ad: portazero-1

Texas HAMS Alert - SB 43 Pending in Texas Senate

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KA5ETX, Jan 11, 2019.

Tags:
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Radclub22-2
  1. KA5ETX

    KA5ETX XML Subscriber QRZ Page

  2. KF5JOT

    KF5JOT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, the bill defines " wireless communications device" as:

    means a device
    through which personal wireless services, as defined by 47 U.S.C.
    Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i), are transmitted. The term does not include
    a device that is only a global navigation satellite system receiver
    used for positioning, emergency notification, or navigation
    purposes.

    When you pull up Section 332(c)(7)(i), this is what it says:

    (C) Definitions For purposes of this paragraph— (i) the term ‘‘personal wireless services’’ means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; (ii) the term ‘‘personal wireless service facilities’’ means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and (iii) the term ‘‘unlicensed wireless service’’ means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v) of this title).

    Don't see it having any effect on us.
     
    W6SAE, N5QBX, W8LGZ and 5 others like this.
  3. N2SUB

    N2SUB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Tell it to the judge. ;)
     
    K6PFG and AE8W like this.
  4. WB8VLC

    WB8VLC Ham Member QRZ Page

    'Don't see it having any effect on us.'

    Don't just assume that it will not effect you because it will, from experience I can guarantee you that it will in one way or another.

    We have similar wording in Oregon but you forget that the police are not well versed in judging if your device is a gps, a ham radio or a cellular device.

    As a result, especially at night if police even see a glimmer of a light that appears to be from any type of personal electronic device, be it a gps, a ham mobile mounted in your vehicle or a cell phone they still stop people first and ask questions later.

    Unfortunately with police they still like to have their time accounting for something of which they can put on their report and the stop is the first thing that leads to further findings and lost time for you.

    As I see it , either way the cats out of the bag, once these laws are passed and on the books then the police can stop you for anything and then go from there in finding their own interpretation of what falls into a personal wireless device category and citing you.

    In fact they can still cite you at the officers judgement for having a personal electronic device and then leave it up to a judge do the final ruling as to if it is a ham radio, a gps or a cellular device.

    Either way because of the recklessness of cell phones users and cell companies you are in for a fun drive and not entirely 100% immune.

    The inconvenience of being continuously stopped and having to report to a judge is lost time on mine and others parts and as a result many hams are now taking the direction of not running anything mobile anymore.
     
    W6MJS, KE4YMX, KA5ETX and 1 other person like this.
  5. AE5GT

    AE5GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Have you forwarded this to N5AUS ? I believe he was involved in writing the original exemption.
     
  6. KA9UCE

    KA9UCE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Since amateur radio is national, by design, it falls under FEDERAL regulations, not state.
    Texas holds NO authority to regulate anything federal by nature or law, making the Texas law, null and void.
    Cellphones are not the same, and if the employees are exempt, then so must everybody else, as once again, the LAW, is to be applied
    EQUALLY TO ALL...NO exceptions!
     
    KF4LQT, K4XJ, WR5C and 4 others like this.
  7. KA9UCE

    KA9UCE Ham Member QRZ Page

    When all cell towers are dead because of storms, tornadoes, hurricanes and the like, who are they going to look to, for EMERGENCY communications?
    This is one area that has NO equal...it's the hams that have the ability to communicate worldwide.
    I do believe this will be a dead issue, as there must be ONE active brain cell in the state legislature that can see through the trash here.

    If this is your officials working for you, then it's time to fire them!
     
    K7SWT, WR5C, WW5RM and 1 other person like this.
  8. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thats not correct, many groups of individuals are exempt from certain laws that others still have to comply with.
     
    W0DMH likes this.
  9. GARY1227

    GARY1227 QRZ Member

    Don't talk while driving.
     
    VA7UO and WA7PRC like this.
  10. K3FHP

    K3FHP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sorry , you are wrong. They are NOT making a device restriction, but a DRIVING restriction, for which the state does indeed have the authority to make.
     
