Even more pedantic: There is an exception to the broadcasting rule.
>Communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event.
> Amateur radio enjoys the privilege of pretty lax regulation
What. You literally have to have a license issued to you personally (no anonymity) by the government to even be allowed to do it. And the rules of what can and can’t be sent are, to my Internet-accustomed mind, excruciatingly onerous. No encryption? No foul language?
I don't think this is allowed under USA Amateur radio rules.
> §97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
> (b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event.
<Dusts off Ham Licence> Anyone can use amateur frequencies in a genuine “no other communication options available” emergency, if I remember the regulations correctly.
Edit: “§ 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property. No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radio communication 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.”
> One could still run a numbers station? There's no way to prove the code words have any meaning beyond what is obvious.
I'm not so sure one could, legally. A number station would broadcast regularly a one-way communications, with no clear meaning. Here's an excerpt of the law from FCC part 97, which is actually surprisingly short and readable. It prohibits:
"messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.
(5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services.
(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting, nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications except as specifically provided in these rules..."
Sending capability (at least here) requires amateur radio license. It is technically illegal to even own transmit capable equipment without a license and you can operate it only under supervision of licensed person.
> What’s the actual point for the license in the first place?
The electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource; an amateur radio license is a license to do certain kinds of experiments in the spectrum. The kind of activity that makes up these experiments when done by someone who doesn't know what they're doing has the potential to cause harm which is hugely disproportionate to the amount of effort it would take to do it. While it's possible to pinpoint individual offenders, if unlicensed activity was widespread then the ability to do so would be overwhelmed.
>WARNING: AMATEUR AND PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES LICENSEES AND OPERATORS MAY NOT USE RADIO EQUIPMENT TO COMMIT OR FACILITATE CRIMINAL ACTS
But if one licenses spectrum, then it is not an offense, in its own right, to facilitate criminal acts? (Though the acts themselves of course still are...)
> ... communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event.
Pedantically, use of amateur radio as a broadcast medium is prohibited in FCC land except for special exceptions like beacon stations. This, like the wholesale prohibition on music is also antiquated in my view -- already commercial broadcast radio is dying because of streaming. The public interest would be maximized by allowing a degree of non-commercial broadcast and music usage over amateur bands, subject to restrictions.
For example, it would be pretty rad to have an event with an orchestra linked between two nearby cities with full duplex ultra low latency radio--- which can achieve much lower latency than ordinary internet due to the line-of-sight nature.
Now I realize that by 'broadcast' you don't mean the rule-violating one-way-communications kind but the literal propagation characteristics. But at UHF+ it's easier to have a directional signal than an omnidirectional one, and once you get to a few GHz it's quite natural to have laser beam like signals. Plus, at 2m+ signals are naturally limited to the radio horizon (except for exceptional cases).
Personally, when I've advocated for relaxations on encryption and other content restrictions I've done so for UHF+ (or even SHF+) bands where the degree of under-utilization and potential for spectrum reuse through directionality are very high, and abuse is inherently geographically limited by physics.
It's not specifically not allowing these devices, it's broadcasting on a restricted frequency without the proper license. The FCC regulates who can broadcast on which frequencies. Getting a ham license can open it up a bit, but there are still regulations to follow.
reply