FCC busted company for bandwidth and ID violations

Status
Not open for further replies.

cmdrwill

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
3,769
Location
So Cali
Too bad, Paratransit deserves the fine. Too dammed cheep to Narrowband their radios.
Also MRA, as their radio service company, and site provider, should be cited for letting them operate in violation.

All in the name of money... IF MRA had notified Paratransit of the violation, Paratransit would find another service provider, and MRA would be out a lot of service and site rent moneys..

Maybe, just maybe, MRA was the one to email the FCC anonymously.
 

garys

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
4,956
Location
Eastern MA
Since someone from MRA cooperated with the FCC inspectors, that wouldn't be an unreasonable thought.

Too bad, Paratransit deserves the fine. Too dammed cheep to Narrowband their radios.
Also MRA, as their radio service company, and site provider, should be cited for letting them operate in violation.

All in the name of money... IF MRA had notified Paratransit of the violation, Paratransit would find another service provider, and MRA would be out a lot of service and site rent moneys..

Maybe, just maybe, MRA was the one to email the FCC anonymously.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
3,275
Location
GA

natedawg1604

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,962
Location
Denver-Metro
I skimmed through the order, and I didn't see anything indicating the company was specifically ordered to take the wideband equipment out of service. How does the FCC verify this?
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
3,275
Location
GA
I skimmed through the order, and I didn't see anything indicating the company was specifically ordered to take the wideband equipment out of service. How does the FCC verify this?
The 2003 order took care of that. They don't have to get rid of the equipment. They just can't use it.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
3,275
Location
GA
The same people who blew the whistle before. Even if MRA didn't blow the whistle the first time, they're officially on notice now that things were awry before.
 

Rred

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
830
"Yeah but they DID use it already, what stops them from continuing to use it?"
Why stop them?
If they keep using it they can be hit with a second fine (and fines are usually higher for repeat offenders) and perhaps a contempt citation as well. It can be way more profitable and satisfying to let them keep using the equipment until they figure it out for themselves.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,021
Too bad, Paratransit deserves the fine. Too dammed cheep to Narrowband their radios.
Also MRA, as their radio service company, and site provider, should be cited for letting them operate in violation.

All in the name of money... IF MRA had notified Paratransit of the violation, Paratransit would find another service provider, and MRA would be out a lot of service and site rent moneys..

Maybe, just maybe, MRA was the one to email the FCC anonymously.
While the responsibility is the licensee's, MRA should not be servicing the offending equipment. It opens them to liability in this twisted world. They probably are not. My guess ether MRA or another cab company sent the e-mail. Most likely MRA did so.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
3,275
Location
GA
When you look at everyone who has contact with the offender and then narrow it down to the people who know what narrowbanding is, that pretty much points to MRA.

As far as being anonymous, it could quite possibly have been something like, "Look, I've got some information for you guys but you've got to keep my name out of it." And that may be the reason no action was taken against MRA, not even a reprimand.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,021
When you look at everyone who has contact with the offender and then narrow it down to the people who know what narrowbanding is, that pretty much points to MRA.

As far as being anonymous, it could quite possibly have been something like, "Look, I've got some information for you guys but you've got to keep my name out of it." And that may be the reason no action was taken against MRA, not even a reprimand.
I have GROL, years ago that actually meant something. If something smelled bad I fixed it, or spoke up, or unplugged it or in some cases stepped far away. Motorola and GE lobbied the FCC years ago to shift the responsibility for compliance from the manufacturers and independent radio shops directly to the licensees.

The FCC narrow-banding requirements stemmed a couple decades. Only folks with archaic radio equipment could not reband with a simple reprogram. Many Taxi and Bus companies are notoriously cheap and use equipment that is worn out, and even second hand..

I cannot picture any universe where salesmen from MRA, Motorola, Kenwood, Harris, EF Johnson etc,. did not mail flyers, make phone calls and cold call the management of this and every licensee in the country. In fact salesman were using this argument to upsell Public Safety agencies to P25 even though they were operating at 800 MHz band! There was a big upside for a radio dealer replacing this fleet.

Global's CEO REZA NASROLLAHY even went to the effort to modify their license to feign compliance. Who does that?

Unless this Taxi Company was being shunned by every two way dealer in town, maybe they were notoriously cheap non paying dirtbags, in which case they had it coming.

Some customers will not listen to advice provided by their radio experts and will ignore or fail to even obtain a second opinion where it is in their best interest.

I applaud the whistle-blower.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,021
I skimmed through the order, and I didn't see anything indicating the company was specifically ordered to take the wideband equipment out of service. How does the FCC verify this?
How does the FCC verify this? By voluntary compliance of the licensee. God forbid you ever lie to the FCC. That is the worst sin ever.

The narrowbanding order was pretty specific. FCC licenses had to be modified to reflect the new emissions during transition. So your license would reflect both WB and NB emissions for a while, then after your system was modified to meet the NB requirements, the license was modified again to remove the WB emission. After the deadline you could no longer operate the older WB equipment or equipment capable of both WB and NB in the WB mode. Chances were good that if a company replaced equipment over the normal lifetime of subscriber radios, the new equipment would be capable of being reprogrammed to NB. There were some exceptions regarding certain VHF radios used in public safety not being able to resolve some odd channel splits.

Most agencies spent money on repeater and base station replacements because for some odd reason these never get replaced in 20 years.

There is no out for Global, As usual the FCC fine is a slap on the wrist. If Global is smart they are fixing this problem straight away. Maybe they should simply go Uber and Fuggedaboutit.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
10,003
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Is MRA a repeater provider to the taxi company in addition to their radio supplier? If so I would hold MRA as accountable for the problem as the taxi company. As a radio provider or a repeater service provider MRA should know better and should also pull the repeater service if a customer does not comply with narrow banding, or be more vigilant in getting there customer to comply with the rules.

I would hope the FCC inspectors would ask for proof that MRA was actively discussing the need for narrow banding wth their customer.
prcguy


When you look at everyone who has contact with the offender and then narrow it down to the people who know what narrowbanding is, that pretty much points to MRA.

As far as being anonymous, it could quite possibly have been something like, "Look, I've got some information for you guys but you've got to keep my name out of it." And that may be the reason no action was taken against MRA, not even a reprimand.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,021
Is MRA a repeater provider to the taxi company in addition to their radio supplier? If so I would hold MRA as accountable for the problem as the taxi company. As a radio provider or a repeater service provider MRA should know better and should also pull the repeater service if a customer does not comply with narrow banding, or be more vigilant in getting there customer to comply with the rules.

I would hope the FCC inspectors would ask for proof that MRA was actively discussing the need for narrow banding wth their customer.
prcguy
I don't think you will find in the FCC rules or any other rule of law that MRA would have to demonstrate due diligence to the FCC. If Global believes MRA did something wrong, that might be another matter for a civil court.

One would have had to be in a COMA for nearly two decades to fail to notice that this deadline was looming. Global had a frequency coordinator handling the paperwork, a radio shop with a vested interest in performing the modifications and upgrades. A Global CEO signing the license modifications. Global would have a tough task to prove someone else was to blame.

The FCC changed rules years ago putting the responsibility of compliance on the licensee. The FCC really has no leverage other than issuing an NAL a monetary fine or suspending a license. Assigning responsibility to the radio shop is difficult as they are not the licensee, they have no "contract" with the FCC. Unless MRA was operating a wideband repeater for hire for Global they are pretty much out of reach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top