RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Announcements and News > Community Announcements and News

Community Announcements and News Announcements and News of interest to the RadioReference.com Community. All new threads posted here will be moderated by the administrators. Members are encouraged to post news and information here for the community.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 2:08 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,593
Default FCC issues $34.9 million fine in NAL.

The FCC has issued a Notice of Apparent Liability against a manufacturer of cellphone and GPS jamming equipment. The total bill is $34,912,500. I especially like the part on page 10 where the FCC gives C.T.S.Technology detailed payment instructions.

Here's the link to the horse's mouth: FCC Plans to Fine Foreign Manufacturer $34.9M for Jammer Marketing | FCC.gov
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 7:39 AM
JustLou's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 286
Default

I don't understand. How does the FCC have the power to fine a company in China?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 8:38 AM
W9BU's Avatar
Lead Wiki Manager
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brownsburg, Indiana
Posts: 2,898
Default

While the FCC may have a hard time collecting this fine from a foreign company, they can certainly take steps to limit their activities on our shores.

From the Introduction to the NAL:

Quote:
We find that C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited (C.T.S. Technology), a foreign manufacturer, illegally marketed nearly 300 models of signal jamming devices to consumers in the United States over more than two years....C.T.S. Technology also apparently misled consumers, falsely claiming on its websites that certain signal jammers were approved by the FCC for consumer use.
__________________
Lead Wiki Manager and Moderator for the Radio Reference Amateur Radio Forums.

"The whole world's living in a digital dream. It's not really there, it's all on the screen." -- Joe Walsh WB6ACU
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 9:22 AM
JustLou's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY/NJ
Posts: 286
Default

I'm sure the Chinese are sending a check right over.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 11:09 AM
mikepdx's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Corbett, OR USA
Posts: 548
Default

$35M would be better used in R&D for the devices.
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 12:46 PM
fourthhorseman's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 553' Above Sea Level!
Posts: 1,394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustLou View Post
I don't understand. How does the FCC have the power to fine a company in China?
They dont.
Its a feel good measure.
China will not enforce any judgements against nationals.
Nor will trade be effected.Chinese goods will continue to
pass through and be readily available to everyone.

Even if CTS is restricted they will just change names and
continue to market and distribute the products.

All the FCC has is a big dog with no international teeth.
__________________
Yep..Got some radios..I can hear lotsa stuff...
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 3:38 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 224
Default

Keep them Wouxuns coming!!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 4:28 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustLou View Post
I don't understand. How does the FCC have the power to fine a company in China?
I'm not sure that they do, certainly not directly. But there may be some pressure that can be applied elsewhere to get compliance. A judgement like this can be a death sentence for a corporation, due to the loss of business, and perceived devaluation of stocks, etc.

More than anything, I think the fine is meant as a statement selling these things will cause you serious trouble.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 4:52 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 4,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwilson2013 View Post
Keep them Wouxuns coming!!
They'll keep coming. This thread has nothing to do with Wouxun.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 8:21 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
They'll keep coming. This thread has nothing to do with Wouxun.
I was a light hearted reply to the thread, yea I know it's not specific to Wouxun so cut me some slack.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-20-2014, 9:26 PM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,536
Default

In the old neighborhood, they called this a "message job." It's not so much that they're expecting payment any day, it's symbolic of the degree the Commission believes is destructive. And, it is. At one point, I was part of a group that enumerated the potential technologies impacted by LightSquared turning up operation near the GPS downlink frequency. There's much more at stake than navigation.

So what to do? Now that we know exactly how much the Commission hates these devices, we might very well be seeing higher fines and prison time on individuals who use jammers. After all, we rely on GPS-supported technologies extensively now and have all but dismantled other radiopositioning systems. Even VORs are on the block to be dismantled at some upcoming point. The only thing that exists is WWVB for time synchronization and it's less-desirable because of atmospheric and environmental noise.

