"Illegal" radios

[NWHov]

I believe in order to be a "rule breaker" you first need to know the rules, otherwise you're just ignorant.  I like all your input and discussions on the matter so I can make informed decisions if I want to "break the rules" or remain ignorant.  I see some value to breaking rules because some FCC rules are limiting and may impede ones ability to reach a contact.  But I guess if you don't understand what your transmissions are doing or capable of doing (interfering with emergency radios, etc...) someone should school you. 

Another thought is how could FCC enforce any GMRS when you only have to pay $35 for a "license" without a general knowledge test.  A drivers license requires a general knowledge test.  Could ignorance possibly be a defense from any FCC enforcement actions since no one required you to know to even get the license in first place?  I'm pretty sure in the eyes of the law, ignorance is not a defense but could this why enforcement is so low?

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, NWHov said:

Another thought is how could FCC enforce any GMRS when you only have to pay $35 for a "license" without a general knowledge test.  A drivers license requires a general knowledge test.  Could ignorance possibly be a defense from any FCC enforcement actions since no one required you to know to even get the license in first place?  I'm pretty sure in the eyes of the law, ignorance is not a defense but could this why enforcement is so low?

No.  Not to parrot someone who has thankfully moved along but when you submitted your application to the FCC you “signed” saying that you understood and agreed to obey the rules. Lying there is also punishable, perhaps even more easily than noncompliance with the rules. 

[WRUE951]

2 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

was the police report submitted to the fcc?

No,,  But that would have been a good idea.. We didnt learn about the police call until a few weeks after when the father got on and shared what he did..  Wish i would have thught of that though  I'm one of the guys that sent a complaint to the FCC 

[SteveShannon]

10 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

No,,  But that would have been a good idea.. We didnt learn about the police call until a few weeks after when the father got on and shared what he did..  Wish i would have thught of that though  I'm one of the guys that sent a complaint to the FCC 

I don’t know for certain if it would help, but I would recommend compiling a list of the various complaints that you and others have had including the police report and submitting it to the FCC. 

[OffRoaderX]

12 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

I don’t know for certain if it would help, but I would recommend compiling a list of the various complaints that you and others have had including the police report and submitting it to the FCC. 

Based on the FCC's history/record, it wont help.

The FCC has made it abundantly and unmistakably clear that they do not care.

[WRUE951]

54 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

Based on the FCC's history/record, it wont help.

The FCC has made it abundantly and unmistakably clear that they do not care.

Agree, but a paper trail is better than no trail  

[Blaise]

You know, every radio is illegal, if you use it wrong enough...

[SteveShannon]

55 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

Based on the FCC's history/record, it wont help.

The FCC has made it abundantly and unmistakably clear that they do not care.

I know there have been some enforcement actions taken by the FCC. I think it all depends on the seriousness and repetitiveness of the interference. I suspect that many of the complaints the FCC receives are from people who are simply jealous that someone else gets away with ignoring rules that they follow.  Most of those complaints should be ignored. 
The behavior described by @WRUE951 exceeds that threshold in my opinion.  If necessary a call to a U.S. senator or representative could help. 

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, Blaise said:

You know, every radio is illegal, if you use it wrong enough...

Touché!

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, Blaise said:

You know, every radio is illegal, if you use it wrong enough...

and we shiould all be in prison  

[WRXB215]

7 hours ago, Blaise said:

You know, every radio is illegal, if you use it wrong enough...

Very similar to the one I heard, "every radio is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough."

[amaff]

14 minutes ago, WRXB215 said:

Very similar to the one I heard, "every machine is a smoke machine if you use it wrong enough."

Fixed

[NWHov]

On 8/1/2025 at 9:44 AM, SteveShannon said:

No.  Not to parrot someone who has thankfully moved along but when you submitted your application to the FCC you “signed” saying that you understood and agreed to obey the rules. Lying there is also punishable, perhaps even more easily than noncompliance with the rules. 

Ahhh yeah, the I Understand All The Rules checkbox above the esignature with the link to Title 47 next to it.  I almost forgot I read all that...anyways, how bout them Dodgers?

[LeoG]

I actually read it so I didn't perjure myself.  By the time I was done doing the license I had 8 tabs open.  Nice efficient govt website eh?

[WRYZ926]

Some metal pins long enough to hit the center conductor stuck into coax has stopped the ID10T's in the past.

Not that I would ever condone doing this.

We have a guy that has gotten kicked off most local 2m repeaters sever times. He tries to make his rounds on each repeater until he wears out his welcome. This last time our executive board sent him an official letter telling him not to use our repeaters. So far he has not gotten on any of our repeaters since receiving the letter. We will see how long that lasts.

Unfortunately an official cease and desist letter doesn't do any good if the person decides to ignore the letter.

You can go through the motions, gather evidence and then submit a complaint to the FCC. You might get a response from the FCC but don't hold your breath waiting for one. As others have mentioned, one has to really mess up and cause a major problem before the FCC will even look into things.

I have a neighbor that was using those ultrasonic pest deterrent devices in her yard. Those devices hurt my ears and caused bad headaches. They also caused interference with my radios. I filed several complaints with the FCC and never once heard anything back from them. The state actually made her stop using those devices once she became a foster parent.

