- Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Friends Remembered
Survey Question

DX Cluster Spots

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

[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

FCC Enforcement Actions:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 29 on July 20, 2007
View comments about this article!

FCC Enforcement Actions:

On July 14, the FCC released information regarding enforcement actions against three radio amateurs: John C. Kimbrough, WR3S, of Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Anthony W. Cranston, WA2HYO, of East Brunswick, New Jersey, and Steve L. Wingate, K6TXH, of Eureka, California.

Kimbrough was issued a Warning Notice and Notification of Removal of Automatic Control Privileges for his repeaters. The FCC said that it sent Kimbrough a letter on April 10 of this year, notifying him that monitoring information showed that on various dates in March 2007 his repeater stations operated without proper control and re-broadcast portions of commercial television programming and music. He was also accused having operators on his system fail to identify properly and using false call signs. The FCC's letter warned Kimbrough that repeaters must be under the supervision of a control operator "and not only expects, but requires, control operators to be responsible for the proper operation of the repeater system."

When Kimbrough replied to the FCC's April letter, he informed the Commission that he is operating 12 repeaters under his call sign on the following frequencies: 145.170, 145.370; 146.955, 147.360, 223.960, 224.160, 224.360, 224.560, 224.620, 224.660, 224.760 and 224.980 MHz, using at least 10 control operators. The FCC replied in this Notification that "The rebroadcast of commercial programming, improper identification and lack of identification by end users, and your own transmissions over your repeater that can be reasonably be interpreted as threats to complainants, indicate your inability or unwillingness to control your own repeater stations."

The FCC warned Kimbrough that he would soon be receiving a letter from the FCC's Atlanta office removing the automatic control privileges of his repeater systems. "This means that you may not operate ANY repeater stations under your call sign unless you are the control operator and at the control point at all times to make certain that Commission rules are being followed and that no interference is occurring. When you are unable to function as the control operator of the stations identifying with your call sign, they may not transmit."

Finally, the FCC said, "failure to control stations bearing your call sign, or any communications over your repeaters not complying with Commission rules, will result in enforcement action against your license. That enforcement action may include a forfeiture (fine) or revocation and suspension of your Amateur license, or modification of your Amateur license to remove voice privileges. Any threats, direct or indirect, made to complainants or perceived complainants over your repeaters by your users, will result in revocation proceedings against your Amateur license."

The FCC accused Cranston of operating his repeater without coordination and, as such, causing interference to WA3BXW on 147.345 MHz. Cranston was allegedly notified of this back in 2003 and contacted repeatedly since, but the matter remains "unresolved." The FCC notes that where there is interference between a coordinated and uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference."

The FCC asked Cranston if his repeater was coordinated for operation at 147.345 MHz, and if it is, asked him to furnish a copy of the coordination document and to "state the circumstances, if any, under which you are operating the repeater in a manner not consistent with the coordination, including changed location or power." If the repeater is not coordinated, the FCC asked Cranston for proof of any action he has undertaken to obtain coordination or to bring the station back into compliance with coordination. The FCC also wanted to know if he had received any complaints, either oral or written, and what steps he has taken to resolve them. The Commission also asked for Cranston to "describe in detail the configuration of the WA2HYO repeater system, including all sites, links and addresses, using diagrams where necessary. Detail any changes in location since the coordination, if any, was issued."

The FCC sent Wingate a letter, letting him know about complaints alleging his "lack of station control and deliberate interference." The Commission said he had 20 days from receipt of his letter to respond to the complaints in detail: "You are directed to support your response with a signed and dated affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, verifying the truth and accuracy of the information submitted in your response."


The ARRL Letter Vol. 26, No. 29 July 20, 2007

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
FCC Enforcement Actions:  
by W6EM on July 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
This is all well and good, but why hasn't the $21,000 Forfeiture issued to Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, been collected?

His application to renew his license is still pending. where's the Hearing before an ALJ to decide on his license renewal?

Its going on 2 years since this all began.

So far, this serves as an example of "make lots of threats" but no teeth, on the part of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.

Its high time the FCC completed this mess as the longer it drags out, the more the impression is cast that only those without the means to defend themselves get prosecuted and fined, whereas those that have means do not, as in Baxter's case.


FCC Enforcement Actions:  
by KE4ZHN on July 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
It seems to me that as of late the FCC is real hot and heavy on 2 meter issues but what about the rest of the spectrum? Countless idiots roam the HF spectrum jamming, breaking every rule in the book for years and the FCC is fixated on some repeater crap. How about some enforcement on the HF bands for a change?
RE: FCC Enforcement Actions:  
by W6EM on July 23, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I suspect that the reason for the lack of HF enforcement is that its tougher.

Repeater owners/offenders are usually on the same repeater or are the owners themselves and in close proximity to the complainant.

That makes the bureacracy simpler. That means one EB area office handles both the complaint and the investigation. Whereas on HF, it takes real work. They have to listen from one of their monitoring stations, deal with skip, coordinate which office is going to handle the complaint and which the investigation, and yes, in all cases, coordinate with Riley Hollingsworth.

Then, as in VE7KFM, there are the international alleged offenders. Since Industry Canada (Canada's FCC) has done nothing so far in his case, well, good luck. He's made some threats on 14.275 involving guns and one would think such stuff would receive a high priority. But, I'm afraid shades of Dudley DoRight, the comical Mounty, come into view.....

RE: FCC Enforcement Actions:  
by KE4ZHN on July 24, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Your probably right Lee. Its much easier to shoot fish in a barrel rather than to have to actually do any work to catch the real problem operators on the HF bands. In typical government fashion, they take the easy way out to make it look like they are doing something.
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
When All Else Fails, Amateur (Ham) Radio Works:
Manager Reopens Jefferson City RadioShack:
Martin F. Jue Joins Amateur Radio Roundtable:
International Beacon Project Upgrade:
Amateurlogic Episode 109 is Released: