Comments on: EmComm Trouble From the FCC

By: Time to Change the FCC Rules for EmComm? 97.113 at The KØNR Weblog

Time to Change the FCC Rules for EmComm? 97.113 at The KØNR Weblog — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:12:18 +0000

[...] FCC continues to drive out any ambiguity on how it interprets Part 97.113. (See previous post EmComm Trouble From the FCC. ) On October 20th, the FCC released Public Notice DA-09-2259, which reiterates the principle of no [...]

By: Orion KE7VLC

Orion KE7VLC — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:14:46 +0000

Well the rule clearly states that we are not allowed to use our ham radio license and gear on behalf of our employer. Even W0WLS clearly indicated that he was on the clock and getting paid. This is a clear cut violation of the rule. No if’s and’s or butts about it. This is like grabbing a face mask in football right in front of the umpire. Sorry but I don’t think us hams should be bashing the FCC on this or anyone else. Hams should not feel like they are above the law, rather we should be upheld to a higher level then most others out there. W0WLS should have told the hospital that they would have to bring in someone from outside the company to provide this sort of communications. I am proud that W0WLS admitted his fault in this and that he owned up to his mistake and wont make it again. These are the types of people that hams should look up to rather then down on. We should also give a thumbs up to how Mrs Smith did her job. Sorry to say it folks but if you are doing 90mph in a 35 mph zone and the cops catch you….then too bad so sad. This is the law and the laws need to be upheld…otherwise we just turn into CB radio. Enough said.

Orion KE7VLC

By: John Maxwell

John Maxwell — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:24:01 +0000

Hey Guys this comment from K0RM which I do agree with:

This seems in direct conflict to FCC Report and Order 06-149.

[Quote]

52. Mr. DiGennaro also requests that we amend Section 97.113 our Rules, which prohibits

“[c]ommunications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised,” by amateur stations,

227 to clarify that amateur licensees who, by virtue of their employment, are directly involved in facilitating relief and recovery in times of disaster are not prohibited from effecting emergency communications using amateur radio.

228 We conclude that the proposed rule change is not necessary, however, because Section 97.113 does not prohibit amateur radio operators who are emergency personnel engaged in disaster relief from using the amateur service bands while in a paid duty status.

229 These individuals are not receiving compensation for transmitting amateur service communications; rather, they are receiving compensation for services related to their disaster relief duties and in their capacities as emergency personnel.

[End Quote]

So, was Ms. Smith’s email an official FCC interpretation of its own rules? Not sure how to resolve the conflict…but my take would be that a published rule is the law and of the land and an email doesn’t take precedence….

By: K0NR

K0NR — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:21:29 +0000

The ARRL published their guidelines on the topic at http://www.arrl.org/news/files/ARRL_AppropriateUseGuidelines.pdf

By: K0NR

K0NR — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:23:51 +0000

Yes, the FCC has been clear on this issue…see N5FDL’s postings. http://n5fdl.com/97113/

73, Bob K0NR

By: WB7VEQ Steve

WB7VEQ Steve — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:21:19 +0000

Has anyone asked for a clarification on this rulling for the ARRL and the FCC?

By: K0NR

K0NR — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:33:55 +0000

Hi Steve,
I agree that we should not ask the FCC to ignore its own rules. (There’s been too much of that with regard to BPL.)

On the other hand, most FCC regulations are broadly stated with room for interpretation. For example, the FCC could have interpreted the rule against communications on behalf of the employer to not include ARES/RACES sponsored exercises (i.e., the communication benefits ARES/RACES, not the fire station, hospital, etc. where the employee works.)

See N5FDL’s posting at http://n5fdl.com/97113/

OK, the FCC did not choose to do that. So now we are going to see petitions to the FCC to change the rule. In the meantime, emergency communications will suffer.

73, Bob K0NR

By: Steve K9ZW

Steve K9ZW — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:49:24 +0000

Hi Bob K0NR

It is the Amateur Radio community, and Emcomm activists in specific that need to ask for a rule change.

To lambast the FCC for enforcing longstanding rules, or even worse as some have suggested to only enforce the rules we agree with, is wrong.

If society is better served as is, so be it; if an effort to petition and change the rules for the future result in the changes some want, so be it – but at present the W0WLS borke the rules.

Unless the W0WLS operations are addressed by a retroactive rules change, they remain illegal.

The law is a cold hard mistress, and our wishes & desires don’t affect it much.

Steve
K9ZW