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

[Token]

Oddly enough yet again, I have a slightly different take on this topic. IF I read the OPs question correctly, he is asking why it is illegal to transmit on 11m band on HF radios that are designed for 10~160M. Well, if one puts on their wayback hat, they can see a time when 11M was included on all stock HF radios. I personally have a nice FT-101B (that I am selling BTW!) that has 11m right there on the band selector.

The FT-101B did not come able to transmit on 11M from the factory. The 11M band switch setting was receive only, the same as its JJY/WWV 10 MHz band selection. However, lots of people modified them to allow transmit on any band selection, and used them on 11M.

If you want to get to when 11M was a ham band, and some HF transmitters did ship with it built in, you have to go to well before the FT-101 series was even a thought. The FT-101 came out for sale to the US market in 1971, and 11M on a none part 95 accepted TX would have been long illegal. The US ham allocation for 11M (26960 to 27230 kHz) was short lived, from 1947 to 1958. US hams were originally given this band in 1947 as compensation for the FCC taking away the top 300 kHz (29700 to 30000 kHz) of 10M and the top 50 kHz (14350 to 14400 kHz) of 20M. This (11M) was a shared use band. In 1958 the band was taken from US hams and designated as Class D CB. Within 5 years there were more licensed CBers in this little 270 kHz chunk of band than there were licensed hams in all of their many bands combined (for a bandwidth of roughly 3 MHz on HF alone, let alone the bandwidth on VHF, UHF, and SHF).

While I never advocate repurposing ham bands (because I use pretty much all of them) and I do understand that CB can be a zoo at times, in this case it seems to have made sense, and the band become much more used under CB than it ever would have been as a ham band. Of course, the FCC should have chosen a different frequency range for this service, but it is what it is.

My FT-101B works perfectly on aam and all the other HF bands from 10~160 so that alone shows every HF radio COULD work on 11m, as well as other bands if they allowed it.

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Yes the FT-101 series does OK on AM mode, as do many ham transmitters of that time and before. But, AM is not a requirement for CB at all. SSB is, and has been for a long time, very active on 11M. And some legal CB radios, the exceptionally good Stoner Pro-40 and the Browning SSB-15 as examples, do not even include the AM mode.

T!

 

[rescuecomm]

Section 97.105(b) answers your question: “A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator.” Control operator privileges are specified in Section 97.301.

My 220mhz Kenwood and Icom mobiles will transmit between 220 and 222 mhz. But my license priviliges no long include those frequencies regardless of what the radio "used" to do.

The gist of the matter is that if you want to transmit on Sheriff channels, take the training and join as a reservist and get the correct type of radio. Same for fire and EMS channels. Just a note, not every agency lets their employees use personally owned radios. The guy who was the Sheriff in my county for 40 years did not. If you are a ham, figure out what you need to operate with in the boonies without going rogue. LOL..

Bob

 

[Token]

The FT-101B did not come able to transmit on 11M from the factory. The 11M band switch setting was receive only, the same as its JJY/WWV 10 MHz band selection. However, lots of people modified them to allow transmit on any band selection, and used them on 11M.

I might add that the FT-101, and pretty much every ham transmitter prior to the CPU / digital age, could transmit outside ham bands as delivered from the factory. In the case of the FT-101 (like several other designs) it operated in an about 600 kHz (500 kHz plus a bit more) wide slice of spectrum for each band selection position. For example when you selected 40 meters the radio would tune from about 6915 kHz to about 7570 kHz, and could transmit anyplace in that range. Of course, the 40 meter band was 7000 to 7300 kHz in 1972, the second year the FT-101 was on the US market. And on 20 meters the FT-101 would tune roughly 13930 to 14560 kHz, although the authorized ham band was only 14000 to 14350 kHz.

Then, as now, the licensee was expected and required to know the authorized frequency ranges of the ham service and to conform to the band limitations. Regardless of the equipment capability you were (and are) responsible for your emissions.

T!

 

[W2PMX]

I might add that the FT-101, and pretty much every ham transmitter prior to the CPU / digital age, could transmit outside ham bands as delivered from the factory. In the case of the FT-101 (like several other designs) it operated in an about 600 kHz (500 kHz plus a bit more) wide slice of spectrum for each band selection position. For example when you selected 40 meters the radio would tune from about 6915 kHz to about 7570 kHz, and could transmit anyplace in that range. Of course, the 40 meter band was 7000 to 7300 kHz in 1972, the second year the FT-101 was on the US market. And on 20 meters the FT-101 would tune roughly 13930 to 14560 kHz, although the authorized ham band was only 14000 to 14350 kHz.

