- Posts
This law could have possible reprecutions on ham op’s and users of part 15 equipment as well as pirate broadcasters.
I feel the FCC should be the only ones responsible for policing the airwaves. not already over taxed public safety system and officers who are not properly trained in matters relating to radio.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/S1000/729_I1.HTM
This law could have possible reprecutions on ham op’s and users of part 15 equipment as well as pirate broadcasters.
I feel the FCC should be the only ones responsible for policing the airwaves. not already over taxed public safety system and officers who are not properly trained in matters relating to radio.
Total posts : 45366I don’t see why NJ would bother with such a law. It doesn’t seem to say anything beyond what the FCC rules already state. Transmitting without a license is already illegal, as is interfering with licensed broadcasts. As far as an exemption, that is exactly what Part 15 is all about. If they are trying to impose something more upon the citizens, then I don’t think that would be legal, as the Federal government (FCC) has jurisdiction over this already.
To cite an example involving ham radio, it has already been ruled in many cases that restrictive laws and covenants on antennas for licensed amateur radio use are not valid. Federal law takes precedence.
So what exactly are the politicians trying to do with such state legislation?
Total posts : 45366Before we lose our composure over a “bill” before a state assembly, let’s get a grip. There is a bigger issue at hand here than who can and cannot transmit legally. It deals with a non-radio issue called “states rights”. The limit of the rights of states to not pre-empt federal rules, regulations and laws is clearly laid out, not only in the U.S. Constitution, but also in nearly two hundred years of case law.
The state of New Jersey is making the penalty more punitive in their state than surrounding states. “The bill further provides that a violator of the bill’s requirements would be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree, and thus subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and a prison term of up to 18 months”. Instead of the possible $10,000 fine from the feds, the state now could add another $10,000 fine and jail time to the equation. Where would that leave the FCC in its ability to collect its fine based on the violators ability to pay (refer to recent decisions by the FCC regarding payment of fines).
However, as other jurisdictions have discovered on their own, prosecuting a case is much more difficult than making law. Plus, the local or state attorneys general have to be willing to expend their limited resources to prosecute the case. And most assuredly that would be after the successful prosecution by the FCC.
An example; a signal is transmitted from just across the border from a licensed Florida or New Jersey public service or commercial broadcast station; can they arrest and prosecute the offender in another state? Logic and experience should tell most of us with a miniscule grain of brains what the answer is.
State Assemblies can make laws that are expressly unenforceable and a waste of the people’s money and resources. It would appear the process continues.
Marshall Johnson, Sr.
Rhema Radio – The Word In Worship
http://www.rhemaradio.org
Amateur Extra Class – KK7CW
former ARRL Section Manager
Total posts : 45366I must respectfully disagree in part with mojoe. The FCC’s PRB-1 ruling has limited or invalidated overly restrictive zoning ordinances or other local or state laws regarding amateur radio antennas. However, PRB-1 does not affect restrictive covenants, as these are contract provisions relating to a home purchase. In fact, the FCC has so far refused to extend PRB-1 to CC&Rs (Contracts, Covenants, and Restrictions), although apparently some states have passed laws that effectively do so.
As far as what politicians intend with legislation against unlicensed or unauthorized radio transmissions, it seems to be easy brownie points. The law may be occasionally enforced with appropriate releases to the media. Look like you’ve done something and are taking a strong position without any real heavy lifting.
End rant…
Total posts : 45366On the subject of 18″ dishes and TV antennas, the FCC did preempt CC&R restrictions. So, they can do it. Hams just don’t have the financial backing like broadcasters and satellite companies do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
