eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference

Stephen Mitchell (N6TGK) on November 30, 2000
View comments about this article!

While checking the various amateur radio and scanner related web-sites I like to visit, I found a news article from the Associated Press reporting on a bill headed to the President for signing. At first glance, this bill sounds like a good idea, but I also see a potential for problems. Here’s the article:

Bill Would Curb CB Interference

WASHINGTON (AP) - Citizens would get help from state and local officials to stop unauthorized CB radios that interfere with their televisions, radios and cordless telephones under legislation headed to the president.

The bill, HR 2346, which passed the House by voice vote Monday, allows state and local governments to enact and enforce regulations that prohibit people from using unauthorized CB radio equipment, such as those that exceed the permitted power levels.

Existing law permits only the Federal Communications Commission to pursue complaints of interference on the commercial airwaves. But the agency doesn't always have the resources or field agents to investigate and act on every complaint, lawmakers say.

And while many citizens abide by the law in operating their CB radio service, "rogue operations do exist across the country," said Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., introduced the measure after hearing from a constituent who complained about interference on wireless devices because of a CB radio operating beyond the prescribed power levels.

The consumer sought help from local police officials, who said it was outside their jurisdiction and referred them to the FCC. Ehlers said he was surprised to find this was not an isolated problem experienced by consumers.

The FCC does not oppose the measure, which passed the Senate earlier this year.

As stated above, this bill sounds good in its intention of curtailing use of illegal amplifiers on the Citizen’s Band. However, I feel this bill has the potential for keeping law enforcement officials busy chasing down interference complaints. As we all know, most electronic equipment is poorly shielded and filtered. When I was in high school and running on C.B. I caused interference to our phones and the neighbor’s phones running just the legal 4 watts permitted to C.B. operators. Today, I have some minor problems with RFI running just 20 watts SSB on any of the bands.

To make matters worse, most citizens don’t know the difference between an amateur radio station and a C.B. station, let alone whether or not that C.B. station is running legally or not. So the first time they get any interference to their TV, VCR or telephone, they’ll be calling the local police who will then come knocking on your door. Now, if you’re an amateur radio operator and you’re also running 1500 watts, you better hope that the nice police officer has been educated and knows the difference between an illegal C.B. amplifier and a legal amateur radio amplifier.

I would also like to know how they intend to enforce this law if it comes into being. Let me share a story that happened to me about four years ago and is kind of related. My friend and I were sitting in an "In and Out Burger" parking lot (probably the best burgers you’ll find on the west coast) and we were just eating our meals minding our own business. We were just about done when a San Diego PD cruiser pulled up and two female officers got out and approached my truck. They immediately began questioning us as to what we were doing there and why we were interfering with the McDonald’s drive thru across the street. Yes, you read right… they didn’t ask if we knew anything about it or if we were even responsible. They wanted to know why we were doing it. First off, my friend and I had no idea what they were talking about. The officer explained that someone was interfering with the drive thru across the street with a C.B. and we must be the culprits because of the antennas on my truck. I had to explain that I was not a C.B. operator but an amateur radio operator. She then asked to see my license. By this time I was quite annoyed so I told her I didn’t have it with me. She then looked over at her partner and said, "Should I write him a citation for that?"

Mistake on her behalf. Here’s where I got to have my field day. I immediately informed her that anything radio related regarding interference is out of her jurisdiction and is a problem handled by the FCC. I also informed her that if she did try to write me a citation the most she could write me up for would possibly be section 594 P.C. (Malicious Mischief). About this time she noticed the decal from my employer on my rear window of the truck and asked, "Who works for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department?" I got to reply, with a big smile on my face, "I do and that’s why you can’t pull this stuff with me like you could with the general public. I know what your bounds are because I’m bound by them as well."

I no longer work in law enforcement but the point is that this could easily happen to any one of us while we’re sitting at home one night having a nice rag chew with our friends or running a contest. I feel that the public’s interest would be best served if Congress would require manufacturers to install better shielding and filtering. I agree with the need to eliminate illegal amplifiers on C.B. I just don’t think this is the best way to go about it.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by WG7X on November 30, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Yep, It's pretty scary.

Another piece of knee-jerk legislation like the ECPA, that helps nobody and turns law abiding Amateurs into public enemies.

Right now, I have no RFI issues with the neighbors, but if I did, I would want them to talk to ME first, rather than the local police.

In our society today, instead of working togther to solve technical problems, we instead try to legislate them out of existance.

Remember this scary fact: To most of the general public, INCLUDING the police, Ham radio IS CB.

Now, that is really scary...

Gary, WG7X
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by W9JCM on November 30, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I agree another waste of time. Some one comes to me about RFI I bring them into the shack and explain what a ham is. ANd that we are FCC lisc. ALso tell them what the laws are and that i would work with them on the problem. Now if they are jerks and I know I have a clean setup Screw them.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KN8AW on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Apparently nobody bothers to read the Part 15 FCC notice on the back of all cheap consumer electronics. (That will be my defense if I am accused of "interference", especially since I am running legal. My station is filtered, grounded, etc. and I don't run QRO). It states that the device may operate provided that it does not cause harmful interference and that it MUST accept any interference, including that which causes undesired operation. Quite simply, if somebody's cheap phone is receiving radio signals (assuming it is a hard-wired phone), then the phone is suffering from poor design and is acting as a radio receiver, certainly not what it was intended as when designed. Therefore, the telephone is faulty, certainly not the transmitter of a ham. After all, the transmitter is functioning as designed, it is TRANSMITTING! If the phone is of the "wireless" (where have I heard that word before?....hmmmmmm) variety, then once again the phone is faulty, as it is completely made from plastic and has absolutely no shielding or filtering of any kind. My computer speakers faithfully reproduce every word that I transmit through the antenna of my rig, if the power to them is on. The cables act as a nice antenna and the unshielded amplifier board in the speaker housing has a few diodes that act as terrific detectors, thereby taking the signal off the cable and rectifying, then amplifying my CW or phone and blaring away through the speakers. My solution? Turn the speakers off.
It's really strange that a licensed radio service that causes interference to an unlicensed part 15 device is made to justify or explain itself to authorities when it should be the other way around. Everybody in my household knows that if I am on the radio, then it is best to leave the cheap electronic junk turned off. They understand the part 15 rules (I turn the phone, answering machine, speakers, whatever, around and show them the FCC Part 15 decal that comes free with every purchase) and either accept the radio signals coming through or simply turn the thing off until I am done on the radio. No misunderstandings at all. I even have a friend that runs a legal CB base in his house and has a vertical mounted on a pole in the yard. Every time he transmits, the neighbor calls and complains. I explained to him about the Part 15 rules and after he told the neighbor about it (politely) they never called him again.
If the local police are going to start cracking down on illegal CB operations, then perhaps we as hams ought to educate the police on radio principles. Perhaps local clubs could get together with the police and have classes for them. Who knows, you may even recruit a few new hams!
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KD4ZGA on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I have read the text of H.R. 2346, and it looks like it is just another "feel good" bill. I would guess that 99.9% of consumers don't know or care what part 15 or part 68 is, all they know is that the strange person with the big antenna down the street is ruining their life.

