Home › Forums › temp › Kansas Ham Issued $10,000 Fine for Operation of Unlicensed Broadcast Station › NOUOs vs NALs, etc
Total posts : 45366
The NAL in this Kansas case originated in December, 2012. As of Dec 9, 2012 there are no December 2012 entries in the FCC’s list. Probably this citation will appear there in due course.
The wording and any measured data included in an NAL is up to the FCC. If the operator believes the Part 15 limit was being met at the time of the citation s/he could submit data when responding to the FCC about the NAL to prove this.
If I remember correctly, mere statements in court is not evidence, only supplemental to support given evidence.
Most likely the FCC could/would produce measured data if this NAL proceeded into a court case.
While the FCC usually issues NOUOs as a first step, probably they could issue an NAL first if they decided that this was appropriate for the situation.
Not long ago, those NOUO’s AND NAL’s included specifics like the field strengths. They do a great job of pointing out the limits, but have not disclosed what was measured to be in violation, only declaring that the violator operated outside of those specified limits. Let’s go a bit beyond this case and back several months worth. Noted by a member before, the NOUO’s and NAL’s do not include evidence of signals going beyond the limits.
Below is a link to an NOUO from not long ago (Nov 15, 2012) which shows a measured field of 1,656 µV/m 3 meters from a system operating on 107.9 MHz.
I would agree to those NOUO’s and NAL’s that disclose what was measured, and accept that operator as a busted Part 15 operator if that measured field strength was a couple of hundred uV over 250 at 3 meters, …
In the above-linked NOUO the r-f power needed to produce the measured 1,656 µV/m field at 3 meters from a simple antenna is on the order of 1/2 milliwatt. That isn’t much power in absolute terms, but it is enough to produce a field about 6.6X greater than Part 15 permits in the FM broadcast band.
Oh I should also point out, that this case, and the others, are NOT anything related or has anything to do with any Part 15 operator or setup at all. I mean if someone is throwing some watts or feeding a long wire or dipole with hundreds of watts, are those to be considered Part 15 operators and as such tagged as a Part 15 operator and put into the category of Part 15 because they got busted?
The FCC uses Part 15 as a basis for citing unlicensed operators that don’t meet Part 15. There is no differentiation as to whether such operators consider themselves to be “Part 15 operators” or “pirates,” or how they are labeled by others.
Yes it would be true to say that those operating a system that exceeds the Part 15 limitations is in fact operating illegally and beyond those Part 15 limits. But it in no way links or defines anyone who operates within the Part 15 limits as being of the same cloth.