Possible NAL for non-type accepted equipment

[radioman2001]

As every body is aware, some more than others, narrow-banding is coming, and very fast. Our agency is as most are right now in a fiscal crisis. Monies set aside for the project are being taken away, and orders cancelled. I did a search on the FCC website for NAL for use of non-type accepted equipment and found very few if any that had anything to do with the subject. I am putting a package together for the bean counters to see what out agency's liability is if we don't complete narrow-banding by the January 1, 2013 date, and we have over 2,500 radios. Does anyone have additional information as to what the FCC will do, and what the daily per radio fines might be for non-type accepted equipment.

 

[N4DES]

I will tell you initially what they will do is to cancel your license if it isn't updated by the required date and the FCC has said that they will do this just like they did for the audit a number of years back. So if you ignore it then the agency will be operating without one that came come with a minimum $10K fine for each occurance.

If you update the license but don't change the equipment you will be operating with non-type accepted equipment. Now while this offense probabaly isn't as bad as operating without a license, the FCC has given fair warning to every licensee under 512 MHz, with the exception of the amateurs and GMRS licensee's.

 

[akanuaka]

The FCC has neither the funding, staffing (<1900FTE's), or desire to screw with public agencies.

Commercial licencess are a much more likley target for whatever enforcement to be undertaken, particularly LMR providers.

For the public agencies that totally ignore the mandate, there might be some type of penalty to pay and there may even be an example made of such an agency or two.

As long as the licensee can show some diligence in movement toward migration, by and large,nothing will happen.

Al

 

[N_Jay]

The FCC has mode it quite clear that after 10 years of time knowing this change was coming they do not even want to entertain waivers (or excuses).

Of course Congress could always add 6 months like they did with DTV. :roll:

 

[WA4MJF]

I don't know if history applies, but the last time we went through this (36F3 to 16F3) a lot departments just had their techs cut the deviation back on the transmitters and lived with the low audio recovery of the
receivers. We did this for years until we got rid of our Prog Lines for Master Pros and Execs. YMMV!

 

[Thunderknight]

If you update the license but don't change the equipment you will be operating with non-type accepted equipment.

Actually if they update the license but keep transmitting with a wideband emission, they'll be operating outside of mask - not a type acceptance issue. Instead it's a violation of their license terms.

You'll also be a possible source of harmful interference to other users.

 

[N4DES]

Actually if they update the license but keep transmitting with a wideband emission, they'll be operating outside of mask - not a type acceptance issue. Instead it's a violation of their license terms.

You'll also be a possible source of harmful interference to other users.

Yes that is very well stated...thanks for the correction.

 

[AlanTilles]

With All Due Respect....

to Al's comments, the FCC does take action all of the time with regard to public safety agencies. The most obvious example are the fines levied on public safety agencies for failing to renew a license. Anyone familiar with the State of Nevada VHF fiasco will know that public safety status does not excuse non-compliance with the Commission's Rules. For my part, I represent Brevard County, Florida. Lesley Lewis sat on an 800 MHz panel with me at IWCE and recounted a story for the audience about the time that the Brevard County jail was operating without a license. The FCC came out and shut down the system. Yes, they shut down a jail radio system!

With regard to the original poster's attempt(s) to locate NALs for operating non-type accepted equipment, we really don't see that happening in Part 90 historically, because generically there isn't much equipment that one would want to use on these frequencies that wasn't type accepted (at least in the past). Most cases that are published are usually in the amateur bands. You might be more successful looking for SALES of non-type accepted equipment (I'm just going from memory, I didn't do a search).


Alan S. Tilles, Esq.
Chairman, Telecommunications Department

atilles@shulmanrogers.com | T 301.231.0930 | F 301.230.2891

SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER, P.A.
12505 PARK POTOMAC AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR, POTOMAC, MD 20854

ShulmanRogers.com | BIO | VCARD

 

[talkpair]

I don't know if history applies, but the last time we went through this (36F3 to 16F3) a lot departments just had their techs cut the deviation back on the transmitters

Does this procedure satisfy the mandate though ?

While this would probably be acceptable on a simplex system, I could see a problem when a repeater is involved......a wideband receiver/reduced deviation transmitter in the repeater ....and a 2nd wideband receiver in the mobiles/portables........Wouldn't the end result be a double-reduction in audio recovery than would occur in a simplex system?

 

[WA4MJF]

It might but in those days we were simplex on 39.10 Mcs, along with the rest of Northeastern NC. We
had real interoperability. I guess had we had repeaters, we coulda added some audio amplification
between the repeater Rx and TX. A little 6AQ5 based amp woulda done it.

 

[zz0468]

Does this procedure satisfy the mandate though ?

No, but it might keep some agencies from getting caught. What's likely to be noticed is not so much the make and model of the radios being used, but the occupied spectrum of the transmitters. If adjacent narrow band systems are getting splattered on by a wideband system that should have been narrowbanded, that would be noticed.

While this would probably be acceptable on a simplex system, I could see a problem when a repeater is involved......a wideband receiver/reduced deviation transmitter in the repeater ....and a 2nd wideband receiver in the mobiles/portables........Wouldn't the end result be a double-reduction in audio recovery than would occur in a simplex system?

No. If a stunt like turning down the deviation of a wideband radio is attempted, then the repeater levels could be compensated to properly account for that. But if both the mobile and repeater transmitters are turned down, with no other adjustment made, then yes, that could happen.