Just because licensed services are exempt from regulation under this bill, does not mean that you or I will not be hassled. Crackpots will use this law (if it becomes a law) to harass amatuers to no end. And the worst part is that they will have the blessing of the city council in some areas.

Now, as for enforcement, I don't know how Rep.Ehlers thinks that local law enforcement will be able handle technical issues outside of their field. To give an example, I'm listening to the county sherrif dept. on my scanner while I'm typing this, the base has a 60hz hum, and 2 of the patrol cars have a bad alternator whine. If they don't know enough about radio to have this repaired, do you really think they can enforce this bill? Not only that, what dept. has the equipment to gather evedence? If they intend to charge anyone, surely they would have to show proof.

In closing, I think the bill is well intentioned, but poorly concieved. It is a bad idea to expect non-technical personal to enforce this bill. I think illegal CBers should be taken off the air, but this is not the answer.

73 de KD4ZGA Jim
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by K0RS on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
This is worse than a waste of time...it's downright dangerous. Allowing non-technical people to enforce technical regulations is a recipe for disaster. It can only lead to unnecessary confrontations between hams and local enforcement authorities. This is another example of the FCC creating a monster (CB) and then refusing to accept the responsibility of correcting the situation. The first thing that should happen is the FCC should quit type accepting 27 mHz radios. It should then de-certify those already in existance. Finally, the class D, 27 mHz CB service should be eliminated. Additional spectrum could be provided on a frequency not subject to skywave propagation, however this might not be necessary as there are numerous "freebie" services already in existance for those with a legitimate need. True, this wouldn't eliminate the problem overnight, but it would be the beginning of the end. Freebanders would remain for awhile, but the attrition would start, and eventually the problem would solved...especially with a period of vigorous enforcement (by the FCC, NOT the local cops).
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by WN3VAW on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
They say ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to apply to many of those who enforce the laws, and that's where the danger of this new legislation comes in.

In the spring of 1982, I was waiting for a bus to work, talking to a friend on the local 2 meter repeater when a local police car pulled up. The officer stepped out and asked to examine the radio. While he words were polite, the tone was not. I asked him "why?" -- a reasonable question since he didn't ask me what I was doing, or if I had a license, or anything. He then put his hand ON the HT & repeated his request in a very menacing tone -- and then took it out of my hands. 15 minutes and a missed bus later, he handed it back to me. No apology, and when I asked him what was going on, he told me none of my business and I should be thankful I got the radio back -- and then he left.

I then got back on the repeater and immediately got chewed out for violating the 10 minute ID rule (they were strict on that) until I explained what happened. It was suggested that I call a club member who was on the police force of a nearby town; and when I did, I found out that some radios had been stolen from the police and some teenagers were using them to harrass the cops. Well fine, but as a result, some of the neighboring cops were so pissed off they were taking it out on ANYONE holding an HT-- and since when does a Tempo FMH-2 look like a Motorola commercial HT-220?

The point is that police officers who don't know or don't care abouit the difference between CB, Amateur Radio, FRS, and other communications services will latch onto this new legislation as a new tool to strut their authority (and display their ignorance, but knowing that doesn't do you any good when you're being interrogated). I can just see some ham getting cited for "CB" intereference, and going up before a local judge who doesn't know the difference and doesn't care -- or doesn't think there is one. Yes, you will eventually win on appeal, but after how much time and money spent that you will never get back?

This is a bad piece of legislation. If you want the CB rules enforced, put the enforcement money back into the FCC from which it was taken out of 20 years ago -- don't give state and local police who don't know their HT's from a hole in the ionosphere a new law.

73
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by K3AN on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Think about the progression of unlicensed services-- first CB, then cordless phones, marine, FRS and the others. I believe the FCC's approval of this bill is an indication that they want to get out of the amateur radio licensing business, and this bill is one more step down that path.

I predict that in the not-too-distant future we will all be freebanders, able to operate as long as we don't interfere with any electronic junk our neighbors have. To make things worse, we'll have to live with the interference their junk puts out. We'll probably have all the HF spectrum we have now, maybe even more. VHF/UHF is a different story; those frequencies have far more commercial value.

I also don't think the Part 15 label, about a device having to accept interference, offers as much protection as some think. I can easily imagine a plaintiff's lawyer saying, "My client had no problem with the product whatsoever until Mr. Ham, the defendant, moved in next door, put up his antennas, and started flooding the neighborhood with electromagnetic radiation. The interference is bad enough, but my client is also worried about her family's health! Members of the jury, my client is being most reasonable in simply asking that Mr. Ham cease transmitting radio signals from his home, and reimburse my client's legal bills."

Just my prediction, which I hope turns out to be wrong. No flames, please.