We all wanted free trade (I'm a bit of a protectionist, myself, so take that to be facetious). This is what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2014, 8:51 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Iberia
Posts: 142
Default p25 jammer

I'd love to see the Chinese come up with that jammer that fools encrypted p25 radios into transmitting in the clear.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2014, 10:03 PM
Fuzy_GSXR1000's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Belleville,New Jersey
Posts: 1,402
Default

Wow!
__________________
Michael KD2CUD
Kenwood TH-F6A
GRE PSR-800
Uniden 536HP
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2014, 6:29 AM
productionguy85's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clearwater, Fl.
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by balibago View Post
I'd love to see the Chinese come up with that jammer that fools encrypted p25 radios into transmitting in the clear.
That would NOT be considered a jammer. Not to mention it is possible, by simply repeating a P25 signal in the clear.
__________________
If you don't like my HONEST opinion. Then don't read it. That is all.
BCD996XT
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2014, 6:06 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by balibago View Post
I'd love to see the Chinese come up with that jammer that fools encrypted p25 radios into transmitting in the clear.
Well we the Americans have beat them to it. Built using a toy none the less!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2014, 8:58 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 16
Default

They should do something about this too... look at the frequencies these radios are using 465-520-Mhz. They are using the same band as Digital ATSC TV channels 14 through 23.

Puxing PX 777 UHF 465 520 MHz Ham Radio 4W Earpiece 6952131701278 | eBay

It doesn't take much power to interfere with ATSC so having some kid nearby using these radios could be very annoying if you're watching TV.
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2014, 2:32 PM
902's Avatar
902 902 is offline
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Downsouthsomewhere
Posts: 1,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-CYYZ2 View Post
They should do something about this too... look at the frequencies these radios are using 465-520-Mhz. They are using the same band as Digital ATSC TV channels 14 through 23.

It doesn't take much power to interfere with ATSC so having some kid nearby using these radios could be very annoying if you're watching TV.
Depending on where you are in the U.S., much of this frequency band (up to 512 MHz) may be used by public safety and business/industrial licensees for land mobile communications. It is heavily used in several metropolitan areas where it was implemented as relief spectrum for agencies who had zero opportunity to implement lower frequency radio systems.

A very long and convoluted story short, Congress mandated the return of these frequencies from public safety in exchange for the 700 MHz upper D-block so that the frequencies could be sold at auction. It's an unworkable solution because the mandate failed to account for the television licensees (they don't have to do anything) nor the business/industrial licensees (who were not included in relocation or funding). Nice on paper, but there's one problem: relocate to where? (Remember, the frequencies were relief spectrum to begin with.)

Being a big fan of the situation (LOL), I'm kind of amused that this is coming out onto the market. Maybe the Congressman who demanded the kickback... um... I mean giveback (that doesn't sound any better to me) got a contribution from the importers of this peach.

More seriously, this thing is going to get turned loose on not just ATSC frequencies, there are public safety frequencies in there, too. Maybe that's the strategy to devalue these nasty LMR systems so much by importing this crap that everyone will want to hop aboard the subscriber train on the big nationwide network (which will require synchronization derived from GPS...).
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2014, 3:00 PM
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 2,210
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz0468 View Post
The total bill is $34,912,500. I especially like the part on page 10 where the FCC gives C.T.S.Technology detailed payment instructions.
Haha, I wish my AMEX had a $35M credit limit.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2014, 7:46 PM
w2txb's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Central Upstate NY
Posts: 153
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-CYYZ2 View Post
They should do something about this too... look at the frequencies these radios are using 465-520-Mhz. They are using the same band as Digital ATSC TV channels 14 through 23.

Puxing PX 777 UHF 465 520 MHz Ham Radio 4W Earpiece 6952131701278 | eBay

It doesn't take much power to interfere with ATSC so having some kid nearby using these radios could be very annoying if you're watching TV.
I wonder how many people are Puxing around like that with these radios.
__________________
"Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis"
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2014, 3:26 AM
b7spectra's Avatar
EMS Dispatcher
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cobb County, GA
Posts: 3,258
Default

I wonder if this is the same company the US Secret Service and Bureau of Prisons gets their cell phone jammers from?
__________________


/
\/\|k.e

EMS Dispatcher/EMD Certified
http://icanhasdriverslicense.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions