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

[SCPD]

my neck of the woods

Quit being a smart aft and realize that your modded or other radios may well be useless when you need them most, since many Public Safety systems have moved to 800 MHz and even if they did retain the previous equipment, there may not be anyone monitoring it. Hams have plenty of ways to get messages through that don't involve using someone else's frequency allocations, so learn to use them.

I don't know about where you are at, but everything here is like you said 800 Mhz.
But the ol' intercity VHF analog freqs are still alive and well. They even do a round robin radio check on Saturday mornings. If a ham wanted to contact a PSAP with a modded 2M radio, he would have no problem. But it's like I said in the last post I made, it would be quicker to just call 911.

 

[Voyager]

Call it whatever you want. Do whatever you want, but don't try to prove to others that it's OK based on your own specific method of ignoring sections of the rules that you don't agree with.

Pot. Kettle. Odd how you say some rules override others. Who assigns these priorities? (answer: The reader)

And I don't think anyone in the right mind would NOT do what was necessary to save a human life. Me included.

Glad we are in agreement. That is ALL I was saying.

 

[Voyager]

But it's like I said in the last post I made, it would be quicker to just call 911.

And how do you do that on a phone that has no service?

The whole point, and crux, is that it's a last resort when NO other communications mediums (including cellular) are available.

 

[mmckenna]

Pot. Kettle. Odd how you say some rules override others. Who assigns these priorities? (answer: The reader)

I think you need to fully read Part 2. It applies to all radio services. It covers a number of items, including definitions, emission designators, frequency bands, etc. It doesn't override Part 97, but compliments it, just like it compliments the other services. Part 1 and Part 15 also have some rules that would apply with amateur radio operators.

Glad we are in agreement. That is ALL I was saying.

Yeah, we are totally in agreement there. My point was that I think your interpretation of the rules is incorrect due to having a very limited point of view. Part 97 isn't the only thing you need to look at.
That's OK, we can disagree there and still get along just fine.

 

[DaveNF2G]

So you're right and those who are certified to teach classes on the subject are wrong. Interesting. And I'm the one being silly? As bugs would say... "what a maroon".

There is no "certification" to teach ham classes. What kind of classes are you talking about?

If you want a "certified" expert opinion, then consult with a communications attorney. They will tell you what I did, if you choose to listen and not pre-interpret every word they are going to say according to what you think the law ought to mean.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Pot. Kettle. Odd how you say some rules override others. Who assigns these priorities? (answer: The reader).

Wrong answer. The correct answer: The regulatory body that wrote the rules. That is how it works in court.

 

[Voyager]

There is no "certification" to teach ham classes. What kind of classes are you talking about?

If you want a "certified" expert opinion, then consult with a communications attorney. They will tell you what I did, if you choose to listen and not pre-interpret every word they are going to say according to what you think the law ought to mean.

Obviously NOT ham classes!

I was talking about classes in which they teach legal concepts to public safety personnel (in order to keep them OUT of court), and the instructors are most certainly certified (at least they are in my state). In fact one of them is certified to teach the class internationally. Perhaps more, but one I know of for certain. He literally writes book on the topic - books that everyone uses as a guide. (we are talking expert of the experts here)

In that class (which I've taken many times), if you make the decision to help someone, you MUST do anything and everything you can to help them. To do otherwise is negligence.

BTW, the folks teaching these classes are the folks the attorneys call on for their expert opinions, so I don't think I will take the attorney's word over theirs since the attorney defers the expertise. Many of them have testified in court many times each.

 

[Voyager]

Wrong answer. The correct answer: The regulatory body that wrote the rules. That is how it works in court.

Ever hear of a law being interpreted differently be a court? Happens EVERY day. Who makes those decisions? Judges or juries depending on the type of trial (not the original author - even if it is a government agency). That's why you have courts of appeal who review the decisions, and then courts above that.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Look, Voyager, I am more qualified than you to discuss this issue, plain and simple. No, I am not an attorney. But I do have the formal education and research behind me to support my interpretations and assertions. Your arguments are specious and evidently ill-informed - and often insulting to whomever you disagree with.

To put it bluntly, in the eyes of the law, including FCC regulations, you are simply wrong. I see no point in further jousting as you will continue to believe as you wish. That is your right, to the moment you are assessed a fine and/or incarcerated.

 

[rapidcharger]

Uhm... No, not likely.

I live on a ranch in the middle of nowhere, and most of "The Emerald Triangle" is sketchy on cell service at best. So no, I've spent my whole life running around in the wilderness.

My point is simple: If you need to do something illegal or in a grey area to save someone's life, then for frigg sake do it, get it done, and stop worrying about laws.

But the folk who keep bringing up transmitting on PS frequencies are, in my opinion, wannabe cops and whackers. That's not normal behavior.

Here is an example:

I'm in the wilderness and come across a hiker with severe bleeding. After bandaging him, I start trying to get EMS. In my area, ham repeaters cover areas where cell and even Sheriffs dept repeaters don't. I'll start with that. Then there are loggers and truckers. I'll try CB. If there is a road crew or logging crew working the area, they might be worth a try. Marine band might get a CG station out on the coast. If I can hear the Sheriffs dept, I'll break into their channel, but I don't know their PL tones or offsets.

So my point is, breaking into a PS freq might not automatically be the best thing. If there's a concrete plant 5 miles away, break into their freq. It might be faster. But whatever you decide to do, just do it, and don't try to find a law to protect you.