By the way, when the heck are we going to embrace spread spectrum operation, with its inherently lower potential for interference?
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N2DY on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
This is a very dangerous piece of legislation. Most of the other comments have noted that law enforcement will not know the difference between CB and Amateur Radio. If the ARRL has any sense, it will fight the final approval of this bill. As an ARRL member, I am a bit disturbed at the way the organization has tried to pretend that things like this are not our problem. The fact is that 99% of the public don't know the difference between Amateur Radio and CB. Many times, while talking on my 2 meter ht, people have asked me if I can talk to the truckers with it. It's all about perception. In any case, the intent is good, but having the FCC take the easy way out by relinquishing responsibility is not the answer.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by WA5AWG on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Now, if you DOWNLOAD this Bill, in its entirety, from the GPO, you will see that Part # 3 SPECIFIES that "a person who holds a liucense issued pursaint to Part 301 of the 1934 Radio Act is EXEMPT from the local & state officers enforcement of thisa here laws." (quoted from memory) As we who are currently licensed under the OLD laws, i.e., not CORES and ON-LINE renewal, STILL have POSDTED on the WALL of our TRANSMITTER SITE (QTH) a copy of our STATION LICENSE, which we ARE TO SHOW to POLICE PEOPLES who come to enforce these CB laws, which OUR LICENSE DOCUMENT EXCLUDES us from. BUT, but, IF YOU HAVE RENEWED or UPGRADED under CORES you DO NOT receive a PRINTED DOCUMENT, i.e. LICENSE DOCUMENT, to exhibit, so, WHEN the LOCAL RADIO SWAT TEAM comes in your SHACK to INSPECT your station, YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR A LICENSE HOLDER. Go to the GPO WEB SITE and download the ENTIRE BILL w/ PRELIMINARY SPEECHES and STUDIES, you will see that it ENABLES LOCAL and STATE AUTHORITIES to ENTER HOMES & DWELLING PLACES WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRENT, based only on the TRAINING given by the FCC in "how to detect and determine if a station is committing an offense" listed as "illegal" is CB ANTENNAS over 20 feet tall, Liniaer Amplifiers, Non-type accepted equiptment, using vulger or obscene language, operating out of band, talking MORE than the proscribed range of 1 to 5 miles, etc. etc. THE GOVERNMENT WROTE THIS BILL HR 2346 WITH THE SAFETY NET CLAUSE that LICENSED RADIO OPERATORS are EXEMPT from LOCAL AUTHORITIES SEZIURE and ARREST BUT< BUT< THE Federal govnt is TAKING AWAY OUR TANGIBIL EVEDENCE of being LEGALLY LICENSED by the CORES URL system of ReLicensing, to wit: ON-LINE, and they don't send out no more PRINTED LICENSE DOCUMENTS....."CATCH-22" a CLASSIC DOUBLE-TALK, YELLOW-DOG, CLINTONISTI, FOURTH REICH, ILLUMINITI, ONE WORLD NEW WORLD ORDER, way to RESTRICT, CENSOR, DEPRIVE, CHOCE OFF, CONTROL, and ABOLISH FREEDOM of SOCIAL INTERCOURSE, to wit, COMMUNICATIONs VIA radio waves....THE BROWN SHIRTS ARE COMING..."Vwhere are your papers? Show me your papers, Judenswine, We Are The Master Race, The NEW WORLD ORDER."
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N6TGK on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Well guess what... I found out that on Wednesday, November 22, President Clinton supposedly signed this bill into law. Guess I'll be waiting for the local sheriff's department to come knocking. They're already paranoid about people listening to them on scanners so they went digital. Now they get to enforce radio regulations.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KD4ZGA on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
K0RS makes a very valid point, the CB allocation at 11 meters should be phased out. In fairness to the legitimate, incumbant users of that band, I think 8-10 years would be fair. During the phase-out period, all the other non-licensed CB type services should be merged into 1 service, consistant with the original intent of the CB service (FRS, GMRS, and MURS). This new service should be VHF or UHF. Here's what I think a useful CB type service would look like.

1. 38 channels with 25khz spacing, this would fit within a single 1mhz window, with a guard channel top and bottom. This would allow the possibility of 12.5khz splinter channels for expansion.
2. NBFM voice the only mode permitted, sub-audible tones allowed.
3. 10 watts ERP, antenna restricted to 20 feet AGL.
This would be a useful power level and should discourage people from using amps.

Also, I think that it should be far enough removed from an amatuer allocation that equipment intended for the amatuer service would not be as easily used (yes, I know about the FT-847). The allocation should be hemmed in on both sides by goverment or military, and be granted secondary status (a'la 70cm).

I can't think of a valid reason why digital modes should be allowed on a CB type service. If you want to use the digital modes for personnal, non-business use, we have amatuer radio for that, if it's for business, then get a license for that use. A license-free CB type service should not duplicate or compete with any licensed service.

I feel that by moving CB off of an HF band, interferance problems will be reduced, but not eliminated. For the problems that persist, DFing VHF,UHF bands are easier, and more local in nature. 11 meters was, and should be again an amatuer band. For those who want to stay on 11 meters and work DX, they should become amatuers of the appropiate class to be on an HF band. The FCC created this mess, now they should have the guts to clean it up, instead, they want to bury their head in the sand and let someone else clean it up, typical!

73 KD4ZGA Jim
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by K4RSG on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I note that this bill, as well as many of the ECPA provisions, were introduced by Republicans. So much for the notion of "less government in our lives."
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N7UQA on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I would have to tend to agree with you. But there was one time I would of liked local law enforcement to visit a CBer 1 mile from me who ran a RCI 2970 with a "swing kit" running into a 600 watt class C brick amp. This guy was so wide that he interfered with me all the way down to the 30 meter band! I do see potential problems with GMRS, FRS and MURS, these bands are close enough that broad band VHF and UHF amps or dual band ham gear could be modified and used. But since these allocations are also ALOT closer to public service bands that out of band and linear use will probally me minimal. Better yet 1 MHz chunk of spectrum in the 902-923MHz ISM band would be a better choice to place a CB band. To my knowledge there is no readily avaliable ham gear for this band and running linears is not only very expensive but can be very dangerous at high power levels. But with that said I think I'm going to welcome this new law and see how it evolves. If the men in blue want to see my station I'll have the coffee and doughnuts waiting ;)

73..
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N4DFP on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
OoooooKay. Talk about a frightening law. I am a Ham; that makes it scary enough, but I am also a truck driver. Yes, this law has the potential to do a lot of good. It can get rid of such offensive garbage as roger-beep, echo, reverb, 200% modulation power mikes, 10,11,12 meter rigs, and those ubiquitous footwarmers. It is also going to target me--the legal, licensed ham operating, truck driver--for vigorous searches for illegal equipment, seriously impeding my ability to earn money. Yes, as a licensed operator, I am exempt from the law and I DO carry a copy of my license in the cab of the truck. But as others have pointed out, sometimes law enforcement officers exercise great lattitude in interpreting the law. To be fair a lot officers will look at my documentation and pass me on, but there is always the hot dog who will ignore the documentation and let the judge decide. After a lengthy search, my radio will be impounded (and probably disposed of) and I will be given a court date to appear before the judge to plead my case. Running late, I will bid farewell to my radio, leaving it 2 states away from home. It will be cold comfort to see my Swan 100MX sitting among the Rangers, Galaxys, and bricks.
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KG4AGI on December 1, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
kd4zga,
there is a few frequencies, or was at 39 MHz on fm and that would be good let them have 39 and give them am, ssb and fm at say 10/15 wts, and make the manufactuers set the clearfier to where it is a decent sounding radio, the clearfier on my cb ssb sounds atrocious, you cannot make it sound like people just a sick donald duck.
yes i still have friends on cb and am not ashamed to tell you so.. another thing is that the law has to show probable cause to enforce this Big hunk of trash on a big part of the problem,"truckers", but i agree with you aboit letting cbers have some other frequencies, but also let them have decent sounding radios.. oh most forgot the truckers are for the most-part running anywhere from 500 to 2000 whiskeys, and modified Galaxie 10 mtr or cobra,etc, and they are just as highly modified as they can get them. just thought i'd add that for any body that don't know.i personally know some that have that high wattage
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KB1FVD on December 2, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
All this complaining, but no one seems to be doing anything useful.

