Radio Interference in Florida is a Felony

The following was received from Bill, N4XEO:

FLORIDA AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS AT RISK

As of July 1, 2005 a new Florida statute (S. 877.27) makes it a 3rd degree felony to transmit without a license or cause radio interference to a licensed broadcast station in the State of Florida, with penalties ranging up to $100,000 fine and five years in prison.

This law is broad and vague and even could allow someone to use it to settle a grudge with an amateur radio or CB operator who might interfere with their radio or TV reception. Instead of calling the FCC to investigate interference complaints, someone now need only call the local police or sheriffs department.

In a newspaper article, Ralph Barlow of the Tampa FCC office said that under this new law, local police and sheriff departments can act without even having to contact the FCC. This fact was brought to the attention to the national organization that represents amateur radio (hams) radio operators, the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). On Feb 25, 2005, the ARRL filed at the FCC a Request for Declaratory Ruling seeking to have the FCC invoke federal preemption thus striking down the Florida radio law. The ten-page request points out that radio interference and regulation of radio waves is solely under the jurisdiction of the federal government (FCC) and this power cannot be used by the States. At present the FCC is just sitting on the Request for Declaratory Ruling, but if enough people contact the FCC asking that they act on the ARRL Request for Declaratory Ruling, then it is likely the FCC will invoke its federal preemption thus striking down the Florida law.

Contact the FCC Chairman and Commissioners and tell them to act on the ARRL Request for Declaratory Ruling (Filed 2/25/05) and strike down Florida Statute 877.27 - - - - - - -

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
.
Here is the article reprinted from the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) news website about this problem for Florida hams.

League Asks FCC to Void Florida RFI Statute

NEWINGTON, CT, Mar 1, 2005--The ARRL has asked the FCC to declare invalid a Florida law that prohibits anyone making radio transmissions without a license or Commission "exemption" from interfering with a licensed broadcast station. In a Request for Declaratory Ruling to the Commission February 25, the League maintains that only the FCC has authority to regulate radio stations and RFI. By prohibiting interference to broadcasters, the ARRL contends, the Florida law could have the apparently unintended consequence of affecting ham radio licensees as well as operators of certain unlicensed Part 15 devices, such as cordless telephones.

"What is clear is that no radio transmissions, licensed or not, are permitted if they result in interference to public or commercial radio stations licensed by the Commission," the League said. "Thus, it would appear that Commission-licensed Amateur Radio stations in Florida are subject to felony prosecution if their emissions interfere with interference-susceptible broadcast or other radio receivers used in listening to public or commercial radio stations." The law also could subject operators of Part 15 unlicensed intentional radiators that interfere with broadcast stations to felony criminal prosecution, the League said, adding that it "could be interpreted to prohibit operation of Part 15 devices entirely."  

Citing case law and legal opinions dating as far back as the 1930s, the ARRL requested a declaratory ruling from the FCC that the Florida statute "exceeds the jurisdiction of the State of Florida and intrudes on the exclusive jurisdiction afforded the Commission by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, to regulate radio stations and to address interference phenomena."

The Florida Legislature enacted the law, §877.27 of the Florida Criminal Statutes (under "Miscellaneous Crimes"), last year. It took effect July 1, 2004. Violations would be considered third-degree felonies in Florida.

The ARRL says it's not clear that Florida lawmakers intended the law to be as broad in its application as it reads, but that the new law--apparently aimed at unlicensed "pirate" broadcasters--"nonetheless on its face prohibits any person from causing interference" with an FCC-licensed broadcast station.

Although the Communications Act of 1934 does not specifically preempt state regulation of RFI matters, Congress clarified in 1982 that all telecommunications are interstate and subject to exclusive regulation by
the FCC, the ARRL pointed out. It cited the Communications Amendments Act of 1982, Public Law 97-259 to support its stance.

"The legislative history of the Communications amendments Act of 1982 demonstrates that Congress intended to completely preempt the regulation of RFI," and leave it solely in the hands of the FCC, the ARRL said. The League also noted that courts "likewise have refused to allow private lawsuits against commercial broadcasters to abate RFI problems."In a 2003 case, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the FCC "held clearly that all attempts by states and municipalities to regulate RFI are void as preempted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," the ARRL said. The League's petition concludes that the Florida statute "is void as preempted by federal communications law."


Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL

 

**********UPDATE: 13 JUNE 2005****

Lee McVey, W6EM continues to post this specious letter, even though he was asked to correct it and is aware of the facts.

No such statute takes effect on 1 July, 2005--it has been IN EFFECT since 1 July 2004.

That is, it has been Florida law for ALMOST a year.

In that year, no ham , operating legally, has been arrested vis a vis this statute, to anyone's knowledge.

Apologies in advance to readers who may be misled by this falsely presented topic by Mr. McVey, W6EM.--N1IR

**************************


I doubt very much that there is CAUSE to consider this as a preemption if and until someone is arrested for it in FLA.

I actually applaude the spirit of this law: intentional disruption through the use of a radio was and is illegal and unacceptable.

I see no reason why we need to needle the FCC on this: it has no impact on ham radio (when operated legally) and the FCC obviously is familiar with the FLA law.

WHY do we have to pepper the FCC with idiotic requests?? This new era of activism is an aspect of the hobby that just isn't part of Part 97.

Lee, there's just no reason to waste the FCC's time with
e-mails from hams on this , some of which are likely to be redolent of anger and malevolence and not calm, factual, and pursuasive.

Why is qrz.com's topic forum becoming a political activists'
mouthpiece? Isn't there any FUN stuff to discuss?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

The ARRL does NOT represent the amateur radio operators in the United States. They comprise a membership consisting of a small minority of licensed US radio amateurs. They neither have the authority nor mandate to represent anything but their own membership.

This is a fact.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Exactly Chip.  And that is why they are involved, that is why, as a member, I want them involved. Oh and BTW, I am not a minority. As a member of ARRL, I applaud their efforts on my and many others behalf.

K2WH

 

Would this then apply to un-licensed BPL interfering with licensed broadcast stations?  Seems to me if BPL is interfering with the AM Broadcast band or low VHF TV, then BPL would be in violation of this law.  Yes?  What is the definition of a "Broadcast Station"? Maybe we want laws like this in other states if one of its un-intended targets turned out to be BPL.

K2WH

 

"I actually applaude the spirit of this law: intentional disruption "through the use of a radio was and is illegal and unacceptable"

This was not your opinion a short time ago Chip about BPL.  You were applauding its use as it interfered with ham radio reception.  What has changed your position on RF interference?  The BPL test sites were obviously intentional interference since the interference was thorougly documented, well known and understood, yet it continued and continues in Briar Cliff Manor.  I'm glad you have come around from the dark side and finally agree with your fellow hams.

K2WH

 

If not the ARRL, then who?

 

I think it's just fine that they speak for their members; I'm sure there are some issues where it is viable to claim this.

But they don't represent the amateur radio operators of the United States.  Yet that's what the statement says.....go figure.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Nope. You might wish to CAREFULLY read what I said. I am not aware of unlicensed BPL-- INTENTIONALLY DISRUPTING-- anything. If so, please provide us said documentation on this 'intentional disruption". It's important--why not share it publicly here?

I am quite consistent on these issues; it's easy when you are right.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Lee,

Thank you for the info. However, I am sure that the FCC's jurisdictional supremacy will be expressed in their own good time -- perhaps when the extant Presidential relationship to the Florida government is gone.

Right now may be a bad time for pressing the matter, as the Communications amendments Act of 1982 could easily be brought into legislative play..

73,
Dave/al2i

 

Your question is precisely why I posted this. Clearly, unlicensed Part 15 technologies that interfere with commercial or broadcast services such as short wave stations and the lower VHF television channels appear to be culpable.

Its really laughable to have seen our buddy, the Chipster, lash out his objections to the League's petition as he did so without careful thought and shot himself in the foot in the process.

Even though the law needs revision, wouldn't it be fun to make the first test case a complaint about BPL interfering with shortwave broadcast reception? I actually wish I had one of the so-called trials close to me. I'd put an HF rig in the car and see if I could copy the BBC through it all. And, if I couldn't, what fun. Just dial up the local sheriff and voila: the BPL stewards get hung out to dry.

Lee
W6EM

 

Sure Chip.  The interference at Briar Cliff Manor has been observed and documented by ARRL (those people who represent the minority amongst us), and by yours truly.  Data supporting the interference has been presented to the FCC and has been totally ignored or denied.  I don't have to tell you this, you already know it, its been all over the internet.  Pay attention.

In addition, I was there and it was interfering with my operation of 20 meters while I was trying to work DX from my car while eating a salami sandwich with noodle salad on the side, in the parking lot of an unnamed deli.  The sandwich was good but I couldn't hear the DX.

Since the FCC and the provider knew and still knows of the interference, it is intentional since the provider made no effort with the obvious blessing of  the FCC, to shut the system down.  To me, this sounds deliberate.  Oh and the documentation, is in my notebook.  I cannot foward it to you because of all the coffee and mustard stains.

One thing is for sure.  Proving intentional interference is probably a difficult task.  Intentional ignorance is not.  Its pretty obvious to intellegent people.


K2WH

 

This has the capability of opening a big can of worms for the BPL providers. I'll bet they got blindsided by this.

k2WH

 

It doesn't matter whether the source of the interference is licensed or unlicensed. Or, if the interference is intentional or not. Try reading it again. Carefully.

At least if a BPL operator is the first test case, they'll have to spend their resources to attempt to overturn the statute.

Lee
W6EM

 

I am from florida and embarrassed about it and i agree, why cant we have fun here ? So much for no politics, sex, religion...