Correction to post #39, he was licensed in 2013 originally so NOT a new ham or at least as new as was stated. The other date listed was a renewal, address change on the FCC site.
FCC NOV to ham for operating on 173 MHz
- Thread starter nd5y
- Start date
On the FCC site if you go back and look 2013 is correct or, at least that's the way I took it. I should not have quoted another post without checking myself. Sorry.
Got it. Makes sense. Granted, the FCC ULS site is not the easiest to navigate,
Exactly. Memorizing a question & answer pool does not translate to retention of that knowledge, unfortunately.
Not quibbling about anything, simply was correcting something I posted. Yes that is obviously the bottom line.
OR, the fastest LOL.
I would guess this was likely was done by mistake; it seems pretty strange that someone would knowingly transmit on a such a frequency using their Ham callsign. I'm thinking was a (albeit Major) programming error.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
There's more to this story and the NOV didn't provide much detail.
The chances of making a simple programming error gets increasingly unlikely the more you look at it. Randomly landing on the exact frequency/frequencies -and- the correct PL/DPL code is pretty long odds. Being that the correct info is easily found on the internet and it just so happens that said ham is in the coverage area makes this sound like something other than an honest programming error. Possible, but odds are against it. Too many hams think that it's OK to program in public safety frequencies "just in case" or, "when all else fails". It fits the symptoms of hamwhackerism pretty well. I've run across a few hams over the years that do this, all have well rehearsed excuses about why it's OK. None of them are right. Whackerism is a disease.
If it was a Part 90 radio:
Programming transmit frequencies into a part 90 radio that the user is not licensed for or does not have a memorandum of understanding from the licensee (Federal/Bureau of Land Management) is specifically mentioned in the rules. If that's the case, then the FCC has him on that.
If it was a ham radio/Baofeng/CCR du jour:
FCC has him on transmitting without a license -and- using non-type accepted gear.
With zero details, we're all guessing, but said ham is going to have to come up with a good excuse for this incident. There's no good reason, no legal reason, and no logical reason for this to have ever happened. If said ham is fortunate and provides a really good apology and a good solution to make sure it never happens again, he's going to get away with a smack on the wrist and his call sign forever tarnished. Any time someone searches on the internet using that call, it's going to pop up. I'd hate to have that hanging over my head. Then there's always a chance that there's a fine. It ain't going to be parking citation level fines. It's going to be a big sucking sound on the savings account that will be difficult to explain to the wife. "Sorry darling, no vacation to Hawaii for our anniversary, I got bad case of whackerism and I need treatment".
I hope the FCC continues to enforce the rules like this. There are those few hams that are going to have to learn the rules the hard way. Certain 4 letter ham radio "voice of the hobby" organizations would be wise to do a big thick article on this issue and a very detailed explanation of the rules, as well as a list of past fines/enforcement actions.
Fines and confiscation of equipment as evidence would be a nice solution.
It is sad that it was/is a ham in this case,but with all the crap radios that are allowed in the US with pre- programmed frequencies that we know the person isn't licensed for this is actually much worse than just this case--- he just got caught.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Hams should always know better=do better. But time and time again, they don't. Whether it's this latest, or this guy (licensed since 1984) with unauthorized trunking radios, the FCC appears to be taking a stance: if you have a ham license, you are held to a higher standard than Joe Consumer when it comes to FCC rule violations.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Right.
"Should have known better" would apply, but we know there's a small group of hams that don't. There are those that think the learning stops after the 35 question multiple choice test is passed. There are those that have never read the rules. There are those that will take legal advice from the internet, but never bother to check the source. All signs of a failure somewhere along the way. Figuring out where that failure was and fixing it isn't the responsibility of the affected agency, or this web site, or the amateur radio community as a whole. Anyone that fails even this most basic level of understanding needs to have their license revoked, equipment confiscated for evidence and permanently banned from owning anything other than a Micky Mouse toy 49MHz walkie talkie.
But I digress and am making assumptions.
Exactly. Unfortunately that's not on the multiple choice test and there are those that cannot figure it out on their own. The internet is not a reliable source of reinforcement for this trait, either.
I think the whackerism part of this is a psychological issue that needs to be addressed. And whackerism seems to be a common thread through many of the NOV/Enforcement actions.
Similar threads
- Locked
