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

[N4DES]

Part 90 licenses have a number of transmitters that they are authorized to use. The license states how many fixed stations and how many mobiles. Your Part 90 license does not make it legal to program in another Part 90 license holders frequencies. When you do that, you are in violation of the rules.

Plus, this argument is about hams that want to transmit out of band.

But when you venture into another section, such as Part 90, a Part 97 license is worthless. You must conform to the rules of the subsection that you are attempting to operate under. 90.427 is the correct rules section as it states "no person shall program" and not "no licensee shall program". Licensed or not for the section, you shall not program unauthorized frequencies into your radio, period!

§90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.

(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with §90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.

 

[N8OHU]

But when you venture into another section, such as Part 90, a Part 97 license is worthless. You must conform to the rules of the subsection that you are attempting to operate under. 90.427 is the correct rules section as it states "no person shall program" and not "no licensee shall program". Licensed or not for the section, you shall not program unauthorized frequencies into your radio, period!

§90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.

(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with §90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.

And yet, there are those that will argue that 97.403 and 97.405 somehow trumps that rule, which is a flawed argument at best.

 

[WB8TCR]

And yet, there are those that will argue that 97.403 and 97.405 somehow trumps that rule, which is a flawed argument at best.

Except by the logic you and/or others put forward previously, that rule would only apply to Part 90 licensees, because it's a Part 90 rule.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I explained my understanding of the Part 97 rules we're discussing that I've had for over 40 years in a previous post and if the FCC wants to clarify that my understanding is wrong, so be it. I seriously doubt I will go the next 40 years having the need to test it either.

Once again though, this underscores that these rules are not clear and unambiguous and that they are in fact contradictory when read at face value. I really hope the FCC responds to RC with some kind of clear interpretation of the Part 97 rules in question. I'm sure any response they generate will be interesting and hopefully won't obfuscate the matter further.

 

[DaveNF2G]

In law, the expression "no person" applies to everyone.

 

[N8OHU]

Once again though, this underscores that these rules are not clear and unambiguous and that they are in fact contradictory when read at face value. I really hope the FCC responds to RC with some kind of clear interpretation of the Part 97 rules in question. I'm sure any response they generate will be interesting and hopefully won't obfuscate the matter further.

They did, two years ago; that it's still "open" for debate is because someone wants to see the FCC mention the specific rule numbers in question in any response that they give instead of what we got.

 

[WB8TCR]

They did, two years ago; that it's still "open" for debate is because someone wants to see the FCC mention the specific rule numbers in question in any response that they give instead of what we got.

As the devil is in the details, seems like a reasonable expectation to me.

 

[N4DES]

And yet, there are those that will argue that 97.403 and 97.405 somehow trumps that rule, which is a flawed argument at best.

Absolutely......I'm in total agreement with your statement and backed up by the FCC in the following Rule part.

§1.903 Authorization required.

(a) General rule. Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of this part, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Restrictions. The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions and period specified in the authorization. Authorizations may be granted upon proper application, provided that the Commission finds that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, technical and other criteria, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. See §§301, 308, and 309, 310 of this chapter.

 

[WB8TCR]

In law, the expression "no person" applies to everyone.

§97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

§97.405 Station in distress.

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.

IANAL but am pretty certain that in law the bolded texts mean exactly what they say. And if they don't, we are back to the confusing and contradictory aspect of the FCC rules.

 

[SCPD]

Why not try this, license all 911 centers "by rule". Install a ham rig in all of them, designate a simplex freq and tone nationwide to be reserved for emergency and other ops that require interactions between ham and public safety.
If they would do this there would be no need to go out of band or have an unlocked radio and there would be no more debate about rules or justification to have an unlocked radio.

also be warned, you may be txing in several places in the band and not know it. I saw this when a friend came to visit. He was real proud that he was able to use 151.625 on his ht. I had a scanner running and noticed that every time he keyed the radio it would stop the scanner on 154.770. At first I thought it was just because of proximity/overload. But I noted that the ps repeater was being keyed because of the hang time of the repeater. He keyed a couple more times and turned purple with fear. I never saw him with that radio again.

 

[N4DES]

IANAL but am pretty certain that in law the bolded texts mean exactly what they say. And if they don't, we are back to the confusing and contradictory aspect of the FCC rules.

If you note in those specific rule parts they use the term Amateur Station and not Amateur Operator. There has to be a specific reason for them in doing this like maybe they are envisioning the use of only amateur equipment programmed to amateur only frequencies??

