FCC enforcement

[MTS2000des]

I have coined a new term: whacker fatigue. Because those of us who know better are tired of these whackers giving ham radio a bad name. These QRZ folks don't have a clue: every time the FCC has to deal with a bad/sad/whacker ham fudging with public safety radio whether it's the CCR fools, the trunking radio cloner, the USFS whacker, it doesn't bode well for the amateur radio community at all. All it takes are few rotten turds to ruin the punch bowl.

 

[MTS2000des]

Amateur radio has failed itself since they seem to be unable to self police and unwilling to teach the rules.
FCC clearly needs to do a better job of clarifying the Personal Radio Service rules. Having a plain language rule that says "You cannot, under any circumstances, transmit outside the radio service for any reason what so ever" might help slightly, but we know the same losers will ignore that, too.

There needs to be better oversight into what products are allowed on the spectrum. Not that it will solve all the issues, but there's obviously a step missing when these radios get certified and then released to the public cheap enough that anyone can buy them.
Relying on common sense isn't enough.

This would require one to actually read, comprehend and follow such rules. Seems today's modern humans are all about ME ME ME from the GMRS 8 channel simulcast army, the ARES prepper/whackers who are convinced "when all else fails I can talk on anything" to the hackers who are perfectly fine penetrating government radio systems and bragging about it. Everyone is a star and it's all good, until it isn't.

Enforcement and sending idiots to "pound you in the a$$ prison" is the only method that is surefire guaranteed to gain compliance. When one loses their freedom and/or their money does behavioral change actually take place. Change my mind.

 

[GlobalNorth]

..Jail is probably a bit excessive for a violation like this. No need to completely destroy someone's life because of a hobby...

Ever hear of a 'Hotel plan'?

People who commit non-violent misdemeanors such as shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. are found guilty by a Court and sentenced to a 'Hotel plan'. They work or attend school during their normal times, but have to show up at the local jail to serve their weekends in the local house of detention.

The inconvenience of two to four weekends in a smelly and loud jail, eating questionable food, tends to modify scofflaw behaviors.

 

[GlobalNorth]

..When one loses their freedom and/or their money does behavioral change actually take place. Change my mind...

Some bullies and tough guys like incarceration. They like the brutish appeal of being 'king of the trailer park crowd' and take perverse pleasure at being part of the 'stupid tough'. Thank goodness they are small in number and tend to end up in prisons.

 

[mmckenna]

it doesn't bode well for the amateur radio community at all. All it takes are few rotten turds to ruin the punch bowl.

Yeah, 100%.

I'm skeptical of someone who announces themselves as a ham. To me, it doesn't mean much. My wife has her ham ticket, thanks to a 'ham cram' session. She couldn't tell you the difference between AM and FM. But she's got her tech ticket and a valid call sign.

I was thinking out loud over on CS about this.
I'm going to need to hire a radio tech in a few years as I transition into retirement. A ham ticket on its own isn't enough qualifications. GROL is more common in the industry, but isn't really required. Still, it's a filter that can weed out the serious from the rest.

Any future interviews will absolutely include the 'do you have an amateur radio license' question. Not because I want to use the ham ticket as a qualification, but because I'll run the name/call sign through the FCC Enforcement Bureau search.

Our PD will require a full background investigation, so that should hopefully weed out those with the whackerish tendencies.

Still, finding good people will require more than asking if they have a ham ticket.

For all my fellow hams, these guys that can't behave and will not follow the rules are hurting the hobby. If you want the amateur radio hobby to actually mean something, it's time to do your part to help clean up the hobby.

 

[mmckenna]

Enforcement and sending idiots to "pound you in the a$$ prison" is the only method that is surefire guaranteed to gain compliance. When one loses their freedom and/or their money does behavioral change actually take place. Change my mind.

From most of the hams I've met, they wouldn't survive very long. But it is tempting.

 

[k6cpo]

One of the reasons I post these enforcement actions. Make sure the name is out there and people see it.

Often you'll hear people claim "The FCC doesn't care", or "So what?"

I'm not convinced it's the best approach, but it is one approach.

In this case, I'm not sure posting this is the right move. From what I read in the FCC letter, the individual voluntarily surrendered the offending radio to the FCC and they were able to determine the interference had ended. I honestly feel the individual wasn't aware of what was happening. To me the situation was resolved at the door. Posting this online serves no purpose other than to inflict the individual with a lingering "black mark" that's going to keep coming back to haunt him every time someone searches his name or callsign.

I think a little discretion is needed in what gets posted and what doesn't.

 

[mastr]

...I think a little discretion is needed in what gets posted and what doesn't.

It happens- the high horse needs some exercise once in a while.

 

[ssilicon]

Here is another example of how the FCC is more than capable of codifying this if they want to.
This is for Part 90 only, NOT amateur radio:

§ 90.407 Emergency communications.​

The licensee of any station authorized under this part may, during a period of emergency in which the normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake or similar disaster, utilize such station for emergency communications in a manner other than that specified in the station authorization or in the rules and regulations governing the operation of such stations. The Commission may at any time order the discontinuance of such special use of the authorized facilities.​

​

This is what hams 'think' they have. But they do not. If FCC wanted hams to do this, they could copy this section into Part 97, but they didn't.

