Marine Radio - Illegal Use

Status
Not open for further replies.

KR7CQ

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
984
Location
Phoenix
I have a business near my work where a fairly busy warehouse coordinates shipments with trucks on 156.800, which I believe is the marine "emergency channel". I can't ever get any names or a location, but the seem to be a fairly big operation.

I am thinking that unfortunately there are probably plenty of illegal users with these radios, as I see the cheap ones sold everywhere, and I'm sure they would work quite well in place of the bubble pack GMRS radios that most of the businesses around my office use. There are at least a dozen businesses around me using GMRS for daily operations that I've heard, and it's been that way for years. So with that said, does anyone think the FCC would really be interested in doing something about someone using this marine frequency in the middle of a desert?
 

Ronaldski

MI DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,973
Location
Bay City MI
How are you getting the 156.8 on a scanner? Playing devils advocate maybe an image frequency? If you have another different brand scanner or a marine radio to verify if it is using 156.8 which is marine Ch.16 emergency. First thought that popped in my head, would be contact a local ham radio group who put on radio triangulation exercises a lot?
 
Last edited:

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

I'm near 91st and Peoria. Assuming you're in the Metro Phoenix area, what major cross streets are you hearing this from? Maybe I can drive through the area on my next day off and try to confirm it's actually 156.800 at least.
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

The FCC would need lots of documentation of the illegal use. RDF to confirm the exact location, audio recordings of the transmissions. Maybe even copies of letters/emails to the company *politely* explaining that use of the channel is prohibited,...
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

and copies of their response, if any. It takes time and effort to get the FCC to act, but it can be done if you're willing to invest that time and effort.
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Or we can just make note of it, and since it's unlikely that they are interferring with valid users, leave it at that. Maybe someone from the FCC will see this thread, and be bored enough to investigate, or have it investigated.
 

KR7CQ

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
984
Location
Phoenix
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Or we can just make note of it, and since it's unlikely that they are interferring with valid users, leave it at that. Maybe someone from the FCC will see this thread, and be bored enough to investigate, or have it investigated.

That was a funny but probably true comment.

Just West of 23rd and Peoria. It's somewhere in that area.
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

Ok, I'll see what I'm doing on Thursday, my next day off. There's some business and industrial parks in that area, so it could be anything as far west as Metro Center Mall at this point.
 

ecps92

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
14,360
Location
Taxachusetts
YMMV - but my experience has been if it's 156.8000, they Respond very fast

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

and copies of their response, if any. It takes time and effort to get the FCC to act, but it can be done if you're willing to invest that time and effort.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,226
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

The FCC would need lots of documentation of the illegal use. RDF to confirm the exact location, .

The FCC would DF it and document it themselves. All they need is somebody to report it.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
The FCC would DF it and document it themselves. All they need is somebody to report it.

You're absolutely correct. Again I wonder where KB7MIB gets some of his information...
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

DaveNF2G said:
The FCC would DF it and document it themselves. All they need is somebody to report it.

You're absolutely correct. Again I wonder where KB7MIB gets some of his information...

I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind a little help, what with budget cuts and all. Thanks.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)



I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind a little help, what with budget cuts and all. Thanks.

So, as I have long suspected, you are speculating and making things up.
 

robertmac

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,290
This is a problem with all the hunters being able to buy marine radios. One thing to know about Canada is that, like the US I believe, marine frequencies are to be used near large bodies of water. They are not intended to be used by anyone else inland. Why? At least in Canada, inland areas that are a distance away from bodies of water that utilize marine frequencies do have Industry Canada listened frequencies. Thus, an illegal use of marine frequencies inland could and will interfere with licensed users, at least in Canada. Take a look at Spectrum Direct and input marine frequencies and you will come up with a large list of business users authorized on these frequencies. As an example: Schedule I (Refer to Section 8) — Frequencies, Nature of Service, Type of Traffic and Area of Operation with Restrictions for the VHF Band in the Maritime Service
shows the frequencies and what frequencies are used inland for commercial use. So, just because one illegally uses a marine radio inland in Canada, does not mean they will not be heard or cause interference with a licensed user!
 
Last edited:

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

DaveNF2G said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)



I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind a little help, what with budget cuts and all. Thanks.

So, as I have long suspected, you are speculating and making things up.

No, I'm not. I have read, maybe on these forums, maybe elsewhere, that the FCC appreciates, and sometimes even requires, that at least some leg work be done before they will act on a complaint, due to budgetary issues. Can I link to that. No I can't.
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,194
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

About 2 hours ago, I drove Peoria Ave from 43rd to 19th Aves and back again. I didn't loiter in the area any longer than traffic made me, as I had other errands to run. I didn't hear anything at that time with 3 different radios.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)



No, I'm not. I have read, maybe on these forums, maybe elsewhere, that the FCC appreciates, and sometimes even requires, that at least some leg work be done before they will act on a complaint, due to budgetary issues. Can I link to that. No I can't.

The only reliable source for statements about FCC operations and requirements is the FCC.

You said, in this thread:

"The FCC would need lots of documentation of the illegal use. RDF to confirm the exact location, audio recordings of the transmissions. Maybe even copies of letters/emails to the company *politely* explaining that use of the channel is prohibited, and copies of their response, if any. It takes time and effort to get the FCC to act, but it can be done if you're willing to invest that time and effort."

The FCC does not require anyone to invest time and effort beyond notifying them of a violation.

Then you said:

"I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind a little help, what with budget cuts and all."

That phrasing is more honest, in that you admit that it's your opinion.

I don't want to get into any further argument, or even worse, a flame war. My point is that you have made several statements (in this and other threads) that seem to have a tenuous connection at best to reality, but assert them in ways that sound like statements of fact. It would be helpful, especially to newbies, if you would make it clear when you are expressing your opinion and when you have provable facts to back up your assertions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top