Come on, folks, Hams are about having fun and helping.

Get a fox hunt team together, and offer your services to the Local Police and Highway Patrol. Heck, get them all to get Techician Licenses.

All the folks in blue lack is information. We have it. If you show up saying you want to help, and help them identify legal and not legal equipment, you help both the legal system and your fellow hams by keeping the wrongful arrests to a minimum.

I won't argue the merits of the bill, save to say that I believe it's a case where people are calling for enforcement, and the FCC doesn't have the resources. We all know there are jerks out there with 250W CB's blowing up the neighbor's TV.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KC4IWO on December 2, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I can remember my dad telling me about a CB guy in charleston SC running so much power he was messing up the measuring eqpt. on one of the local water towers, since a computer controled spread spectrum setup was being used he had no idea of how to deal with the problem. Neither did I. This bill would have been a welcome addition. I do worry about harrasment from police more so in the car than at home. I plan now to get my call sign on my plates on the car to make it more clear I am a ham before they come near. Also I am going to get touch with the local clubs here and see what kind of traing class we can put together to help them out. I was doing some research on line for a homebrew amp I was tring to build for my car to use on 20meters. In the process I found ads for cb amps that could run almost 3KW. There is no need for that. That kind of power poses a threat to anybody near the ant. I hate to say it but now after thinking about this law I do support it. I am scared it will someday backfire on me but nothing makes me more angry than hearing a CBer on 28MHz or some loser on 26MHz running so much power that he is splattering all the way down to 20 meters. As a ham coumunity we need to strengthen our clubs and all work together to help the police do there job and make our life easer. How would a police officer who is attempting to search your car respond if you spoke up and said that you supported the bill he was enforcing and that you could help him find the problem. The police need to feel that the ham comunity is there to help them. That we are there friends, on there side, and the only way to do that is to get involved.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KD4ZGA on December 2, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
My previous post was not meant to be complaining, but rather constructive criticism. In the 50's when the FCC introduced CB radio, they invisioned a short range communication service for the masses. With that in mind, a band had to be found. VHF FM radios were at that time, exotic and expensive, so that was out of the question. 11 meters seemed a natural choice, it is harmonically dissimilar to the other ham bands, was not a worldwide allocation, and hams largely ignored it. It turned out to be an unfortunate choice because of propogational effects. Technology has eclipsed these concerns, VHF/UHF radios can be economically produced today. Realignment of the CB service would aid enforcement efforts (ie. anyone below 30mhz would be required to have an appropiate license). The popularity of the Family Radio Service has proven that a VHF/UHF FM CB service would be a success. This realignment would also fulfill the original mandate for the CB service, and satisfy international treaties concerning amateur transmissions below 30mhz.

I still think that H.R.2346 is a knee-jerk reaction to the rantings of a single constituant. Local law enforcement is already overwhelmed, handing them a job that they are neither trained, or equipped for, is shortsighted, and counterproductive. The FCC was created for this purpose, it is high time that they step up to the plate and assume that reponsibilty, as taxpayers we should expect no more, no less. If there is no money for enforcement at the federal level, where is the money going to come from at the local level?

If this bill becomes a law, whether we as amateur radio operators assist in enforcing it, should be an individual decision. I'm not saying don't get involved, just keep in mind that the subject of a criminal investigation will most likely act accordingly. Also remember that your name and home address is linked to your callsign as a matter of public record.

73 de KD4ZGA Jim

 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N4DFP on December 2, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
After careful RE-reading of this new law, I think I can support it, but that is a conditional statement. The law permits each state to enact a law to enforce the FCC regulations and leaves the method of enforcement up to the state. I am sure we will be seeing many states enacting these new laws and Hams MUST be involved from the ground up on them. If the states assign the enforcement of these laws to special enforcement groups, such as S.C.'s SLED (State Law Enforcement Division) or N.C's SBI (State Bureau of Investigation) assigning special task forces with trained officers, this could be the best piece of legislation in the history of radio. On the other hand, if laws are enacted giving beat cops, Highway Patrol, and DOT enforcement officers the authority to enforce the law, the potential for harrassment is appalling. This is where we come in. It will be up to us as individuals and as clubs to contact our representatives in the state legislatures and make our concerns known. We might even be so fortunate as to help our representatives draft the legislation. If you think most cops are ignorant of radio equipment look at the majority of lawyers! I in no way mean this derogatorily. These people are just not technically trained and have little time or interest to learn. In short, they will NEED us. Let's make sure we are there for them!
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by RFBUFF on December 3, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
There are many of my local contemporaries as well as posters here that postulate about the "phasing out" of the 11 meter band as we know it today.

I was just curious...

How do you propose that WE(include as many agencies and/or organizations as you wish) persuade literally MILLIONS(that's right folks!) of 11 meter freebanders WORLDWIDE to set their equipment aside and leave an internationally accepted no-code hf band.(Not because any governing body says it is...just because IT IS!) The big three make alot of their profit from unlicensed operators(Think not?, still believe in Santa too?) as well as the 10 meter/export importers/manufacturers. Might be successful in increasing their profit margin a little.

Let's be careful what we wish for because we may get ut. There may come a time when we'll wish we could be "allowed" to strike a compromise instead of letting a third party(who's failed miserably to date) do it for us on his terms. It's really in ALL our best interests to swallow our collective pride and try to work this out among ouselves, across ALL bands.(yes, including our abandoned step child too...I mean that with great affection, I got my start there.)
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
Anonymous post on December 3, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I think you miss the point. It IS illegal, and NOBODY is going to stop all of them, but somebody MUST stop the most egregious of the offenders. I am NOT advocating turning a blind eye to the rest either, but dirty linears and operation in other assigned bands must be stopped. The task is impossible for federal authorities, and was even BEFORE the deregulation of 11m. If these laws are properly structured, it will provide the necessary tools to APPROPRIATE local authorities to cope with a bad situation.
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by RFBUFF on December 3, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
In response to the anonymous poster,

"I think you miss the point. It IS illegal, and NOBODY is going to stop all of them, but somebody MUST stop the most egregious of the offenders. I am NOT advocating turning a blind eye to the rest either, but dirty linears and operation in other assigned bands must be stopped. The task is impossible for federal authorities, and was even BEFORE the deregulation of 11m. If these laws are properly structured, it will provide the necessary tools to APPROPRIATE local authorities to cope with a bad situation."

