• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

FCC Enforcement, tasty, tasty enforcement….

Status
Not open for further replies.

ElroyJetson

Getting tired of all the stupidity.
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
3,873
Location
Somewhere between the Scylla and Charybdis
It can be shown that there were consequences of Mr. Cooper's actions, and people and organizations who were the injured parties.

This can not be said for two people engaging in short range communications on a frequency that nobody else is using and which is not causing any identifiable harm or loss to any person or persons, equipment, services, or systems.

I refer again to the principle of "no harm, no foul" which should be central to all matters of law enforcement. Because it makes no sense to invest time and money and effort into pursuing literally victimless crimes. Resources are limited. Use them wisely. That includes enforcement resources.
 

GROL

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
573
It can be shown that there were consequences of Mr. Cooper's actions, and people and organizations who were the injured parties.

This can not be said for two people engaging in short range communications on a frequency that nobody else is using and which is not causing any identifiable harm or loss to any person or persons, equipment, services, or systems.

I refer again to the principle of "no harm, no foul" which should be central to all matters of law enforcement. Because it makes no sense to invest time and money and effort into pursuing literally victimless crimes. Resources are limited. Use them wisely. That includes enforcement resources.
Maybe you should compile a list of frequencies you are able to confirm are not in use and petition the FCC to change their rulings. You may be wasting your energies here when they could be better directed towards the source of your frustration.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,845
Location
United States
It can be shown that there were consequences of Mr. Cooper's actions, and people and organizations who were the injured parties.

This can not be said for two people engaging in short range communications on a frequency that nobody else is using and which is not causing any identifiable harm or loss to any person or persons, equipment, services, or systems.

I refer again to the principle of "no harm, no foul" which should be central to all matters of law enforcement. Because it makes no sense to invest time and money and effort into pursuing literally victimless crimes. Resources are limited. Use them wisely. That includes enforcement resources.

I think one could argue (and I think this is what you are suggesting) that the FCC has essentially done this.
They don't seem to concerned about the CCR's until they start interfering.
They don't seem to worry about unlicensed use, there's tons of that.

So, maybe we should start with the hobby radio services, since there's no chance that someone unknowingly could interfere with public safety users, or interfere with a business by using the ham bands for a "no harm/no foul" radio service.
Open up the amateur radio bands to anyone that wants to use them on a non-interference basis.
We could use FRS, MURS, CB, 49MHz, etc, but that's already license by rule, and apparently not good enough for those that want more.

Using the heavily under utilized amateur radio bands for a new "come as you are" License by Rules (or no rules) service would have the least amount of impact on important users. Plus, there's tons of under utilized spectrum going to waste. Heck, there's tons of repeaters that go unused for days/weeks on end.

I'm 50% facetious and 50% serious. If hams/hobbyists think they have authority to wander outside their bands when they feel the need, then it is only fair to allow other radio services to do the same.

Bear with me here, this isn't an assult on you, just spitballing this to work out the details, feel free to add to it:

Since the 2 meter band is sparsely used in my area, I think dropping a P25 control channel on there should be allowed, after all, it really is public safety, and when all else fails (coordination failed…), our officers should be able to use whatever means they need to communicate. I can't get coordinated Part 90 frequencies anywhere else in the VHF band, and it would save our department a crap-ton of money to stay on VHF.
No harm, no foul, hams could use 1.25meter band, or 6 meter band, or 70cm band, or 33 cm band, or 23 cm band, or any of the other parts of the 2 meter band that I didn't need. After all, they have VFO's and can just pick another frequency.

But we all know hams would have a coronary if anyone did that. There would be fox hunts and retribution, purposeful jamming, screaming and howling, gnashing of teeth. ARRL would spin up into a froth and start sobbing about the 'end of the hobby!!!".
 

mastr

Member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
485
...I'm 50% facetious and 50% serious. If hams/hobbyists think they have authority to wander outside their bands when they feel the need, then it is only fair to allow other radio services to do the same...But we all know hams would have a coronary if anyone did that. There would be fox hunts and retribution, purposeful jamming, screaming and howling, gnashing of teeth. ARRL would spin up into a froth and start sobbing about the 'end of the hobby!!!".
It happens. If you have the time to look, you can find "other radio services" doing exactly what you describe more often than the "hams stay off of our frequency" guys would like to admit.
 

jeepsandradios

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
2,216
Location
East of the Mississippi
Ive been saying this for years. Trying to get licenses above Line A are a nightmare. Give us the bands available for emergency use. I mean its good for a ham to jump on my TLMR system when "they feel they have an emergency" so why can't I use 2M or 440 for my system also.
 

mastr

Member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
485
Ive been saying this for years...its good for a ham to jump on my TLMR system when "they feel they have an emergency" so why can't I use 2M or 440 for my system also.
When is the last time that some ham showed up on your system?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,845
Location
United States
It happens. If you have the time to look, you can find "other radio services" doing exactly what you describe more often than the "hams stay off of our frequency" guys would like to admit.

Yeah, I've found it a few times. Not uncommon.
I've run across radio shops that will do it. They'll charge for "FCC Licensing" and then dump the users on some random frequency (Be@r¢ºm was famous for dumping users on GMRS for a while).
And then you get the people that just buy some random radio off the internet and use it.

I offer my service for free at work to any group that needs radio. "Free consultation" to make sure they get the right radios and get properly licensed. I just ate the cost for a group to get a Part 90 license a while back. It was easier for me to pay it than to try and recharge them, or have them pay it.
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
24,845
Location
United States
When is the last time that some ham showed up on your system?

I've had them at least ask. It's happened a few times in my career. They want access for "emergencies". Answer is always : "Get it in writing from the chief and I'll give you the info you need". Has never once happened.
I had one tell me he was going to do it anyway (Thanks to a specific online radio type resource page that posts TX/RX frequencies along with PL tones….) I let it go. He eventually left the area.
 

mastr

Member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
485
Yeah, I've found it a few times. Not uncommon...
And then you get the people that just buy some random radio off the internet and use it....
Probably 40 years ago, I ran across 2 guys chatting away on 155.16, completely oblivious to the fact that they shouldn't have been there.

They had bought a pair of GE mobiles at a yard sale and were told they were "private CB radios".
 

mastr

Member
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
485
To be fair, I know one professional radio tech that insists it's against FCC rules to program ham frequencies into a Part 90 radio, even if you have a ham license.
I have heard that said as well. I figure the FCC will not mind my using an APX on the ham bands rather than a $20 CCR.
 

ElroyJetson

Getting tired of all the stupidity.
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
3,873
Location
Somewhere between the Scylla and Charybdis
To be clear about it, I'm not advocating for the end of radio licensing. I think licensing is an important part of regulation and regulation is necessary.

But enforcement should be a matter of intelligent decision making. Enforce those cases where there is an affected party. Not in those cases where there has been no harm done, and nobody has complained. Absolutely every licensee has the right to file complaints about unauthorized users interfering with his system or licensed frequencies, but in that case, there IS an affected party.

As for programming amateur frequencies into a Part 90 radio, since FCC type acceptance is NOT required for amateur service transmissions, that radio's type acceptance is a moot point on those frequencies. You might argue either way for that. But in practice, when is the last time you heard of an enforcement action for that reason? I can't recall having ever heard of that happening. Of course I've heard of enforcement in the reverse scenario, where Part 90 channels were programmed (to transmit) in a non-type-accepted amateur radio that had been "opened up".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top