Don't be an idiot

[Lscott]

4 minutes ago, WRQC290 said:

 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’m not aware of any agency other that the FCC with the authority to enforce spectrum allocations or rule violations. IMHO if a local law enforcement agency attempted to take a violator to court it would likely get dismissed if it even got that far. I don’t see a local DA being that dumb, but surprises do happen. There is an awful lot of stupid going around the last few years.

[gortex2]

Your right not all hams do stupid stuff but many do over and over. Its worse now than ever. I had a HAM last week tell me he doesn't need a GMRS license because he just got him ham license. As of late many getting that license dont even know there own rules. The advent of CCR doesn't help. I have been a ham for 25 years as well as a commercial operator and in Public Safety. You have no idea the amount of folks I have met over the years that had no idea about rules or regulations. In the SAR world the biggest issues we have with radios are the hams who mod there radio to use on SAR frequencies. So yes I guess I've not had the please to deal with alot of smart hams over the years.

 

[BoxCar]

He would have to have been violating a regulation that a state or other federal agency had on their books for them to take action. Forestry can't enforce FAA regulations unless they have a similar regulation within their rules. Without specific regulations against causing interference or impeding radio communications they have to defer to the FCC as the agency with the jurisdiction to take action.

[WRQC290]

@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? 

[SteveShannon]

3 minutes ago, WRQC290 said:

@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? 

Prosecution on multiple fronts happens frequently. Agencies will band together to throw everything they can at a person, and jurors, hearing of the long list of charges will frequently vote guilty on something because if a person has been charged with that many offenses he must have done something wrong.

im not saying that’s the case here.  In this case I believe that the clear cut violation is to the fcc regulations.  The forest service could also charge him with some type of interference, but they may want to wait and see how the fcc case proceeds.

[WRQC290]

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.

[WRQC290]

@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.

[back4more70]

15 minutes ago, WRQC290 said:

It's not a rule, or guideline. It's a law - 

Referring to CA penal code 148 (a) (2) I believe?

[WRQC290]

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

 

[Lscott]

49 minutes ago, WRQC290 said:

@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? 

You have a point. Besides the strictly FCC violations I can see where possibly some local laws could apply. In the end it likely will be case specific so I wouldn’t go so far as making generalizations.

[WRQC290]

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.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, WRQC290 said:

Any generalization on my part is for the sake of scholarly discussion with regard to the specific situation.

Nothing wrong with honest debate.

[WRKC935]

The FCC in truth is partly to blame for this stupidity.  Somewhere in the stacks of pages of FCC regulations there is a passage in the hammie law that states that A ham operator may use ANY means at their disposal to communicate an emergency.  Now this has little clarification where it explains that if a General class operator can't raise anyone on the allocated frequencies of his license, he can move to the Extra class frequency allocations and and communicate there.  But he HAS to remain within the allocated amateur radio bands.  So the clowns see this as an excuse to remove the transmit block that keeps their 2 meter ham radio transmitting between 144 and 148 Mhz.  And they cite this very regulation as the reason to modify their radios... so just in case they need to talk directly to the police or fire they can.  I remember when Radio Shack brought out the HTX202 radios that would NOT even receive out of band.  They were a kickass radio, worked extremely well but guys refused to own them because they wouldn't operate out of band.  Had the FCC CLEARLY stated that the any means at their disposal within the allocated amateur radio bands, all this crap wouldn't be as common as it is.  This goes back to the days of code requirements and 5 different licenses classes in ham radio.  But it allowed a Novice license holder to use 2 meters in the case of an emergency.  It was NEVER meant to allow hams to talk to police on their ham radios. 

And this stupidity is still prevalent in ham radio.  I have heard numerous complaints that there is no radio that will connect to an 800Mhz trunked radio system that a ham can get.  And they NEED it 'just in case" and have gone as far as stating that they need to have some public safety frequency available for them their ham radios will work on so they can advise of an emergency.  