The point was and still is that there is a large percentage of 11 meter operators that feel similarly as the hams, NOT the same mind you, but similarly. Case in point. Operator #1 is running an HR-2510 with 25 clean watts into a low pass filter with high quality coax and a good ground system. Operator #2 is running a General Lee with the audio limiter circuit removed peaked to 20 watts driving a Dave Made 3kw(yes, three THOUSAND watts of dirty watts with plenty of spurious output a.k.a. "splatter" into a hustler mobile fed with Radio Shack mini-8.

BOTH ops are illegal but if you had to choose one, which would you want off the band. Yeah, me too...and you know what else op #1 agrees. If you could learn to compromise with all the op #1's out there(and there are MANY) you'd gain a sizeable ally with which to remove op #2. In three years, the ITU will likely drop the code requirement altogether for hf access. 11 meters could become a legitimate no-code hf band from 27.4051 thru 27.8500.(No higher to protect the 10m cw sub-band.) I speak from experience that op #1 is far more prevalent than op #2. You don't hear much about op #1 though, do you?...why do you think that is?...Hmmm?...that's right, because he/she generates no complaints. Enforcement is complaint driven. What is standing in the way of this cooperation...PRIDE. Just think about it. 73. I got your point, do you get mine?

Charles
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KD4ZGA on December 3, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I think that most have overlooked the dangerous part of this piece of legislation. H.R.2346 or S.2767 as the Senate version is known, contains a remedy for wrongful enforcement. That indicates a willingness to inflict collateral damage. Carefully read paragraph 4 subparagraphs A,B,C, and D. This is your ONLY remedy. Only after the state or local goverment is through with you, can you file an appeal. Then the FCC is allowed to take up to 180 days to reach a decision. Then MAYBE you can have the pieces of your station back. If you still have any of you sanity or money left, you can go back to the judge that wanted to throw you in jail and file a damage claim...GOOD LUCK. What about the hams that have antennas grandfathered under zoning laws. Will they be allowed to put their antenna up again? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. It does not take a lawyer to know how city council will interpret it.

Lets look at it the other way now. How hard do you think it would be for an illegal CBer with a cursory knoweldge of electronics, to beat this in court? Do you know why FCC enforcement efforts rarely end up in court? What would be the point. The evidence was gathered by a trained technician, with calibrated lab equipment. Joe Blow with his Radio Shack field strength meter is going to be laughed out of court. Then the probable cause for the search evaporates.

Sure, in some areas it will be enforced fairly, and evenhanded. In other areas law enforcement will just throw out a dragnet, haul everyone in and let the FCC sort it out. And in a few places they will do nothing. This is not the way an issue with national and international significance should be handled. Not at the whim of petty, local politicians with axes to grind.

Lets look at the bright side, maybe this will solve all of our problems. We don't have the money to enforce the current laws, but maybe we can find the money to enforce a new one. I feel better already.

73 de KD4ZGA Jim

 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by K4PDM on December 4, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Hey, let's all panic! Every time I turn around I discover another faction or law that is about to make amateur radio impossible. Let's get rid of all our radios, the sky is falling, this is IT, gang!
Actually, its rather tiring reading all the gloom-and-doom opinions on the Web. If this law scares us so much, maybe we should talk to the Michigan hams who pushed for it. I'm afraid that if outsiders are using the Internet to form an opinion about amateur operators--and I'm sure that many of them are--they see us as victims of our own defeatist attitude. Calm down, folks. Amateur radio is strong and respected. We have many powerful supporters (they made sure we were EXCLUDED from this bill.) I'm not sure if I could back this law or not. I AM sure it doesn't scare me!
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KC0IWV on December 4, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Nice article - you are right on! Very well written article and I enjoyed the information you provided about the proposed law.

The last thing we need is anymore Government control in our lives! (Especially regarding Radio use)

Anytime there is a problem with something in our society there seems to be two quick solutions people want to implement:

#1. Sue
#2. Develop a new law

Neither of these are usually the right solution. The right solution is to talk to our neighbors and help them with any problems they are having - and yes - encouraging Electronics manufacturers to shield their equipment better from RF would also be a plus.

You don't need a law for this either. If people realized that certain manufacturers equipment were shielded from interference better - they will gladly vote with their dollars.

 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N2IL on December 4, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Stop crying about the new enforcement.We all complained about interference from the idiot cbers now were finally starting to get some enforcement.You cant complain about crime and then get annoyed when you are pulled over.Its one or the other.There is nothing wrong with RADIO PROFILING its for the overall good of the hobby
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N7DC on December 4, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Wow , did this article bring everyone out of the woodwork. If we had all been paying attention, this bill has been in the works for at least 2 years, and each and everyone could have responded to your local congressman several times during that period. I guess they didnt get much mail on it. I do know that the FCC set up and gave law enforcement officials special training about CB radio, here in Virginia, over a year ago. Officers from each county, plus state police were trained in how to identify CB transmissions and equipment. They were issued frequency/power meters for their use during the training and were to keep those meters for use in future radio checks. If they stop you, and you are on CB , they will know it. If its another type radio, they should be able to identify it by sight, and will certainly be able to recognize it is not CB, by its output frequency. Only those so trained will have the authority to check any 2-way radio equipment you have installed in a vehicle.
Further, in Virginia you must (for at least the 17 years I have lived here),allow any policeman to check to insure that ham radio is installed in the vehicle, if that vehicle has amateur radio license tags. If you have not had a rig installed anytime within the past 3 months, you are legally obliged to exchange your ham tags for any of the other tags available in the state. By the way, Amateur radio tags incur an extra yearly charge of $1.00 , quite a bargin today.
Cops are not all bad, guys.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by AC4GT on December 5, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
There seems to be some question as to whether the general public and the local law enforcement officials would know the difference between the illegal CB operations and the legal legit operations of Ham Radio and the other services.
The real answer is that they do not know now and they will not know then and the legit operaters will most likely suffer at the hands of local law enforcement.
The local cops do not even know the legal bounds they have now. I see it every day in South Carolina.
I am a retired Federal Law Enforcement officer.and a life time Ham Radio Operater. I am very concerned about what this law will do to the general public.
Will we having to fight for our survival at every turn now when some 23 year old cop feels like making a point?
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by K8XF on December 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I am very concerned that this bill will be a problem for Amateur Radio. Police Officers are not technically inclined (I used to be a local Sheriffs Dept Radio Tech) and I can see many hams having to explain themselves to a Deputy that doesnt know what end of a soldering percil to hold. The best solution would be to eliminate CB completely, hire FCC people with all this surplus money from the treasury and eliminate these tvi-makers. In conjunction with Federal Marshalls confiscate their illegal equipment and sweep them into the sea! I know this is a Draconian measure but thats what it will takes to breath fresh air, so be it.


