But, put that in context of this silly discussion of risking a possible FCC rules violation to save a life, and I think that better defines my mindset.

What's the saying? Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff?

Or how about this one: When you live in a world that punishes heroes, you live in a world that will have fewer heroes.

 

[mmckenna]

I think we can agree there. I've done my best to help others, even when it meant putting my own life on the line.

My choice is to have the right radios and tools with me to do what I expect I'll need. I don't carry any out of band modified amateur radios. In fact, out of all the radios I own, only one is "amateur". I long since ditched the ham radios in favor of commercial gear. It's plenty easy to program in amateur as well as the work stuff.

I don't agree that 97.403 allows transmitting outside the amateur bands. If I transmitted outside the amateur bands on a frequency I wasn't authorized for, I'd do it with the attitude that I was knowingly breaking the law. The thorn in my side is the false interpretation that 97.403 will protect an amateur radio operator.

 

[zz0468]

That's an assumption.

I believe that rule was put in Part 97 to allow someone who has the ABILITY to summon help to save a life the authorization to do so. If they meant Part 97 only, it would have said something to the effect "any radiocommunication within the confines of this part".

You chastise us about making assumptions, and follow it up by making an assumption.

And from a legal standpoint, ANY definition that is not contained within a law DEFAULTS to the Webster definition, and I'm quite sure the definition of "radiocommunication" has no Part 97 limit in Webster.

We're discussing regulations, not laws. It seems entirely reasonable to me that a set of regulations for a specific radio service would make assumptions about that specific radio service and not need to make clarification in case the reader suddenly feels the regulation is referring to some OTHER service.

Because in the court of law it IS an "either/or thing". Either you are guilty or you are not guilty. There is no 'semi-guilty' verdict.

But we're not talking about a court of law. And in any case, you're wrong. It's been many years, but I've seen in traffic courts, people pleading "guilty with an explanation" and walking out having their citations cleared.

Under the alternative definition of the law (and the one you endorse), it is stated that "any means of radiocommunciation" applies only to Part 97. So, please tell me what the chances are that you will get help in the Extra part of the band, but not the General part of the band. That IS the alternative reasoning. Is that any less "pushing the boundaries of absurdity"?

I'm willing to buy the possibility that the original intent was directed at CW only Novices picking up a microphone to call for help, or a VHF only Technician coming up on an HF frequency. You DO remember when Novices had only HF CW privileges and Technicians were strictly limited to 50 MHz and up, yes?

You're too narrowly focused on what you want to believe it is and are overlooking possibilities that make the rule actually make sense.

 

[Voyager]

You chastise us about making assumptions, and follow it up by making an assumption.

I said I BELIEVE. Thus, it's not an assumption, as I'm pretty sure I know what I believe and don't need to guess. In fact, I am the foremost expert on my opinion.

We're discussing regulations, not laws.

That's funny. You should write for Conan. Regulations and Laws are treated exactly the same in US courts. BTW, so are Standards. I know the difference among them, and know there is very little aside from the type of body that creates them. But they are all equally legally binding. If you are in violation of any of them, that is grounds for a case loss.

But we're not talking about a court of law. And in any case, you're wrong. It's been many years, but I've seen in traffic courts, people pleading "guilty with an explanation" and walking out having their citations cleared.

Yes, if you are cited with a violation of a law (or regulation or standard), a court will be involved if you want to dispute it.

Want to guess how that "guilty with an explanation" was entered in the books? Hint: It starts with the word Not and ends with the word Guilty and consists of two words.

I'm willing to buy the possibility that the original intent was directed at CW only Novices picking up a microphone to call for help, or a VHF only Technician coming up on an HF frequency. You DO remember when Novices had only HF CW privileges and Technicians were strictly limited to 50 MHz and up, yes?

Yes - I recall that time quite well. Before that, Techs only could operate on 146-147 MHz and not the entire 2M band which was the reason for the 600 kHz 2M repeater split. There were also Conditional Class licenses. But, enough of the class history...

You're too narrowly focused on what you want to believe it is and are overlooking possibilities that make the rule actually make sense.

And what makes the most sense is the ability to save lives rather than a forced choice between lives and laws... er... "regulations". Anything else is a trivial argument, as lives are the top priority in ANY list (or should be).

That's why those arguing that adherence to the regulations is more important than saving a life are the ones who are too narrowly focused.
"Any means of radiocommunication" means "ANY means of radiocommunication", not any Amateur means. At BEST, it's ambiguous, and as I stated before in a court of law any ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant.

 

[AK9R]

At this point the moderator wonders if the horse's life is the one that needed saving.

Posters on both side of the debate have made their points, repeatedly, in some cases. Every debate reaches the point where the debaters have made their arguments and the judge must declare an end to the debate. I'm not going to do that, but unless you all have something new to add, I think we are close to being done here.

 

[N4DES]

At this point the moderator wonders if the horse's life is the one that needed saving.

Posters on both side of the debate have made their points, repeatedly, in some cases. Every debate reaches the point where the debaters have made their arguments and the judge must declare an end to the debate. I'm not going to do that, but unless you all have something new to add, I think we are close to being done here.

In addition there was a very recent and clear message from the FCC that was provided. That in itself speaks volumes and adds another reason that the debate is pretty much over.

 

[zz0468]

...I think we are close to being done here.

I think you're right. We have reached unprecedented levels of done-ness.

 

[N8OHU]

"Someone tell the fat lady she's on in five."

 

[mikepdx]

Posters on both side of the debate have made their points, repeatedly, in some cases.
Every debate reaches the point where the debaters have made their arguments and the judge must declare an end to the debate.
I'm not going to do that, but unless you all have something new to add, I think we are close to being done here.

Thank you in advance for closing yet another childish thread.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Time to shut this down. The usual pattern has run its course - somebody wants to have others give affirmation for their intent to violate a regulation or law at the next convenient opportunity, does not get it, tells everyone their "opinions" - often backed up by irrefutable logic and documentary evidence - are not relevant. Someone else chimes in with an off-topic rant that is at best tangental to the discussion, and mostly wrong. Return to square one.

 

[AK9R]

No, I'm going to leave the thread open in case someone has something new to add...like the FCC's response to the letter that rapidcharger is going to write.

 

[N8OHU]

No, I'm going to leave the thread open in case someone has something new to add...like the FCC's response to the letter that rapidcharger is going to write.

To be honest, I'm not expecting the answer he gets to be significantly different from the one already posted in the thread.

 

[mmckenna]

No, I'm going to leave the thread open in case someone has something new to add...like the FCC's response to the letter that rapidcharger is going to write.

Thanks. I'd like to see what the FCC says about this. I think there has been some useful discussions here. Most of us are smart enough to filter out the garbage and just read the pertinent info.

 

[rfradioconsult]

FCC regulations do not have any bearing on local or state statutes, if you put yourself in a position of violating a state law, such as unauthorized access to law enforcement communications, you may be charged with a felony. That could cost you big bucks plus wouldn't look good on your resume. Don't think FCC regulations would be an affirmative defense.

I may be wrong but in the California case that was referenced earlier in this thread was prosecuted in local courts.

 

[SCPD]

Many ham radio transceivers can be modified to transmit in the same range in which they are capable of receiving. There's several (if not many) websites that assist those wishing to do so. Here's one of the most popular:

Ham Radio Modification