WRQC290

No, no, no. You just have to flash your hambadge then they'll know you outrank them and must stand down.

Diplexer is a better option anyway.

Wonder what would happen if you said "yes, and your LED strobes are causing RF interference, please turn them off"?

@WRQV528 Don't fret over it. If the first files work on specified radios (looks correctly exported to me), it is sufficient that folks are now warned that they may need to modify files depending on what equipment or miscellaneous settings they are using. There are enough CHIRP guides and tutorials on the interwebs.

@wayoverthere Fairly sure, that is exactly how it works. Part of the CHIRP learning curve I guess.

For me, Chirp populates the default value for each field. If tone is not set, the default values are not sent to the radio. So, all those 88.5s mean nothing.

World peace is possible if we just keep hammering home the fact that these are not separate groups.

If we are to take anything on "basic face value" as suggested above, we must do so exactly as written and assume that terminology used doesn't create obscure or unusual definitions that would be beyond a common person. So on basic face value, No provision of FCC regulations prevents an amateur station from using any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to provide essential communications needs in connection to the immediate safety of human life and the immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are unavailable. You could argue that normal communications were unavailable because someone didn't have their cell phone within arm's reach, but that would make you a weirdo. It seems in this particular incident, the relevant questions are: Was life or property in danger? and Were normal methods of communicating unavailable? I haven't read anything to indicate otherwise so I'll assume both are yes. I'm also going to assume that some standard procedure was followed, and the initial call was logged and comms tech/dingdong was instructed to clear the channel or monitor another channel (or method) should someone wish to contact him. That should have been the end of it, but for reasons known only to him he intervened on public safety comms at least 7 more times. IMO that makes him a moron, who deserves more than a strongly worded letter and fine which may or may not be enforceable. Finally, if he really was just concerned about his own equipment burning per that other thread, he should have paid a private fire protection company to get a truck up there and stayed off the radio.

Of course. Any generalization on my part is for the sake of scholarly discussion with regard to the specific situation. I am not privy to any information about this incident that isn't already mentioned in this thread.

@back4more70 It's been a while, so I had to google to confirm. It fits.

@Sshannon Forest service being another federal agency, I can see them passing it off to FCC and calling it a done deal. But they were communicating with Idaho's fire service at the time. I would guess the state should have a say.

I would be shocked to learn that Idaho doesn't have statutes addressing this. I know for certain that California does. It's not a rule, or guideline. It's a law - if you interfere with public safety (broadly defined to include police, fire, ems, and possibly refuse collection), you have committed a criminal act. The penalty is upto a year in jail and $4k in fines per offense.

@Lscott , I'm an internet certified armchair lawyer specializing in Bird Law, so I can say with authority that intentionally interfering with public safety communications has zero to do with spectrum allocations and everything to do with creating an imminent threat to the public at large. IMHO such a case wouldn't get dismissed and the argument could be made that local criminal court is the only appropriate venue in this instance. The only question this raises in my mind, is can the fcc go after a person for improperly using radio equipment in violation of the terms of their license, while at the same time locals prosecute the separate crime of interfering with public safety without creating a double jeopardy situation? If not, despite the federal supremacy clause - the stricter penalty for the criminal act, state law would reign supreme and negate FCC's jurisdiction anyway, no?

I'm on board with @gortex2. While @WRPC505is probably correct in this particular situation, there were state agencies that could have intervened but yielded to the feds... just because? They certainly don't have to. There isn't anywhere I can think of where interfering with public safety communications isn't a criminal act. I suppose it's up to local prosecutors to take up the case, and if they do - the punishments have a great deal more and sharper teeth versus the FCC's letter writing campaigns. I remember reading about a controversy some years back where the FCC had issued 100 million in fines and collected zero. There doesn't seem to be any consequence for just refusing to pay other than no longer having a valid license. Maybe more concerning for commercial broadcasters, but Joe Schmoe in Nowhere Idaho?

I wonder, what makes a particular jurisdiction choose to involve the FCC for enforcement instead of just arresting the offender, toss them in jail for a year and fine them a few grand?