73
Mike, K8XF
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KC8NWX on December 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Well, my license means that I can legally operate a ham radio station, and whether or not a police officer approves is meaningless. That's one reason why there are radio clubs, and that's another reason the ARRL is there. When lawsuits start coming up after ham equipment is illegally seized, it's not going to take too long for word to get around that if they have a licence, they are probably running legally, and if they can't show a license, take their equipment. That's why the FCC mailed you a license to begin with - to prove that it is legal for you to run your equipment.

I'm glad cops in my area have some common sense, 'vs the renegades that are apparently everywhere else judging from prior posts. I can't believe that the ham community seem to be more scared of this than those actually breaking the law. If you think it takes a rocket scientist to work for the FCC, you are wrong, and they have always had the right to seize equipment if they even think you are running illegally. There was an FCC certified employee working at a radio shack where I live, and I heard some guy bragging about having a modified CB, and this guy was about ready to take it right out of his car, except he didn't have it with him. I guarantee every cop in my area was smarter than this guy, because anyone who has been in radio shack in the last ten years knows you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work their, either.

Oh, well, I for one will be sleeping easy tonight...
KC8NWX
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KF7CG on December 6, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I have read this article and the comments closely and find a great deal of fear within the ranks of Amateur Radio. I have seen some examples of well handled radio training for the police. Then I remember the case of an Amateur in Mississippi (or may Louisianna) that was recently severly hassled because his legally operated equipment was interfering with a neighbors poorly designed telephones.

The problem is that both cases exist, and you are never sure which one you will get. Remember it doesn't have to be a police officer that swears out a complaint on a criminal offense it can be a citizen. Each citizen has the right to swear out a complaint that you were operating CB equipment illegally or on illegal frequencies and are therefore in violation of the law. The police will then have to investigate and document their findings whether they wish to or not.

In fact if sufficient complaints appear before a local magistrate, he may tend to issue onerous rulings until duly chastised by thouse in authority. Something that is both costly and time consuming to have happen.

I have mixed feelings on the legislation. I think that the basic idea is admirable, but deeply fear that the implementation even when given the most possible help will be much less than satisfactory.
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KV4BL on December 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Well, like it or not, we have it and are stuck with it unless and until someone takes the initiative to have it repealed. Comrade Clinton has signed it in to law. We can thank many of our own brethern for acquiescing in this. "That's ok, we gotta rid the world of "DEMON CB'ERS!!!!" "As long as they put a clause that says hams are exempt all is well and we can get rid of the source of ALL problems, THOSE DEMON CB'ERS!!!" I have read and observed this attitude from hams since the early 70's and I feel sure it goes back before that. Many of us (current hams to include myself) got our start on CB. It was a stepping stone and we learned a lot of technical things which helped in the tests we took to get our ticket and later on, to upgrade. Yes there are a lot of nitwits on CB and it has its down sides but to hear some of these guys bleat and carry on, you'd think CB was the anti-Christ or something. A while back. something was posted about doing away with the archiac and assinine 150 mile limit on CB contacts and you'd have thought that mandatory castration of all male hams had been proposed, judging from some of the posts. I don't understand what the insecurity is in some hams that causes such fear of this radio service. I resent freeband when it comes on to the 10 meter band where I have worked to get a license to operate. I would be resentful of a CBer running so much power that he interfered with my TV's and stuff. However, I don't feel threatened just because some guy for whatever reason, is operating in the alloted 40 CB channeels (below, at, or above the authorized 4 watts) for whatever communications give him pleasure. CB is still a very useful tool on the highways when you want to stay informed about debris and other hazards in the roadway, get directions, or find our why the traffic on the interstate has suddenly come to a complete stop. It fills these functions much better than two meters because a whole lot more people out there have CB's
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KV4BL on December 7, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
....than have two-meter radios in their vehicles. Getting back to the topic at hand, the aforementioned attitude has resulted in this cutting off our nose to spite our face legislation which has the potential to be as damaging to personal freedom (if not more so) than the ECPA of 86. I am a police officer and I wholeheartedly concur with those who voiced fears of non-technical local law enforcement types trying to enforce technical laws. This is a recipe for disaster, both for the ham, and for the cop and his department when he gets his / their butt sued off for making a decision in ignorance that wrongfully deprived someone of their property or freedom. Local law enforcement has its hands full already with all of the little "causes du jour" such as seatbelt laws, DUI crackdowns, domestic violence crackdowns, "road rage", cellphone usage in moving vehicles (don't even get me started on this one), etc, etc, etc. A lot of hams salivated at the prospect of this legislation as a way to "lob one in on top of the CB'ers" but I fear that they will all to soon find that this will backfire on us. I can see the legislature here in South Carolina (motto: If there isn't a law against it, we must make one!) rushing to pass initiatives. Time will tell, but I have a feeling that we aren't going to like the story. 73, Ray KV4BL
 
Typical amateur doom and gloom.  
by KL0PE on December 9, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Any time a law that has the potential to be wrongfully exploited against amateurs is introduced, the ham community goes into the fetal position and start sucking their thumbs. What is wrong with you guys? Aren't amateurs supposed to be helpful and responsible? Quit feeling sorry for yourselves and get active!

First, every amateur radio club in America needs to get a copy of this bill. They need to study it. They need to find simple ways for the non-technically inclined to reliably determine the difference between legal and illegal radio equipment. This could include visual inspection rules. Perhaps inexpensive detection equipment like field strength meters and frequency counters can be looked at.

Contact the members of your local law enforcement agencies. Talk to the police chief of your city and sheriff of your county and schedule seminars. Have examples of both legal and illegal equipment on hand and actually show the difference. Explain what "RF interfence" is, exactly and specifically, and perhaps arrange some demonstrations of it in action (TVI would be the easiest to illustrate). Have workshops with station mock-ups for officers to try their hand at using their new knowledge to determine a legal and illegal station. Even hand out some amateur radio study material to get the officers familiar with our hobby. Taking it one step further, encourage them be come hams themselves.

