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

[MTS2000des]

He impersonated a cop and drew a firearm on somebody that he chased down.

He never told anyone he was an LEO. In this state, one has to actually intentionally mislead another that they are a public officer or employee, Mr. Carmichael never said he was a police officer, or flashed a badge. Had he not had the trunking radio, his buddies with Smyrna PD would have given him another "attaboy" for effecting a George Zimmerman act of courage and effected a citizens arrest of a fleeing drunk driver. His piracy on the Cobb county 800MHz system is what did him in. His vehicle was a demo vehicle for his company, he was an authorized Whelen dealer. Sure, it LOOKS bad, but pay attention! When you pee in the pond of public safety radio personnel, this is what may happen. It doesn't look good does it?

If you don't want to accept that, I don't know what to tell you. It is another case of an UNAUTHORIZED person using a government radio system who got arrested despite the fact that they felt they had a "right" to use it to call in their "citizen" request for assistance.

I am sorry you think having a ham license makes you exempt to such prosecutions. Fact is it doesn't. Several people have attempted to make this clear, but it's obvious you and others refuse to accept it.

I guess you can always try it out locally and see how it works out for you, then come tell us how we don't know what we're talking about. You might want to think twice though, in Michigan, people have gone to prison for unauthorized use of government radio systems. Maybe they should have gotten their HAM license, I am sure that would be the magic "get out of jail free" card you seem to think it is and they would have been immediately set free.

You have provided an example of an extreme outlier IMO and has little to nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Has everything to do with the mentality of "I am the exception". Carmichael certainly thought he was, he was in fact, a legitimate public safety equipment dealer. His company had the contract with the very city he was arrested in for all the police vehicle equipment installs. In his mind (just like yours), he felt he was the exception for what he had been doing for years. Trust me when I tell you this wasn't his first time using the Cobb 800MHz system without permission. I know.

So yes, ham license does matter as far as this discussion goes and the questions that RC has forwarded to the FCC.

When the stars align to meet the criteria spelled aboved, what then? Where are examples of those cases?

The FCC will not get you, I nor anyone out of trouble when one gets charged the way Carmichael did for violating STATE law. The FCC will not pay for your lawyer, post your criminal bond, pay your fine/probation fees, or pay your bills while you serve prison time.

The FCC will not be the "magic bullet" that stops one from being prosecuted. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Let us know how it works out.

In the meantime, all the whacker excuses for having out of ham band transmit capability will not insulate one from consequences. I could care less what the FCC says, it won't stop reality.

As I've said before, if one is unauthorized and talks on a frequency/system they aren't licensed for or otherwise authorized to use (by nature of their employment, paying subscriber, etc) then they better understand what CAN happen. FCC letters, ham tickets or not.

 

[WB8TCR]

He never told anyone he was an LEO. In this state, one has to actually intentionally mislead another that they are a public officer or employee, Mr. Carmichael never said he was a police officer, or flashed a badge. Had he not had the trunking radio, his buddies with Smyrna PD would have given him another "attaboy" for effecting a George Zimmerman act of courage and effected a citizens arrest of a fleeing drunk driver. His piracy on the Cobb county 800MHz system is what did him in. His vehicle was a demo vehicle for his company, he was an authorized Whelen dealer. Sure, it LOOKS bad, but pay attention! When you pee in the pond of public safety radio personnel, this is what may happen. It doesn't look good does it?

This is the title of the article you posted: "Police supply shop owner arrested in impersonation of officer[/quote] 'nuf said. The other charges look much worse than the radio one but maybe you have other info you're still holding back.

I am sorry you think having a ham license makes you exempt to such prosecutions. Fact is it doesn't. Several people have attempted to make this clear, but it's obvious you and others refuse to accept it.

You're barking up the wrong tree, bud. I have never said this. At the risk of repeating myself which the mod asked us not to do, these were rules that the FCC laid down long ago. I only see them applying in extreme situations which means next to never. Forget that "pond of public safety radio" you and some others seem to think is the only thing this is about. Are you going to give me the example of the ham who was prosecuted breaking in on some commercial or other band when it was a catastrophic emergency? I'm not saying it doesn't exist and I'm not saying the FCC won't come back and says that's not what those rules mean. Where are the examples that were alluded too?

I guess you can always try it out locally and see how it works out for you, then come tell us how we don't know what we're talking about. You might want to think twice though, in Michigan, people have gone to prison for unauthorized use of government radio systems. Maybe they should have gotten their HAM license, I am sure that would be the magic "get out of jail free" card you seem to think it is and they would have been immediately set free.

Another straw man I see . . .

Has everything to do with the mentality of "I am the exception". Carmichael certainly thought he was, he was in fact, a legitimate public safety equipment dealer. His company had the contract with the very city he was arrested in for all the police vehicle equipment installs. In his mind (just like yours), he felt he was the exception for what he had been doing for years. Trust me when I tell you this wasn't his first time using the Cobb 800MHz system without permission. I know.