That was one of the reasons for crystal calibrators, and one of the reasons that people without really expensive equipment stayed away from the band edges.

 

[bill4long]

Email Text

On Friday I sent an email to one of the FCC Enforcement Bureau officers regarding this clause. I'm hoping they will respond to me and can provide guidance on this topic. I'll be surprised if I do get a response, but if I do I will be sure to share with everyone so this subject can be put to rest.

Can you post the exact text that you emailed to the FCC?

Thanks

 

[WB4CS]

Can you post the exact text that you emailed to the FCC?

Thanks

Sure thing! Response from the FCC Enforcement Officer is on page 2 (I believe) of this thread. In order to be sure I don't violate any rules here on Radio Reference, I have removed the email addresses and last names since I don't have permission from those individuals to post their contact information.

From: Brandon
Date: Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:23 PM
Subject: Non-licensed Part 90/95 Rules
To: @fcc.gov

I am researching information regarding FCC rules and regulations pertaining to unlicensed operation in the Part 90 and Part 95 spectrum. I looked up members of the Enforcement Bureau from the FCC website and am guessing that someone in Spectrum Enforcement Division would know the answer or be able to point me in the right direction. I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to see if you can answer my questions.

I am an FCC licensed operator in the Amateur Radio Service, call sign WB4CS. I spend a good bit of time on internet sites and forums dedicated to various radio services. One subject that continually comes up for debate is the use of modified amateur radio transceivers that is not certified for Part 90 or 95 radio services for both personal and emergency use. In order to better educate operators of the amateur radio service I am trying to find out the correct answer to this debate.

The rules are clear that in order to use Part 90 or 95 spectrum, the operator must have the correct licensing and certified radios to use those services. However, many amateur radio operators will quote the following Part 97 rules stating that in an extreme emergency situation any radio on any frequency is acceptable to use for assistance. Part 97.403 states that “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radio communication 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.”

The debate is centered around the argument that any radio operator using a non-certified Part 90 or 95 radio in a part of the spectrum that one is not licensed to use is either A) against FCC rules and the operator can be fined for such radio use, or, B) that under part 97.403 an amateur radio operator is allowed under certain emergency situations to use a modified amateur radio transceiver on Part 90 or 95 frequencies to obtain help, without fear of being fined or having their licensed revoked.

As a member of the Enforcement Bureau, how would you respond to the use of modified non-part 90 or 95 equipment during an emergency situation? How does the Enforcement Bureau interpret and enforce 97.403?

Thank you for your time and have a great Memorial Day weekend.

Brandon
WB4CS
Huntsville, Alabama USA

 

[bill4long]

Muchos Gracias

 

[N4CA]

Personally, I don't care what the law says or what any enforcement official says. If someone is dying, I'm not going to say, "sorry, I could help you, but I don't want to get fined or have my license revoked."

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[WB4CS]

Personally, I don't care what the law says or what any enforcement official says. If someone is dying, I'm not going to say, "sorry, I could help you, but I don't want to get fined or have my license revoked."

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I don't think that the debate have ever been about the morality of out of band transmitting. If it means saving someone's life, do what you got to do in that situation and deal with the legal consequences later. The debate, and this particular thread, was about the legality of it.

Is it moral to do anything to save another person's life? Absolutely.
Is it legal to transmit anywhere with any radio to do it? Absolutely not.
Does it matter if it's illegal as long as it's morally right? That's up to the individual.

 

[AK9R]

I am not an attorney. However, I sat on a jury where the defense argued that it was OK for the defendant to commit an illegal act in order to prevent harm from coming to defendant or someone else. Such an affirmative defense is legal in some states.

 

[robertmac]

And the problem being is how people define an emergent life threatening situation. I'm sure 911 operators know all to well the number of people dialing 911 because they have a hang nail. Or their cat ran out of milk/water. That is why there are rules. If one ignores these rules, you no only affect yourself but many others. Which may cost someone their life as well.

 

[zz0468]

...Response from the FCC Enforcement Officer is on page 2 (I believe) of this thread.