Public safety communications is for the greater public good.  Not the good on an individual.  Meaning if the cell networks are down due to an earthquake.  There is a building on fire with 30 people trapped and your father is having a heart attack, getting on the fire / ems frequency and calling for help will get you told to shut the hell up and ignored.  The lives of 30 people are MORE important than that of a single individual.  And they are NOT going to send resources for a single individual if they don't have them in reserve, which after a major earthquake, they are NOT gonna have.  But getting on their frequency DOES put that group of people in greater jeopardy if they are communicating with you and not each other do rescue them.

 

[WRPC505]

13 hours ago, WROZ250 said:

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?

Count me as a GMRS user that also happens to be a ham (31 years).

There are "less than ideal" people in every segment of radio communications - from those who "know it all so bow before me underling" to those who have not a clue in how to operate or behave no matter the mode/frequency they are operating. But as far as ham radio is concerned, even though we have those that fit those characterizations (and I have dealt with those) I know that the good helpful operators are in the majority. The same goes for GMRS.

As for me, I like to offer help if it's needed and if I know a bit about a particular subject matter. But also I like to learn more about certain aspects of ham radio as well as about GMRS. I know I'm a newbie here, so that's why I am following those who give sound and sage advice; it's appreciated more than you'll ever know.

As far as the miscreants and those like them are concerned, I prefer to flip the switch on their crap and move along. I don't need the agitation.

Warren, WRPC505 / WQ1C 

[Lscott]

48 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

 Somewhere in the stacks of pages of FCC regulations there is a passage in the hammie law that states

 

 

It would be more professional if you simply stated Part 97. Then at least people have an idea where to go and look for the specifics. When I read comments like the above I have to question the posters agenda. I usually encounter this from people who have a dislike for Hams. 
 

There is nothing illegal about using radios that have their TX and Rx ranges opened up so long as the operator stays within the limits of their FFC license.
 

Hams have gotten spoiled by modern radios with synthesized frequency generation and depend on the radios firmware to stay within the band limits. For decades that was never the case. Hams aways are required to know the band limits regardless of what technology is used. For example running 5KHz deviation, 25KHz bandwidth, FM on 449.995MHz results in part of the signal falling outside of the Ham 70cm band even if the unmodulated carrier doesn’t.

[WROZ250]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

The FCC in truth is partly to blame for this stupidity.  Somewhere in the stacks of pages of FCC regulations there is a passage in the hammie law that states that A ham operator may use ANY means at their disposal to communicate an emergency.

The 'exemption' is not necessarily for amateur radio specifically.  Anyone can do this if they meet the (extremely strict) defined conditions. 

That said, hams are the least likely to be able to justify doing this, given the bands and modes available to them.  Most hams would be hard pressed to not have some way of summoning help virtually anywhere. 

The rule pertaining to the 'any frequency' is outdated.  When the rule originated (and I do not know when exactly), the specific conditions under which one can do this were potentially more likely.  There were no cell or satellite phones for example.  Indeed, I would consider this exemption/loop hole (take your pick) to be ll but completely obsolete today.

Taken on basic face value:

Condition #1 'is this a case of imminent threat to human life?'
(as in will somebody die if assistance is not obtained immediately. Also note that property damage or loss is not considered here, only human life). 

Condition #2 "is there absolutely no other means of communication available to summon assistance?
Key wording, 'absolutely no other means'.

There are other lesser stipulations in the rule/loop hole, but those are the big two conditions and are next to impossible to satisfy in modern times.

Also note, that the rule does not permit anyone to arbitrarily assist (as in without specifically being requested by authorized persons to do so) in public safety communications. Ergo, you cannot simply defend your actions because you wanted to help.

Similarly, the so called "MARS" modification requires that one be officially registered with the Military Affiliated Radio Service (MARS), which usually includes being provided with a MARS callsign.  One's Amateur license is not enough to justify the mod in your radio. 

Call it what it really is, a Freeband/CB frequency modification.

All that said, when it comes to the MARS mod, unless you actively make use of it to, for example, talk on CB, nobody will likely notice.  Indeed, I hear 'Freebanders' all the time talking about their prized FT101Es and even some talking about their current model, high end ham transceiver, and bragging about using them.  Sure it's illegal, but unless you interfere with a licensed service, the truth is nobody cares including (apparently) the FCC.  Case in point, here is some guy running several KW on 27.025 (AM), but his signal splatters almost 25-35KHz.  He's been operating there for years and no apparent action against him has ever been taken to the best of my knowledge.

