[Ares-races] Re: Paid vs volunteer radio operators

Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:37:40 -0500

In this case, the FCC seems to be correct. Here is an excerpt from the text
of part 97.113, concerning prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;
Paragraphs (c) and (d) go on to offer the only two exceptions - for club
stations (W1AW, for instance) transmitting regular bulletins and practice
sessions, and for teachers occasionally using Amateur radio as part of the
curriculum. There are no other exceptions listed.

That said, the FCC sometimes makes modifications to the rules via a Report
and Order without changing the language of the actual rules. I don't recall
any such occurrence, but I've been wrong before. I scanned the list of rules
changes going back 20 years on the ARRL website, but could find none that
deal with the prohibited communications section. I don't know how complete
the ARRL's list is. The bottom line though, if the FCC said don't do it, I
wouldn't.
73,
Dave WA1ZCN

> Message: 4
> From: "Jerry Reimer" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:39:07 -0500
> Subject: [Ares-races] Paid vs volunteer radio operators
>
> I have noticed a recent trend where public safety agencies
> (law enforcement), and some hospitals, install amateur
> radio equipment in their facilities.  They all think that
> having amateur radio equipment is a "good idea."  Many of
> them buy and install this equipment, typically two meter
> FM transceivers, with the idea that some of their
> employees who are ham radio operators will use the radios
> "in an emergency."
> Subject: Re: [Ares-races] Paid vs volunteer radio operators
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:37:11 -0500
> From: Rick Hampton <[email protected]>
> To: Jerry Reimer <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> References: <[email protected]>
>
> Hi, Jerry.
>
> As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct on all points as far as I
> can
> tell.
>
> I'm the Wireless Communications Officer for a large group of hospitals
> in the
> Boston area.  I started here last fall, and as one of my many projects,
> I was
> asked to investigate the possibility of installing amateur equipment for
> use
> in a disaster.  With nearly 50 employees between them licensed as hams,
> the
> hospitals were interested in having the employees handle some of the
> communications, especially until we could get ARES operators through the
> "lockdown."
>
> To make sure this was legal, I sent emails to both the ARRL and FCC.
> The
> response from ARRL was positive.  The response from FCC was emphatically
> not
> positive.  In short, hospital employees may not, under ANY
> circumstances,
> operate amateur radio equipment as part of the hospital's emergency
> plan.
> Our hospitals can utilize ARES volunteers all we want, provided of
> course
> they can actually get through the city's congestion and past security.
> (To
> manage our human resources and for crowd control, even our employees may
> not
> be able to get in until they are specifically requested.)
>
> The good news is, this hasn't completely killed the idea.  The bad news
> is,
> it has severely wounded it.  Progress has come to a screeching halt, and
> in
> the meantime the budget has been slashed and political issues have come
> to
> the fore.  I'm confident the issue will get worked out and we'll
> eventually
> get some ARES system worked out, but it's not going to happen anytime
> soon.
>
> I just checked, and yes I still have the emails in my archive.  So, in
> the
> meantime, if someone wants to pick nits with these interpretations, I'll
> be
> glad to post the emails so you can complain to the FCC instead of
> complaining
> to me.  I think it's stupid, but I'm just the one living by the rules,
> not
> the one interpreting or enforcing them.  Some of the locals tell me they
> contacted the ARRL, but I've not heard anything since.  Frankly, I
> figure the
> League has been spending their limited resources on the BPL issue and
> I've
> been bidding my time getting other projects finished.  Someday....
>
> 73,
>
> Rick Hampton, WD8KEL
> Wireless Communications Manager
> Partners Healthcare System
> Boston, MA
>
> Office: 617-726-6633
> Cell: 617-968-2262