Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Out of band use

Expand Messages
  • Ed Greany
    In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me. I d like your opinions on it. Part
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an
      emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me.

      I'd like your opinions on it.

      Part 95.143(b)(2) states:

      If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station in a
      GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
      (1) [omit]
      (2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any
      radio station

      The operative words here are "any radio station". It doesn't state
      another GMRS station, it says AMY station. So, in an emergency as they
      define in 95.143(a), would a transmission from a GMRS station to a
      police or fire services radio station be covered? Does anyone have a
      "legislative intent" or "judicial intent" as to the meaning of this
      sentence other than what it states in the rules? I can't believe they
      meant a GMRS operator may communicate with a police/fire dispatcher.
      First of all, the equipment must be compatible (type-accepted for GMRS)
      which should mitigage many possibilities of this happening. What are
      your thoughts?

      Ed Greany, KAD6554

      At the bottom of this message I have reprinted the entire part without
      omits for your review.

      TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
      PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents
      Subpart A--General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)
      Sec. 95.143 Managing a GMRS system in an emergency.
      (a) The stations in a GMRS system must cease transmitting when the
      station operator of any station on the same channel is communicating an
      emergency message (concerning the immediate protection of property or
      the safety of someone's life).
      (b) If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station
      in a GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
      (1) Anyone to be the station operator (see Sec. 95.179); and
      (2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any
      radio station
    • Ray J. Vaughan
      ... I read it as don t worry if the station you re talking to isn t licensed in GMRS Like if a government station came on without a license. Again, if
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:23 PM 8/6/2001 -0700, you wrote:
        >In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an
        >emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me.
        >
        >I'd like your opinions on it.
        >
        >Part 95.143(b)(2) states:
        >
        >If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station in a GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
        >(1) [omit]
        >(2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any radio station

        I read it as "don't worry if the station you're talking to isn't licensed in GMRS" Like if a government station came on without a license. Again, if the station meets the technical requirements elsewhere in the rules, it shouldn't be able to go out of band. Think back to when these rules were written. Radios were rock bound and couldn't be key board programmed to go where they shouldn't.

        So, if you have an individual license, this rule would let you talk to a business, or a government station that you normally wouldn't be able to talk to.

        But I think it's vague enough to protect you until you're caught. It might even get you out of trouble.

        Again, just my opinion, which won't help a bit in an emergency.

        Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
        KD4BBM PG-7-15266
        http://www.rayvaughan.com/
        ray@...
      • KD4WOV Tom Tishken
        Well, that is the same mis-nomer as a ham has the right to communicate to a sherrif deputy on a sherrif Freq durring a emergency. Historically, this has been
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, that is the same mis-nomer as a ham has the right to communicate to a sherrif deputy on a sherrif Freq durring a emergency.
           
          Historically, this has been interpited by the FCC as, durring an emergency you are only allowed to use the freqs that you are liscensed to used. Classic example: If you are a no code tech and have a life or death emergency and you check into the maritine mobile net on 14.300 to report your emergency, then you are more than likely not going to loose your liscense. But several people have lost thier liscences and equipment because they have gone to police freqs to summon help during life and death situations.
           
          The post below about the rules: Here is some pointers. You as a liscense GMRS are not allowed to communicate to other services (ie part 90) under any circumstances. You are only allowed to comunicate to other part 95 stations. I believe under emergency conditions even a call for help ( a form of broadcasting due to you not directing your tramsmitions to another station) is a legal emision. If a government station came on Freq then you would under emergency conditions. Think about this, The rules for part 95 is in a way just like part 97. During times of emergency they both give a close parallel. I would suggest looking at examples of parrt 97 and see how the FCC interpets this almost identical phrases. So before you say that during emergencies you can comunicate to any stations of any service ( part 90, 95, 97, 80), you might want to study the history of similar occurances of rules.
           
           
          PS. this is not a attack against anyone just a note to all that, we need to be careful how any of us interpet the rules since we have to be judged and punished by the FCC's interpetation, not our own.
           
           
           
           

          Preaching the Word,
          Tom Tishken
          KD4WOV
          WPON678 GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service)
          (GROL) General Radiotelephone Operator Licensee
          Member of ARRL, RSGB, and TARP
          ARRL certified Official Observer and Technical Information Specialist
          ARRL and W5YI certified VE
          ARRL registered Ham Radio Class Instructor
          Working Bands: DC to light, 160 meters-70cm, 1.2 GHz
                         Plus 10 Ghz CW
          Have you used Packet Radio yet?
          Help fight QRM report bootleggers!
          Help Ham radio join ARES/RACES/Skywarn!