As to the primary thread, pick up the mic and start yammering on a public safety or worse, a federal government frequency, as a previously post linked, and you will get the attention of the FCC.  Again as I stated above, the any frequency and time loop hole has 'conditions' which in 99.999% of situations today cannot be legally satisfied. 

That said, whether this dipshit clown ultimately ends up paying the fine is another story.

Enforcement of the rules (and they are rules not law as Randy points out) is all but non existent.  You really have to do something extreme to get noticed, let alone fined.  In most of these publicized cases, that is exactly what the clown in question did.

To be sure, I am not advocating anyone break the rules, but I will say that worrying, for example, if your GMRS radio is part 95e compliant isn't worth worrying about.

Finally, I will reiterate that this 'bad behavior' is not exclusive to amateur radio operators. Indeed, hams are more likely to be the lowest percentage of offenders when it comes to illegal radio related activities.

[wayoverthere]

42 minutes ago, WROZ250 said:

The rule pertaining to the 'any frequency' is outdated.  When the rule originated (and I do not know when exactly), the specific conditions under which one can do this were potentially more likely.  There were no cell or satellite phones for example.  Indeed, I would consider this exemption/loop hole (take your pick) to be ll but completely obsolete today.

Taken on basic face value:

Condition #1 'is this a case of imminent threat to human life?'
(as in will somebody die if assistance is not obtained immediately. Also note that property damage or loss is not considered here, only human life). 

Condition #2 "is there absolutely no other means of communication available to summon assistance?
Key wording, 'absolutely no other means'.

There are other lesser stipulations in the rule/loop hole, but those are the big two conditions and are next to impossible to satisfy in modern times.

I haven't been back up that way recently, but when we traveled up through Utah in 2017, we had the latter part of one day, and most of the next morning with no cell signal. the motel that was our overnight stop had no phones in the rooms, and the internet connection dropped somewhere around 10pm.

in preparation for that, i'd loaded a number of frequencies (some amateur, some public safety) into the only radio i had at the time, a baofeng.  looking back with more knowledge now, i don't actually know how much good it might have been, had it been needed; while definitely unlikely, circumstances where those conditions could be met don't seem all that farfetched...things like sat phones and PLBs seemed a little of a stretch given we were largely sticking to state and interstate highways, save forays into the parks. 

on a side note, Dead Horse Point would have probably made for some awesome range.

[WRQC290]

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.

[AdmiralCochrane]

10 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

The FCC in truth is partly to blame for this stupidity.  Somewhere in the stacks of pages of FCC regulations there is a passage in the hammie law that states that A ham operator may use ANY means at their disposal to communicate an emergency.  Now this

The conditions specified were not met.  He clearly violated regulations he knew. 

[WRKC935]

9 hours ago, Lscott said:

It would be more professional if you simply stated Part 97. Then at least people have an idea where to go and look for the specifics. When I read comments like the above I have to question the posters agenda. I usually encounter this from people who have a dislike for Hams. 
 

There is nothing illegal about using radios that have their TX and Rx ranges opened up so long as the operator stays within the limits of their FFC license.
 

 

Well, I have only be a ham for 20 years.  Do I have an agenda, yes, I dislike stupidity and to a lesser degree, wackers, or wanna be public safety types.  These aren't the average hams that want to do their part, pass traffic in a disaster situation and conduct themselves 'professionally'.  I am referring to the clowns that have a light bar on their car, a big sticker about weather spotting, fake radar dish on the roof of their car and the mandatory ham radio 'police badge' further indicating their self importance.

And the modification to the radio makes it 'illegal' under part 90, not part 97.  The radio was never type accepted under part 90 so if it transmits there it's automatically in violation.  This is regardless of any other regulation or stipulation in the rules that says any means at your disposal.... if you take a ham radio and transmit in another part of the spectrum that's regulated under a different part of the regulation, then the radio has to meet the requirements of that part of the regulation.  Ham radios are NOT part 90 approved, therefore they can't be transmitting there.  It's just as illegal to spin the dial on your HF radio down to the AM broadcast band and start transmitting there.  Again, not because of the part 97 regulations, but because of part 73 that regulates AM  FM broadcast.  And the number of regulations they have to follow is FAR more strict than ham or even part 90. And that's a piece of the spectrum that WILL get the attention of the FCC if you go messing about in it.

