Don't be an idiot

[kmcdonaugh]

https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-proposes-record-34-000-fine-for-alleged-interference-and-unauthorized-transmissions-during-idaho

Idaho man being fined $34k for transmitting on Rescue and Fire emergency freqs during an actual emergency. Don't be that guy, stick to your approved, licensed frequencies, and definitely don't transmit on unauthorized frequencies during a friggin emergency.

[back4more70]

A slightly similar thing happened in my town, this dude thought he would be a radio cop and took it too far:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/kevin-w-bondy-0

[wayoverthere]

Maybe part of it is what was being interfered with or the situation, but it boggles me a bit that the intentional and repeated interference of Bondy was less of a fine than the well intentioned (warning of hazards) but unauthorized transmissions. 

I think the inference i saw elsewhere related to the official statements made about this recent one was that it amounted to making an example out of him.

[axorlov]

2 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

but it boggles me a bit that the intentional and repeated interference of Bondy was less of a fine than the well intentioned (warning of hazards) but unauthorized transmissions

Nah... I think it's appropriate difference. One is merely messing with the Shopping Mall, another is stomping on communications during a real fire. Also, consider that $24K in 2009 and $35K today are probably not that far apart.

[axorlov]

And I was incorrect with my last statement about parity of $24K then and $35K now. According to BigMac Index, $35K today is much less than $24K back then.

Data is from inflationchart.com

 

[wayoverthere]

2 minutes ago, axorlov said:

Nah... I think it's appropriate difference. One is merely messing with the Shopping Mall, another is stomping on communications during a real fire. Also, consider that $24K in 2009 and $35K today are probably not that far apart.

Was he actually stomping on their communications, though? I haven't read every account of it, but what I've read (including a skim of the proposal) just mentions him transmitting on their frequencies.

[back4more70]

6 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

Was he actually stomping on their communications, though? I haven't read every account of it, but what I've read (including a skim of the proposal) just mentions him transmitting on their frequencies.

I believe he was, including transmitting music on the channels used by the mall to pretty much block their communications.

[axorlov]

2 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

Was he actually stomping on their communications, though? I haven't read every account of it, but what I've read (including a skim of the proposal) just mentions him transmitting on their frequencies.

He had no clue in his hangar. He may very well be stomping on comms between command center and remote crew, who he can't hear. One can deduce a lot by listening to open air, but he still did not have a band plan (since he was not a responder) with assigned times, frequencies and reserve frequencies. And just simple distraction counts too. If you are dispatcher talking to Crew A, B and C, you already have your mind busy for the responding to some random dude, no matter how well intentioned. There is a phone line for that, with different dispatcher.

[wayoverthere]

57 minutes ago, back4more70 said:

I believe he was, including transmitting music on the channels used by the mall to pretty much block their communications.

Yeah, I read up on Bondy, I think one of the times they even had him with a vehicle parked nearby with a Yagi pointed at the mall, no question of intentional there.

57 minutes ago, axorlov said:

He had no clue in his hangar. He may very well be stomping on comms between command center and remote crew, who he can't hear. One can deduce a lot by listening to open air, but he still did not have a band plan (since he was not a responder) with assigned times, frequencies and reserve frequencies. And just simple distraction counts too. If you are dispatcher talking to Crew A, B and C, you already have your mind busy for the responding to some random dude, no matter how well intentioned. There is a phone line for that, with different dispatcher.

Fair points...I'm not disagreeing that he may have been, I just haven't seen any specifics that he was. I also wonder if, after his first key up, they told him to get the hell off their frequency.

I know they're minor layers, but IMO, there are subtle differences between potential interference and actual interference, and differences between one situation of unauthorized transmission with good intentions vs Multiple ongoing issues with warnings and notices to stop, and not just continuing but leveling up. I also know anything public safety isn't something you want to mess with, though.

I think its just that it seems a bit disproportionate based on the details available that I'm hung up on

[SteveShannon]

36 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

Yeah, I read up on Bondy, I think one of the times they even had him with a vehicle parked nearby with a Yagi pointed at the mall, no question of intentional there.

Fair points...I'm not disagreeing that he may have been, I just haven't seen any specifics that he was. I also wonder if, after his first key up, they told him to get the hell off their frequency.

I know they're minor layers, but IMO, there are subtle differences between potential interference and actual interference, and differences between one situation of unauthorized transmission with good intentions vs Multiple ongoing issues with warnings and notices to stop, and not just continuing but leveling up. I also know anything public safety isn't something you want to mess with, though.

