FCC enforcement

[GlobalNorth]

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

Who gets to determine this? The FCC barely has enough personnel to conduct normal business from cell companies, broadcasters, LMR, and Amateurs.

What are the qualitative violations that get listed vs. those that don't?

Aside from industry professionals and the curious amateur, few will ever know who was given an In Rem forfeiture notice for their FPP equipped XTS 2500 for broadcasting on Federal frequencies.

 

[pb_lonny]

My thoughts and why this paints all amateurs in a poor light

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7622075041227754770

 

[mmckenna]

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.

It was in the PDF attached at the bottom. FCC 22-43A2.pdf on the bottom of the post. All you need to do is click on it.

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.

Please cite your source.

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.

Absolutely. We don't make the rules, the FCC does.

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):

97.405 Station in distress.​

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.​

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a)of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.​

And this is where hams suddenly jump the track.

97.407 is just that. Part 97. It says it right in the beginning. Part 97 is -only- for the amateur radio service, and the amateur radio service is -only- made up of amateur radio frequencies (listed in 97.301). Part 97 does not include any of the frequencies outside the amateur radio bands. Those other frequencies are covered by their own rules part.

The amateur radio license grants the holder to use amateur radio frequencies, nothing else. In 97.405 it says any means at its disposal. An amateur station, as defined in Part 97 only has access to amateur radio frequencies. Once you start transmitting outside those bands, you are no longer covered by the amateur radio rules. Claiming that Part 97 rules apply in other radio services is like claiming the rules in your home suddenly apply in my home when you show up uninvited. It doesn't work that way. Once you start working in other bands, you are required to abide by that rule section, including requirements for licenses, authorizations, type acceptance, etc.

The section of the FCC rules that cover all the radio services is Part 2, and I posted that above where the specifically call out the amateur radio service as -not- having the authorization to transmit outside of their authorization. You can look it up yourself, 2.405:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

§ 2.405 Operation during emergency.​

The licensee of any station (except amateur, standard broadcast, FM broadcast, noncommercial educational FM broadcast, or television broadcast) may, during a period of emergency in which normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster, utilize such station for emergency communication service in communicating in a manner other than that specified in the instrument of authorization: Provided:…..​

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).

No, all you did is misinterpret 97.407. The same thing that many hams do when they want to convince themselves they are authorized to transmit outside the amateur radio band.

 

[AK9R]

This debate, yet again, about 97.405 is interesting, but does it pertain to this situation?

The person in this case was using a Part 90 (cough) radio, not a modified amateur radio. And, there was no real or perceived emergency--it was a matter of programming the radio to do something he shouldn't have done.

 

[ssilicon]

This debate, yet again, about 97.405 is interesting, but does it pertain to this situation?

It pertains to the situation of people stating their opinions as a fact. It's disingenuous, and undermines seeking of truth.

 

[MTS2000des]

This debate, yet again, about 97.405 is interesting, but does it pertain to this situation?

The person in this case was using a Part 90 (cough) radio, not a modified amateur radio. And, there was no real or perceived emergency--it was a matter of programming the radio to do something he shouldn't have done.

THIS. This is why the "MARS CAP" whackerism excuse factory is just that: excuses that as this individual showed is how it was ALL GOOD, UNTIL IT WASN'T. He wasn't hanging out of his apartment with flames over his head "calling for help". He wasn't drowning in a river and his Verizon "1 bar army" phone had no coverage. He was whacking with his unauthorized radio with unauthorized transmissions on 470MHz which last I checked is WAY OUTSIDE the amateur allocations so just stop with all this 97.407 whacker nonsense folks.

The FCC is the AHJ over radio and they have spoken publicly. May not be over for him state/local. I guarantee you he generated overtime pay for employees, maybe got the local radio vendor involved, and he should be 100 percent on the hook for any costs to the taxpayers his whackerism may have generated.

 

[mmckenna]

It pertains to the situation of people stating their opinions as a fact. It's disingenuous, and undermines seeking of truth.

It's much easier for everyone, yourself included, to just be truthful:
"In any perceived emergency, I'm going to ignore FCC rules and do whatever I want".