Finally, make yourselves available for any further questions, or to even ride-along on station expections. By becoming active and involved we not only help HR2346 be the law it is intended to be but hams everywhere will get a major boost in reputation with the local authorities.

This hobby requires involvement. Otherwise, we may as well be listening to scanners.
 
RE: Typical amateur doom and gloom.  
by KD4ZGA on December 9, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Feeling sorry for myself? Afraid? Hardly! I AM concerned for other hams. I live in West Texas, out in the middle of nowhere. If I wanted to put up a 200' tower and run 1500 watts nobody would care. I have lived in Northern California and have seen first hand the animosity that some communities have for all things radio. What does make me angry is the waste of our money. Do you think you are getting something for nothing? Think again. All legislation must have budget impact reports filed, the one filed on HR 2346 shows an estimated cost to taxpayers of $200,000 per year. Thats right, $200,000 per year, so the FCC can wash their hands of CB radio. I wish I could get $200,000/yr. to turn my back on a problem I created. Then more money will be needed for local enforcement.
Consider this:
MYTH: This law (it is a law now) will allow local law enforcement that is sitting around with nothing to do, a chance to go after illegal CBers.
FACT: Law enforcement is overworked NOW, manpower is a finite resource, you either cut back on current enforcement efforts to make room for this law, or you hire more personnel.

As you can see you can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you wish. If you want to be a Kilohertz Kop, fine. Who's stopping you? Just don't get your feelings hurt if they don't have time to chat radio with you (they might have REAL crime to fight). I'm just tired of all these crusaders passing laws and reaching in my pocket to pay the tab.

73 de KD4ZGA
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by AE7ET on December 10, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Quick question and comment - In my station I have both ham equipment as well as an old legal cb, how will the police know that my amps are legal ham ones, and my cb is not in any way connected to them. Also, CB was the first radio I got as a kid, both my cousin (same age) and I used to play for hours, all the while learning about antennas and propagation. My cousin and I became hams and while we both strictly adhere to the rules, we remeber what peaked our intrerst many years ago.
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KF7CG on December 12, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
You have hit on a good question! Further, what of the "few" hams that are still running CB rigs legally modified by them to operate on 10 Meters? One of our bigger problems is that though many do not we are still permitted to operate any kind of equipment that will meet the restrictions of our licenses, no matter what its original design or use.

We must push the FCC to keep providing the paper licenses, it is all that we have to separate us from those against which the legislation is targetted.

To reply to an earlier post, there is no physicla way to tell legal amatuer equipment from posibly illegal CB equipment by physical inspection. Remember, even old amateur rigs that still have working 11meter bands are legal to us if we don't transmit there.

Our Amateur Radio Licenses must be instan "get out of jail free" cards when it comes to local radio law. I beleive I read this in the law as it was written, but how many states and municiplaities will include this in their laws or accept the possession of a valid license as an affirmative defense.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KF7CG on December 13, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
After more study of this law, it is not this law that will cause Amateur Radio Operators problems. It is the hundreds, maybe thousands of state, county, and city laws that will be enacted under its permission.

This law does not provide for enforcement of current FCC Law and rules, but rather allows local jusisdictions, to write and enforce laws to limit interference from and to prohibit operations that violate Federal law by unlicensed operators operating in the 24 to 36 megahertz region. The law we are discussing requires that the local laws include exemption language for Liscensed Radio Operation, but since the laws will have to be written and enforced before they can be appealed and overturned the possibility for "legal" abuse is high.

If a particular municipality wrote a law prohibiting operation of any radio equipment other the military and goverment radios in the range of their jurisdiction, their law enforcement and courts could legally arrest and convict anyone operating any radio. This would be quickly overturned, but the damage to the ensnarred individuals would probably never be recovered. This is especially true since the local law enforcement would be acting within the scope of a law. It gets pretty hard to sue city hall and collect.

This law is part of the pavement on the road to perdition -- good intentions.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KF7CG on December 13, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Ok, maybe this is one comment too many. After rereading the law as it was enacted and considering the results of its wording. It has done NOTHING!

IT HAS GIVEN PERMISSION FOR EVERY STATE, COUNTY, BURG, VILLAGE, AND TOWNSHIP TO TRY THEIR HAND AT WRITING AND ENFORCING RADIO LAW!

This means that all Amateurs must now be constantly vigilant about what is proposed and passed at the local level.

Yes the law does mandate that the local law should be written to enforce Federal rules. Yes it does mandate that the law should specifically exempt licensed radio operation. Yes it provideds for direct appeal to the commission.

The flaws are that it allows local law-making bodies to attempt radio legislation without the necessary knowledge. Assistance is offered, but it is not mandated that it be taken. It also allows the local radio laws to become laws before they are reviewed.

If you become ensnarred in one of these new laws it could be quite expensive and time consuming to regain your equipment and privileges. I would estimate an average of 120 days. The appeal to the FCC alone can take up to 180 days and must be completed first before other judicial appeal can be initiated.

NOT ONE BAD LAW TO FIGHT BUT ??? LAWS. Might kind of take the fun out of operating mobile too. Would be hard to fight confiscation of your mobile gear in Bone, ID when you live in Newark, NJ.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KA2QFX on December 19, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
KL0PE makes a good point about hams helping the local constbulary perform this function properly. When I lived in NY I was often asked to intervene to identify and/or resolve interference complaints. The local FCC office had a good relationship with the ARRL Hudson Division who solicited the help of knowledeable and willing operators (who also held a commercial license). The FCC really should have retained the funding to operate their enforcement divisions. The plethora of operators illegaly using 2m and 440 for taxis services etc, let alone CB abuses, wasn't hard to predict once the FCC was emasculated. So the use of local volunteers to mediate these more persnickity complaints was novel and effective in many of the minor annoyance cases.
This may be a great way for Amateurs to gain a prominent and respected presence in the public's (and law enforcement's) eye. At the very least, they'd readily be able to distinguish the class of operator from the CBer.
Aside from that positive outcome I abhor the enacment of legislation that cannot effectively be focused on the criminal as readily as the law abiding. (As are most gun laws, but we don't need to go there). I cannot help but see the similarity in it's genesis to the bill that made listening to the cellular band illegal. The real unfortunate part of all of this is the undetermined outcome from complaints alleged against legal operators whose only fault is living near a consumer junky who has every manner of cheasy electronics imaginable in his house, usually poorly installed. With the advent of microelectronics with more and more low power Si junctions in our RF field there will undoubtedly be plenty of complaints to be responded to. If somebody's going to be knocking on my door I'd rather they be there asking for my help than asking to inspect my station. It behooves us to get involved and prevent or identify the problems such boneheaded legislation creates.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N7JAU on December 20, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I agree completely with most of the original article, but I do have a question or two. What was the originator of this article doing operating his (licensed) amateur station without a copy of his license on him, as required?

