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

Re: [scoutradio] FRS radio for Scouts and HAMS...

Expand Messages
  • Ray Vaughan
    At 10:36 AM 3/13/02 -0500, you wrote: ... Not even slightly illegal. While the service name may use the term family there s no limitation on who you talk
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:36 AM 3/13/02 -0500, you wrote:

      Regarding FRS radios, you said:

      Unfortunately- small business has discovered these rigs too- the welding supply across the street from work uses them on their campus...certainly illegal...

      Not even slightly illegal.   While the service name may use the term 'family' there's no limitation on who you talk to or why.  

      Please, if you're going to be making a declaration about the FCC R&R, please quote the regulation, it will help prevent a lot of confusion.  

      But- two points- I believe ham calls are only to be used on ham frequencies- I remember a reg about that. 

      Can you please cite the rule you're referring to?   I find my call sign is a good unit number on the bands I share with other hams that aren't amateur frequencies, for example, the county's 800 MHz trunking system.

      Thanks.






      Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
      KD4BBM  PG-7-15266
      ray@...
      §97.1(c)-(d)
    • kb3cuf
      Sir, you are correct on both points. I stand corrected. I suppose that the reg I thought I recalled about using Ham calls on other services must have been one
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Sir, you are correct on both points.
        I stand corrected. I suppose that the reg I thought I recalled about
        using Ham calls on other services must have been one of those "hints"
        that people like me sometimes end up believing.

        There is no ID requirement in FRS, optional in CB, and license # in
        GRMS-

        27 Mhz 5W AM would make much more of a impact than the others- yet no
        ID required...

        By inference, the FCC would prefer (?) GMRS for business purposes-
        but since the part 95 regs are a mish mash of rules- some extremely
        precise and some extremely vague- the FRS says any one can talk to
        anyone else- as long as it is about legal activity. For that matter-
        I do not see any language about indecent or outragous behavior. I
        guess the impact of a 300mw transmitter is overlooked by the FCC. My
        wife was very displeased when she heard a delivery driver verbally
        assaulting another user on "his channel" complete with profanity.
        [family?]

        By the way- this FRS service was started at the request of Tandy.

        I think repeaters are allowed under MURS and GMRS (implied there :>) )

        73
        Larry
        KB3CUF




        --- In scoutradio@y..., Ray Vaughan <ray@r...> wrote:
        > At 10:36 AM 3/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
        >
        > Regarding FRS radios, you said:
        >
        > >Unfortunately- small business has discovered these rigs too- the
        welding supply across the street from work uses them on their
        campus...certainly illegal...
        >
        > Not even slightly illegal. While the service name may use the
        term 'family' there's no limitation on who you talk to or why.
        >
        > Please, if you're going to be making a declaration about the FCC
        R&R, please quote the regulation, it will help prevent a lot of
        confusion.
        >
        > >But- two points- I believe ham calls are only to be used on ham
        frequencies- I remember a reg about that.
        >
        > Can you please cite the rule you're referring to? I find my call
        sign is a good unit number on the bands I share with other hams that
        aren't amateur frequencies, for example, the county's 800 MHz
        trunking system.
        >
        > Thanks.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
        > KD4BBM PG-7-15266
        > ray@r...
        > http://www.rayvaughan.com/
        > §97.1(c)-(d)
      • ClayWA6LBU@aol.com
        I ll look in the FCC rulebook; however, I do believe common sense would prevail in this case. Otherwise the FCC would not give a hoot if I used my police
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I'll look in the FCC rulebook; however, I do believe common sense would
          prevail in this case. Otherwise the FCC would not give a hoot if I used my
          police callsign on the Ham bands.

          Clay WA6LBU

          In a message dated 3/13/02 10:23:02 AM Central Standard Time,
          ray@... writes:

          >
          > Can you please cite the rule you're referring to? I find my call sign is
          a
          > good unit number on the bands I share with other hams that aren't amateur
          > frequencies, for example, the county's 800 MHz trunking system.
          >


          Clay Mayrose, WA6LBU

          "You have to operate everyday as if the whole world were listening, because
          these days, it is." - The FCC's Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH
        • Ray Vaughan
          ... Exactly. As far as the FCC is concerned, you can even call yourself Clay on the air. As long as you also use WA6LBU as often as is required in Part 97.
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 07:34 PM 3/13/02 -0500, you wrote:
            >I'll look in the FCC rulebook; however, I do believe common sense would prevail in this case. Otherwise the FCC would not give a hoot if I used my police callsign on the Ham bands.