At least that is honest. Do that. Embrace it. But don't claim the FCC rules back you up on that.

The constant attempt by a few hams to convince everyone that Part 97 rules somehow apply in Part 90 is not accurate, no matter how often they repeat it.

And those of us that work in Part 90 land will fight that. We do NOT want you or other hams on our systems. You and all the other hams are NOT authorized to use our systems. Our dispatchers (and I have directly asked this question of our PSAP communications manager) do NOT want you or any other ham on their systems. Hams do not understand how PSAPs work.

And this is one of the reasons I love our trunked system and use encryption to its full extent.

 

[EAFrizzle]

I guarantee you he generated overtime pay for employees, maybe got the local radio vendor involved, and he should be 100 percent on the hook for any costs to the taxpayers his whackerism may have generated.

That would probably do more to cut the BS than anything else.

 

[ssilicon]

It was in the PDF attached at the bottom. FCC 22-43A2.pdf on the bottom of the post. All you need to do is click on it.



Please cite your source.



Absolutely. We don't make the rules, the FCC does.

97.405 Station in distress.​

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.​

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a)of this section, of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress.​

And this is where hams suddenly jump the track.

97.407 is just that. Part 97. It says it right in the beginning. Part 97 is -only- for the amateur radio service, and the amateur radio service is -only- made up of amateur radio frequencies (listed in 97.301). Part 97 does not include any of the frequencies outside the amateur radio bands. Those other frequencies are covered by their own rules part.

The amateur radio license grants the holder to use amateur radio frequencies, nothing else. In 97.405 it says any means at its disposal. An amateur station, as defined in Part 97 only has access to amateur radio frequencies. Once you start transmitting outside those bands, you are no longer covered by the amateur radio rules. Claiming that Part 97 rules apply in other radio services is like claiming the rules in your home suddenly apply in my home when you show up uninvited. It doesn't work that way. Once you start working in other bands, you are required to abide by that rule section, including requirements for licenses, authorizations, type acceptance, etc.

The section of the FCC rules that cover all the radio services is Part 2, and I posted that above where the specifically call out the amateur radio service as -not- having the authorization to transmit outside of their authorization. You can look it up yourself, 2.405:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

§ 2.405 Operation during emergency.​

The licensee of any station (except amateur, standard broadcast, FM broadcast, noncommercial educational FM broadcast, or television broadcast) may, during a period of emergency in which normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster, utilize such station for emergency communication service in communicating in a manner other than that specified in the instrument of authorization: Provided:…..​

No, all you did is misinterpret 97.407. The same thing that many hams do when they want to convince themselves they are authorized to transmit outside the amateur radio band.

I didn't misinterpret anything because I'm not actually interpreting it in this thread. I'm just pointing out you're the one doing the interpreting here. It's subjective, and no more superior than someone else's interpretation. I could debate why your interpretation is just one of multiple different ways, but that doesn't serve to establish any fact. Facts aren't determined by ego or popularity contests. Your interpretation could possibly be correct... or not. Like someone else posted in this thread, it might be good if the FCC clarified better. I think that is really the key.

That being said though, when it comes to debating subjective opinions, I generally don't bother to debate the relative merits with those who resort to putting down and name-calling those who don't agree with them. I've read enough of your posts to see how unkind you reveal yourself to appear. In this case I sure hope appearances are misleading.

Anyway, I'm just trying to stand on facts here. No matter how popular, or how superior you think your reasoning is: subjective is still subjective. Anyone who can't come to grips with that, well I don't know what else can be said. Just state your opinions as opinions, and flesh them out as needed.

As to the PDFs, I opened them from the links located within the message body itself. I can go back and try to find the quotes within the documents from the attachments, but as I stated previously it really matters little in that context vs. the actual published official regulations. Curiously though, I wonder why the attached versions would be different than the linked ones. Did you not attach the same docuements that were linked to?

As to me personally, I have absolutely no plan to ever transmit on public safety. I have some part 90 radios and even have some PS frequencies programmed in for listening, but they have xmit prohibit on them. IMHO, that's the prudent approach if you do program them in. Like I said, I share the concerns of you and many others here about potential abuse. I just won't resort to passing off opinion as fact to serve a perceived greater good type thing. That's what it clearly seems to me to be happening. I have stated elsewhere that people can xmit extra-rule in an emergency. I'm going to walk the walk and in the future state that it may be possible (or not), pending interpretation. I think that's the honest way, and I think honesty is somewhat undervalued these days.