So if the FCC did put it in part 97, would you do the honorable thing admit you've been wrong about your representations of what the FCC rules do and don't say? Or, once confronted with irrefutable proof, would you then try to tell everyone it doesn't mean what it says, but rather means what your interpretation of it is? An interpretation that just coincidentally & conveniently would support what you wish it to mean. I think I have a pretty good notion of what the answers to that are.

 

[mmckenna]

Posting this online serves no purpose other than to inflict the individual with a lingering "black mark" that's going to keep coming back to haunt him every time someone searches his name or callsign.

I can almost agree with that.

However, the radio should not have been programmed to transmit anywhere the user is not licensed. That's not only covered by the part 97 rules, but also Part 90.

A ham radio operator should absolutely understand this. Mistakes can happen, but a ham should know the rules and should be cognizant that setting up a radio to transmit on a public frequency has risks. Being unaware is not an excuse.

Yes, I agree, them handing the radio over to the FCC was the right move, however it should have never happened in the first place. This is a similar issue to the ham that got busted for NAS'ing the system in Colorado.

The FCC often responds to interference complaints that don't lead to official notices like this. I've had to do this in the past and it gets resolved on the spot between professionals. Since the FCC made this public, there's likely much more to the story. I believe that when the FCC goes this far, they are trying to make a point and send a message.

 

[K9KLC]

Amateur radio has failed itself since they seem to be unable to self police and unwilling to teach the rules.

Not all are unwilling, and many of us have been called out and even demeaned in these very forums here for pointing out a rule. Same happens in real life on occasion.

But then you have those that just cannot play nice with others, proudly don't care, or do it on purpose. Public shaming doesn't seem like enough.

We're pretty lucky here, usually the licensed people make honest mistakes and don't mind having it pointed out to them (with of course exception). Others in others however I cannot comment to. These are at least the folks I pointed it out to. I've heard a lot on HF however and well I have no answer for that stuff.

FCC clearly needs to do a better job of clarifying the Personal Radio Service rules. Having a plain language rule that says "You cannot, under any circumstances, transmit outside the radio service for any reason what so ever" might help slightly, but we know the same losers will ignore that, too.

You're right, it might help those that interpret it wrong but, obviously some just don't care.

Yoink'ing their license won't do much, as many have already shown that they are incapable of following even the most basic rules, and transmitting without a license is something they've already proven they don't care about.

We had this here, with a guy that interfered with public service, had his license pulled and he kept talking on the radio with his callsign even long after it had been cancelled. For a bit others talked to him until word got out then when he'd ID finally no one would answer him and he just went away and quit trying. I know how, he's sold most his equipment and I honestly think other problems in his life make talking on a radio pretty irrelevant.

 

[mmckenna]

So if the FCC did put it in part 97, would you do the honorable thing admit you've been wrong about your representations of what the FCC rules do and don't say?

The FCC has established what the rules say several times. They've made it abundantly clear.

If they change the rules to make it legal, then it will be legal and will not longer be a question. Doesn't matter what I think.

Or, once confronted with irrefutable proof, would you then try to tell everyone it doesn't mean what it says, but rather means what your interpretation of it is? An interpretation that just coincidentally & conveniently would support what you wish it to mean. I think I have a pretty good notion of what the answers to that are.

You seems to be basing your discussion off this being total legal. Am I incorrect?

Here's two hams that thought it was OK. FCC said otherwise:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-134A1.pdf

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-389269A1.pdf

Even one of the Commissioners felt the need to comment:

"You can’t interfere with public safety communications. Full stop. So today we propose the​

largest fine of its type for this interference that put fire suppression and public safety itself at risk."​

​

So, do you really think the FCC is going to change their mind on this? If so, you have the means to submit a request to change the rules to the FCC. They'll consider anything you submit, but they may choose to not act on it. Also, public safety users get a say in this.

 

[K9KLC]

All it takes are few rotten turds to ruin the punch bowl.

Yep!

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

However, the radio should not have been programmed to transmit anywhere the user is not licensed. That's not only covered by the part 97 rules, but also Part 90.

Well the problem could be curtailed by an outright ban on importation and sales of these cheap Chinese radios, (Gasp from present audience). There really is no purpose for a "ham radio" or "scanner/really transmitter" that can be programmed from front panel to encompass the entire VHF and UHF spectrum. Hams are a huge customer base for these brands. GMRS operators are next. They buy them up thinking they are legit GMRS radios. Even the "blocked" GMRS radios are not really blocked and dodgy at the best (wrong GMRS frequencies preprogrammed). So we can all argue and complain about the misuse of these radios, but it is a lot like the drug problem. Is it the fault of the Mexican Cartel or the hordes of nose candy aficionados who fund the cartel? Or maybe it is all a master plan by the Chinese "commies"?