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...be693908d1&mc=true&node=se47.5.97_13&rgn=div8

(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.

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


§97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

§97.405 Station in distress.

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.

 

[WB8TCR]

Why not try this, license all 911 centers "by rule". Install a ham rig in all of them, designate a simplex freq and tone nationwide to be reserved for emergency and other ops that require interactions between ham and public safety.

That seems like a reasonable idea. I'm just getting involved with the local RACES group and hopefully I'll soon have a better understanding of how something like this might work, or if somebody is already doing something like this, e.g. monitoring local repeaters, etc. Of course, I would think there would need to be some provision for a non-ham to transmit OOB, unless there's one of these confusing rules in Part 90 too. :wink:

If they would do this there would be no need to go out of band or have an unlocked radio and there would be no more debate about rules or justification to have an unlocked radio.

Maybe or maybe not. I did go back and realize that this thread started off as a discussion of Chinese VHF/UHF transceivers but has evolved (perhaps some would say it devolved) from that over the last couple of years. With the expanded discussion in mind, if some cataclysmic event occurred (major earthquake, major asteroid impact, etc.) and normal communications are disrupted, the 911 center is knocked out, etc. then other more drastic measures might be needed. Admittedly in today's day and age, the practical need for these emergency provisions in Part 97 would appear to be shrinking.

I'm probably repeating myself but never thought of programming my UV-82 for Part 90 channels "just in case". I think all the local agencies have moved or are in the process of moving to the trunked MPS system anyway.

 

[rapidcharger]

Why not try this, license all 911 centers "by rule". Install a ham rig in all of them, designate a simplex freq and tone nationwide to be reserved for emergency and other ops that require interactions between ham and public safety.
If they would do this there would be no need to go out of band or have an unlocked radio and there would be no more debate about rules or justification to have an unlocked radio.

also be warned, you may be txing in several places in the band and not know it. I saw this when a friend came to visit. He was real proud that he was able to use 151.625 on his ht. I had a scanner running and noticed that every time he keyed the radio it would stop the scanner on 154.770. At first I thought it was just because of proximity/overload. But I noted that the ps repeater was being keyed because of the hang time of the repeater. He keyed a couple more times and turned purple with fear. I never saw him with that radio again.

That has worked extremely well for decades in the marine band.
A dedicated calling channel, monitored not only by law enforcement or the coast guard but it's monitored by practically every vessel out there.
It makes a lot of sense, it really, really does.
Unfortunately ideas that make sense are not always quick to be adopted.

I'm probably repeating myself but never thought of programming my UV-82 for Part 90 channels "just in case". I think all the local agencies have moved or are in the process of moving to the trunked MPS system anyway.

Remember though, there's more than just "agencies."
There's business users, marine, military. It doesn't matter who receives a distress call. The only thing that matters is that the message is received and help gets sent.

 

[MTS2000des]

Why not try this, license all 911 centers "by rule". Install a ham rig in all of them, designate a simplex freq and tone nationwide to be reserved for emergency and other ops that require interactions between ham and public safety.

A better idea is to implement amateur radio as a part of an agency training and only those licensed dispatchers/supervisors/employees/volunteers could operate part 97, and only to coordinate response with other part 97 licensees outside the center. No different than back in the day when police vehicles used to have CB radios in them and monitored channel 9, some agencies installed CB base stations at their comm centers for the same purpose. One also has to consider that in a modern 911 center, there are many things going on- 911 centers are already struggling to keep up with new ways of calling 911: texting, social media, etc. Adding more radio channels for dispatchers can become a distraction, and let's be real: how many hams would abuse the system and call in everytime someone is broke down changing a tire? I mean, listening to some of the weather whacker nets that used to occupy several repeaters around here was insane with gas bagging hams talking about NOTHING, and when one did have an actual severe storm report, they could never get airtime. It's no wonder the NWS office in Peachtree City said "pull the ham radios" and instead take reports via a web form, an 866 number, and EMWIN. In most 911 centers, staffing is already at low levels (after all, building ball parks is more important than putting cops on the beat or call takers and dispatchers in an E911 center), adding to their workload isn't reality.


A 911 center should implement other part 90 resources as backup, ham radio has it's place but it is not an emergency radio service, despite what some people think, nor does being a ham automatically grant one privileges to operate on part 90, part 95 or anywhere else outside the ham bands.