The response certainly seems clear enough to me. It does make me wonder why there is so much continued debate on this subject, though. I think your correspondent at the FCC nailed it when he said that the debate is really "how can we get around the rules".

It has nothing to do with morality, definitions of "emergency", or the finer points of Federal regulations. it has everything to do with people who feel that the rules apply to everyone but them, and they need some way to justify it.

 

[elk2370bruce]

The response certainly seems clear enough to me. It does make me wonder why there is so much continued debate on this subject, though. I think your correspondent at the FCC nailed it when he said that the debate is really "how can we get around the rules".

It has nothing to do with morality, definitions of "emergency", or the finer points of Federal regulations. it has everything to do with people who feel that the rules apply to everyone but them, and they need some way to justify it.

I totally agree with the above. There was once a time where technology was in its infancy and getting help in a real emergency was a reality. Today, cell phone coverage is quite good unless you are way out in the wild where cell towers don't exist unless you live in Death Valley. If you don't have a cell phone, you can stop and ask for the use of a regular telephone at a home or business Not present in the deserts and jungles however). If you are out in the wilderness and see a LEO unconscious in his vehicle, use his radio to summon aid. Morality is not involved here - just logic and common sense to access existing technology. Out of band radio transmission is wrong, illegal, and downright foolish as an argument for such mods and transmissions.

 

[SCPD]

I totally agree with the above. There was once a time where technology was in its infancy and getting help in a real emergency was a reality. Today, cell phone coverage is quite good unless you are way out in the wild where cell towers don't exist unless you live in Death Valley. If you don't have a cell phone, you can stop and ask for the use of a regular telephone at a home or business Not present in the deserts and jungles however). If you are out in the wilderness and see a LEO unconscious in his vehicle, use his radio to summon aid. Morality is not involved here - just logic and common sense to access existing technology. Out of band radio transmission is wrong, illegal, and downright foolish as an argument for such mods and transmissions.

I will see I have to agree and by using the officer's radio to summon help you are covered especially since you are there with him rendering aid.

IMO people who modify their amateur radio for "just in case" scenarios deserve what they get when they use them for their so called "emergency".

I have actually watched people cruise around looking for action in hopes of being able to use their radio on public safety frequencies or be a thrill seeker at a scene.

I had actually just got off the phone talking about this same thing with a amateur friend who was telling me a guy in his club is a wanna be police and has decked out his vehicle with a light bar with white strobes which actually look blue and purchased a Motorola radio with MDC 1200 ID activated so when he transmits he will sound like the police not to mention all public safety frequencies he programmed with every dept within a 50 mile range, even worse is the police style language he uses on the amateur frequencies on a daily basis.

My friend also told me the local police are waiting and watching for him to use his light bar so they will have a reason to nail him and his whacker mobile,it makes you wonder what is going through their minds.

The excuse for all of his action IMO is he has went over board as a weather spotter and thinks in his mind he is a important part of a elite group.I hear him tell others to assemble and be able to deploy whenever there is thunder 50 miles from his location.

I also forgot to mention his article in a regional news paper where a local ambulance service donated him and his buddy a decommissioned ambulance so they could build a amateur radio mobile command post.


Having said this I think he is a legend in his on mind and never outgrew his childhood police/fire fantasy instead of pursuing a career in public safety he likes the flashy lights and radios to live his dream,in reality I think he needs to see a psychiatrist.

 

[mmckenna]

Having said this I think he is a legend in his on mind and never outgrew his childhood police/fire fantasy instead of pursuing a career in public safety he likes the flashy lights and radios to live his dream,in reality I think he needs to see a psychiatrist.

Nailed it.
Certain people need that feeling of authority over others, real or imagined, to feel relevant in society. Doesn't matter if its the guys who pretend to be police, fire, EMS or military, it's all a cry for help.

 

[bill4long]

Look people, a life or death situation is what it is, the essence of question is, would you do *whatever* it takes to save live, even if that means _______

That "blank" could mean transmitting on a frequency you're not licensed for. If you would NOT do that to save a person's life, well, that speaks pretty clearly what you are. Ridiculous IMO.

 

[mmckenna]

Look people, a life or death situation is what it is, the essence of question is, would you do *whatever* it takes to save live, even if that means _______

That "blank" could mean transmitting on a frequency you're not licensed for. If you would NOT do that to save a person's life, well, that speaks pretty clearly what you are. Ridiculous IMO.