 

[K9KLC]

Well the problem could be curtailed by an outright ban on importation and sales of these cheap Chinese radios, (

Could it? Sure a lot of it would drop down but look at every major seller of radios that offers the "Mars Mod" on their sites. I was going to sell one of my older dual band ham radios a while back, and the guy backed out the minute he found out it had not been modified. He asked me if I'd do it for him prior to sale, and I said NOPE buy your ham radio from someone else.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Could it? Sure a lot of it would drop down but look at every major seller of radios that offers the "Mars Mod" on their sites. I was going to sell one of my older dual band ham radios a while back, and the guy backed out the minute he found out it had not been modified. He asked me if I'd do it for him prior to sale, and I said NOPE buy your ham radio from someone else.

The MARS mod on most Japanese ham radios requires disassembly, potential damage, and loss of warranty. Plus the operating bandwidth is usually such that the radios perform poorly out of band. I should go further and suggest that the sellers be required to recall and refund every buyer of a BaoFeng radio sold in the past decade or two. It would be a big hit for Jeff Bezos, but he can always unload his trophy boat and wife.

 

[AK9R]

Posting this online serves no purpose other than to inflict the individual with a lingering "black mark" that's going to keep coming back to haunt him every time someone searches his name or callsign.

That individual agreed to abide by the FCC's rules when he got both his Amateur Radio and GMRS licenses. He broke those rules, whether intentionally or unintentionally. And, because he has an Amateur Radio license, it is assumed that he has the technical expertise to operate his radios properly and to know the frequency limits for his license. Based on the scenario described in the FCC notice, he had neither. Or, his actions were simply intentional.

I disagree with your statement. The FCC's public notice of his actions should serve as a warning that amateur radio operators are supposed to be responsible for their actions. Maybe other hams will get the hint. Reinforcing the fragile idea that hams are responsible stewards of the privileges the FCC has given them is more important than this guy's feelings.

 

[EAFrizzle]

"Privileges". There's the rub.

Seems that a lot of people read that as "unassailable rights".

A whole lot of this confusion started when we replaced Civics with Social Studies.

 

[ssilicon]

So if the FCC did put it in part 97, would you do the honorable thing admit you've been wrong about your representations of what the FCC rules do and don't say? Or, once confronted with irrefutable proof, would you then try to tell everyone it doesn't mean what it says, but rather means what your interpretation of it is? An interpretation that just coincidentally & conveniently would support what you wish it to mean. I think I have a pretty good notion of what the answers to that are.

The FCC has established what the rules say several times. They've made it abundantly clear.

If they change the rules to make it legal, then it will be legal and will not longer be a question. Doesn't matter what I think.



You seems to be basing your discussion off this being total legal. Am I incorrect?

Here's two hams that thought it was OK. FCC said otherwise:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-134A1.pdf

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-389269A1.pdf

Even one of the Commissioners felt the need to comment:

"You can’t interfere with public safety communications. Full stop. So today we propose the​

largest fine of its type for this interference that put fire suppression and public safety itself at risk."​

​

So, do you really think the FCC is going to change their mind on this? If so, you have the means to submit a request to change the rules to the FCC. They'll consider anything you submit, but they may choose to not act on it. Also, public safety users get a say in this.

No, I do not agree to your "total legal" what appears to be an attempt at a straw man.

The commissioners statements must, as with all honest discourse, not be separated from the context. You did not specifically cite the origin of the comments, so I took that to mean it was related to one of the two enforcement actions you cited above that. Therefore I searched for those comments in both of the enforcement PDFs. In both cases the search was negative. Yes, I made sure the PDFs had text content and not merely photographic representations of text. Even if the comments were found in one of those, neither one addresses true emergency use. Instead they represent clearly obvious examples of inappropriate use that are well outside the need to communicate an emergency or via that last resort means even if it was. Also, whatever the context was for those comments, it would not supersede actual official published laws and regulations anyway. As you have said, the FCC is certainly capable of publishing their rules if they want to; and they do just that.

I don't need to speculate on if the FCC might "change their mind on this" because, in 1998 they already said what they expect regarding this topic through updates to the published regulations. To date, they have not changed their mind away from it. I'm glad you have answered that if the FCC publishes rules saying there is an exemption for hams you will accept it because it isn't about what you think and it will no longer be a question.

Well, here you are. The FCC has in fact put language similar to that you cited from 90.407. Interestingly, if anything it's wording sounds possibly even more permissible than that in 90.407 (maybe the FCC trusts the average ham more than the average part 90 user? I dunno):

§ 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.​

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

I hope this clears things up regarding the actual regulations, and from now on you refrain from outright contradicting this (until and if such time as it may be changed). It's okay to worry about people doing bad and wrong things like in the examples you gave, and the implications that they can have. I'm fully with you on that.

 

[SigIntel8600]

Two words TRANSMIT INHIBIT. If you program a transmitter with public safety frequencies without utilizing transmit inhibit or are stupid enough to program the TX PL/DPL, you are playing with fire and will eventually get burned.