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ray J. Vaughan [mailto:ray@...]
          Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 6:49 PM
          To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [GMRS] Out of band use

          At 04:23 PM 8/6/2001 -0700, you wrote:
          >In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an
          >emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me.
          >
          >I'd like your opinions on it.
          >
          >Part 95.143(b)(2) states:
          >    
          >If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station in a GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
          >(1) [omit]
          >(2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any radio station

          I read it as "don't worry if the station you're talking to isn't licensed in GMRS"   Like if a government station came on without a license.   Again, if the station meets the technical requirements elsewhere in the rules, it shouldn't be able to go out of band.   Think back to when these rules were written.  Radios were rock bound and couldn't be key board programmed to go where they shouldn't.  

          So, if you have an individual license, this rule would let you talk to a business, or a government station that you normally wouldn't be able to talk to.  

          But I think it's vague enough to protect you until you're caught.   It might even get you out of trouble.  

          Again, just my opinion, which won't help a bit in an emergency. 

                Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
                KD4BBM  PG-7-15266
                http://www.rayvaughan.com/
                ray@...
               


          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Xaun Loc
          ... Sure could -- so long as that any radio station is receiving on a frequency legally available to the GMRS station. If the station is transmitting on a
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In GMRS@y..., Ed Greany <Crest25@a...> wrote:
            > In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an
            > emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me.
            >
            > I'd like your opinions on it.
            >
            > Part 95.143(b)(2) states:
            >
            > If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station in a
            > GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
            > (1) [omit]
            > (2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any
            > radio station
            >
            > The operative words here are "any radio station". It doesn't state
            > another GMRS station, it says AMY station. So, in an emergency as
            > they define in 95.143(a), would a transmission from a GMRS station
            > to a police or fire services radio station be covered?

            Sure could -- so long as that "any radio station" is receiving on a
            frequency legally available to the GMRS station.

            If the station is transmitting on a non-GMRS frequency then IT isn't
            a GMRS station any longer and cannot claim _any_ authorization under
            Part 95 - Subpart A.

            You might also look at 47 CFR 2.405 which says that no covered
            station is ever allowed to use any unauthorized frequency.
          • Buley, Kenneth L (GEA, 032992)
            Which says : Provided further, (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of,
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 7, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Which says ": Provided further,
                  (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
              transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of, that
              specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise expressly
              provided by the Commission, or by law: "
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Xaun Loc [mailto:xaunloc@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 10:55 AM
              To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use

              --- In GMRS@y..., Ed Greany <Crest25@a...> wrote:
              > In reviewing some of the FCC rules for managing a GMRS system in an
              > emergency, I ran across one that had escaped me.
              >
              > I'd like your opinions on it.
              >
              > Part 95.143(b)(2) states:
              >    
              > If necessary to communicate an emergency message from a station in a
              > GMRS system, the licensee may permit:
              > (1) [omit]
              > (2) The station operator to communicate the emergency message to any
              > radio station
              >
              > The operative words here are "any radio station". It doesn't state
              > another GMRS station, it says AMY station. So, in an emergency as
              > they define in 95.143(a), would a transmission from a GMRS station
              > to a police or fire services radio station be covered?

              Sure could -- so long as that "any radio station" is receiving on a
              frequency legally available to the GMRS station.

              If the station is transmitting on a non-GMRS frequency then IT isn't
              a GMRS station any longer and cannot claim _any_ authorization under
              Part 95 - Subpart A.

              You might also look at 47 CFR 2.405 which says that no covered
              station is ever allowed to use any unauthorized frequency.