            Exactly. As far as the FCC is concerned, you can even call yourself Clay on the air. As long as you also use WA6LBU as often as is required in Part 97. Just like using a tactical call sign on the ham bands during a special event. If you were on-duty and on the ham bands for the event, it would make perfect sense to use your police unit number on the ham band. btw, I don't think anyone these days uses FCC callsigns on police or fire channels, it's either automated, or said by the dispatcher every 15 minutes. Otherwise it's all tactical or unit numbers.

            You can call me anything you would like, and I can call myself anything I like as long as I also take care of the legal requirements.

            Ray J. Vaughan, MS, CBTE, CERT
            KD4BBM PG-7-15266
            ray@...
            http://www.rayvaughan.com/
            §97.1(c)-(d)
          • Milt Forsberg
            Unfortunately, the most logical choice is not always the choice of those writing some of the rules. As I understand it, Third Party rules have been in effect
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 14, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Unfortunately, the most logical choice is not always the choice of those
              writing some of the rules. As I understand it, Third Party rules have
              been in effect for a long time, and are probably much outdated. However,
              they still are in effect, and we need to follow them until changed. It
              appears that much of the problem comes from the fact that the governments
              of many of the foreign countries control the telecommunications systems,
              and in many places, own the systems. There is a concern (right or wrong)
              that Amateur Radio might cut into the income of the telecom systems, so
              the governments are very restrictive on types of communications permitted
              on the Amateur bands. It is disappointing that Scouts can't talk to
              everyone on the bands, but we have to live with that fact at present. I
              don't know if we can do anything to change it as the US will enter into a
              treaty with any of the other countires willing to do so to permit Third
              Party traffic, as has been done with most of the Central and South
              American countries, along with a few in other parts of the world. The
              change in attitude must come from the foreign governments.

              The ones who will lose the most in case of a violation are the foreign
              operators. We have to respect their license.

              It is good that this subject had come to light here. Hopefully, it will
              prevent some problems down the road related to JOTA and other Scout
              related Amateur Radio functions.

              Milt Forsberg, K9QZI
              Champaign, IL


              On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Fred Stevens K2FRD wrote:

              > Here's the answer I just received from Riley Hollingsworth. I don't
              > like it because it makes me wrong, but I'll accept it. For now.
              > However, it's clearly interpretive and subject to
              > policy/interpretation changes. I'd like to see the intent of the
              > original legislation, both at the U.S. Federal and ITU levels. It is
              > not logical that a control operator may communicate with a distant
              > operator in a non-treaty nation, but a non-ham standing right next to
              > him/her may not unless this is the precise intent of this regulation,
              > to wit: prevent non-licensed hams from talking on the radio under any
              > circumstances. If this IS the intent, why doesn't it clearly say so
              > instead of masterful obfuscation? I need to do more follow-up and
              > research, but I don't have the time right now. Once again, the losers
              > are the Scouts.
              >
              > de Fred
              > K2FRD
              >
              > ****************************
              >
              > Fred--here's the answer.
              >
              > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:37:08 -0500
              > From: "William Cross" <BCROSS@...>
              > To: "Riley Hollingsworth" <RHOLLING@...>
              > Subject: Re: Fwd: THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC
              > Mime-Version: 1.0
              > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
              > Content-Disposition: inline
              >
              > You got it-the rule 97.115(a)(2) says "No amateur station shall
              > transmit messages for a third party to any station within the
              > jurisdiction of any foreign government whose administration has not
              > made such an arrangement [with the United States to allow amateur
              > stations to be used for transmitting international communications on
              > behalf of third parties].
              >
              > What the message is about or how close the 3rd party is to the
              > control operator of the station in the US is irrelevant: No
              > agreement-no messages. Straight from the international Radio
              > Regulations.
              >
              > Bill
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.