The entire "in an emergency" discussion airs of whackerism. Here's how well it worked out for this guy when he used a part 90 radio on a public safety system while he chose to intervene in what he felt was an "emergency". One can waive around their ham license and FCC letters all day long, they won't preempt one from getting in trouble locally, and they won't be a magic "get out of jail free" card when one gets charged, arrested and possibly convicted of state crimes for unauthorized use of public safety radio systems, interference with governmental administration, and other fun charges.

It's as simple as that.

 

[N8OHU]

Remember though, there's more than just "agencies."
There's business users, marine, military. It doesn't matter who receives a distress call. The only thing that matters is that the message is received and help gets sent.

Which assumes that the Amateur Station is capable of transmitting out of band and has frequencies for those services programmed into it; most do not.

 

[rapidcharger]

Which assumes that the Amateur Station is capable of transmitting out of band and has frequencies for those services programmed into it; most do not.

The hypothetical scenario I presented involves a frequency agile ham radio like a baofeng. You can scan for active frequencies and setup for tx from the keypad.

sent via tapatalk on a mobile device.

 

[Voyager]

Which assumes that the Amateur Station is capable of transmitting out of band and has frequencies for those services programmed into it; most do not.

If it's not, those frequencies are not "at their disposal".

As for the letter from two years ago, are you (OHU) referring to the post early in this thread that state in general terms that ham radios cannot be used on Part 90 frequencies? Because that is absolutely true for everyday use. But, as you stated that letter does not clarify if that applies to life-and-death emergencies which is what this issue is about. So, yes, a clarification is in order, as that issue has NOT been addressed.

 

[mmckenna]

Why not try this, license all 911 centers "by rule". Install a ham rig in all of them, designate a simplex freq and tone nationwide to be reserved for emergency and other ops that require interactions between ham and public safety.
If they would do this there would be no need to go out of band or have an unlocked radio and there would be no more debate about rules or justification to have an unlocked radio.

also be warned, you may be txing in several places in the band and not know it. I saw this when a friend came to visit. He was real proud that he was able to use 151.625 on his ht. I had a scanner running and noticed that every time he keyed the radio it would stop the scanner on 154.770. At first I thought it was just because of proximity/overload. But I noted that the ps repeater was being keyed because of the hang time of the repeater. He keyed a couple more times and turned purple with fear. I never saw him with that radio again.

This reeks of two things:
1. Unfamiliarity with 911 dispatch centers
2. Whackerism.( I personally see this as a disease )

1: PSAPS have way to much work to do as it is. Short staff, too much -critical- life safety traffic to listen to, cut budgets and overworked staff. If you ever get a chance to sit in a real 911 PSAP and watch/listen to what they do you'd realize this really isn't a good idea.
Back in the 70's/80's, some centers around here had CB radios set to channel 9. Seemed like a good idea, but all too often the volume would get turned down or the radio turned off due to higher priority traffic.
Dispatchers have a very hard job without having to deal with yet another way for untrained/undisciplined public to reach them. The attitude that because someone holds and amateur radio license makes them automatically trained to act as a public safety resource is flawed in so many ways I won't go into it here.
911 PSAPS have a very well established way of doing what they need to do. Adding a stream of information that comes in mid-process with no location data, no filtering and no real control just makes all kinds of headaches.
There are existing/established ways for you to call in emergencies to the right people. Phone, PLB, satellite telephone, etc. Being too cheap to have the right tool for the job, too lazy to prepare properly, or expecting the government to provide a special treatment for you is just not the answer.

2: The disease that is Whackerism.
This attitude that someone who passes a 35 question multiple choice test, buys a $40 radio is suddenly a public safety professional is wrong on many, many levels. My wife has her amateur radio license, and she did a "Ham Cram Session". 6 hours from no training/experience to a valid amateur radio license does not make one trained/authorized/experienced in how to handle emergency traffic.
The attitude that someone holding an amateur radio license is somehow allowed to have a higher priority into the emergency dispatch process is flawed, also on many, many levels.
Time to get off this attitude. AMATEUR radio is a hobby. It does not make one a public safety professional.

It would create a false sense of security. Setting a precedence by installing a "special" radio system into a PSAP would imply that this is a fully supported, funded and approved way for people to get help in an emergency.
Providing reliable coverage would be very expensive. Most dispatch centers are not located on the highest hill in the area. Multiple receivers/transmitters would be required. Ongoing maintenance, support and funding for these systems would be necessary. Funding wireline links to remote receivers/transmitters would be costly, and where is that money going to come from?

If we make this "license by rule", how do we keep the general public off this amateur radio frequency? Do we tell them they are not allowed? Your phone might be down and you can't phone into 911, but you are not allowed to use the "special" radio channel because you haven't passed the 35 question multiple choice test? Only "special" people that took a 45 minute long test and bought a low end radio are authorized?

