WRQC290
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by WRQC290
-
-
16 minutes ago, tinaeuc said:
I don’t want a switch
Diplexer is a better option anyway.
-
7 hours ago, wayoverthere said:
both officers separately asked if the radios in my truck were police scanners
Wonder what would happen if you said "yes, and your LED strobes are causing RF interference, please turn them off"?
- wayoverthere and WRPC505
-
2
-
@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.
-
-
On 6/12/2022 at 6:46 AM, WRQI583 said:
many hams over the years and probably more so regular civilians
World peace is possible if we just keep hammering home the fact that these are not separate groups.
- DeoVindice and Blaise
-
2
-
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. -
17 minutes ago, Lscott said:
In the end it likely will be case specific so I wouldn’t go so far as making generalizations.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, BoxCar said:
Without specific regulations
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?
-
No objection to digital modes but, I doubt they would consider that proposal actionable for at least a decade out. They aren't exactly known for efficiency after all. I get the feeling they have an agenda they're already following, and it seems to focus on commercial services. Personal, 2 way, and hobby radio are an after thought for the time being.
-
6 hours ago, WRKC935 said:
Why is it an issue?
It's just weird, would be my guess. Just for funsies though, I did some rapid googling to see if mention of 2 way radio had been added to California's wiretap, eavesdropping and anti paparazzi laws and there is! Specifically, 2 way radio (except where a cellular, or wireless phone is concerned) is excluded from them all. I would wager that it's the same everywhere. So it's reasonable to assume there is a recording of all the stupid things we say on air.
-
GMRS isn't for experimentation.
-
@ritter6281 The 5G is identical to the 5R, just different programming. Also it's so easy to unlock rx/tx on all the frequencies that you have to take special precautions to avoid accidentally doing just that.
-
They work out of the box with other 75's. I haven't hooked either of mine up to a computer, but the manual doesn't even indicate repeater functions or settings. I did some googling for you though, and it seems it may be possible to use RA685 software to get that column available for you. Take that as you will, and at your own risk. Maybe check if CHIRP has support as well, I wouldn't hold your breath though.
-
@WRQI583 I really was just making a joke about CB. I'm very close to the LB/LA port and 90% of CB traffic is drivers just doing their jobs, looking for parking or for someone to move their rig, and whatnot. It's very rare that anything interesting is going on there, just mundane routine stuff.
The noisemakers, echo, massive amps, and beep-boop stuff get annoying to listen to, But the last time I tuned around the cb band I noticed more than a few drivers were starting to chastise the ones who use that stuff. Not sure what that's all about, but maybe the trends in CB are changing? -
-
4 hours ago, Sshannon said:
I just thought it funny that he literally said “I don’t condemn an entire radio service, but I condemn CB!”
I'm so glad you got the joke.
6 hours ago, WROZ250 said:everyone has their right to an opinion I suppose
It seems clear that none of us are prepared to change them either. But those CB people, whew. Am I right, or am I right?
5 hours ago, marcspaz said:but then brags about getting his license when he was 10
I wouldn't call it bragging. And now I'm taking you off my Christmas card list Marc.
-
17 hours ago, WROZ250 said:
you condemn an entire radio service.
Yes. But actually, I didn't condemn an entire radio service, I made clear my view that ham is overrated and not the best for emergency communications. It's a perfectly acceptable hobby for the type of people who enjoy that sort of thing. At the very least it gives particular people something to do besides mistaking the brake for the gas pedal. Now, CB on the other hand, I strongly condemn and believe it has no place in a civilized society.
17 hours ago, WROZ250 said:no current or former amateur license on record
You didn't look hard enough.
-
There are 2 types of people. Those who have time to sit around gabbing on a radio, and cool kids who hang out with each other at the bar comparing antennas. Putting the two groups together would probably cause a tear in the space-time continuum. They're just too different. To stir up interest in radio stuff you have to overcome its outmoded nature and attach its usefulness to more modern hobbies. Breaker, breaker 420 code 69 on tik tok QSY BYOB. CinnamonChallenge clear. Or whatever BS is the thing now. I'm good emerging from the bunker only once a week for my Taco Tuesday/Disaster Prep meeting and letting other people do the public outreach.
Don't be an idiot
in FCC Rules Discussion
Posted
No, no, no. You just have to flash your hambadge then they'll know you outrank them and must stand down.