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Henry County REACT REACT of H
              ... ... We here in our area of Ohio also do not chase storms or observe from along side highways. Every season we have training sessions, and everyone
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 7, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, qrm2000@... wrote:
                >
                > In a recent on-the-air training session for SKYWARN participants, the
                > following was conveyed by Sgt. Jeff Winstead of the NC Highway Patrol:
                >
                > When a vehicle is on the shoulder of the highway and has a strobe light
                > activated, it creates what is known as the "moth effect". Simply put,
                > motorists steer in the direction they are looking. So if you catch and hold
                > a driver's attention with a blinking light, there is a chance they will drive
                > into your automobile.
                >

                <snip>

                > Our SKYWARN group (some of which carry yellow lights on roof bars), resolved
                > that we would not stop along roadsides for SKYWARN activities. In our state,
                > we are not "storm chasers" such as the folks found in the Mid-West. We will
                > drive to a safe spot (such as a commercial or church parking lot), make our
                > observations and reports, and then drive to the next spot. We will NOT make
                > our observations while parked alongside a highway on the shoulder.
                >
                > Hope this is helpful to you and your organization.
                >
                > 73,
                > QRM
                >
                >

                We here in our area of Ohio also do not chase storms or observe from along side
                highways. Every season we have training sessions, and everyone goes out and
                chooses a spot to observe from that gives them maximum visibility ( not alot of
                trees or buildings), this is usually in a feild access road (with the farmers
                permission) or an empty lot. I have seen what you mentioned happen alot QRM,
                the "moth effect", once I saw it a little too closely, while responding to a 2
                car collision on US 6 (I was a Paramedic with the local fire & rescue) some
                rubbernecker was looking at the lights and not where he was going and plowed
                into he back of a cruiser which in turn hit one of the cars while we were
                extracting a victem from it, the car with the victem in it was then pushed into
                a ditch that has a steep bank and had about 10 ft of water in it, making our
                jobs a lot more difficult.

                BTW, I am not sure if any of you here are from the WV area, but I just returned
                from there. I was down there with the Red Cross Disaster Relief effort, we sure
                could have used some repeaters there even if they were field expediant setups.



                Keith Hosman
                Vice President: REACT of Henry County #6019
                District Coordinator Zone 1: Ohio State REACT Council
                Board Member: Henry County Chapter - American Red Cross
                Emergency Services: Henry County Chapter - American Red Cross
              • Ron Schwarz
                ... Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide. Exactly *what* do otherwise expressly provided by the Commission, and, or by law cover?
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:15:19 -0400
                  > From: "Buley, Kenneth L (GEA, 032992)" <KENNETH.BULEY@...>
                  >Subject: RE: Re: Out of band use
                  >
                  >Which says ": Provided further,
                  > (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                  >transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of, that
                  >specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise expressly
                  >provided by the Commission, or by law: "

                  Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide. Exactly
                  *what* do "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission," and, "or by
                  law" cover? The way I read it, they render the "in no event" clause
                  potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list of situations they (the
                  two clauses) cover is known.
                • Buley, Kenneth L (GEA, 032992)
                  ... From: Ron Schwarz [mailto:rs@clubvb.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:47 AM To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use ... Hmm,
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                     
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Ron Schwarz [mailto:rs@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:47 AM
                    To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use

                    >   Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 13:15:19 -0400
                    >   From: "Buley, Kenneth L (GEA, 032992)" <KENNETH.BULEY@...>
                    >Subject: RE: Re: Out of band use
                    >
                    >Which says ": Provided further,
                    >    (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                    >transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of, that
                    >specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise expressly
                    >provided by the Commission, or by law: "

                    Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide.  Exactly
                    *what* do "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission," and, "or by
                    law" cover?  The way I read it, they render the "in no event" clause
                    potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list of situations they (the
                    two clauses) cover is known.

                     That was my thought also, but I intend to be very careful when choosing to transmit on ANY frequency, regardless of the reason.(especially in an "emergency"). 73 Ken KE4AWY


                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • J.T. Krysztoforski
                    We will be traveling in central and northern Flordia over the course of the next few weeks and would like to use out GMRS radios. However, we have not been
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 8, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      We will be traveling in central and northern Flordia over the course of the
                      next few weeks and would like to use out GMRS radios. However, we have not
                      been able to locate any information on the availability of repeaters. Does
                      anyone on in the group know of any repeaters in thaht area of Flordia?


                      Tracking #: ACCF3863E0A41D4785E6DE21481E39A6820B5C47
                    • Ray Vaughan
                      ... We have what could be the start of an effective database here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GMRS/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1 But the only one listed
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 8, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 12:37 PM 8/8/01 -0400, you wrote:


                        >We will be traveling in central and northern Flordia over the course of the
                        >next few weeks and would like to use out GMRS radios. However, we have not
                        >been able to locate any information on the availability of repeaters. Does
                        >anyone on in the group know of any repeaters in thaht area of Flordia?