    W0DMH, AG6QR, WR5C and 9 others like this.
  11. KK4VRE

    KK4VRE Ham Member QRZ Page

    Since you are specifically pointing out Texas, when you get vehicle tags specifically for this hobby (which I do) with your call sign embossed on it, it also has printed in red letters on it "RADIO OPERATOR".
    Since there is no additional charge for these 'vanity' plates, one of the stipulations to getting the plates is that you agree to have Amateur Radio gear in the vehicle. Why?
    Because in an emergency, if all other communications systems are down, the police can spot you and ask you to become a relay point for emergency communications.
    This law, if passed does not impinge our vehicular use of said gear, only that we must obey all other relevant laws to said operation.
    KF5JOT is correct.
     
    N5QBX, W2NPR and K0PV/SK2023 like this.
  12. KV6O

    KV6O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Same thing with cell phones - they operate under Federal (FCC) licenses. But the States can (and do) regulate HOW you drive. Distracted driving can come from texting with a cell phones, eating a cheeseburger, putting on makeup, reading a book, etc., while driving. States CAN and DO pass laws to address this.

    Now, posting on Facebook with your cell is a bit different than holding a simplex conversation on the radio, and most states recognise this. Not all.

    If you doubt the authority of the States in this matter, try going to court and using your HT in the middle of session. Tell the Judge your use of the radio is federally protected. See how that works out for you. Your license grants you access to spectrum. That's it.
     
  13. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's okay everyone can argue the loop holes and legalities until they are blue in the face, but when the next tornado or hurricane wipes out another town in Texas such as the real life reality of recent history demonstrates, hams at this point in time can start explaining to those in charge how they are unable to volunteer, help or otherwise communicate information to the NWS, FEMA, Red Cross, Homeland Security and / or other government agencies hams have had a long relationship with, because of some cell phone law making it illegal for hams to use their radio equipment like they have been doing for so many decades without incident in the past.

    I am sure all the various government agencies will be sympathetic and understanding of their loss but more importantly, I am glad to see this proposed law helping to protect the interests and lives of so many people. ...Not.
     
    K5DRT, KD5INM and KD8DWO like this.
  14. WA0HHX

    WA0HHX Ham Member QRZ Page

    One lawyers observation (from KS):

    Based on the definition cited in the comments it does not include Federally Licensed Amateur Radio operations. That's not to say some law enforcement officer might not get it wrong
    but I would probably carry my ham license with me just in case. If brought to court I think any prosecutor that looked at the citation and then the definition (assuming the law is passed) would quickly decline to prosecute the claim. Moreover, a reading that this bars mobile amateur communications, besides being contrary to the definitions cited in the comments, also raises the issue of the FCC's preemptive control over amateur communications. That said, if I were to argue this I would tell the Court that the principle purpose of Amateur Radio under the Federal Communications Act (1933 and many court decisions later) is to provide a network of national emergency communications. Baring mobile use would defeat that purpose. States issue ham tags in part for that emergency ID purpose. So, seems to me that even if TX sought to ban mobile amateur communications it would very likely die a quick legal death in Federal Court. I've litigated PRB cases and know that Federal Preemption is not total. States can impose "reasonable" limits for public safety (limiting tower locations/height) for example. However, they cannot regulate to the point where operations are not reasonably possible. Banning mobile operations would be about the same as banning home operation. The result is the same. So, very likely no worry. BUT: express you concern to your state reps anyway. You can't be too careful!!! PS: I don't practice in TX but I have eaten BBQ there so that counts. Oh, this is not a legal opinion. Just my observation.
     
    N5MJ, W5BT, K0PV/SK2023 and 1 other person like this.
  15. K2DFC

    K2DFC Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    KI5X, K4XJ and VA3GET like this.

Share This Page

ad: CQMM-1