I think its just that it seems a bit disproportionate based on the details available that I'm hung up on

“According to the FCC account, a Forest Service supervisor drove to the airstrip, identified Frawley as the person and told him to stop.”

[wayoverthere]

12 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

“According to the FCC account, a Forest Service supervisor drove to the airstrip, identified Frawley as the person and told him to stop.”

Good catch...the impression I get from what I can find seems like he didn't continue after that...is there something else I'm missing?

[SteveShannon]

4 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

Good catch...the impression I get from what I can find seems like he didn't continue after that...is there something else I'm missing?

I don’t know. In a ham group someone said that he did continue even after a personal visit, but I have no specific knowledge besides the article I quoted. But eight times he transmitted on their frequency with his ham radio handheld while they were trying to direct aircraft. I’m not full of sympathy for him. I’m surprised there aren’t criminal charges. 

[WRQC290]

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?

 

[SteveShannon]

I never did find something that clearly states he transmitted after the personal warning, but I had to chuckle at this post:

walrus01 16 hours ago | next [–]   Oh wow I literally know this guy. Jason Frawley. He's a big part of a very vocal group of rural, deep red state WISP operators who think they're god's own gift to network engineering, and mostly worship at the altar of one specific political figure. Watching their antics has been an endless source of amusement. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Jason and his cohort shoot themselves in the foot with some ill-advised network architecture, rf engineering or network engineering design choice... That he's out there interfering with licensed bands and emergency services is totally unsurprising. That's only the tip of an iceberg of weirdness. There are very, very few FCC enforcement bureau staff members in WA, ID, OR. You have to do something really egregious to get on their radar screen. Every time the FCC fines someone $10k+ it goes in their public daily digest emails as a "notice of apparent liability" and is quite a rare event in the Pacific Northwest. It is not at all as if the FCC has vans full of guys with spectrum analyzers and such driving around the area trying to hunt down and fine people for petty reasons. To get fined by them you really have to go far outside the accepted norms for two way radio or wisp operations in the area. He has network equipment and repeaters at the mentioned elk butte site and probably thought he was doing something to protect his gear. His FCC licensed part 101 fdd band plan ptp microwave links are all part of the public record as part of the FCC ULS public data for the curious.

[wayoverthere]

44 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

I don’t know. In a ham group someone said that he did continue even after a personal visit, but I have no specific knowledge besides the article I quoted. But eight times he transmitted on their frequency with his ham radio handheld while they were trying to direct aircraft. I’m not full of sympathy for him. I’m surprised there aren’t criminal charges. 

Yeah, that would make a lot more sense if there's more than is being reported. Given that comment you found, that does also support there's more there than Is being covered. Maybe what we're seeing is all they have him dead to rights on

Not exactly sympathetic either...seemed big for what was presented, but makes a lot more sense if it was the tip of the iceberg of his activities and just what they could actually nail him with...ala al Capone.

[SteveShannon]

He transmitted five times on the frequency they used to direct aircraft the first day, “thwarting” their ability to effectively respond (according the the public statement).

He transmitted three times on the second day. At some point during the second day a supervisor dropped what he/she was doing to tell him to knock it off, in spite of the characterization of the fire incident being described as an “all hands on deck” event. 
I could understand someone making an emergency transmission on an unauthorized band once, but eight times?  The guy was trying to make himself more important than he is. 

[wayoverthere]

1 hour ago, Sshannon said:

He transmitted five times on the frequency they used to direct aircraft the first day, “thwarting” their ability to effectively respond (according the the public statement).

He transmitted three times on the second day. At some point during the second day a supervisor dropped what he/she was doing to tell him to knock it off, in spite of the characterization of the fire incident being described as an “all hands on deck” event. 
I could understand someone making an emergency transmission on an unauthorized band once, but eight times?  The guy was trying to make himself more important than he is. 

Ahh, yeah, that's worse. I didn't see the separate days part...lacking a context, it seemed like it was the 8 times all together as part of one incident.

Sympathy status off.

[WRPC505]

9 hours ago, WRQC290 said:

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?

 

IMHO, when it comes to communications interference like in this case - I'm not sure that a federal agency (like the US Forest Service in this case) has jurisdiction over something like that. That would definitely be something for the FCC to handle.

Warren, WRPC505 / WQ1C 

[gortex2]

MY opinion is they should go harder on him. This happens more than folks realize and many walk away with a warning. Other forums have hundreds of pages about hams thinking they can talk on any channel they want if they feel the need. If more folks got fined maybe these yahoos would think before they do stuff like this. If he had info he could have picked up his cell and called the command post. 