                        We have what could be the start of an effective database here:

                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GMRS/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1

                        But the only one listed in Florida is mine in Miami. I know Disney used to be a big user of GMRS, but they're on 800 MHz now. I don't know if they kept the old systems on the air, or if they're open if they did. Other than that, try the REACT pair and PL first.

                        462.6750 MHz + 5 MHz PL 141.3 Hz

                        Then scan around and ask.

                        Have a good trip.

                        If anyone has any additions to the database, please add them.

                        Thanks.


                        Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
                        KD4BBM PG-7-15266
                        ray@...
                        http://www.rayvaughan.com/
                        §97.1(c)-(d)
                      • Ed Greany
                        J.T., There is the Orlando Repeater in Orlando, the Jacksonville Repeater in Jacksonville, and the Flagler Repeater in Palm Coast. All three mentioned are on
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 8, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          J.T.,

                          There is the Orlando Repeater in Orlando, the Jacksonville Repeater in
                          Jacksonville, and the Flagler Repeater in Palm Coast. All three
                          mentioned are on 462.675 +5 on 141.3 tone.

                          This information was take from the www.G-M-R-S.org website repeater
                          databank. This site already lists 53 Fixed base stations and 5 portables
                          in 17 states.

                          Good luck on your trip.

                          Ed Greany


                          Ray Vaughan wrote:
                          >
                          > At 12:37 PM 8/8/01 -0400, you wrote:
                          >
                          > >We will be traveling in central and northern Flordia over the course
                          > of the
                          > >next few weeks and would like to use out GMRS radios. However, we
                          > have not
                          > >been able to locate any information on the availability of repeaters.
                          > Does
                          > >anyone on in the group know of any repeaters in thaht area of
                          > Flordia?
                          >
                          > We have what could be the start of an effective database here:
                          >
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GMRS/database?method=reportRows&tbl=1
                          >
                          > But the only one listed in Florida is mine in Miami. I know Disney
                          > used to be a big user of GMRS, but they're on 800 MHz now. I don't
                          > know if they kept the old systems on the air, or if they're open if
                          > they did. Other than that, try the REACT pair and PL first.
                          >
                          > 462.6750 MHz + 5 MHz PL 141.3 Hz
                          >
                          > Then scan around and ask.
                          >
                          > Have a good trip.
                          >
                          > If anyone has any additions to the database, please add them.
                          >
                          > Thanks.
                          >
                          > Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
                          > KD4BBM PG-7-15266
                          > ray@...
                          > http://www.rayvaughan.com/
                          > §97.1(c)-(d)
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        • Xaun Loc
                          ... Go back to Grammar 101 and read that again. It does not say you can t operate out of band or with excess power except as.... It says you can NEVER operate
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >>Which says ": Provided further,
                            >> (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                            >> transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of,
                            >> that specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise
                            >> expressly provided by the Commission, or by law: "
                            >
                            > Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide.
                            > Exactly *what* do "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,"
                            > and, "or by law" cover? The way I read it, they render the "in no
                            > event" clause potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list
                            > of situations they (the two clauses) cover is known.

                            Go back to Grammar 101 and read that again.

                            It does not say you can't operate out of band or with excess power
                            except as....

                            It says you can NEVER operate out of band, NEVER operate with excess
                            power, NEVER operate in a way expressly prohibited by the FCC
                            regulations (i.e., if there is a rule for your service covering
                            emergency operation, it takes precedence over 2.405), and NEVER
                            operate in a way prohibited by law.
                          • m4bz@garlic.com
                            It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that the government goes to to write rules that are difficult to understand. (I m also surprised at the number of
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that the government goes to to write
                              rules that are difficult to understand. (I'm also surprised at the number of
                              people who try to "interpret" the rules instead of just reading them.)

                              Xuan, if only the rules were written as clearly and unambiguously as your
                              explanatory paragraph!

                              Mark, KAG0969

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Xaun Loc [mailto:xaunloc@...]
                              Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:13 AM
                              To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use

                              >>Which says ": Provided further,
                              >> (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                              >> transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of,
                              >> that specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise
                              >> expressly provided by the Commission, or by law: "
                              >
                              > Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide.
                              > Exactly *what* do "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,"
                              > and, "or by law" cover? The way I read it, they render the "in no
                              > event" clause potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list
                              > of situations they (the two clauses) cover is known.

                              Go back to Grammar 101 and read that again.

