Source: http://broadband-hamnet.org/hsmm-mesh-forums/view-postlist/forum-101/topic-101-part-97-question-rethird-part-traffic.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 00:14:35
Document Index: 278385803

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 97', 'art 97', 'art 15', 'art 97', '§ 97', 'art 15', 'art 97', 'art 97', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 97', 'art 97', 'art 97', 'art 97', 'art-97', 'art-15']

Broadband-Hamnet™ Forum::General::Part 97 question re:third part traffic
Subject :Part 97 question re:third part traffic.. 2011-12-23- 02:17:19
It seems the most efficient way to provide Digital EmComm to a served agency would be to connect their PCs to an HSMM-MESH node.
Agency staff could use their web browsers to send WebMail over the HSMM-MESH network. However, when it becomes necessary to boost power beyond acceptable Part 15 levels, Part 97 rules apply.
§ 97.115 Third party communications states (in part)
(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation;
(c) No station may transmit third party communications while being automatically controlled except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. So, my questions are:
- Can these agency created emails be transmitted under automatic control without a control operator "continuously monitoring and supervising"?
- How do control operators meet the requirement to continuously monitor participation of third parties when the third parties are generating emails on their PCs destined to go out over the HSMM-MESH network at power levels exceeding Part 15 limits?
Thanks and 73 Mark KV4I
Last Edited On: 2011-12-26- 02:12:00 By KV4I for the Reason
Subject :Re:Part 97 question re:third part traffic.. 2011-12-31- 11:09:23
Joined: 2011-12-31- 14:42:48
Good Question Mark I would like to know the answer to this as well Jim
Subject :Re:Part 97 question re:third part traffic.. 2011-12-31- 14:08:33
Well, I haven't been able to get any authoritative answers. I emailed the ARRL Regulatory branch last week but haven't received any response to date. I'm not an attorney but I did some more research and learned a few things that have effectively convinced me to operate under local control or remote control but not automatic control.
Here's my thinking on this: 1) If you only swapped out the antenna on a part 15 FCC certified radio to one that wasn't certified as part of that radio's original equipment, you can no longer operate it under Part 15. It doesn't matter that you haven't changed the transmitter power, just changing the antenna voids the Part 15 certification. You'll need an appropriate license such as an Amateur Radio license and of course, you can only operate the radio within the limits of your license under Part 97.
2) Part 97.109 says: (e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting third party communications, except a station transmitting a RTTY or data emission. All messages that are retransmitted must originate at a station that is being locally or remotely controlled. For me that means that even if it was OK to use automatic control to originate those third party messages, they can't be legally retransmitted.
Right there, that's a show stopper. In order to effectively route messages, I'm going need to rely on other digital stations automatically forwarding them. The way I read Part 97.109, no stations can legally retransmit my original message unless I used local or remote control. If I used automatic control, they can't retransmit.
So, now, the only remaining question is: How do control operators meet the requirement to continuously monitor participation of third parties when the third parties are generating emails on their PCs destined to go out over the HSMM-MESH network?
I struggled with this and after a bit, it hit me. IT managers are notoriously protective of their networks and keep their firewalls buttoned up. I'm a retired IT Manager for a State agency and I don't know of anybody in a similar position in any government agency or hospital that's likely allow a connection to an unknown network.
Where I worked, we didn't allow contractors or even employees to connect any devices that the agency didn't own and control. I'd guess that connecting directly to a hospital network is not a likely scenario.
Despite my guess, maybe some of the folks who frequent HSMM-MESH.org have had experiences in which they were allowed to directly connect a served organizations PCs to HSMM-MESH. If so, perhaps they can offer some guidance on this issue. In the meantime, I'm struggling with solutions for getting typed messages in and out without rewriting them. 73 Mark KV4I
Last Edited On: 2011-12-31- 14:11:38 By KV4I for the Reason to correct formatting
Subject :Re:Part 97 question re:third part traffic.. 2011-12-31- 16:56:18
Legal considerations when using HSMM-MESH(TM)
The hsmm-mesh.org web page is intended to provide technical assistance to those experimenting with HSMM-MESH(TM). We urge all amateur radio operators to obey the law.
HSMM-MESH(TM) is tremendously versatile, and at times there are legal questions about how the FCC Part-97 rules and regulations might apply to a particular use of the system. While we can often help with technical questions, we can be of little help with legal questions. The developers of HSMM-MESH(TM) encourage hams to follow the law, but none of our team is empowered to interpret the law. Therefore it is impossible for us to offer definitive answers to legal questions.
The HSMM-MESH(TM) developers strongly urge users to review the Design Philosophy of HSMM-MESH(TM).
<http://hsmm-mesh.org/documentation/67-hsmm-mesh-design-philosophy.html>
If you find yourself with legal questions, it is possible you are not using HSMM-MESH(TM) as intended. It was never intended as a replacement for Part-15 devices and systems.
While the “rules and regs” are common topics of discussion with hams, it is important to be clear that only someone duly empowered to interpret the law, can offer a definitive answer to legal questions. While we all have our opinions, as to what the law means, unless we are duly appointed to interpret the law, our opinions have no legal standing.
In a number of ham radio on line forums, there have been heated debates about personal opinions of what the law means. The discussions sometimes turned ugly and unproductive, with various hams expressing essentially opposite interpretations of the rules and regs, an insisting they were correct. I do not know of any case where a definitive answer was had, despite all the words traded. A number of the sites eventually degenerated into arguments between a few posters, until everyone went away and the forum disappeared. We do not wish to repeat that experiment here.
So unless we have someone participating in these forum discussions, that is empowered to interpret the law, we cannot offer any definitive interpretations of the law. And if we cannot offer any definitive answers, it would probably just stick to technical issues where we have a chance of being some help.
If we get any news on rule changes, we can offer pointers to sites that specialize in that sort of thing.