[Blaise]

14 hours ago, Sshannon said:

I never did find something that clearly states he transmitted after the personal warning, but I had to chuckle at this post:

walrus01 16 hours ago | next [–]

This fascinates me, so I read that whole thread.  One statement stood out for me:
"in fact, they were trying to manipulate the emergency response to save some of their own equipment"

Assuming this poster knows what they're talking about, I feel like "interfering with the intent to prioritize personal interests" would be a lot more scandalous than just "trying to help, but being a nuisance"...

[WROZ250]

1 hour ago, gortex2 said:

MY opinion is they should go harder on him. This happens more than folks realize and many walk away with a warning. Other forums have hundreds of pages about hams thinking they can talk on any channel they want if they feel the need. If more folks got fined maybe these yahoos would think before they do stuff like this. If he had info he could have picked up his cell and called the command post. 

While I agree with most of what you said in reference to the interference/jammers, what is your beef with Amateur Radio? 

Hams (the vast majority anyway) do not think they can talk on any channel they want.  Where you getting that from???

Indeed, one can find such imbeciles (who think they can transmit anywhere, anytime) pretty much in any radio service/hobby.
Such stupidity by a couple of miscreants isn't exclusive to people who also happen to have a 'Ham' license. 

In any event, if there is one thing in this forum that gets to me from time to time, it is this constant ideology by a few that 'Hams' are somehow 'bad people', idiots, 'snobs', whatever (take your pick).  I would also point out that there is a large percentage of GMRS users on this forum who are also 'hams'.

I guess I just don't understand this constant condemning of that segment of the radio hobby?

[AdmiralCochrane]

More "Freebanders" than hams.  And more than likely, Freebanders misidentified as hams. 

[OffRoaderX]

1 hour ago, WROZ250 said:

In any event, if there is one thing in this forum that gets to me from time to time, it is this constant ideology by a few that 'Hams' are somehow 'bad people', idiots, 'snobs', whatever (take your pick).  I would also point out that there is a large percentage of GMRS users on this forum who are also 'hams'.
 

This is ideology is a result of the constant barrage of ham radio operators acting like snobs, idiots, and whatever (take your pick) in online forums every day seemingly doing their best to chase away newcomers to the hobby.  And yes, GMRS users also do this, but strangely, many of them also have ham callsigns listed on their forum signatures.

[WROZ250]

2 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

This is ideology is a result of the constant barrage of ham radio operators acting like snobs, idiots, and whatever (take your pick) in online forums every day seemingly doing their best to chase away newcomers to the hobby.  And yes, GMRS users also do this, but strangely, many of them also have ham callsigns listed on their forum signatures.

OK, so now we just generalize because a few people have had bad experiences with a few idiots?

I do agree that there are, unfortunately, a few 'hams' who are idiots and can't wait to fling their newfound 'expertise' in people's faces (even if they have it incorrect which is, admittedly, frequently).  However again, that is just a (very) few people overall and, it seems to be only people like yourself who they tend to gravitate towards.  That said, many times people bait them (intentionally and unintentionally). 

I find your videos, for example, entertaining and informative.  But for those not familiar with your style(?) and/or the few miscreant idiots who can't wait to show their 'intelligence', they come across as anything but entertaining and, the idiots are certainly not really interested in your point, despite the fact it is valid.  They wouldn't know that because the idiots stopped listening the moment they heard something they believed to be wrong. 

However again, despite your own (and others) negative experiences with a few miscreant 'hams', they certainly do not represent the vast majority of 'hams'. 

Indeed, there are quite a few GMRS 'aficionados' who can't seem to wait to expound about their expertise (to other GMRS users) based on a single personal experience, despite the fact that they have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about.  Shall we call out all GMRS users because these few??

I suppose my point here is that such idiots are not exclusively (or even predominately) 'Hams', and so when people make blanket negative comments, it's just rude IMHO and unnecessary.  There are plenty of other non-ham idiots who jump in with their 'expertise', do we start generalizing about people in general?  How about the newbies who don't meet the average knowledge level? Do we respond with 'These newbies are always so stupid...'?

It just doesn't belong in a forum that is suppose to foster open discussion.

Too many times I've see valid technical discussions go completely off the rails and/or a post hijacked because somebody generalizes and/or feels compelled to comment about the poster rather than the topic.  It just doesn't belong in these conversations.

Just one opinion.
 

[WRQC290]

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?