                              It does not say you can't operate out of band or with excess power
                              except as....

                              It says you can NEVER operate out of band, NEVER operate with excess
                              power, NEVER operate in a way expressly prohibited by the FCC
                              regulations (i.e., if there is a rule for your service covering
                              emergency operation, it takes precedence over 2.405), and NEVER
                              operate in a way prohibited by law.







                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            • m4bz@garlic.com
                              By the way, when reading FCC rules, the easiest way to understand them is to parse them. Take the first phrase and the condition, in this case That in no
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                By the way, when reading FCC rules, the easiest way to understand them is to
                                parse them.

                                Take the first phrase and the condition, in this case "That in no event
                                shall any station engage in emergency transmission..." plus "specified in
                                the instrument of authorization or as otherwise expressly provided by the
                                Commission, or by law" and place it with EACH phrase set off by an "OR".

                                So, part (d) says:

                                1. "That in no event shall any station engage in emergency transmission on
                                frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of authorization or
                                as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission, or by law"
                                2. "That in no event shall any station engage in emergency transmission with
                                power in excess of that specified in the instrument of authorization or as
                                otherwise expressly provided by the Commission, or by law"

                                Mark

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Xaun Loc [mailto:xaunloc@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 9:13 AM
                                To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use

                                >>Which says ": Provided further,
                                >> (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                                >> transmission on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of,
                                >> that specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise
                                >> expressly provided by the Commission, or by law: "
                                >
                                > Hmm, those last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide.
                                > Exactly *what* do "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,"
                                > and, "or by law" cover? The way I read it, they render the "in no
                                > event" clause potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list
                                > of situations they (the two clauses) cover is known.

                                Go back to Grammar 101 and read that again.

                                It does not say you can't operate out of band or with excess power
                                except as....

                                It says you can NEVER operate out of band, NEVER operate with excess
                                power, NEVER operate in a way expressly prohibited by the FCC
                                regulations (i.e., if there is a rule for your service covering
                                emergency operation, it takes precedence over 2.405), and NEVER
                                operate in a way prohibited by law.







                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • Xaun Loc
                                Try reading it this way (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency transmission - on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Try reading it this way

                                  (d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                                  transmission

                                  - on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
                                  authorization

                                  - or with power in excess of that specified in the instrument of
                                  authorization

                                  - or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,

                                  - or as otherwise expressly provided by law.

                                  This is the exact same wording as the original, the only change is
                                  that I have expanded the parallel clauses to include the duplicate
                                  words that common to more than one clause at a time.

                                  Apparently the original was written before the country's public
                                  school systems collectively decided that students should not have to
                                  be constrained by learning "useless" and "restrictive" subjects like
                                  grammar that might stifle their creativity (or that would require the
                                  teachers to actually know their subject).

                                  We have enough well educated people here who attended school back
                                  when parsing (or diagramming) a sentence was still being taught. I
                                  invite them to compare the original text to the expansion above and
                                  offer their opinion as to whether or not this version matches the
                                  original.
                                • Xaun Loc
                                  ... Hush, Mark, I make a living doing exactly that.
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In GMRS@y..., m4bz@g... wrote:
                                    > It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that the government goes
                                    > to to write rules that are difficult to understand. (I'm also
                                    > surprised at the number of people who try to "interpret" the rules
                                    > instead of just reading them.)
                                    >
                                    > Xuan, if only the rules were written as clearly and unambiguously
                                    > as your explanatory paragraph!

                                    Hush, Mark, I make a living doing exactly that.
                                  • Xaun Loc
                                    ... Looks like you and I were typing virtually the same message at the same time. If yours had arrived a minute sooner, I wouldn t have needed to send my
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In GMRS@y..., m4bz@g... wrote:
                                      > By the way, when reading FCC rules, the easiest way to understand
                                      > them is to parse them.