 

Here's the problem with all this.  This lie has been being told to other hams for YEARS to the point it's common.  The League refuses to set the matter straight, and tell hams to stop spreading this myth because it will drive away some part of the ham community as a whole that believe they need to be able to talk to the police or fire dispatchers directly 'just in case'.  And the truth is a lot of those guys are one step away from getting a Crown Vic and turning it into a wanna be police car and ending up on the front page of the newspaper for being arrested for impersonation of whoever. 

 

Now all that being said, if you are stuck on a mountain top and you are in trouble, can't get down, or whatever the case may be.  If you have a radio that will talk on the police, fire or dog catcher channel and you call for help, NO ONE is gonna fault you for that. And I seriously doubt you will end up with a fine from the FCC for transmitting a distress message.  But there are limits to when it's acceptable.  And with this specific situation, none of those limits were met. 

[WRQI583]

15 hours ago, gortex2 said:

As of late many getting that license dont even know there own rules.

Believe it or not, I have heard many hams over the years and probably more so regular civilians, tell me that if you have a ham radio license, you are authorized to transmit on ANY frequencies in an emergency, public safety included. When I went for my ham ticket back in 1996, that's not the way I read the rules. The way I read them is that in an emergency, I may use any HAM frequencies, but only during that emergency and related to that emergency. If there was an emergency and one of my radios could transmit out of band, I wouldn't dare call over public safety. I would use a cell phone and if that didn't work, I would use my brain to devise a plan to rectify the situation. I've heard of people using public safety frequencies on an out of band radio in a real valid emergency and getting in trouble for it. If you do happen to do that, it had better be that you are using actual public safety radios and the staff in possession of them are down and out and you are rescuing them by using their radios to call for help. 

[WROZ250]

6 hours ago, WRQI583 said:

... many hams over the years and probably more so regular civilians...

... I've heard of people using public safety frequencies on an out of band radio in a real valid emergency and getting in trouble for it. If you do happen to do that, it had better be that you are using actual public safety radios...

When invoking the 'any  frequency and time' rule in an emergency (as @WRKC935pointed out) it doesn't matter the type acceptance of the radio.  The valid invocation of the rule/loop hole has to do with it being a genuine life at risk AND there is absolutely no other means to contact help.

Really, it's pretty simple to understand this, but as others have pointed out, there is a cross section of many radio hobbyists who fancy themselves as authorized auxiliary police, fire, and rescue personnel who constantly self justify the use of the rule/loophole.

If you look at the cases where people have been cited by the FCC, virtually all of them had zero justification to do so.

As far as ham radio, yes, in an emergency you may use any mode/frequency within the ham bands, including those beyond your license class.  That said, like the 'any frequency any time' rule/loophole, your actions will still need to be justified to avoid a NAL

 

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Well, I have only be a ham for 20 years.  Do I have an agenda, yes, I dislike stupidity and to a lesser degree, wackers, or wanna be public safety types.  These aren't the average hams that want to do their part, pass traffic in a disaster situation and conduct themselves 'professionally'.  I am referring to the clowns that have a light bar on their car, a big sticker about weather spotting, fake radar dish on the roof of their car and the mandatory ham radio 'police badge' further indicating their self importance.

And the modification to the radio makes it 'illegal' under part 90, not part 97.  The radio was never type accepted under part 90 so if it transmits there it's automatically in violation.  This is regardless of any other regulation or stipulation in the rules that says any means at your disposal.... if you take a ham radio and transmit in another part of the spectrum that's regulated under a different part of the regulation, then the radio has to meet the requirements of that part of the regulation.  Ham radios are NOT part 90 approved, therefore they can't be transmitting there.  It's just as illegal to spin the dial on your HF radio down to the AM broadcast band and start transmitting there.  Again, not because of the part 97 regulations, but because of part 73 that regulates AM  FM broadcast.  And the number of regulations they have to follow is FAR more strict than ham or even part 90. And that's a piece of the spectrum that WILL get the attention of the FCC if you go messing about in it.

