Carl, when does Part 15 broadcasting end, and pirate broadcasting begin? What is 'slightly' over power? We don't know enough about this particular situation (for all we know, he could have been running 1 watt, depending on the definition of 'slightly'), and since the information has not been forthcoming, we may never know.
I do agree that the raid seems over the top. I suspect, however, that the other transmitters seized (such as the Talking House) were just caught up in the maelstrom of the initial event.
Of more concern is the Jerry Gaulle treatment, where he appears to have been using an FCC certified transmitter (Part 15.219), installed in the appropriate manner, unmodified, and he was still cited. I'm happy to hear that Radio Systems and Hobby Broadcasting are pursuing the situation. Hopefully, it can be shown that the NOUO was issued in error by an overzealous FCC inspector, and something done about it (and the inspector).
Unless the Marshal was present in the form of a raid, normally the FCC does not have the power to take equipment; you can always hand it over. However some Hams have been known to impersonate an FCC agent and have also been known to rob low power broadcasters. Normally a raid, is followed by ignored letters or a first time visit.
Thank you, thank you, Radio Brandy for posting a scenario that better fits the report of Crow's home invasion.
We have clues to track down!
I think it was on radio-discussions on the Texas section where some HAMs admitted driving around in The Crow's neighborhood and checking him out!
Suspects!
I do not believe the intruder was an FCC agent. I believe this was a felony!
That guy could serve time in prison!
If he does, we should write to him, because prisoners love to get mail.
Get ready for mail call.
I suppose anything is possible.
But this is increasing the level of speculation when there are already too few facts available. It would also be easy to prove or disprove, if the raidee (sic?) would step forward and provide some more information (such as the identity of the FCC agents involved, whether there were letters preceeding the event, etc.
The fact that this whole thing has gone dark makes me wonder if there is not much more to this event than what was reported here.
dan braverman of RS Global is investigating and following up. whatever the issue is the truth will eventually come out in the course of the investigation.
The only thing that will shut me up at this point is a verification that The Crow was in fact raided by the FCC. Until we know that to be true, I do not believe it.
I am opening my own investigation by asking this simple question here, addressing the HAMs and experienced RF engineers with their years of experience. I have a simple question:
How can we be assured that this was an FCC action?
Are we so shut out of the process that we cannot find out? (this 2nd question is more rhetorical, and can be disregarded).
But I will go on by saying, IF there is a criminal HAM at large conducting unlawful impersonation of a federal agency, he has side-kicks and they might be using HAM radio equipment to set up their coordination, in which case the HAM community would want those types weeded out so that amateur radio's reputation isn't besmirched like Boy Scout leaders and Catholic priests.
For god sake there could even be an engineer from a licensed station involved!
something stinks about both these incidents.
Just to note -- the FCC Enforcement Bureau web list showing NOUOs etc typically is 2 weeks or more behind "real time."
It does at this point show an entry for G. Gaule, however.
I'd like to know how criminal hams caused the station to effectively disappear from the Internet, including the website.
I'd like to know how criminal hams caused the station to effectively disappear from the Internet, including the website.
Others might want to know the provable basis for this public claim that "criminal hams" produced the results attributed to them or to anyone else, in this situation.
Rich, there you go again revealing yourself by making a false claim.
There is no "provable basis", AS YOU KNOW, and no such thing was ever said nor implied.
We are talking about possible explanations for the case against The Crow.
You seem to turn away from the irregularities in the case.
We are talking about possible explanations for the case against The Crow.
Apparently YOU are posting only about "The Crow," however earlier posts in this thread have not been so exclusive.
It could be possible that in a few weeks the FCC EB website will include an NOUO referring to "The Crow.'
The withdrawel from the web stream by The Crow has not so far been explained, so, can we assume the criminals, whoever they were, stole the computers?
I would guess that (if true), the most likely reason that "The Crow" is no longer available on a web stream is that such was disabled by its originator.
i can't go into detail of how i know as the details were conveyed in confidence but i can assure everyone it was a legit FCC agent that showed up at the crows residence. just wait a few weeks and it will show on the FCC EB website but even i don't know the full details of the situation. I can assure everyone that Bill Defallice and Dan Braverman are both working very hard to get all the facts and information about both Gerry's and Mighty's situations and find a resolution to the issues in both these situations and to help future TH5.0/iAM users remain compliant. hopefully gerry and mighty can both return to the air on AM when this issue gets resolved. i beleive mighty mentions somewhere in one of the many threads about his situation that he terminated his web stream after the loss of his transmitting equipment.