                                      Looks like you and I were typing virtually the same message at the
                                      same time. If yours had arrived a minute sooner, I wouldn't have
                                      needed to send my example of how to parse and expand that same text.
                                    • Alan Dixon
                                      Uhhh... Excuse me, did anyone discussing the citation below notice that it (47 CFR §2.405 et seq.) has nothing to do with isolated emergency communications?
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Uhhh...  Excuse me, did anyone discussing the citation below notice that it (47 CFR §2.405 et seq.) has nothing to do with isolated emergency communications?  It refers only to disaster type communications where "normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster"  in which "as soon as possible after the beginning of such emergency use, notice be sent to the Commission at Washington, D.C., and to the Engineer in Charge of the district in which the station is located, stating the nature of the emergency and the use to which the station is being put".
                                         

                                        On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:13:24 -0000 [GMRS] writes:
                                         
                                        >>Which says ": Provided further,
                                        >>    (d)
                                        That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                                        >> transmission
                                        on frequencies other than, or with power in excess of,
                                        >> that
                                        specified in the instrument of authorization or as otherwise
                                        >>
                                        expressly provided by the Commission, or by law: "
                                        >
                                        > Hmm, those
                                        last two clauses could open a loophole a mile wide.
                                        > Exactly *what* do
                                        "otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,"
                                        > and, "or by law"
                                        cover?  The way I read it, they render the "in no
                                        > event" clause
                                        potentially meaningless, unless the inclusive list
                                        > of situations they
                                        (the two clauses) cover is known.
                                         
                                        ..
                                         
                                      • Xaun Loc
                                        ... Close, 2.405 is specifically Operation during emergency. It does NOT require that there be any widespread disaster but rather that there is an
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Aug 9, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In GMRS@y..., Alan Dixon <n3hoe@j...> wrote:
                                          > Uhhh... Excuse me, did anyone discussing the citation below
                                          > notice that it (47 CFR §2.405 et seq.) has nothing to do with
                                          > isolated emergency communications? It refers only to disaster
                                          > type communications where "normal communication facilities are
                                          > disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar
                                          > disaster" in which "as soon as possible after the beginning of
                                          > such emergency use, notice be sent to the Commission at Washington,
                                          > D.C., and to the Engineer in Charge of the district in which the
                                          > station is located, stating the nature of the emergency and the
                                          > use to which the station is being put".

                                          Close, 2.405 is specifically "Operation during emergency." It does
                                          NOT require that there be any widespread "disaster" but rather that
                                          there is an emergency AND that normal communication facilities are
                                          disrupted (otherwise you would obviously use those "normal
                                          communication facilities).

                                          The point of THIS thread has been that 2.405 is the LEAST RESTRICTED
                                          rule covering emergency communications.

                                          The other sections in Part 2 Subpart E do not grant stations any
                                          authorization to operate in an emergency other than as already
                                          provided by their license and the rules of their radio service.

                                          Going down the hierarchy.

                                          Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is "TELECOMMUNICATION."
                                          This is the Title where all the FCC Rules and Regulations are located.

                                          Part 2 is "FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS." These rules apply to all radio services
                                          except as noted in individual sections.

                                          Subpart E is "Distress, Disaster, and Emergency Communications."

                                          Thus Part 2 Subpart E is the only group of rules covering distress,
                                          emergency, and disaster operation of stations across multiple radio
                                          services regulated under the other "Parts" of Title 47.

                                          Subpart E consists of sections 2.401 through 2.407:

                                          Section 2.401 "Distress Messages" addresses only what everyone else
                                          must do when some other station is in distress. (Basically shut up
                                          and listen)

                                          Section 2.402 "Control of distress traffic" deals with which station
                                          gets to decide what to do with a distress message. According to this
                                          rule, the station in distress would be the one who tells the
                                          receiving station who to pass the information along to.

                                          Section 2.403 "Retransmission of distress message" deals with even
                                          more arcane rules about when you are allowed to relay a distress
                                          message.

                                          Section 2.404 is "Resumption of operation after distress." It says
                                          that if you are ordered to shut up during an emergency, you have to
                                          wait until you are told it is ok to start talking again afterwards.

                                          We'll come back to Section 2.405 later.

                                          Section 2.406 "National defense; free service" allows common carriers
                                          to give the government free service in support of national defense.
                                          This rule creates an exception to the normal rules requiring common
                                          carriers to charge all customers in accordance with their approved
                                          rate schedules.

                                          Section 2.407 "National defense; emergency authorization" says the
                                          FCC can authorize any station to do whatever the FCC wants to let
                                          them do as may be requested by the Army, Navy, or Air Force.

                                          That ends 47 CFR Part 2 Subpart F. So, let's go back to 2.405 for a
                                          minute:

                                          Only Section 2.405 "Operation during emergency" says what you are
                                          allowed to do in an emergency -- and, yes, it gives you such
                                          authorization only if "normal communication facitities are disrupted
                                          as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster."

