Is Nextel a Mobile Phone?

Putting this here because I'm not sure where it's appropriate...

Is the Sprint Nextel hand held device a mobile (cellular) telephone? Now you'd think that would be a pretty obvious "hell yes!" answer... and until an hour ago, so did I.

Then our Safety Department manager came down for a little chat.

Seens that there are some new Federal regulations that just took effect, courtesy of the US Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (Weren't they part of the ICC once? But I digress) . In short, they have banned commercial truck drivers from using hand held cellular telephones. (See http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/other...-ban-faqs.aspx for the page he showed us). Seems pretty clear to me what the intention is, even if the details of the rules get a little... lawyerly.

Seemed that way to him as well. And then a client called with questions. Specifically, the client insists that the Sprint Nextel devices are exempt... because they're not hand held mobile telephones, they are 2 way radios.

Yeah, I know... mobile/cellular telephones ARE by design & definition 2 way radios, but the client is insisting on this distinction. (I suspect they are looking for a loophole, as is everyone else here)

So I got dragged into this. My interpretation, with the usual IANAL caveat, is that since the Nextel units are covered under FCC Part 20, they are included under the new regulations as opposed to other radio services (Private Land Mobile, Part 90, Safety & Specialty Radio, Part 99, and of course, our favorites, Parts 95 & 97, amongst many others).

Or am I wrong? Thoughts?

This would be about the Nextel PTT system vs regular phone calls. The distinction is simplex vs duplex, and the level of attention needed. Which is a radio issue, as in most radio comms are simplex.

If only one person can talk at once, it takes less concentration than talking at the same time.

To me, Bullet #3 looks like it covers that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K7SGJ

To me, Bullet #3 looks like it covers that question.

---

That's what I thought as well.

And it gets better... the person who asked us about it (why IT? Because we assign the company Blackberries and manage the accounts) sent an email requesting permission to talk to a lawyer. Here's what his boss said:

I really think we only can show what the law states and should not interpret any grey areas that may be judged a # of different ways by different parties including judges. If any customer brings up Nextel we can refer them to their own legal counsel stating that the law in this area is open to a couple different opinions.Many times with a new law it takes a few court cases to determine the correct answer. Please advise if you have any questions, Thanks,

Wow. What a way to weasel out. (And if you get the impression the man doesn't understand technology... well, don't get me started...)

Wasn't there some stuff about radio use vs cell use with the ARRL's involvement a few years ago? I thought it was backed up with a driving simulator study. A properly placed PTT button, especially on the wheel or a driver's control lever would be very effective. PTT tends to behaviors that allow/empower the driver to control the conversation.

However, I'm fully behind the hands free premise.

My Heil Traveler single ear headset is much easier than using a PTT potato. VOX works, but it's hard to do in a noisy vehicle. Eliminating PTT is not so good, but I'd prefer a button on the shifter or the wheel. Bluetooth could do this, via a wireless button separate from the handset that could be installed in an approved location and manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WØTKX

Wasn't there some stuff about radio use vs cell use with the ARRL's involvement a few years ago? < snip >

---

I seem to remember something, I'll have to go searching for it.

Just for clarification, a couple of additional notes...

My boss thinks that the whole business about PTT is really a backdoor attempt by Verizon Wireless and/or AT&T Wireless to squeeze Sprint Nextel out of the market, since the Nextel devices, allegedly, lack Bluetooth and require the PTT button.

One of the other guys in the safety group agrees that the whole controversy is really an attempt by the client to get around the law.

And the big boss I quoted above? We just had a brief chat. He told me he appreciated my comments, and wasn't trying to disregard them... he just doesn't want us wasting our time on an attempt by the client to get around the law, which is why he wants us to deflect to the client's lawyers. Glad to know he understands the issue, though!

As I remember it, the cell phone vs 2 way radio situation came down to the fact that a radio with ptt was not as distracting as a cell phone. (Thanks to the ARRL) I think that a few states (don't remember which) banned the use of cell phones while allowing two way radio usage to (specifically) include ham radio. However, it is also my understanding that, although legal, the user of a two way can still be cited for distracted driving. Of course just about anyone can be cited under that, for almost anything depending on how big of an asshole the cop is.

IIRC, there was considerable discussion on the level of attention required of the driver between full and half duplex.

Personally, I think appropriate methods of cell and radio wireless should be allowed. An endorsement on your DL perhaps, but technology can make this do-able. The interface is poor, and not enough adoption of headsets by drivers. I still like the better wired ones as well as Bluetooth.

What if cellphones quit working over 10 mph or so unless a proper headset was attached, measured by GPS, and when located on a road?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WØTKX

What if cellphones quit working over 10 mph or so unless a proper headset was attached, measured by GPS, and when located on a road?

---

That would mean passengers would be under the same restriction.

Isnt that like saying Echolink is amateur radio?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w3bny

Isnt that like saying Echolink is amateur radio?

---

Just had to go there, didn't ya. That discussion site is over thata.............oh wait.........you got banned, too............... Never mind. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K7SGJ

Just had to go there, didn't ya. That discussion site is over thata.............oh wait.........you got banned, too............... Never mind. :rofl:

---

No need to thank me, its what I do (/me paints other frag grenades like pretty easter eggies)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KC2UGV

That would mean passengers would be under the same restriction.

---

Yes it would, including bus passengers, etc. But if it ensured greater adoption of hands free cell use, so what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WØTKX

Yes it would, including bus passengers, etc. But if it ensured greater adoption of hands free cell use, so what?

---

What's wrong with enforcing the hands free law for drivers? If needed, increase the penalty to revocation of license at first offense. No need to penalize everyone for a few stupid people.

One of these days, in the not so distant future, a state/locality is.going to find
themselves crossing the still undetermined line and the cell phone lobby is going to go to
the FCC, who will probably determine that states/localities/USDOT have no jurisdiction
over cell phones, since they are RF transceivers. AND can only be regulated by the FCC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by W7XF

One of these days, in the not so distant future, a state/locality is.going to find
themselves crossing the still undetermined line and the cell phone lobby is going to go to
the FCC, who will probably determine that states/localities/USDOT have no jurisdiction
over cell phones, since they are RF transceivers. AND can only be regulated by the FCC.

---

Agreed. Just a matter of time.

And WE all know that we can trust the good, fair & impartial judgement of the FCC staff to properly regulate the use of... of... of... sorry, can't quit laughing, never mind.

It is probably a moot point; Sprint is going to decommission IDEN anyway. Then it *will* be a cellular phone.

Yes, IDEN is on the way out. Too bad, as it works really well.

Enforcing hands free devices will not work, not enough eyes on the road. Enforcing it by making it NOT WORK for the driver somehow is the best way. Kind of like enforcing seat belts is tough, but airbags work without the interaction of a the driver. Yes, I am very aware that airbags work best with seatbelts on.

Finding out about cell use after the accident is like finding out about seatbelt use... if it's after the accident, where's the prevention? Driving is a privilege, but most people act like it's a right. Just ask that tailgater that's all pissed off that you are in their way, dammit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ka8ncr

It is probably a moot point; Sprint is going to decommission IDEN anyway. Then it *will* be a cellular phone.

---

Yeah... the cell industry here is SLOWLY moving to GSM (which, in fact IS the GLOBAL standard). AFAIK, only the US, Canada, Mexico (and they're converting to GSM at breakneck speed), Japan and MAYBE a few other countries are still widely using CDMA/TDMA.