FCC Enforcement Advisory 26 May 2016

[Dantian]

"An equipment authorization signifies that the equipment meets FCC technical standards, which often control radio frequency interference—it is not an authorization to use a device in any possible way."

The advisory gives examples of prohibited uses of authorized equipment.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0526/DA-16-588A1.pdf

 

[jaspence]

FCC

This is really nothing new other than to mention some devices that have been invented in the last two or three decades.

 

[nd5y]

I found it strange that it there is no mention that unauthorized equipment use is illegal but it says this:

...Here are a few examples of authorized equipment being used in an unlawful manner:
...
* The programming and use of private land mobile radios (Part 90 radios) to operate on unauthorized channels.

 

[Dantian]

I found it strange that it there is no mention that unauthorized equipment use is illegal

Sure there is.

WARNING: FCC Authorized Equipment Must be Used in Compliance with All Laws and Rules

Authorized equipment must be used in a manner that complies with federal law and the Commission’s rules.

Federal law prohibits the use of any authorized equipment in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of its equipment authorization or that is in violation of the Communications Act or the Commission’s rules.

If you operate authorized equipment in a manner that is inconsistent with the Communications Act, the Commission’s rules, or the equipment’s authorization, you could face enforcement action, including the possible assessment of monetary penalties.

With regard to programming Part 90 radios to use unauthorized frequencies, any such unauthorized operation has been illegal since around the 1930s, and remains so.

 

[Dantian]

This is really nothing new other than to mention some devices that have been invented in the last two or three decades.

It isn't new but there continue to be people who are either ignorant of the rules, make up self-serving interpretations of the rules, or hope they won't be called to account.

Some have used UNII devices with dynamic frequency selection turned off. This networking gear has been interfering with radar. So that is on that list.

Another thing on the list is the use of Wi-Fi to cut others' Wi-Fi with fake disconnect messages. This is a long-running conflict between network manufacturers and operators, and the FCC. At least one manufacturer I know of tried hard to get the FCC to declare such operations legal, but the FCC is having none of it.

I say thumbs up to that. However, a different administration in the White House could well demand that policy be changed. Legally of course the FCC is not supposed to take orders from the President.

And of course pirate radio continues to be as much of a pain to FCC as it ever was. They just dinged a few pirates last week for tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Don't know if they were misusing "authorized" equipment, which was the main point of this advisory bulletin.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I say thumbs up to that. However, a different administration in the White House could well demand that policy be changed. Legally of course the FCC is not supposed to take orders from the President.

That's not exactly true. The FCC is an Executive Branch agency.

 

[Dantian]

That's not exactly true. The FCC is an Executive Branch agency.

It is exactly true. The FCC is not an Executive Branch agency; it is not one of the 15 Executive Departments. None of the Commissioners are members of the President's Cabinet.

https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership

The FCC is a creation of Congress and is known as one of the Independent Agencies. The only direct connection to POTUS is that the Commissioners are nominated by the President (and confirmed by the Senate) and the Prez gets to pick which one will be Chairman. That does not make FCC into an Executive Branch agency.

In contrast, the Department of Commerce is an Executive Branch agency and the Secretary of Commerce is a Cabinet member.

Within the DoC is the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which governs the Federal spectrum and is headed by the NTIA Administrator, who is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.

NTIA is not FCC.

Politically speaking, there’s a notable difference between the NTIA and the FCC. The FCC is an independent agency overseen by Congress, while the NTIA is an executive branch agency that draws its authority from the President. - ARRL http://www.arrl.org/the-other-fcc-the-ntia

 

[Voyager]

I found it strange that it there is no mention that unauthorized equipment use is illegal but it says this:

...Here are a few examples of authorized equipment being used in an unlawful manner:
...
* The programming and use of private land mobile radios (Part 90 radios) to operate on unauthorized channels.

Typical political talk. What is an "unauthorized channel"? You can't say it's restricted to Part 90 frequencies because hams routinely use Part 90 radios on non-Part 90 frequencies (specifically on Part 97 frequencies), and few argue that is not legal.

In addition, many trunked systems are now operating on Part 22 frequencies as part of their Part 90 systems. Are those systems illegal?

I would submit that the term "unlicensed channels" is what was intended in that statement. IOW, they don't want people to just pick a frequency and start transmitting. Few argue that is legal, too.

 

[ecps92]

Unauthorized is one where you DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION of the licensee :roll: pretty simple. So for all those preppies (I think they call them selves preppers or something funny) who program any Radio with channels they have no "Written Permission" - it's always been suggested/urged to get it in Writing.

Nothing to do with Part 90, Part 80, Part 97, Part 22...