                                          Without a "disruption" of "normal communication facilities" there is
                                          no authorization under 2.405 at all.

                                          If you are a broadcast station or an amateur radio station, there is
                                          no authorization under 2.405 at all.

                                          But IF you are a station covered by 2.405,
                                          AND you are in an emergency,
                                          AND the normal communication facilities are disrupted,
                                          then this rule says you "may... utilize such station for emergency
                                          communication service in communicating in a manner other than that
                                          specified in the instrument of authorization"

                                          This is the ONLY authorization to operate in a manner other than that
                                          allowed by your license and the rules of your particular radio
                                          service.

                                          And this authorization has limits described in 2.405(a) through (e).

                                          Those limits include

                                          (a) - a requirement to notify the FCC "as soon as possible" telling
                                          them what you are doing and why.

                                          (b) - a requirement to stop as soon as normal communication
                                          facilities are available

                                          (c) - a requirement to notify the FCC when you are finished.

                                          (d) - limits that you cannot operate out of band, cannot operate with
                                          excess power, cannot operate in violation of specific rules, and
                                          cannot operate in violation of the law.

                                          (e) - a requirement that you stop using this rule if the FCC tells
                                          you to stop.

                                          Section 2.405 gives you authorization to operate beyond your license
                                          in certain cases AND it limits how you can operate outside your
                                          license. It also makes it completely clear that specific rules for
                                          an individual radio service take precedence. Thus, for example, on
                                          Citizens Band, Section 95.418 applies.

                                          "95.418 (CB Rule 18) How do I use my CB station in an emergency or to
                                          assist a traveler?
                                          (a) You must at all times and on all channels, give priority to
                                          emergency communications.
                                          (b) When you are directly participating in emergency
                                          communications, you do not have to comply with the rule about length
                                          of transmissions (CB Rule 16, Sec. 95.416). You must obey all other
                                          rules.
                                          (c) You may use your CB station for communications necessary to
                                          assist a traveler to reach a destination or to receive necessary
                                          services. When you are using your CB station to assist a traveler,
                                          you do not have to obey the rule about length of transmissions (CB
                                          Rule 16, Sec. 95.416). You must obey all other rules.
                                          (d) You may use your CB station to transmit one-way
                                          communications concerning highway conditions to assist travelers.

                                          Note that 95.418(b) specifically states "You must obey all other
                                          rules." This prevents you from applying 2.405 to waive any other CB
                                          rules in an emergency even if all the other requirements of 2.405 are
                                          otherwise met.
                                        • Ron Schwarz
                                          Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am trying to catch up with old traffic. I don t know if this topic has been flogged
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Aug 31, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am
                                            trying to catch up with old traffic. I don't know if this topic has been
                                            flogged to death or not in later posts, but I got this far into the digest,
                                            and I gotta say that *I'm* just a tad sick and tired of this turkey
                                            flogging ME with wild abandon.

                                            Look, dude, I've about had it with your smarmy condescending insults about
                                            my language skills.

                                            As fortune would have it, I happen to be a professional writer. No, I
                                            don't mean I'm the type of "professional writer" who sits in his loft
                                            scratching out reams of garble as he cross-indexes his growing pile of
                                            rejection notices. I'm talking about the type of writer known as
                                            "published author", and by "published," I mean "the same outfit thats
                                            committed to publish Queen Hillary's upcoming thriller. I could go on, but
                                            to be frank, I'd rather...

                                            No, I'm not gonna go there.

                                            Some people, I swear.

                                            Anyhow, "Xuan", your tiresome and pedantic rant notwithstanding, it turns
                                            out that the two awkward clauses, to-wit:

                                            >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
                                            >
                                            >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.

                                            remain.

                                            And though you quote them with a smirk so cheezy that it oozes through your
                                            keyboard, you haven't bothered to *address* them. And, I will take great
                                            pleasure in reminding me that the two clauses that you have elected to NOT
                                            address -- as you persisted in your attack on my intelligence and literary
                                            skills -- just happen to be the ONLY basis for my initial comments.

                                            You're a real piece of work. I pity your relatives.