I hear what you are saying, but the issue is the definition of "life or death". In a -real- life or death situation, I can agree with you. There are many options, however, and some of them would be totally legal and appropriate. Some folks have a hard time understanding what is life threatening and what isn't. This is the job of the public safety dispatcher. You should really let them do their job. In every situation your first choice should be to call 911 and use the system as it is designed. Last choice should be to have that hacked amateur radio. Ideally everyone would be better off if you went through a local repeater and had someone call 911 for you.
The issue can be argued to death, and everyone is going to do whatever the he77 they want to do in the end. What some of us are trying to get across is that there is a system set up to handle emergencies. The public, amateur radio operators included, need to use that system as it is designed. The system works. Bypassing that system puts others lives at risk. It is not my place to decide that, and it isn't yours. Assuming that your emergency is more important that others is a pretty egotistical thing to do, and for someone who is an amateur radio operator, a hobby that is supposed to be about helping the public, this attitude is very disturbing.

So, before you cut that wire, unsolder that resistor, hack that software, think about what you are doing. Before you do it, go out and take some serious first aid classes, so you can do something __REALLY__ useful in an emergency. The world doesn't need more people that just stand by with their hands in their pockets. Your job shouldn't stop when the PTT button is released.

 

[bill4long]

I hear what you are saying, but the issue is the definition of "life or death". In a -real- life or death situation, I can agree with you.

Good to hear it

 

[mmckenna]

So, to elaborate on this, look at it this way:

One of your loved ones is having a medical emergency. You have the choice of calling 911 and waiting for an ambulance, or driving them to the hospital on your own.

Calling 911 will result in a trained professional answering the phone and asking you some questions. After answering a few questions, they'll prioritize your call and get you the right resources as quickly as possible. This works out best for everyone, especially someone who has a more serious medical issue and needs a higher priority.

Driving to the hospital you would no doubt be in a serious hurry, and none of us would blame you for that. But in the process, you've ignored the fact that there was an ambulance 2 blocks away at the Starbucks. In your rush to get to the hospital, you are driving faster and put others lives at risk.

Which way is the correct way?

It's hard to answer, as in an emergency you don't have all the info you need. That's sort of the definition of emergency.

The benefit of working within the system is that you get professionals involved that are trained to work under stress, have training to handle the types of calls they get, and know how to get the proper resources to you as quickly as possible. Doesn't matter if it's a phone call, cell phone, PLB, flag down, whatever.

Using a radio to talk directly into the system bypasses the call prioritization, it bypasses the ability for a dispatcher to explain to you what you need to do to help that person. It can interrupt other active emergencies.

Worst of all, it screams "HOAX". While no doubt you will get attention, you are bypassing the systems that are in place.

Yes, if that radio is your ONLY option, and you were not intelligent enough to venture out into the woods properly equipped, then it's your only option.

What some of us are trying to explain here is that the lack of being prepared, equipped and trained for whatever you might run into on your adventures isn't a good enough reason to bypass the 911 system, or whatever other systems are in place to get help.

With the training I have, as well as a properly set up part 90 radio, and I've done all that I can and that radio is my last option, YES, I'm going to use it. It isn't going to be my first choice. It also isn't going to be a hacked amateur radio.

If you venture into places where your cell phone won't work, and you or others safety is at risk, then you need to take the responsibility to go into those situations properly equipped. Hacked hobby radios are not being properly equipped.

 

[WB4CS]

Let's not forget there's another side of this discussion... out of band TX for use on MURS, GMRS, FRS, and CB.

These uses are not for emergencies and the "life or death" argument isn't applicable. The argument for life or death bas been beaten to death, but there's still a lot of confusion about casual out of band use. There shouldn't be any confusion, you only use a radio for the service/band it was approved and designed for. This means you can't take your Kenwood TS-2000 and have an all-in-one Amateur, CB, MURS, FRS/GMRS radio. You can modify it to do such things, but since it's not legal to do use those non-amateur services, why bother with the modification?

There's a small part of me that wishes all ham gear was made like my first amateur radio handheld. Radio Shack HTX 202. It TX/RX on only 144-148 MHz. Physically no possible way to modify it to receive, much less transmit, anywhere else. Then this out-of-band discussion would be a moot point