- Posts
Kansas Ham Issued $10,000 Fine for Operation of Unlicensed Broadcast Station
http://www.arrl.org/news/kansas-ham-issued-10-000-fine-for-operation-of-unlicensed-broadcast-stationKansas Ham Issued $10,000 Fine for Operation of Unlicensed Broadcast Station
http://www.arrl.org/news/kansas-ham-issued-10-000-fine-for-operation-of-unlicensed-broadcast-stationHere’s an interesting excerpt:
“…Later that same day, Rubash spoke to an agent from the Kansas City Office via telephone and confirmed that he was an Extra class amateur licensee (assigned call sign KC0GPV). Rubash also admitted that he purchased the radio transmitter and that the station had been on the air for two months. Rubash added that he would not voluntarily relinquish the transmitter if asked to do so.” The FCC stated that this response demonstrated that Rubash had control over the station.
….the FCC noted that the word “operate” has been interpreted to mean both the technical operation of the station, as well as “the general conduct or management of a station as a whole, as distinct from the specific technical work involved in the actual transmission of signals.” In other words, the use of the word “operate” in Section 301 captures not just the “actual, mechanical manipulation of radio apparatus,” but also operation of a radio station generally. To determine whether an individual is involved in the general conduct or management of the station, the FCC noted that it can consider whether such individual exercises control over the station, which it has defined to include “…any means of actual working control over the operation of the [station] in whatever manner exercised.”
Read the whole thing here: http://www.arrl.org/news/kansas-ham-issued-10-000-fine-for-operation-of-unlicensed-broadcast-station
Total posts : 45366Boy they sure moved quick on that one didn’t they.
Pick and choose enforcement is what that is.
Perhaps by 2525 they will eventually get at a licensed broadcaster with 16 years of outstanding NAL’s and over $100,000.00 in unpaid fines and on-going violations to this day.
RFB
Total posts : 45366The government sometimes gets haircuts too short clipping some brain function.
Ya, sure, the FCC is blind to content and only policing the technicalities. But an important part of any unlicensed radio station is its mission.
A middleman known as a “journalist” delivers these stories of violation, and in their ignorance fail to compose full accountings of the human stories being played out.
Was it a guy who wanted to warn a 10-block area about the climate crisis, someone passionately devoted to 45rpm records or a religious fanatic who anticipates the end of the world on 12-12-12(?)
Total posts : 45366Ok…for months and months we’ve all heard the nanny routine about following the rules etc etc, even to the point of discouragement to newcomers to the field of Part 15 radio operations..no matter what that would be.
And we see over there on the right the Enforcement Bureau Feed of plenty of captured violators. A lot of them deal with businesses using licensed services like two way, telecom systems and shady policy conduct with phone cards etc.
We even see a few licensed broadcasters get a whammy for an unlit tower, faded paint job or broken fence.
And in all those, including the tagging of a ham operator running an unlicensed FM..though the information does not specify what the measured field strength was…curious eh? Did that operation run uW or mW or KW?
Would be interesting to know what the missing facts are.
In any case, this case is a PERFECT example of what the enforcement does..and does NOT do.
Here we have an individual citizen…forget about the ham license..but an individual who got tagged for an unlicensed FM operation within less than a 3 month time frame..tagged bagged and gagged with a fat 10K fine to boot.
Now…there is record…UNDENIABLE record of one particular LICENSED broadcaster with OUTSTANDING NAL fines and false statements submitted on official FCC forms spanning 16 years and over $100,000.00 in fines and on-going violations..meaning REPETITIVE and KNOWINGLY.
Why the heck doesn’t anyone notice, or have comment, or stand up and protest against this kind of pick and choose enforcement, especially by those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, but totally ignore the PROVABLE and UNDENIABLE, REPETITIVE violations of licensed operations?
What kind of tilted picture do these point the finger at, arm chair radio police trying to pitch with their silence to these licensed repetitive and on-going violators but scream and shout and twist all about at Part 15’ers?
Silence speaks loudly IMO. And when those who play nanny and say much to one thing and play silent to the other..well I find that individual or individuals to either be hiding something, or covering for something or someones and that in of itself, again in my opinion..gives very very little credibility to the one pointing the finger in the wrong direction and scolding at the wrong operations.
Now..how about some SERIOUS talk about what is taking place in the world of licensed radio and unlicensed radio and the adherence to the rules which regulate both? Why is there such a tilted agenda with letting repetitive licensed violators get away with over 100 grand in fines, knowingly and repeatedly violating to this day, and on the other side of that..putting the hammer jammer down on such petty things like the noted ham getting caught with a little FM job?