                                            > Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:27:28 -0000
                                            > From: "Xaun Loc" <xaunloc@...>
                                            >Subject: Re: Out of band use
                                            >
                                            >Try reading it this way
                                            >
                                            >(d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                                            >transmission
                                            >
                                            >- on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
                                            >authorization
                                            >
                                            >- or with power in excess of that specified in the instrument of
                                            >authorization
                                            >
                                            >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
                                            >
                                            >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.
                                            >
                                            >This is the exact same wording as the original, the only change is
                                            >that I have expanded the parallel clauses to include the duplicate
                                            >words that common to more than one clause at a time.
                                            >
                                            >Apparently the original was written before the country's public
                                            >school systems collectively decided that students should not have to
                                            >be constrained by learning "useless" and "restrictive" subjects like
                                            >grammar that might stifle their creativity (or that would require the
                                            >teachers to actually know their subject).
                                            >
                                            >We have enough well educated people here who attended school back
                                            >when parsing (or diagramming) a sentence was still being taught. I
                                            >invite them to compare the original text to the expansion above and
                                            >offer their opinion as to whether or not this version matches the
                                            >original.
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • m4bz@garlic.com
                                            Gosh...I m a bit surprised by your intense reaction, especially since Xuan is exactly correct. In an emergency, you can operate on any frequency you are
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Sep 2, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Gosh...I'm a bit surprised by your intense reaction, especially since Xuan
                                              is exactly correct.

                                              "In an emergency, you can operate on any frequency you are licensed to
                                              operate on, or which the commission says you can in another part of the
                                              law."

                                              That's what is says, regardless of how obtuse the FCC tries to write it.

                                              Mark

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: Ron Schwarz [mailto:rs@...]
                                              Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:19 AM
                                              To: GMRS@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: [GMRS] Re: Out of band use


                                              Sorry to be following this up so late, my health has been very bad and I am
                                              trying to catch up with old traffic. I don't know if this topic has been
                                              flogged to death or not in later posts, but I got this far into the digest,
                                              and I gotta say that *I'm* just a tad sick and tired of this turkey
                                              flogging ME with wild abandon.

                                              Look, dude, I've about had it with your smarmy condescending insults about
                                              my language skills.

                                              As fortune would have it, I happen to be a professional writer. No, I
                                              don't mean I'm the type of "professional writer" who sits in his loft
                                              scratching out reams of garble as he cross-indexes his growing pile of
                                              rejection notices. I'm talking about the type of writer known as
                                              "published author", and by "published," I mean "the same outfit thats
                                              committed to publish Queen Hillary's upcoming thriller. I could go on, but
                                              to be frank, I'd rather...

                                              No, I'm not gonna go there.

                                              Some people, I swear.

                                              Anyhow, "Xuan", your tiresome and pedantic rant notwithstanding, it turns
                                              out that the two awkward clauses, to-wit:

                                              >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
                                              >
                                              >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.

                                              remain.

                                              And though you quote them with a smirk so cheezy that it oozes through your
                                              keyboard, you haven't bothered to *address* them. And, I will take great
                                              pleasure in reminding me that the two clauses that you have elected to NOT
                                              address -- as you persisted in your attack on my intelligence and literary
                                              skills -- just happen to be the ONLY basis for my initial comments.

                                              You're a real piece of work. I pity your relatives.


                                              > Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:27:28 -0000
                                              > From: "Xaun Loc" <xaunloc@...>
                                              >Subject: Re: Out of band use
                                              >
                                              >Try reading it this way
                                              >
                                              >(d) That in no event shall any station engage in emergency
                                              >transmission
                                              >
                                              >- on frequencies other than that specified in the instrument of
                                              >authorization
                                              >
                                              >- or with power in excess of that specified in the instrument of
                                              >authorization
                                              >
                                              >- or as otherwise expressly provided by the Commission,
                                              >
                                              >- or as otherwise expressly provided by law.
                                              >
                                              >This is the exact same wording as the original, the only change is
                                              >that I have expanded the parallel clauses to include the duplicate
                                              >words that common to more than one clause at a time.
                                              >
                                              >Apparently the original was written before the country's public
                                              >school systems collectively decided that students should not have to
                                              >be constrained by learning "useless" and "restrictive" subjects like
                                              >grammar that might stifle their creativity (or that would require the
                                              >teachers to actually know their subject).
                                              >
                                              >We have enough well educated people here who attended school back
                                              >when parsing (or diagramming) a sentence was still being taught. I
                                              >invite them to compare the original text to the expansion above and
                                              >offer their opinion as to whether or not this version matches the
                                              >original.
                                              >
                                              >





                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.