Echolink and cell phone laws?

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KD2AFV, Nov 13, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: l-assoc
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
  1. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    I, too, remember the account. It was, I believe in the ARRL Letter. Don't know what the outcome was. If it reached a Federal Court, I would think the conviction would be overturned........................

    In any case, we hams need to be vigilant. We must not roll over and play dead or prove ourselves to be compliant sheep. I am pursuing this despite those who exhibit their "one upmanship" or funny remarks. One pile of excrement heaped upon us will result in the vultures returning to poop on our heads again and again & we won't have an amateur radio service/hobby at all. If the states get away with this & its not challenged, they'll come up with more restrictions.
     
  2. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, we're up to one. I recall that account also at best indirectly related to the cell phone/ham radio issue.
     
  3. AG6QR

    AG6QR Subscriber QRZ Page

    But why don't you think the Tenth Amendment says what it says? Since it is part of the Constitution, it can't be overridden by a mere act of the legislature.

    The first sentence of the Communications Act of 1934 claims it gets its constitutional authority based on the Interstate Commerce clause. But since Amateur radio is strictly noncommercial, how strongly does that apply?

    You've pointed to FCC rulings claiming it has authority, but of course they'd make that claim, just as states would claim they have the right to regulate distracted driving. There are conflicting interests here, and some would reasonably claim the right of the States to save lives by avoiding distracted driving trumps the right of the FCC to allow mobile rag-chews. Since the FCC brief is based on the benefit of amateurs using skywarn, and skywarn has different value in different states due to the different weather conditions, perhaps courts would allow the various states to weigh the safety issues for themselves.

    Until an entity with authority over both the States and the FCC referees the dispute, neither you nor I know for sure how it will turn out.
     
    KU4X and K3XR like this.
  4. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Moderator Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    Well in that case, it's just a back up camera monitor.
     
    KX4O and AG6QR like this.
  5. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sorry, I’m not buying your distinction about “noncommercial” activity and that amateur radio shouldn’t be regulated federally because of the 10th Amendment.

    Commerce doesn’t have to be for profit. Consider Newman’s Own , a now large non-profit company which was specifically set up to manufacture and sell salad dressings and other foods nationwide, and turn the proceeds over to charity. Yet is does all the same things any other national food manufacturer does in the normal course of business except the last step of who gets the proceeds. It would be absurd to claim it’s not a commercial entity.

    Likewise radio waves can be generated by for-profit or not-for-profit entities including amateurs. The physics of propagation doesn’t care, and clearly regulation is needed on a national basis to avoid interference and chaos between and to both kinds of entities.

    Another example would be medical aircraft and their flight operations by non-profit hospitals or air ambulance companies. Clearly it would be absurd to allow them to operate without being subject to FAA regulations just because of where the proceeds go.
     
    KX4O and AG6QR like this.
  6. AG6QR

    AG6QR Subscriber QRZ Page

    You definitely have some good points, and I wouldn't seriously expect that the courts would reverse decades of FCC regulation of amateur radio. If nothing else, the FCC certainly has the right to establish regulations that will keep amateurs from interfering with commercial radio services, because at least that much is essential to protect the Interstate Commerce that occurs outside our bands over the airwaves. And I suspect virtually all of what the FCC does with the Amateur Service can be justified on the basis of regulating and promoting Interstate Commerce.

    But, on the face of it, it seems absurd to me that the FCC could preempt a State's Tenth Amendment right to regulate driving safety, just for the sake of promoting an Amateur's right to perform non-commercial communications in the name of Interstate Commerce. Especially if it's already established that the state has a right to prohibit clearly commercial communications (cell phones) under the same circumstances that the FCC claims the Interstate Commerce provision allows it to insist amateurs must be allowed to perform noncommercial communications.

    But perhaps that's not a winning argument. I think there are other arguments to be made when balancing the State's interest in regulating driving safety against the FCC's interest in allowing unrestricted Amateur communications. And I think there's a fair chance that the States would be granted the discretion to make their own decisions.

    But I also think that one side or the other would back down well before it went very far in the courts. When it comes down to it, I don't think many interests in the State governments or the FCC consider us worth fighting that hard over.
     
    KX4O, K3XR and N0TZU like this.
  7. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Moderator Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    Well I am all for safe driving practices, but you have to admit all this over regulation is crowding us into a corner by restricting our activities.
     
  8. WZ7U

    WZ7U Subscriber QRZ Page

    So, how do I get to see this proposal for myself?
     
  9. K4KWH

    K4KWH Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is because the two "services"(?) are two different things. One (cell phone) is a consumer contract device, the other (two way/amateur radio) is DIRECTLY licensed by the Federal government who grants privileges of operation according to the Part of 47 CFR it is under. For example, using your scenario, the state wouldn't have to bother to apply for a license to operate; they'd just 'license' themselves! But they cannot do that. They, too, must abide by the Rules set forth just as we amateurs are to abide by our Part 97. So to prove our case in court, the two things must be pried apart and dealt with separately. Our part is to be able to show that, as a separate and completely different animal, it has little to no effect on driving, that FCC DOES have traditional, historic, and legal authority to permit licensees to operate their mobile radios because of those things. And, finally, there is already court filings (91-36) that already part of the Federal record. That filing shows that FCC and Congress itself intend(ed) that mobile amateur radio should be unrestricted in our ability to "transport our mobile radios across state and local boundaries for the purpose of transmitting on authorized frequencies". Permitting states to regulate an activity, impede by legislation, etc. has the effect of impeding and countermanding the intent of Congress and FCC as to amateur radio. That's why I said, IF states do this, win their case, whatever, then they can forget about ME ever helping THEM using my amateur radio. They can go do things that are anatomically impossible to themselves. Two way radio has a microscopic effect on driving. "Cause and effect" is essentially what I am daring the states to show. I bet they can't show the "cause" WRT amateur radio.

    A blanket Rule issued by FCC would (1) preclude states from countermanding/superceding FCC Rules, 2) prevent a plethora of confusing and impossible to follow rules, enacted by states, 3) Protect amateurs from such unnecessary regulations. I am hopeful we get it. Its been almost a year and, even given that the Government is slow, it is an encouraging sign because if my Petition had no merit I speculate they would have said NO by now. We are lucky that more states DO recognize FCC's authority and have already exempted two way radio. The hold-outs are the "nanny states".
     
    W1TRY likes this.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Actually, both are directly licensed services, and directly regulated by FCC.

    Cellular radiotelephone is governed by 47 CFR 22, Subpart H (and probably indirectly in other places). The provider does the licensing and management of the license and associated traffic, much like a municipality would take out an LMR license for a two-way radio system for the PD, FD, EMS, etc. The individual users don't have individual licenses -- they are covered by the system license, and their activity is regulated thereby.
     
    K3XR and KU4X like this.

Share This Page

ad: Prosistel-1