Oh yes we see the articles, the blogs, the news clippings, the this and that about these pitiful busts, but read/hear/see LITTLE to NOTHING about HUGE violators?
Why is there no conversation about that here at Part15.us? Why so much silence by Part 15 operators speaking out against this pick and choose way of enforcing the law?
Cmon man…don’t any of you see the potential of tag and bag and gag right at your front door step?
Oook..for those who need led from A to B to C….it means that YOU and I and ANYONE ELSE running a Part 15 setup is subject to far more scrutiny and plucking than the licensed guys.
It means our hobby, our small businesses, our love for what we do, is looking down the barrels of the enforcement guns while the real crooks are allowed to go get another license to continue to violate and get away with not paying massive fines and float station licenses like floating checks over an extended weekend.
Speak or be spoken for and loose.
It’s your choice.
RFB
Total posts : 45366“Was it a guy who wanted to warn a 10-block area about the climate crisis, someone passionately devoted to 45rpm records or a religious fanatic who anticipates the end of the world on 12-12-12(?)”
Actually it’s 12-21-12 at 11:11:11 at the international time zone line..not GMT.
“The government sometimes gets haircuts too short clipping some brain function.”
A very cute explanation..got a little laugh out of it myself! And probably could be true..but not really.
I like breaking the ice too..but with what is going on with the radio industry and the adherence to the rule of law…it is not a joke or time to be cute IMO…though again I did get a good laugh from it simply because the joke can be applied with what’s happening and almost seem real.
But getting back to the point…this incredibly tilted way of enforcing the law. That doesn’t just happen in the radio world.
4 months ago a friend’s brother got arrested for something they did 14 years ago..a misdemeanor violation which the statue of limitations ran out. But he got arrested after being stopped for speeding a few miles an hour over the limit, got his ID ran through, and BAM…got a ride to the police dept and went to court and is now in jail for the next 2 years over that misdemeanor violation that happened 14 years ago!
Throw the book at the little crap and let the big ones walk skippidy doo dahh away and repeat it over and over!!!
Justice is NO justice when it’s tilted to one side man.
Something has to be done about this kind of thing..and fast. It’s not just in the radio world..but in every aspect of our lives that directly affects not just you and me, but generations after we are long gone.
Is it no wonder why crooked enforcement yields even more going against ANY rule of law? Why should the licensed care..they are doing it anyway!
RFB
Total posts : 45366I am in the gallery with you, RFB, but I also have a criticism to point your way.
First the gallery.
It seems obvious to me that those individuals who specialize only and exclusively and predictably in barking at part 15ers while never commenting on FCC rules violations in other areas, are on assignment.
Their marching orders come from the corporate or federal arenas, or a combination of the two, and they are profiling us. We only know about the ones who flamboyantly pose as helpful chums.
Others lurk in the background, posting seldom if ever.
Now stand back and get ready for the flack.
When you, RFB, question why the part 15 community doesn’t speak out against violators in the licensed broadcast sector, it reminds me of a conversation with Ken Cartwright during the siege on KENC.
At the time he was considering standing on legal ground in an attempt to legitimize his AM operation, and he expressed real disappointment that none of the part 15 community had offered financial aid to cover his legal expenses. This remark seemed to me vastly naive, considering that no appeal was ever made to the part 15 community asking for monetary help. No one even knew he might face expenses.
As for part 15ers now trying to build and operate their stations, the larger world of corporate media is another dimension, usually one outside of the perceived control of the unlicensed operator. None of us has a clue what you expect us to do, other than find news of big time violators entertaining.
PUBLIC NOTICE: MY POINT OF VIEW ON “PROFILERS” IS THEORETICAL AND DOES NOT REFER TO ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS.
Total posts : 45366… those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, …
Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?
Total posts : 45366Wouldn’t a NOUO have to be issued first?
Being curious about what kind of signal he was emitting, I searched the FCC Field Notices but couldn’t find any NOUO or other violations for this guy or anyone else in Kansas to correspond with the described events occurring last September.
Shouldn’t there be some reference about this at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices ?But I did find the official FCC ‘Commission Document’ on the matter, but also without any mention of field strength readings in there either. Not much more information then shown previous link:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/glen-rubash
Total posts : 45366If you break the rules knowingly and are unwilling to change your operation to comply with said rules when the FCC or your country’s authority points that out, then you deserve whatever you get. That applies to both unlicensed operators such as the one referenced in the original post, as well as any licensed operators.