More straw men. You know nothing about my mind set and are insinuating things that are completely false in that regard. Read back among my posts and tell me where that came from. I've only posted less than twenty times, so it shouldn't be too hard. I've already posted that I've never eventhought about doing something like this, unlike one of your compatriots here who admits he had programmed his radio with LEO freqs and besides, I only see these rules as applying in extreme situations. For the person who thinks everything is extreme, that is why there are courts to sort this out. While I'm in total agreement that this joker was wrong, I don't understand why this is the only example and type of person (ham or not) you can think of in regards to Part 97 rules in question.

The FCC will not get you, I nor anyone out of trouble when one gets charged the way Carmichael did for violating STATE law. The FCC will not pay for your lawyer, post your criminal bond, pay your fine/probation fees, or pay your bills while you serve prison time.

The FCC will not be the "magic bullet" that stops one from being prosecuted. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Let us know how it works out.

Nice blogorrhea. I don't know who you're talking to but it isn't me.

I could care less what the FCC says

Well, if you have one of their licenses you should, or you might be the one finding yourself with the short end of the stick.

As I've said before, if one is unauthorized and talks on a frequency/system they aren't licensed for or otherwise authorized to use (by nature of their employment, paying subscriber, etc) then they better understand what CAN happen. FCC letters, ham tickets or not.

You've said your piece and made your point, however, you've not addressed the issue at hand. I kind of think you've in fact missed the point.

 

[MTS2000des]

You're barking up the wrong tree, bud. I have never said this. At the risk of repeating myself which the mod asked us not to do, these were rules that the FCC laid down long ago. I only see them applying in extreme situations which means next to never.
Are you going to give me the example of the ham who was prosecuted breaking in on some commercial or other band when it was a catastrophic emergency? I'm not saying it doesn't exist and I'm not saying the FCC won't come back and says that's not what those rules mean. Where are the examples that were alluded too?

There aren't any, because quite frankly in some "extreme emergency" hams who aren't whackers know their place and don't pop up on some public safety or commercial frequency/system trying to call for help. Most hams know their place on the dial and the world. I say most, because threads like this always bring out the whackjobs and preppers who are suffering from delusions. Even the title of this very thread with the disclaimer "stupid question" is indicative that the one who started this knows one should not be where they aren't legitimately licensed or authorized

More straw men. You know nothing about my mind set and are insinuating things that are completely false in that regard. Read back among my posts and tell me where that came from. I've only posted less than twenty times, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Like many on this forum, you want to make it personal and all about you. I could care less about your other posts, if they aren't germane to this thread, why mention them? Some narcissistic personality trait? Who cares? I don't.

I only see these rules as applying in extreme situations. For the person who thinks everything is extreme, that is why there are courts to sort this out.

And feel free to try out your theory and let us know how it works out. You are right, this is what courts are for. I'd prefer to stay out of courtrooms. Most rational adults strive to stay out of courtrooms.

Well, if you have one of their licenses you should, or you might be the one finding yourself with the short end of the stick.

Stop taking things out of context. The FCC has no jurisdiction over STATE laws, and all I have been trying to get through your head is that one who chooses to violate STATE laws by bootlegging not just on public safety radio but commercial systems CAN BE PROSECUTED for doing so. The vague FCC rules many are trying to hide behind will not shield one from the liability of facing such consequences. There have been plenty of cases where criminal cases have been made against violators of state law regarding radio communication theft and piracy. Florida and NJ come to mind. Just about every state makes it a crime to use a subscription service such as an ESMR/SMR a crime without paying. Again, to reiterate, the FCC will not be your savior.

Sure, one can choose to try and fight it, but at what cost? What would one gain? Does one think it would be a "victory for ham radio" anymore than pestering the FCC with questions that one should already know the answer to?

This thread is proof that common sense is not common. Of course if someone is trapped on a sinking boat and all they could reach for was a commercial rig or cop radio and call for help, the chance they would face any consequences would be minimal. Duh. No brainer. I don't need a clarification from the FCC to tell me that.

But then you have all these whackers who enter the picture with their "what if" scenarios, camping stories with no cell service, driving upon auto accidents and getting on sheriff's radio frequencies, et al and think they are somehow insulated from getting in trouble with authorities, and not just the FCC. If you don't get that concept, oh well. I wish you well in your endeavors. Believe what you wish. At the end of the day, it does not matter what you, I or some guy at the FCC answering some yet unpublished letter thinks.

It comes down to what 12 reasonable people and/or one man/woman in a black robe thinks The question one has to ask, is it worth it to find out?
​

 

[WB8TCR]

Like many on this forum, you want to make it personal and all about you. I could care less about your other posts, if they aren't germane to this thread, why mention them? Some narcissistic personality trait? Who cares? I don't.

No, you made it personal and there's another ad hominem to prove it. All of my post are on this thread.

Of course if someone is trapped on a sinking boat and all they could reach for was a commercial rig or cop radio and call for help, the chance they would face any consequences would be minimal. Duh. No brainer. I don't need a clarification from the FCC to tell me that

Hmm, maybe you do get it. I'll leave it there and let you have whatever word you wish. I'm simply interested in seeing if RC gets a response and posts it. TTFN

 

[mmckenna]

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

ab3lw,

You are correct, I reread what you posted and my reply, and I was out of line. While I didn't intend anything I said to be a personal attack, I can see how it would totally come across that way.

What you suggested was a good idea, totally legal and I can see some validity to it.

Still nothing from the FCC in my mailbox today.
I think McKenna read way too much into that post.

Rapidcharger,
I absolutely did. Going back and rereading the two posts reinforces that.

I think, overall, this thread has been a really good discussion, and I think leaving it open was a good idea. While the discussion can certainly get heated at times, that's probably a good sign.

I'd look forward to see what the FCC says about this, if they do reply.

 

[Voyager]

If you have legal access to other frequencies, 97.403 does not apply in any way shape or form. And implying that 97.403 or 97.405 in any way legally allow hams to access Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies encourages whackerism, plain and simple.

Saving lives encourages whackerism. Can I put that on a bumper sticker? It's a perfect rebuttal to Darwinism.

 

[AK9R]

OK, folks, here's what we are going to do.

I'm going to lock this thread for a few days. A few folks are getting a little heated and I don't want to have to issue any infractions. Let's all take a breath.

Rapidcharger, if you get a response from the FCC, PM me and I will unlock the thread immediately so you can post it.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Can I transmit outside of the ham band.

Well put together flow chart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mmckenna]

I love it. Shattering whackers dreams of grandeur in one photo.

Wonder how much of a crap-tornado this'll stir up?

 

[GrumpyGuard]

This photo say's it all. Very well thought out. Although it is taught in the Tech class it amazes me how often this comes up with both Hams and non-Hams.

 

[kayn1n32008]

I love it. Shattering whackers dreams of grandeur in one photo.

Wonder how much of a crap-tornado this'll stir up?

The infraction will be worth it! Although this should be a sticky...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mikepdx]

Finally, the definitive answer.
Thank you.

 

[phillydjdan]

I love it and I beg the mods NOT to delete it and leave it here for all the newbies to see! It is a timeless argument that nobody seems to "get" and always has an excuse. So here it is, boys and girls. Your answer, now be gone... lol

 

[rapidcharger]

The title of the thread is "Can I transmit outside of the ham band" however the flowchart only specifically addresses "Police and Fire Channels".

Hopefully you can understand why numerous unanswered questions remain.


Still haven't received a response to my letters to the FCC. Yes, letters, plural. At the beginning of them month I sent the letter again asking for a response since two months had passed without hearing back. If I don't hear back by the 3 month mark, I will contact them again.

 

[mmckenna]

Still haven't received a response to my letters to the FCC. Yes, letters, plural. At the beginning of them month I sent the letter again asking for a response since two months had passed without hearing back. If I don't hear back by the 3 month mark, I will contact them again.

Maybe they are on the floor, laughing hysterically that this question keeps coming up?

But seriously, thanks for doing the leg work to get a definitive answer out of the FCC to (hopefully) satisfy everyone. Although I'm sure there will still be those who want to argue why they are a special case and exempt from any/all rules due to that 35 question multiple choice test they took.

About every 6 months I have a group on my trunked system come to me and request I put the PD talk groups into their radios so they can "talk with the police, in an emergency". My standard reply is "Sure, just get something in writing from the chief of police and I'll reprogram your radio".

Been 18 years and the Chief has never don't that. I guess he didn't know some of them where ham radio operators.....

 

[rapidcharger]

Maybe they are on the floor, laughing hysterically that this question keeps coming up?

I keep hearing about how this always comes up. I would tend to think that if it comes up that often, they should have a form letter response sitting in a tray of xerox copies, just waiting to send out.

And maybe they should post something on their website somewhere that clarifies what those rules are for and give some examples.

The fact is the rules are vague and the overwhelming majority of people who are responsible for adhering to the rules are not lawyers and not mind readers.

There are two main camps here. The ones who believe that the rules do not intend for out of band operation and the camp that believes it does allow for it. I am in neither camp. I suspect what's going to happen is if there ever is a response to the stations in distress question, part 97 allows out of band operation in certain circumstances however part 90 does not and it is still a violation of part 90. So technically, the camp that believes it is in compliance with part 97 to talk out of band are right, even though it is still not legal because it contradicts part 90.

 

[KC4RAF]

THAT is one heck of a flow chart!!!

Best I've ever seen. And agree, it should be a sticky!!!
Thanks for an informative chart....lol, love it

 

[kayn1n32008]

Best I've ever seen. And agree, it should be a sticky!!!

Thanks for an informative chart....lol, love it

Jeff Cherry posted it on Facebook. I forgot to add credit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[K5MPH]

I know a few hams even in my local area that dont even know the rules of such including Extras and General.............

 

[SCPD]

Just a smile .. and a wink. :wink:

Only one problem, you cannot prevent stupid.