 

[AJAT]

Is this really such a huge issue as this thread is making it out to be? How many times did an ham go on a police dispatch frequency and said “I have an emergency, my tire is flat” or even if they had a real emergency, how many times did they call police or fire on their frequencies. Even if “think they can, they don’t. The only times I heard this happening was during wildfires when some idiot was trying to direct the firefighting efforts. They just wanted to feel important just like police impersonators or wackers. It has nothing to do with the ham ticket they have some mental issues. Hams don’t routinely come up on public safety frequencies with “emergencies” sure it might happen from time to time, not everyone is going to follow the rules. I am sure there are dispatchers that did things they were not authorized to do. Does that mean all dispatchers are bad. Radio techs for public safety do things they are not allowed to do, are they all bad? Most Hams are not running around ready to transmit on public safety frequencies for emergencies. But reading this thread it makes it seems like it happens everyday. There may be some mis-interpersonal of the rules, I get that but not all hams are transmitting on dispatch frequencies. The origins post of this thread has NOTHING to do with transmitting outside ham band DURING AN EMERGENCY.

 

[AK9R]

The origins post of this thread has NOTHING to do with transmitting outside ham band DURING AN EMERGENCY.

Thank you. How one interprets or applies 97.405 has little to do with this thread.

Personally, I am going to take the approach that the subject of the FCC action programmed local public safety frequencies into his radio and did not know the implications of doing so. That's on him as he should have known better. Whoever mentored this amateur radio operator, whether it be local club members, hams on social media, or YouTubers may have failed this individual by not explaining the hazards of programming public safety frequencies for transmit or by not explaining the simplex repeater features of his radio.

 

[N4DES]

Who gets to determine this? The FCC barely has enough personnel to conduct normal business from cell companies, broadcasters, LMR, and Amateurs.

What are the qualitative violations that get listed vs. those that don't?

Aside from industry professionals and the curious amateur, few will ever know who was given an In Rem forfeiture notice for their FPP equipped XTS 2500 for broadcasting on Federal frequencies.

In my experience, I was told the EB attorney that is assigned to the Field Office advises whether an initial letter gets generated for the infraction.

 

[sloop]

Sorry, I can't resist...In addition to 47 CFR Part 97 look at 47 CFR 90.427b. "(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with 90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the license using the transmitter is not authorized." So in a nut shell, MARS mods. are only legal when programming a non amateur transmit frequency if you are a MARS member and only programmed MARS frequencies would be allowed.

 

[MTS2000des]

Is this really such a huge issue as this thread is making it out to be? How many times did an ham go on a police dispatch frequency and said “I have an emergency, my tire is flat” or even if they had a real emergency, how many times did they call police or fire on their frequencies. Even if “think they can, they don’t. The only times I heard this happening was during wildfires when some idiot was trying to direct the firefighting efforts. They just wanted to feel important just like police impersonators or wackers. It has nothing to do with the ham ticket they have some mental issues. Hams don’t routinely come up on public safety frequencies with “emergencies” sure it might happen from time to time, not everyone is going to follow the rules. I am sure there are dispatchers that did things they were not authorized to do. Does that mean all dispatchers are bad. Radio techs for public safety do things they are not allowed to do, are they all bad? Most Hams are not running around ready to transmit on public safety frequencies for emergencies. But reading this thread it makes it seems like it happens everyday. There may be some mis-interpersonal of the rules, I get that but not all hams are transmitting on dispatch frequencies. The origins post of this thread has NOTHING to do with transmitting outside ham band DURING AN EMERGENCY.

Yeah dude, it's a big deal when a primary dispatch resource is tied up by some moron who shouldn't be there at all. It wasn't a "one off keyed up and gave his call sign on the wrong channel". This was an ongoing issue that required boots on the ground to identify and DF. That's man hours=money.