Delta

I said I wasn't going to post any more replies until I got my response to my letter but I will just say in closing that I had to call emergency services yet again the night before last from a place where I had little to no cell phone signal. I didn't have a plb with me because I wasn't planning to go in to the wilderness .

It wasn't a life threatening emergency that warranted using a radio but it underscores my point that there is so much that can go bad in so little time, in a place there is no cell phone. There is still so, so much geography that just isn't covered.

I don't have a faux-lice car or play dress up like a cop and have spoken out against such posing earlier in the thread and elsewhere. I know that was just your opinion and you're entitled to it but I seem to find myself in situations rather often where, just in the course of an ordinary non wilderness camping trip, things can go wrong with potentially no other wAy to summons help if a person were non-ambulatory.

I agree there are lots of people in the hobby that are looking for the slightest excuse to tx on unauthorized bands. But by no means is that the sort of scenario that the two rule sections I'm talking about would exempt someone from the rules.

 

[buddrousa]

Well I think a $5,000.00 fine and a little time in federal prision for interfering with emergency communications would do you good. If you want to be a Rescue Randy join your local Rescue Squad get one of their radios and go help people other wise stay off emergency channels and stay out of the way. You are not an emergency responder so you do not have a duty to act.

 

[N8OHU]

I agree there are lots of people in the hobby that are looking for the slightest excuse to tx on unauthorized bands. But by no means is that the sort of scenario that the two rule sections I'm talking about would exempt someone from the rules.

There is no scenario that would allow you to operate out of band, not even using 97.403 and 97.405; those are intended to allow licensed Amateurs to operate outside their normal license restrictions for the duration of an emergency. Can you find even a single instance where the ARRL or any ham club has posted about a rescue that hams participated in where there was no option to use ham frequencies and they had to go out of band to get help to the location? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

 

[Voyager]

I see no point in further jousting as you will continue to believe as you wish. That is your right, to the moment you are assessed a fine and/or incarcerated.

Ain't gonna happen, as I am licensed (not individually) under a demo Part 90 license which covers most all the Part 90 frequencies, so I'm "licensed anywhere". In addition to that, I am authorized under many governmental entities.

I was not aware you were a court certified expert. You should have said that earlier, but it comes down to two expert opinions then (yours and the instructors of the classes I've taken who are certified experts).

 

[buddrousa]

Voyager I think you have been eating white beans in a small room again.

 

[rapidcharger]

There is no scenario that would allow you to operate out of band, not even using 97.403 and 97.405; those are intended to allow licensed Amateurs to operate outside their normal license restrictions for the duration of an emergency. Can you find even a single instance where the ARRL or any ham club has posted about a rescue that hams participated in where there was no option to use ham frequencies and they had to go out of band to get help to the location? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

The language does not specify.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[rapidcharger]

This is the question on the exam.
Notice it gives the option of just public safety frequencies. But the correct answer is ANY frequency.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[Voyager]

E. The one Dave tells you to use.

 

[teufler]

As hams, why are we even arguing this? The rules, that most of took in our tests, stated we can talk anywhere in an emergency provided all resorts had been talked on amateur frequencies, or there was no other available communications available which most of us took this to mean phones, cell phones. This ability that we have with our radios is getting more and more remote as cell phone coverage has expanded. Also more and more departments are moving to networks that ham equipment does not support. While some of us have gone on to public safety frequencies in years past, this event is or has become very remote. If we come up on a scene that requires are input, and I hope we don't, as radio operators we will do what we can, when we can, in an emergency. While an agency might be shocked that on "outsider" came into their domain, I don't think we will be burned at the cross. Some of us are lucky that we have public service officers that have ham equipment in their vehicles. This solves many problems. While I have attempted contact on many repeaters, outside my home area, and receive no response, I have resorted to a Mayday call and someone answered back on the first or second try. These were life events, traffic accidents, that I drove up on over the years. Years back the ARRL was pushing the LONG TONE 0 concept. They had a kit design that left you radio muted, then when a 0 tone come through, the receiver was opened up and if people were sleeping, at least you could wake them up. The tone concept may be expanded for weather events too.

 

[Voyager]

The issue is that someone got a "clarification" from the FCC that states you cannot use your ham transceiver for Part 90 frequencies, and they see that as having no exceptions. The question was not asked with respect to life-or-death distress calls. Someone recently wrote a letter for further clarification, but it is unlikely that letter refers to the same case, as that person is biased toward the absolute ban on using any means of communications available to summon help - including a ham radio if NO other means are available. As such, the FCC will likely reply that in general ham transceivers cannot be used on Part 90 frequencies which is true for non-life-threatening cases. And for life-threatening cases the rules involved are vague enough to be open to interpretation, although those who argue they are right don't see them as vague, and clearly support their views.

It all comes down to what you define as "any means of radiocommunication" and whether radiocommunication means all forms, or if radiocommunication only refers to ham radio, and no other services. I imagine sooner or later we will see a resurgence of what the term "is" is.

 

[rapidcharger]

As hams, why are we even arguing this?.

Because it's unclear. I'm not arguing personally, I just want to know what the fccs position is on it because I suspect that when the rule was written, they may not have thought of how equipment and attitudes would eventually evolve.

Someone recently wrote a letter for further clarification, but it is unlikely that letter refers to the same case, as that person is biased toward the absolute ban on using any means of communications available to summon help - including a ham radio if NO other means are available.

That someone was me and I am not biased either way.
In fact I do believe that, as it is written, it not only grants permission to talk out of band.... Not just part 90, but anywhere else, but it also exempts a station from all other rules including the need to be a licensed operator.