Typical political talk. What is an "unauthorized channel"? You can't say it's restricted to Part 90 frequencies because hams routinely use Part 90 radios on non-Part 90 frequencies (specifically on Part 97 frequencies), and few argue that is not legal.

In addition, many trunked systems are now operating on Part 22 frequencies as part of their Part 90 systems. Are those systems illegal?

I would submit that the term "unlicensed channels" is what was intended in that statement. IOW, they don't want people to just pick a frequency and start transmitting. Few argue that is legal, too.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The language in Part 90 is clear, even if the above-referenced summary is not.

"No person" may possess a radio that can transmit on frequencies they are not authorized to use.

I've cited this regulation before. Do a search.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It is exactly true. The FCC is not an Executive Branch agency; it is not one of the 15 Executive Departments. None of the Commissioners are members of the President's Cabinet.

...

In contrast, the Department of Commerce is an Executive Branch agency and the Secretary of Commerce is a Cabinet member.

I missed the change. FCC used to be under the Department of Commerce.

 

[com501]

The language in Part 90 is clear, even if the above-referenced summary is not.

"No person" may possess a radio that can transmit on frequencies they are not authorized to use.

I've cited this regulation before. Do a search.

Can you cite your reference in the CFR please?

 

[DaveNF2G]

Can you cite your reference in the CFR please?

Despite what I said at the end of my posting...

47 CFR sect. 90.427 (b)

 

[Rred]

" hams routinely use Part 90 radios on non-Part 90 frequencies (specifically on Part 97 frequencies), and few argue that is not legal. "
Few would argue it, because the FCC specifically authorizes hams to use anything they please, as long as it is on frequencies they are authorized to use, and in general technical compliance with regard to emissions.
Whether a ham uses a lawn chair and electric cattle fence, or a Part90 radio, or a Barbie Cell Phone, doesn't matter as long as the actual USE is on the ham bands, and in technical compliance.

 

[PACNWDude]

Now this just needs to be translated into language the average WiFi router or Beofeng user can understand.

In my neighborhood WiFi and other 2.4 GHz devices have raised the noise floor about 10dB higher than it was when I moved here. Everyone has: baby monitors, security cameras and of course WiFi access points/routers.

Not sure if the FCC will really enforce this though, unless a deep pocket user complains.

 

[com501]

Despite what I said at the end of my posting...

47 CFR sect. 90.427 (b)

Of course, the big unspoken gorilla in the room is 90.417.....

The FCC rules, are like any other branches of Government. There is a law to be broken and enforced anytime anyone wants to.

 

[DaveNF2G]

If that is the way you feel, then you probably should not have any FCC licenses or transmitters.

90.407(b) references 90.417, so your point is invalid. 90.417 grants limited special privileges to Part 90 licensees, not to just anyone with a radio.

 

[Hatchett]

If that is the way you feel, then you probably should not have any FCC licenses or transmitters.

90.407(b) references 90.417, so your point is invalid. 90.417 grants limited special privileges to Part 90 licensees, not to just anyone with a radio.

There is one little catch 22 that you are ignoring.

How do you establish communication with another Part 90 radio operator if you are not allowed to even poses a radio with anyone else’s frequency programmed in.


And ... The reason why that article only gives authority to part 90 stations to communicate with one or another…….. Is because that is the only authority the article can give. Part 90 only has jurisdiction over part 90 operations. You can’t have an article in part 90 that gives authority to part 15 and part 97 radio stations….. That would be painfully illogical.

To find rules covering non part 90 operations, and interaction among people licensed under different parts, you have to at the higher tier regulations that cover operation under all other parts.

In those rules, you will find that it is accepted that anyone in possession of any radio transmitting device that may be governed under any, all, or no parts of the FCC jurisdiction, has full “Right” to use it by any means necessary to facilitate communications that are essential to the life and safety of him or someone else.

That general provision is there in US regulations to bring them inline with international regulations that basically say the same thing.


And the second thing is… The language of that article gives the implication that communications between two part 90 licenses that is not related to life and safety would be against the rules. That would imply that two business that are licensed for the same itinerant frequency would be breaking the rules if they were to use that frequency to coordinate day to day activities between their companies. Which would be painfully illogical.

 

[nd5y]

The language of that article gives the implication that communications between two part 90 licenses that is not related to life and safety would be against the rules. That would imply that two business that are licensed for the same itinerant frequency would be breaking the rules if they were to use that frequency to coordinate day to day activities between their companies. Which would be painfully illogical.

That is correct. Read 90.419.

 

[Hatchett]

That is correct. Read 90.419.

It is normally “intended” for a base stations to communicate with mobile stations of the same license, But….. The restrictions in that section only applies to “fixed stations” in which there may be wireline services between those stations to facilitate such communications.

Direct communications between mobiles of different licenses is not “intended” but it is not “restricted” by that article in any way, shape or form.