All the victim Olympics crap about mental issues, feeling important, etc doesn't negate the fact that interference on public safety radio systems puts legitimate users safety and life at risk, which is why the FCC and others AHJs don't take kindly to it and usually go full stop after them.

I don't care what the excuse is. There is none that makes it any less serious.

 

[mmckenna]

Yeah, I'm going to echo this.

In the industry this is an issue. No, it's not every day, but it's common enough that it's a problem. I've dealt with it several times. I know others have. I had it come up two weeks ago at work.

And I've had those people, often hams, proudly tell me that it's legal for them to do it.

As a ham, l'll do my best to correct them. As a radio guy, I'll do my best to explain to them we don't want them on our systems.

What it comes down to, amateur license or not, is that it has been shown that it's too easy to make a mistake with these radios. For some, it's too tempting to not use it. And then you have the ones that will actively encourage others to do it by misinterpretation of the rules and continually spreading it.

As a fellow ham, I'm going to speak up, ever time.
As a someone who does this as a career, I'm going to do my best to protect our systems.

I'm not going to apologize for that. I do my best to be professional about it, but I've got my limits.

 

[AJAT]

am Yeah dude, it's a big deal when a primary dispatch resource is tied up by some moron who shouldn't be there at all. It wasn't a "one off keyed up and gave his call sign on the wrong channel"

I 100 percent agree with you. There is no excuse for transmitting on public safety frequencies. The point I was trying to make is this is not the fault of the entire ham radio community. Some people in here thinks every ham radio operator has every public safety frequency programmed in their radio and routinely transmits on them in what they consider an emergency and think they are not violating the rules. That is false. How many times did an ham come up on a public safety frequency and REPORT AN EMERGENCY. It is extremely rare. Even if they “think they legally can” then don’t. Some people think every ham just does whatever they want and need to look up their call signs assuming they violated FCC rules because they are a ham. That is a ridiculous assumption. An entire group of hobbiests about 800,000 people are being judged by actions of a few idiots.

 

[AJAT]

What it comes down to, amateur license or not, is that it has been shown that it's too easy to make a mistake with these radios. For some, it's too tempting to not use it.

This is the problem.

 

[mmckenna]

This is the problem.

And the reason I beat this drum is because I know that most hams are good. They just need to hear the truth.

Like happens so often on the internet, the people with the bad information/conspiracy theories shout the loudest.

Counteracting that with correct info and saying "no, don't do that, and here's why" is necessary.

 

[K9KLC]

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.

Which is why many hams pay the seller to do that modification. I know of at least two people personally, that had problems not related to the mod, that had other problems, sent their radios back to Yaesu, they were repaired under warranty and returned still modified.
I can only comment to the FTM-300 yaesu and Icom 5100, those radios receive every bit as well up around 462 MHz as any of the commercial stuff I have that is used there. I cannot comment as to transmit on those. I have Kenwood 641, and 741 and those are terrible up at 462 Mhz so maybe it's the newer stuff that receives well up there and the older stuff not so much.

As far as a recall, ya that's gonna happen when they bring CW back for testing, nice thought though.

Back in the 90s I was called upon to certify some modified ham radios for CAP, but those frequencies were just slightly above the 2 meter band so no problem with any of the radios I checked there. I was honestly amazed by the people that showed up to get the radios certified. I honestly don't even remember why I had to do that but, for some reason they needed some kind of "paper" that showed they were on frequency and with in modulation tolerances. It paid so I went and gladly did it.

 

[MTS2000des]

What I find ironic is how these retailers call it a "MARS/CAP" mod when in fact, CAP at least no longer allow play toy ham radios and require proper part 90 P25 compliant subscribers. Just an excuse to enable potential illegal transmissions. A part 97 transceiver is only FCC certified for part 15 rules for the receiver section. The LICENSEE is 100 percent RESPONSIBLE for all transmissions that originate from his/her equipment. This includes all out of band emissions whether they are intentional or incidental. The only LAWFUL transmissions are those made on amateur frequencies by licensed hams operating under part 97 rules. No part 90, no GMRS, no MURS...it is all UNAUTHORIZED as the equipment is not certified for such use but don't tell this to the 8 channel army crowd or the prepper/whackers.