[NWHov]

39 minutes ago, LeoG said:

I actually read it so I didn't perjure myself.  By the time I was done doing the license I had 8 tabs open.  Nice efficient govt website eh?

If it was efficient (clear and understanding), I think these debates and this forum would not exist.  Maybe the FCC should decode all the rules on to 5-10 pages.  Just tell us like it is vs letting everyone interpret 1 rule, 10 different ways.  I wasn't going to bring it up on this thread, but I had Grok interpret some rule 95 for me and he had a whole different conversation from what we had here.  He turned our one dimensional conversation into multiple dimensions.  I'm still trying to understand one dimension so I had to dismiss his interpretations.  

[UncleYoda]

15 minutes ago, NWHov said:

If it was efficient (clear and understanding), I think these debates and this forum would not exist.  Maybe the FCC should decode all the rules on to 5-10 pages.  Just tell us like it is vs letting everyone interpret 1 rule, 10 different ways.  I wasn't going to bring it up on this thread, but I had Grok interpret some rule 95 for me and he had a whole different conversation from what we had here.  He turned our one dimensional conversation into multiple dimensions.  I'm still trying to understand one dimension so I had to dismiss his interpretations.  

I don't know who Grok is (AI I suppose - hate that stuff).  But the problem would be what we see here all the time - people cannot comprehend the meaning of even simply stated rules, and/or they only want to look for ways to cheat.  And, preconceived notions of what one thinks the regs say often can't be overcome just by reading the wording.

[NWHov]

7 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

I don't know who Grok is (AI I suppose - hate that stuff).  But the problem would be what we see here all the time - people cannot comprehend the meaning of even simply stated rules, and/or they only want to look for ways to cheat.  And, preconceived notions of what one thinks the regs say often can't be overcome just by reading the wording.

I don't get into tech much but I have to say, AI is very impressive.  One could probably attach Title 47 to AI and ask it to sum it up in 5-10 pages and get more from that reading than the current.  That might take a paid version of AI and not the free one I use.

After working for a state gov't for over 30 years, I believe things are written gray on purpose to be able to interpret as they see fit.  It may seem and look "simply stated" if you look at just that sentence, one dimensional, but when you read on, other statements counter that "simply stated" sentence creating confusion, debate, fights, protests, and anarchy.  Ultimately people then conclude there own interpretation.  It may not be they are looking to cheat, but choosing an interpretation that works for them.

[LeoG]

42 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

I don't know who Grok is (AI I suppose - hate that stuff).  But the problem would be what we see here all the time - people cannot comprehend the meaning of even simply stated rules, and/or they only want to look for ways to cheat.  And, preconceived notions of what one thinks the regs say often can't be overcome just by reading the wording.

Words like "shall" and "must" could be used instead of recommended and should.

[LeoG]

8 minutes ago, NWHov said:

I don't get into tech much but I have to say, AI is very impressive.  One could probably attach Title 47 to AI and ask it to sum it up in 5-10 pages and get more from that reading than the current.  That might take a paid version of AI and not the free one I use.

After working for a state gov't for over 30 years, I believe things are written gray on purpose to be able to interpret as they see fit.  It may seem and look "simply stated" if you look at just that sentence, one dimensional, but when you read on, other statements counter that "simply stated" sentence creating confusion, debate, fights, protests, and anarchy.  Ultimately people then conclude there own interpretation.  It may not be they are looking to cheat, but choosing an interpretation that works for them.

Ding ding ding

 

We have a wiener.

[UncleYoda]

16 minutes ago, NWHov said:

It may not be they are looking to cheat, but choosing an interpretation that works for them.

I think you haven't been here long enough yet.

[SteveShannon]

33 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Words like "shall" and "must" could be used instead of recommended and should.

Not unless you intend to make something mandatory. 
 

The single largest problem with regulations is that people don’t know how to read them. Words have very specific legal implications, no more and no less. Lawyers are trained in how to interpret those meanings. Most other people read something into them that doesn’t exist. 
I am a member of the NFPA Pyrotechnic Technical Committee. The amount of work and time it takes to add, subtract, or change a few lines of NFPA sample code is immense but the end goal is always that there be one and only one interpretation. 

[UncleYoda]

I don't know, Steve.  Lawyers and legalese is often more the problem than the solution. (That goes for laws as much as regulations.)  Part 97 doesn't seem to have so much vague language.  Hams don't have to argue regulations much, but they do apply the perceived tradition without bothering to see if that is what the regs actually say.

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, NWHov said:

I don't get into tech much but I have to say, AI is very impressive.  One could probably attach Title 47 to AI and ask it to sum it up in 5-10 pages and get more from that reading than the current.  That might take a paid version of AI and not the free one I use.

After working for a state gov't for over 30 years, I believe things are written gray on purpose to be able to interpret as they see fit.  It may seem and look "simply stated" if you look at just that sentence, one dimensional, but when you read on, other statements counter that "simply stated" sentence creating confusion, debate, fights, protests, and anarchy.  Ultimately people then conclude there own interpretation.  It may not be they are looking to cheat, but choosing an interpretation that works for them.

Here’s your chance. The FCC is asking for people to make suggestions for how to improve the regulations:

 

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, UncleYoda said:

they do apply the perceived tradition without bothering to see if that is what the regs actually say.

Amen to that!