The only thing that I can control is what I do. I’m not willing to be the judge and jury of anyone else.
Total posts : 45366… those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, …
Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?I’m reasonably sure that everyone who participates or knowledgeably browses this forum agree that the information provided in the NOUOs which have been issued to Part15ers’ is sufficient proof that those installations were non-compliant.
But that was not in question. By taking just a portion of his statement, you threw it out of context..
What RFB actually said in no way indicated any question of what a complaint Part 15 installation is. His statement in it’s full content says something different then what you imply.. What he said was:
“Why the heck doesn’t anyone notice, or have comment, or stand up and protest against this kind of pick and choose enforcement, especially by those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, but totally ignore the PROVABLE and UNDENIABLE, REPETITIVE violations of licensed operations?
Total posts : 45366If you break the rules knowingly and are unwilling to change your operation to comply with said rules when the FCC or your country’s authority points that out, then you deserve whatever you get. That applies to both unlicensed operators such as the one referenced in the original post, as well as any licensed operators.
The only thing that I can control is what I do. I’m not willing to be the judge and jury of anyone else.
Excellent viewpoint Artisan
Total posts : 45366What RFB actually said in no way indicated any question of what a complaint (compliant?) Part 15 installation is. His statement in it’s full content says something different then what you imply.. What he said was: “Why the heck doesn’t anyone notice,(etc). But that was not in question. By taking just a portion of his statement, you threw it out of context.
I respectfully disagree.
My response was based on RFB’s statement about “those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, …”
The FCC has provided such proof for the operators receiving an NOUO for non-compliance with Part 15.
“Uneven” law enforcement is another matter.
And BTW, I don’t remind anyone to adhere to Part 15 rules, rather I try to show what that requires. What readers do with that information is up to them.
Total posts : 45366Well.. I suppose we can just agree to disagree then.
But I emphasize that I still read it clear that RFBs statement was predominately and specifically about uneven law enforcement, and not at all a question of what’s considered to be a compliant, or non compliant Part 15 installations.
You seem to be focusing too much on his expressed possible indirect opinion of you, and that’s what caused you miss the whole gist of his comment.
The key words in bold:
“”those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are, …”By the way, yes I meant to spell “compliant” in my last post
Total posts : 45366The Kansas Ham who was fined for his FM operation is not a member of part15.us and did not claim to be operating under the part 15 rules.
Therefore the incident, while interesting to all part 15 members, does not reflect on us whatsoever.
This question has a prosecutorial tone…
“Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?”
It refers to “Part 15 NOUOs” which have not been entered into evidence anywhere in this discussion. “Reasonable people” prefer their subject doesn’t get distorted into false avenues of fault finding.
Total posts : 45366“But I emphasize that I still read it clear that RFBs statement was predominately and specifically about uneven law enforcement, and not at all a question of what’s considered to be a compliant, or non compliant Part 15 installations.”
Exactly. How is anyone to know that the enforcement of law is being done justly given missing pieces of information?
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.
Now let’s look at AR’s prospective.
“If you break the rules knowingly and are unwilling to change your operation to comply with said rules when the FCC or your country’s authority points that out, then you deserve whatever you get. That applies to both unlicensed operators such as the one referenced in the original post, as well as any licensed operators.
100 percent fully agree. Your describing an evenly and fairly applied enforcement of law and justice. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen? Is that happening, or did happen in this case?
Now Rich’s prospective.
“Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?”
Sure..if said NOUO provided the evidence that proves a violation. All that is there is “hear say”. Hear say is no less or more credible from one source or another, be it from a liar or some FCC field agent. Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the statement of exceeding field strength limits if said measurements of the field strength were actually disclosed instead? Are there field strength measurements given in this case, and quite a few others over the last several months?
I do not believe so. So..isn’t it probable that most reasonable people would be expecting some evidence in the documentation to help prove that the law was violated?
Or do we just accept someone’s word that a person committed a violation when the evidence that proves the accusation of the violation is no where to be found? Is a suspected murderer declared guilty when no proof said suspect even did it, or do we just take the word of whomever said so?
That Rich is not a Democratic Republic justice system. That is a dictatorship/communist socialist justice system.
Are you aware, or anyone..that in the years of Stalin, he murdered hundreds of millions of his citizens all based on “say so” with absolutely no factual basis for those judgments of death sentence? Mussolini did the same thing, Hitler, the recently passed on N. Korea leader Kim Jong-il, Mao of China and tons more.
Ok so were not talking about law violations of murder. However is the practice of justice to be different between murderers and field strength violators? The evidence pours in with murderers, to great detail these days with modern investigative techniques. With today’s touted 15+ grand Potomac FIM’s, shouldn’t the evidence also be as detailed and outlined in the accusation too?
Back to another of End80’s points.
“I’m reasonably sure that everyone who participates or knowledgeably browses this forum agree that the information provided in the NOUOs which have been issued to Part15ers’ is sufficient proof that those installations were non-compliant.”
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, or their AM TX had 400mW final input feeding a 10 foot rod and the operator made the statement that they were attempting their best to operate under Part 15. The measurements and photos of the physical setups would suggest that operator was far different from a pirate operator, thus saying it was a Part 15’er could be applicable..though not necessarily. However I have never seen a pirate operator be satisfied with 400mW on a 10 foot rod or 300uV at 3 meters. Much MUCH more than either of those.
Now back to another perspective from Rich.
My response was based on RFB’s statement about “those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are”…The FCC has provided such proof for the operators receiving an NOUO for non-compliance with Part 15”
Where? Point out the proof in this ham’s NAL please. What proof are you referring to? 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.
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 Kansas Ham who was fined for his FM operation is not a member of part15.us and did not claim to be operating under the part 15 rules. Therefore the incident, while interesting to all part 15 members, does not reflect on us whatsoever. This question has a prosecutorial tone…”Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?” It refers to “Part 15 NOUOs” which have not been entered into evidence anywhere in this discussion. “Reasonable people” prefer their subject doesn’t get distorted into false avenues of fault finding.”
THANK YOU CARL!!!
Putting all the eggs in one basket are we Rich? Is that even and fair justice to any of us who DO adhere to the Part 15 rules? Does that not prove the point I have made time and time again that Part 15 operators are given a bad rep by that token of throwing us into the same basket with the PIRATE operators???
“Uneven” law enforcement is another matter”
WHAT? Another matter? What are we talking about here…chicken soup recipes? Or is this one of those Gray scale line dividing confuse the issue perspective? In what manner is this discussion a different matter from uneven and unfair law enforcement?
Is leaving out facts to a case which will prove or not prove guilt anything even or fair to law enforcement?
Is it fair or even law enforcement to be pulled over and declared you were speeding when the other driver who whisked by you 4 times the speed you were going fair or even law enforcement and you get the ticket and fine? Would you just accept that and pay the fine and accept the negative point on your record without proof that the cop actually caught your speed measurement on his radar or laser and didn’t even show it to you or record it to prove you violated the law?
Is it really any different from that vs this case of no evidence to prove this ham operator was actually violating field strength limits?
If I remember correctly, mere statements in court is not evidence, only supplemental to support given evidence.
So..where is the evidence? How do we know that this ham operator was not running a Decade or C Crane FM transmitter? How do we know what he was running?
From the information within the NAL..is there anything there that proves what he was operating or at what level of field strength?
If I missed it please show me and I will shut up.
Ok…so here we are, in one had a very light weight piece of document with no supportive proof, and on the other a plethora of very heavy and over-flowing cup of supportive proof..an unlicensed and licensed..both obviously in the eyes of the FCC as to violating something..correct? (other reference is Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, but not the only one).
But do we see the even and fair level of enforcement in both?
For all we know or anyone knows, even the ham operator, the complaints could have come from other hams who have something against his little FM jobber, which very well could have been nothing more than a certified Decade or C Crane unit…eh???!!!
But how is anyone to know what was used..what the FS was?
Eh?!!!
Do any of you know, or are aware, that the Patriot Act of 2003 and it’s boosting and expanding in 2009 gives authority the right to bust down your door, put you in handcuffs, haul you off to wherever, and does not have to allow you to access to legal representation, nor requires them to have a warrant or proof of reason for your arrest?
Doesn’t that sound awfully a lot like this ham operator’s case?
Hmm. And uneven and unfair and unjust enforcement of the law is a different matter?
Left went right and up went down and forward means backwards.
Quite ironic..and quite disgusting, not to mention devastating to truth, justice and fairness…ie democracy.
Let me add one more thing in Rich’s corner. 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.
Why would a licensed ham operator risk that license to operate ham radio with an illegal broadcast FM operation???
There is a lot here that simply does not add up..including the NAL..it is missing some important numbers to equal up the total.
RFB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
