0xdecafbad.com

I wrote a letter to the ARRL asking if there were any new NPRM (notice of proposed rule making) by the FCC or a campaign in the ARRL to ask the FCC to reconsider the wording of FCC rule 97.117.  What I got back suprised me, and indicates that the ARRL does not want this type of communication to occur.

Specifically I used Email from services like winlink, IRLP and Echolink as examples of how 97.117 “gets in the way”, however this subject also applies to emergencies that cross borders.

If there is an emergency on the US/CA or US/MX border it is likely that ham radio operators would be involved on both sides of the disaster.  However, their relief efforts are hindered by 97.117.  To illustrate why I will quote 97.117.

Transmissions to a different country, where permitted, shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service and to remarks of a personal character.

The “purposes of the amateur radio service” is defined in FCC rule 97.1.  This does allow for “emergency communications” however, that is limited to communications defined in 97.403

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication 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.

So if there is an actual emergency, and you are doing communications in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available, then you can violate 97.117 for a cross border relief effort, but only if telephones and other means of communication are gone, if its just a mere wild fire like California has seen (over 1500 this year so far, many near the Mexican border) then amateur radio operators cannot coordinate any effort against this fire with stations in Mexico (even if they are US people that happen to have crossed the border and would otherwise be operating legally).  This would include IRLP/Echolink connected radios and repeaters.  I shudder to think what the situation would be if there was a massive earthquake in southern California which would effect people on both sides of the border.  Satellite phones would still be working, and they are a normal communication system, so that would exclude amateur radio from being used, even during an emergency.

This means that you can never train with them, unless you get a specific waiver, and the FCC has made it clear that such waivers are on a per incident basis and not a weekly net or anything.  Additionally the government agency that is sponsoring the drill has to apply, specifically ham radio operators are not allowed to apply for this waiver.

Now lets get to another issue that is related to FCC rule 97.117.  I participate with APRN, the American Preppers Radio Network, although currently I am not participating as much as I would like, that will soon change.  They talk about things related to preparing now for disasters, whether they are hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms, earthquakes, fires, zombie invasions, or something else.

Since the subject matter is more of a how to prepare in a specific way, non US people (or more accurately stations not inside the US) are not allowed to participate due to rule 97.117.  The net is not incidental to the purposes of the amateur service and is not of a personal character.  It is an important net, it does convey information that is very useful should anything happen, but they cannot participate.  Similarly, US stations cannot participate in nets that are run in those countres.  Informmation sharing is apparently not a welcome addition to the ham radio scene according to the FCC.

Now lets go back to my original query to the ARRL.  I said in an email dated September 08, 2009 to hq@arrl.org I asked (specifically about 97.117, and I quoted 97.117 as the first thing in the email so the context is clear):

What about email services?  If I have email via HF and connect to a node in a foreign country while inside the US (Canada/Mexico are easy examples) would this cover the content of those messages?

Echolink, IRLP, and similar services would also have potential problems in this regard.

This would make many of those services really unusable, for example if I were to send a message saying “dont forget to water the grass” via email to someone, or worse talked about some current news event unrelated to amateur radio, and the communication was to a node in a foreign country that could be interpreted as in violation of this rule.

A friend emailing me would preclude me from replying on the subject if its going over ham radio.

I got this response from Henderson, Dan N1ND <dhenderson@arrl.org>:

You have to be careful with the content of amateur radio communications, including things like email. When communicating with another amateur the only limits are things like no communications for your own pecuniary interests – emailing a neighbor to water your lawn is different than
emailing your broker asking him to sell stocks.  Use your best judgment on the content.  Just because it is “email” doesn’t mean the rules of communication  go out the door.  If connecting to say a WinLink email box in another country, again amateur to amateur communications (as above) is ok. It would not be legal for you to conduct third-party communications (email from a non-amateur for example) if there is not an existing third party agreement between where you are and the country where the you are connecting.   And if you are outside the US, the rules of THAT country dictate what you can do.

While some people want to use amateur radio as a “free email service” the question really needs to be asked “is this an appropriate use for the amateur spectrum?”

This just blew me away.  Even though the subject of the email was “fcc 97.117″ and I quoted 97.117 in its entirety at the start of the email he was saying that it did not apply!!!  He continued in a few other emails again suggesting that 97.117 does not apply, but never really said why.  The FCC thinks it applies, or they would have repealed the rule.

Further his addition of asking if this is an appropriate use for the amateur spectrum, I do not see why one mode of operation is appropriate while another is not appropriate.  Email is just a digital mode, sure it has a protocol for how you address messages, the structure of the message,  etc, but it is nothing more than a mode of operation.  My parents for example sailed from the US to Europe, while they were in the middle of the ocean they used email to contact me with information, largely they were able to update their webpage with their current location, which is allowed under 97.117 as it is of personal character   If they were to email their neighbor asking if they would water their yard, that would not be ok though.  And that is where the rub is with me.

In my original email to hq@arrl.org I also said:

I am not looking to violate the intent of this rule as I understand it,
which is to prevent commercial, subversive, and similar communications, but that rule is so great in terms of what it restricts to, and so poorly worded that it would appear a US licensed individual visiting in a foreign country could not communicate with a person inside the US since that communication would be “to a different country” and both could potentially be sanctioned.

I think I made it clear that I have no problem with the intent of 97.117, but that  the wording is too broad, and the wording should be altered to account for Winlink, IRLP, Echolink and similar services.  I get this back in response:

Being in international waters doesn’t mean a yachter can do the business on the amateur service – the rules apply regardless.

I had never suggested that someone could do commercial content, in fact I specifically said that I think the intent is to forbid that, and slightly more such as subversive conversations which I am sure was more of a thought when this rule was passed than it is today.

I do not know why my enquiry fell on deaf ears, but it seems that the ARRL “Regulatory Information Manager” Dan Henderson, N1ND was only advocating violating the rules and suggesting that certain digital modes were not the best use of the spectrum, oh and if anyone wanted to discuss things that were not of personal character or indicental to amateur radio with anyone in a foreign country then its obviously business, even when my specific example was asking a neighbor to water your yard, when relayed through a station in a “different country”.

He affirmed today that the position of the ARRL has not changed on these matters, which I find saddening since it only seeks to halt communications between foreign stations, other than “hit and run” contacts where you just make contact and move on to the next one.  It also hampers cross border disaster relief efforts, cross border preparation efforts, and general communication.

The wording of the rule really needs to be changed, and I am not the only one that feels this way, to paraphrase someone else that  I have since forgotten who, ‘if a foreign station asks you about the freedom of speech you enjoy in American, you must reply I would love to tell you about the freedom of speech here, however the government forbids it’.

It is time to get this rule changed, and I would love it if amateur radio operators would join me on this.  If I get enough people to support me in this effort, I will draft a petition and go directly to the FCC, since the ARRL is refusing actively to act as a lobby group for the benefit of amateur radio.  We really need to be able to have more free and open communication, particularly when it comes to training for cross border emergencies, but also so that the hobby is a bit more enjoyable for those that enjoy talking beyond “hit and run” communications and actually learning about cultures, people and similar.

For the record I have informed Dan of this post.