 

Here's the problem with all this.  This lie has been being told to other hams for YEARS to the point it's common.  The League refuses to set the matter straight, and tell hams to stop spreading this myth because it will drive away some part of the ham community as a whole that believe they need to be able to talk to the police or fire dispatchers directly 'just in case'.  And the truth is a lot of those guys are one step away from getting a Crown Vic and turning it into a wanna be police car and ending up on the front page of the newspaper for being arrested for impersonation of whoever. 

 

Now all that being said, if you are stuck on a mountain top and you are in trouble, can't get down, or whatever the case may be.  If you have a radio that will talk on the police, fire or dog catcher channel and you call for help, NO ONE is gonna fault you for that. And I seriously doubt you will end up with a fine from the FCC for transmitting a distress message.  But there are limits to when it's acceptable.  And with this specific situation, none of those limits were met. 

You need to reread the section of my post mentioning radio modification. I don’t recall saying anything about transmitting out of band much less what specific service.

Personally I have a fleet of radios FCC certified for Parts 90, and 95. They are also legal to use under Part 97. As long as I hold a valid license for the particular service I don’t have a reason to worry about the FCC. I keep electronic files for every radio I own. That includes manufacturers brochures, operating manuals, service manuals, FCC certification grants etc. that I can locate. I know what I can and can’t do with a radio. 
 

You would be surprised by what shows up. Some of my commercial analog/digital radios have Part 95 certification. Until the FCC authorizes digital voice modes I just can’t use that feature. The radio is still legal to use on FM.

[WRKC935]

9 hours ago, Lscott said:

 

Personally I have a fleet of radios FCC certified for Parts 90, and 95. They are also legal to use under Part 97. As long as I hold a valid license for the particular service I don’t have a reason to worry about the FCC. I keep electronic files for every radio I own. That includes manufacturers brochures, operating manuals, service manuals, FCC certification grants etc. that I can locate. I know what I can and can’t do with a radio. 
 

You would be surprised by what shows up. Some of my commercial analog/digital radios have Part 95 certification. Until the FCC authorizes digital voice modes I just can’t use that feature. The radio is still legal to use on FM.

Naaa, I think we have similar jobs and see similar silliness.

But, I think you were missing my point.  If someone modifies a commercially sold ham radio that is 'type accepted' for ham use under part 97, and you cut the block out of it and transmit on some other service, be it commercial LMR, public safety pool or even GMRS, it's illegal because it's not a type accepted radio for that service.  Service being controlled by another part of the FCC regulations.  We are 95, ham is 97, commercial is 90.x for SMR and 90.y for public safety. 

Anything is pretty much legal on ham (part 97) as long as it's spectrally pure enough and below the maximum power level for the band it's on. 

Of course, GMRS and SMR are not that way, the radios have to be tested and accepted for the specific service they are operated on.  GMRS there is little enforcement and there is a lot of lee-way. Not that the LMR is closely watched either, but there is more enforcement there than GMRS or ham.

 

[MichaelLAX]

11 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Naaa, I think we have similar jobs and see similar silliness.

But, I think you were missing my point.  If someone modifies a commercially sold ham radio that is 'type accepted' for ham use under part 97, and you cut the block out of it and transmit on some other service, be it commercial LMR, public safety pool or even GMRS, it's illegal because it's not a type accepted radio for that service.  Service being controlled by another part of the FCC regulations.  We are 95, ham is 97, commercial is 90.x for SMR and 90.y for public safety. 

Anything is pretty much legal on ham (part 97) as long as it's spectrally pure enough and below the maximum power level for the band it's on. 

Of course, GMRS and SMR are not that way, the radios have to be tested and accepted for the specific service they are operated on.  GMRS there is little enforcement and there is a lot of lee-way. Not that the LMR is closely watched either, but there is more enforcement there than GMRS or ham.

 

There is no such thing as "type acceptance" for Part 97, ham radio...

Onomatopoeia!?!