Who pays for the additional staff time to watch this radio? It's not something that a PSAP is just going to pay for and support with staff time out of the goodness of their hearts. Heck, adding an additional phone line to our center is met with massive pushback.

It wouldn't be one radio added. This would need to appear at all the call taker or radio positions. That requires back room infrastructure. All traffic on this channel would need to be recorded, just like all the other radio channels and phone lines critical to their operations.

And why would we make this an amateur radio frequency? Why not Marine VHF, MURS, CB, GMRS. At least that way it would be open to a wider population.

I really think this whole thing is coming down to those that have a severe case of "whackeritis" and those that understand the difference between AMATEUR radio as a hobby and public safety radio systems.

I really bothers me that there are amateur radio operators out there that have this attitude.

 

[SCPD]

This reeks of two things:
1. Unfamiliarity with 911 dispatch centers
2. Whackerism.( I personally see this as a disease )

<snip>

You quoted me but didn't understand a word I said. I did not promote whackerism, in fact quite the opposite. <snip> I spoke against modding ham rigs. I stated an idea I thought might help and you make personal attack. You seem to have the idea that 911 is for some other purpose than serving ppl in need of help

 

[MTS2000des]

You seem to have the idea that 911 is for some other purpose than serving ppl in need of help

Mmckenna is speaking from the position of someone who, like myself, is actually involved in emergency radio communications for a living, and is attempting to shed a perspective that many hobbyists (and the public at large)do not seem to have about what goes in many a 911 center.

While I myself (as a ham of 30 years) would love for every 911 center to be fully equipped with every communications service known to man and be able to accept, process and dispatch all calls for service including those from hams, reality also sets in that 911 centers in most of the country are at minimum staffing levels, dispatchers often double as call takers after hours, and call volume is at an all time high.

Adding the additional workload of ham radio to the mix and you have something else for us to manage that most centers, quite frankly lack the personnel, time and resources to manage. We are already having to adapt to new methods of incoming calls from the general public like texting, and social media.

Bottom line: it costs a ton of money to run an E911 center. Without raising taxes, to staff an E911 center and equip it to accommodate every single "one off" way of calling 911 is just not reality.

I think what mmckenna and others in the business are saying, including myself, is that many folks would abuse/misuse such a "ham radio" pathway as has been the case with the SKYWARN/ARES stuff. He is just being real. Ham radio for some reason attracts whackers. Many are well meaning, but seriously misinformed as to the basis and purpose of ham radio.

In my prior place of employment, I was directly involved with both emergency and non-emergency communications at a major regional medical center. In 7 years of working there, not once EVER did ham radio come to "save the day", and the few times those of us on staff who happen to be hams called upon the resources of the local ARES group to conduct official hospital sanctioned drills, we were met with hesitation, or outright incompetence. People who were claiming they were there to serve the needs of the served agency were too busy huffing and puffing because WE told them how they would be utilized to actually do any work.

It's that kind of crap that has NO PLACE in an E911 center. Those guys I spoke of were not vetted or certified by any recognized accrediting agency, lacked liability insurance, and were not even incorporated to do business in this state. Talk about an accident waiting to happen.

It's great to have these utopian ideas, it's another thing to actually put them into practice.

As I said, as a HAM I like the sound of your idea, as an E911 communications professional I am here to tell you it will never see the light of day in the real world. Sorry, it is what it is.
​

 

[WB8TCR]

If you note in those specific rule parts they use the term Amateur Station and not Amateur Operator. There has to be a specific reason for them in doing this like maybe they are envisioning the use of only amateur equipment programmed to amateur only frequencies??

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

Well the definition is so broad of an amateur station we could only be guessing as to any intent. Fact is when the ARS was created, people had very crude equipment, much of which they made themselves. Sure, hams have always been charged with operating on their own frequencies only under "normal conditions" but when these rules were promulgated I doubt there was even a thought that equipment was programmed to amateur frequencies only, as we've come to experience with a lot of commercially made ham gear for decades now.

But this brings us full-circle to a Baofeng HT or other VFO transceiver designed for a wide range of VHF/UHF frequencies. It is an amateur station by this definition.

FWIW I think it is phrased as such as only a station can transmit, not an operator, who would be the control operator of said station. Then again, I could be wrong.

BTW I am not advocating "whackerism" and frankly don't see anything that suggests that any recent posters in this thread are either.