FCC Enforcement for GMRS repeater intentional interference

[mmckenna]

Thought I'd read a post where someone was complaining about this interference on the Mt. Holly 625 repeater, but can't find it now.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-396533A1.pdf

 

[ecps92]

Thought I'd read a post where someone was complaining about this interference on the Mt. Holly 625 repeater, but can't find it now.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-396533A1.pdf

this thread ?

GMRS

I'm hearing what sounds like a GMRS repeater out of Carlisle on 462.625 PL141.3, that's a pretty good trip to Maryland.

forums.radioreference.com

 

[mmckenna]

this thread ?

GMRS

I'm hearing what sounds like a GMRS repeater out of Carlisle on 462.625 PL141.3, that's a pretty good trip to Maryland.

forums.radioreference.com

No, I thought there was one with someone specifically complaining about this interference.

 

[MTS2000des]

Well, this is a drop in a huge bucket.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

FCC is starting to be serious. Folks need to behave. It is gonna be as bad as the ham bands.

a. 47 CFR § 95.1761(a): “Each GMRS transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is
intended to operate in the GMRS) must be certified in accordance with this
subpart and part 2 of this chapter.” Johnathan A. Gutierrez operated a non-
certified GMRS radio on GMRS frequencies.

 

[MTS2000des]

Don't tell that to the CCR/Bowelturd crowd. They don't like being told "no". They also go on and on how the FCC doesn't care. Guess they just got at least one example that they do.

 

[smittie]

I think the FCC 'cares' when there is disruption and interference to the level that someone reports it, files a complaint. Once the Enforcement Bureau begins to investigate, the offending party get cited/charged with all the offenses. Had Mr. Gutierrez not been doing stupid s**t, the fact that he was using a radio that was not Part 95 certified would never have become an issue.
If the FCC is really going to start cracking down on use of non-certified radios, they're going to be very busy with the violations on Citizen Band.

 

[smittie]

Interesting read, @mmckenna. Thank you.

 

[mmckenna]

Had Mr. Gutierrez not been doing stupid s**t, the fact that he was using a radio that was not Part 95 certified would never have become an issue.

That's usually the way it happens. Unfortunately some of these individuals are incapable of NOT doing stupid s**t because they are stupid people. There's a lot of enforcement actions where people do some seriously dumb a$$ stuff, like access trunked radio systems when they know better, and get popped.

I love to see this happen with people that purposely cause interference. I really like that we now know the type of individual Mr.
Gutierrez is.

I especially love that we now essentially have an answer from the FCC about the Part 95 radios on GMRS thing. I'm sure someone will want to argue it, though.

 

[alcahuete]

I especially love that we now essentially have an answer from the FCC about the Part 95 radios on GMRS thing. I'm sure someone will want to argue it, though.

In all fairness, they're going to go 100% by the book when it comes to enforcement actions. It's no different than the police adding every single charge they possibly can, even though by itself, you'd probably walk with a warning.

I would still love to get an official interpretation from the FCC, even though I have a feeling it wouldn't be any different.

 

[iowajm780]

I would like to see trunking allowed on GMRS. Just kidding....

 

[mmckenna]

In all fairness, they're going to go 100% by the book when it comes to enforcement actions. It's no different than the police adding every single charge they possibly can, even though by itself, you'd probably walk with a warning.

I agree, however the rules are clear and the FCC is making that point.

But, like was said, don't do stupid s**t and no one will know. Some can't resist, though.

 

[kc5hwb]

Explain "as bad as the Ham Bands" - the Ham bands are nice and clean, mostly. There are some specific HF frequencies that are easy to avoid, but those are just single frequencies, not the entire band.

The GMRS band is getting to be more and more like CB due to no regulation and no one really caring that it goes to crap. I still use GMRS and it has usefulness in various places, but I'd prefer to be on a Ham Radio band any day.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Explain "as bad as the Ham Bands" - the Ham bands are nice and clean, mostly. There are some specific HF frequencies that are easy to avoid, but those are just single frequencies, not the entire band.

The GMRS band is getting to be more and more like CB due to no regulation and no one really caring that it goes to crap. I still use GMRS and it has usefulness in various places, but I'd prefer to be on a Ham Radio band any day.

There are very few FCC actions against GMRS licensees as opposed to Part 97 licensees. Anyone honestly following the FCC enforcement activity would be well aware of that.

 

[kc5hwb]

That isn't how I read your comment - but yes...you are correct. But also, GMRS is much newer than Ham Radio is. Ham Radio actually outdates the FCC, as does the ARRL. My main gripe with GMRS are the users (sorta like iPhone users...) they think their system is best and when someone points out something they are wrong about, they get upset.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Well GMRS is actually well over 60 years old, so a pretty good running history of compliance compared to Part 97. As far as which is better, ham or GMRS. Well, whatever, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , they serve entirely different purposes. I am licensed in both plus GROL , so no axe to grind.

 

[bill4long]

FCC is starting to be serious. Folks need to behave. It is gonna be as bad as the ham bands.

a. 47 CFR § 95.1761(a): “Each GMRS transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is
intended to operate in the GMRS) must be certified in accordance with this
subpart and part 2 of this chapter.” Johnathan A. Gutierrez operated a non-
certified GMRS radio on GMRS frequencies.

The FCC has always been serious about complaints that are actually reported, regardless of service. Although I doubt they would waste their time enforcing merely using a radio that was not type accepted as long as it wasn't causing interference. How would they even know about it? In this particular case, it was merely a "pile on" citation at the end of a list of several citations, which included playing music, continuous transmission (essentially broadcasting), and failing to identify. And most importantly was "in response to a complaint of intentional interference."

 

[DeoVindice]

The FCC has always been serious about complaints that are actually reported, regardless of service. Although I doubt they would waste their time enforcing merely using a radio that was not type accepted as long as it wasn't causing interference. How would they even know about it? In this particular case, it was merely a "pile on" citation at the end of a list of several citations, which included playing music, continuous transmission (essentially broadcasting), and failing to identify. And most importantly was "in response to a complaint of intentional interference."

Makes me wonder if anything will ever happen to the Mad Kerchunker, who likes trying to tie up a multi-state linked system by triggering courtesy tones ever two seconds. I just ignore him.

 

[nokones]

That isn't how I read your comment - but yes...you are correct. But also, GMRS is much newer than Ham Radio is. Ham Radio actually outdates the FCC, as does the ARRL. My main gripe with GMRS are the users (sorta like iPhone users...) they think their system is best and when someone points out something they are wrong about, they get upset.

Both Radio Services have weenies that want to gripe moan and complain. I think the Ham people are just better at it.