And to WA5AWG, I don't know where you got the notion that "online" FCC dealings go without "hard copy" results. I recently renewed, and later upgraded my license "online" I had the paper copies in less than a month in both cases.

I don't know who told you that some hams don't have licenses to post on their walls, but IF THEY DON"T they are operating ILLEGALLY

I do agree with the gist, tho. Idaho, being one of the poorer, less populated states, has a real bad habit of passing (well intentioned) poorly worded laws. The thing is, local officials of ANY caliber are not supposed to have ANY jurisdiction into RF matters, until now. I think this just opens the Pandora's box to a real can of worms
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N7JAU on December 21, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I just read the post from KC8NWX. I dont know who told you he was a "FCC certified employee", but here's the deal. There is NOBODY who works for the FCC (certified?) that is working for Radio Shack. The FCC does NOT have the right to enter your home, your person, your car, or anywhere else, without going through proper "court" proceedings (get court orders, help from the U.S. Marshalls, etc) Only then, after going through all that, do they have the right to confiscate any gear. anywhere. anyplace. anytime.

the thing is, that is kinda part of the problem. By the time the FCC spends weeks, months, years, investigating a case, thousands of dollars, tries to "scare" the culprit with "notice of apparent liability", THEN the only way they can "cure" the problem is after all the legal rangling. I'm a little crippled up, now, but I'll tell you this. Any body from Radio Shack, or anywhere else, who tries to "confiscate" any of my radios had better hang the hell on!!
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KD5JBC on February 12, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Just a side bar here. I was a CB'er Before I became a Ham, as a matter of fact I still use my CD radio on CB sideband to talk to a couple of friends at night. When my wife and I moved into my new house the 1st thing I did was get to know the neighbors. I then informed them that I was a CB'er running Legal Power, and I would be putting up my Antron 99. I also told them to please report any problems ti me. After about 2 days of operation my neighbor to the left informed me that at times I was coming through one of his phoned and a clock radio.. The Phone was simple, It was a Cheap KnB type phone so I just installed a choak on the line and that correct the problem. The clock radio I replaced because I culd not figure out how I was bleading on it. About 3 months passed by when I got a knock on the door at about 10:30Pm while I was on the CB. It was the poliece. The informed me of a complaint from a new Neighbor that moved in behind me. SHE stated I was comming through everything in her house, phone, TV, radio, etc. I informed the poliece that 1st of all I was running legal power and I found that hard to believe, and 2nd of all, if they have ever read the FCC warning sticker on the back of your average TV that it could recieve harmful interferinece from other devices. They got a little snooty with me so I pulled out the CB rules and showed them the legal wattage for CB and CB SSB.. Then I should them my watage both to the Antron 99 and to a OilCAN Dummy load, I was at least 1 watt bellow the legal output. Further I offered to correct the problem. The infomed the neighbor that if she wanted me to take a look at the problem I would. I never got a call from her, rather she got snooty with us and got a lawyer who was going to attempt to get a order to stop my operation, after talking to my lawyer and he talked to her lawyer it got droped. Again I offered to take a look at the set up and she let me.. 1st of all I was only comming over 2 phones and a VERY old Radio.. The Phones again I corrected with choaks and the Radio was corrected by just moving its location a couple of feet (never figured out this one).

So I see how a law like this could be a problem.

BTW. I've never had a problem after that, not even when I put up my J-POLE and started with 2 meters from the house.

Have fun and keep up the good will within your community. Remember good HAMING also comews wit hits responsibilites, such as taking care of you fellow neighbors to make sure your not causing any problems. If we keep ourself looking good with our neighbors I believe we make Ham Radio better all around.

Thanks
Joe
 
RE: HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by KC8JRV on August 14, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Gee, Joanna, you sound really angry... but what really is on your mind?

do you really think the Sheriff is going to start going out to inspect radio antennas and ham shacks when they didn't fund the actions? Do you think he has time or resources to spare?

I suspect this is an empty threat until an active investigation of a drug runner turns up that the suspect has a huge unlicensed CB rig to evade the police or conduct his illegal business.
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N9KWW on August 19, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
The problem here is not the law or lack of it but rather the cost of it. this law will provide some releif and will caouse some heartburn within the amateur radio community, but it will serve as a tool to crack down on the few who are making the majority look bad. now if you realy want to crack down on the free banders and other cb'ers who run more power than i do as a licensed ham, lets start with e-bay. look at the cb section, map's for sale by the truckload, and who is watching that one? not a soul, and what baaout the free band equipment, again not a soul, if WE as hams watch and scream this will stop, also if WE keep track of the problem we can guard ourselves from becoming targets for the local law, we can control the problem to a large extent by removing the tools they need to cause the problem, not tools no problem!!
 
HR2346 - To Curb C.B. RFI Interference  
by N9TGW on January 8, 2002 Mail this to a friend!
Although this is an old posting, it brings out a couple very valid points.
1)The law should never have been written... so where was everyone before it came up for a vote... how many of you follow your representatives and congress men\women's voting records?
2)The majority do not really know the reach of the FCC. When you signed your license you gave the FCC IMPLIED consent for the express reason of entering your premises providing they have probable cause. Years back when my father was still alive, and had his novice ticket we had that knock on the door. It seems that the upstairs neighbor was running a dirty amp and an "out of band" CB. Because Dad had a license THEY had the legal right to check the equipment.
Although Dad argued with the field agents ( and YES they were true AGENTS)they came in and checked dad's rig over with extreme scrutiny. Fortunately the chicken bander started transmitting while dad's rig was off and right in front of them. They DID apologize profusely.
The big joke came in that this was in the early 70's and the guy upstairs had a valid cb license, they walked out of his flat with a trunk load of equipment that night, and he ended up selling his new harley to pay the fines. While I was talking to the senior agent, he told me that it was ironic since if the guy upstairs didnt have a license, they would have had to get a warrant.
The moral of the story is you alone are responsible for knowing your rights and responsibities.
Scott
N9TGW
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
Radio Hams Can Encrypt, In Emergencies, Says Ofcom:
Emergency Service Organizations Open Doors to Visitors:
Floyd County Hams Talk About Their Work In the Community:
Santa Barbara Amateur Radio Club:
Lecture Series to Start with Ham Radio: