The idea that any ham is going to be fined for owning or using one of these, even the uncertified ones, as long as they confine their use to otherwise-legal ham band use, is such a silly stretch it strikes me as bordering on paranoia. Your time would be as well spent worrying about a meteor strike which, actually, does happen from time to time. It's just looking for something to worry about.
Home brew is one of the basic tenets of amateur radio. Advancement of the start of the art of communications is a key parameter in amateur radio. This ruling blocks home brew. ARRL needs to fix this soonest.
Home brew is one of the basic tenets of amateur radio. Advancement of the start of the art of communications is a key parameter in amateur radio. This ruling blocks home brew. ARRL needs to fix this soonest.
Where before this notice has the FCC ever stated anything related to the following: "The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has observed that a growing number of conventional retailers and websites advertise and sell low-cost, two-way VHF/UHF radios that do not comply with the FCC’s rules."? My point is simply that the FCC has neither proposed a change to an existing law, nor have they proposed the introduction of a new law. As along as you are operating within current FCC Regulations, there is nothing to worry about. The intended audience was "conventional retailers and websites". It isn't a matter of right or wrong. You are probably right that the FCC has probably never used that language before. Again, when I see a proposed change that will impact the amateur radio community, I'll be the first to jump on my soapbox and protest. That would be the time to "take up arms". At the point one can only speculate about whether the FCC is trying to change amateur radio, and that sort of thing will happen with or without a public notice. Don't misunderstand, I applaud that you want to be involved, but for me, I'm just going to take a deep breath and give the FCC the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe there was any hidden meaning to the Public Notice. If the FCC initiated any litigation, it would have to go through Congress, and there would be plenty of time to protest during the process. I don't mean to discourage you in any way, I'm just trying to be pragmatic.
I'm literally just reading the FCC Enforcement Notice. You don't need to to stretch or read into anything other than what is written. Its kind of weird for you to say anything otherwise.
Two problems exist: 1. The person who posted your video declared that an enforcement notice has created a regulation. 2. You have referred to a petition. I'm not seeing a Petition for Rule Making in any of this.
The FCC in their notice has declared they're going to potentially (at their discretion) fine hams operating on the ARS frequencies with radios that can transmit outside of those frequencies. How is that NOT new regulation?
Not to cast doubt, but I don't see how that's enforceable. You see, there ARE stations operating with the bounds of other agencies' rules and regulations in other services beside ARS. For example, there are stations whose authorizations don't come from FCC--i.e. NTIA, and military. Their equipment requirements are even more strict that that of FCC! Therefore, and because of the other regulatory agency(s) rules, FCC has no jurisdiction and cannot tell such stations they cannot operate, nor can they tell them they cannot operate their equipment on frequencies so authorized. It is for that reason, I don't place too much store in any regulations that would regulate outside civilian, commercial, amateur interests.
Sure, I understand that. But lack of enforcement today, doesn't mean the regulation shouldn't be resisted. We absolutely should openly push back against poor regulations in any of its forms even if its merely threat of fine.
Agreed. That is, IF FCC has actually proposed or enacted such regulations. In my (loose) reading of this, admittedly here on QRZ, nothing has actually changed. They are not changing Part 97. If so, they would have brought it forth. What they have done is to simply re-assert the existing regulations. They are simply saying that one must comply with all Parts of the CFR's. One must not use uncertified equipment on Part 90 frequencies. That hasn't changed. One must not modify amateur equipment and then use it on Part 90 frequencies, too. That didn't change; its always been that way. They are simply re-affirming the rules as they has existed since 1934 as amended. They are not going to come LOOKING at your equipment just 'cause you are on the air---unless your station is compromised/putting out a spurious signal/off frequency, etc. If you do something to attract their attention, all bets are off! My HF station, for example, is NOT regular amateur equipment (except for my IC706 MKIIG). It is a Harris RF-3200. This is a marine/military/commercial HF transceiver. I have an authorization to operate on frequencies of USAF/CAP. That operation is NOT under the purvey of FCC! FCC cannot tell me I can't operate on those frequencies. There are too many conflicts with jurisdiction, mainly NTIA. I could be wrong, but I don't think its something to get too excited about. Only those who use improper equipment (i.e. Baofengs on fire channels) need worry.
That was alot of words to dodge the amateur radio exception portion of the notice whole cloth. The FCC in that short blurb created new regulation (enforceable or not) the makes it clear that. To use a non-certified radio on the ARS it must be locked to ONLY use ARS frequencies. There is no precedent for this. Watch the video again, I quoted and printed the text on screen, or read the ARRL. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncertified-imported-vhf-uhf-transceivers
