Coconino County, AZ "bans" CB and Ham Radio!

Ridgeline,

There are some interesting comments regarding the "federal interest in promoting and facilitating Amateur radio". They clearly seem to go out of their way to promote the unrestricted use of mobile amateur. This was prior to 9/11, and makes some interesting comments in support of it. I will post these comments a bit later; I am out of time right now...................

 

Here's something I am about to embark upon over the local jurisdictions and their restrictions on (for now) Amateur radio. Coconino County is one in a long line of local cities, counties, etc that have attempted to regulate (ham) radio. Most of them, due to the activism of the local hams, exempted ham radio from their cell phone and "distracted driving" laws due the clarifications of jurisdictions and also the proven lack of impact on driving of a two way radio. Those few who haven't seen fit to exempt ham radio seem to feel that they have jurisdiction over radio, and want to completely restrict it. This is due to ignorance of technical differences between a TWR and a cellphone and the minimal impact that ham radios have on driving. I believe it was Palm Desert, CA that tried to outlaw the use of ham radio PERIOD in their city limits, but found that they could NOT do this (via FCC)

Traditionally, FCC has control over two way radio (and other things), and always HAS due to the Comm Act of 1934. It has also gone to some lengths to promote and encourage the USE of mobile amateur radio, and is on public record as having done so. This document is lengthy, and I won't re-scribe it here, but you can find it at QRZ under the News thread in the topics section if you care to read it. It has migrated to the 2nd-3rd page by now, but it is there.

Now. What I propose to do is file for a Petition for Proposed Rulemaking to FCC to clarify their rules as to who has control of two way radio. Such a positive clarification and affirmation of FCC's traditional role in radio would achieve several things. 1) Establish the traditional central, and correct, role of FCC in control issues. 2) Establish guidelines for all users of TWR so that local jurisdictions would not attempt to overstep FCC's authority. 3) Prevent a dampening affect on hams' ability to respond to emergencies whereby the hams, fearful or tickets, refuse to help in disasters.
This last one is clearly an unintended result of local yokels and their "distracted driving" laws. Coconino County's law makes exception for "emergency" use of ham/CB radio. Of this, I am quite contemptious! On the one hand, they want to give me a ticket on Monday for using my licensed radio, then when on Tuesday, a forest fire erupts, they want ME to come help them do spotter and porter duty??????? WHAT are the chances?

Our radios have little to no impact on driving--no more than changing the AM radio or adjusting the A/C. Anything can be a distraction if you let it. Hey, driving a million + miles in a HUGE truck with a little CB in it, accident free, that's no mean feat. But there is little proof that radios have but a minute impact on drivers! The locals do, indeed, have control of your driving, but what I am saying with this petition is, the mere act of picking up a mike and talking is no more distracting than talking to a passenger in the car, nor does it prove that you are "driving distracted". Its BULL****!!!! It IS the cellphone that is the culprit here, NOT your CB, your ham radio, or your commercial two way! I hold in dripping contempt these ignorant lawmakers who know **** from shinola about radio, but they "solve" problems by punishing the innocent with the guilty.

SO! As I have time, I am going to Plead for clarification of FCC's rules and hope for a positive outcome. Ever since the local law dogs started seizing hams' legally licensed radios as "scanners", they have looked for other ways to do this. This might stymie fat-bellied copper once and for all!

 

I failed to mention that if this comes out right (and there is much pressing legal precedent for it), it will also have impact in CB and other TWR users. And then there's also the economic impact on the county.................like, uh er................dodging Coconino County's businesses as you pass thru on I-40 and buying gas and food outside there (hint hint, wink wink). Get enough people P O'ed over this and maybe.......................an outright boycott. Already I've heard of a local RV show in which some heavy-hitter vendors pulled OUT because of their "law"!

 

Isn't this what I said? There already exists some clear words from FCC in their document and Docket #91-36, dated September 3, 1993 that most directly states their position of support for Amateur Radio and its emergency support capabilities. OK, I'll post it here directly so everybody can read what FCC stated.

GF

 

This comes from the FCC's own Docket #91-36, a public document available to anyone, and they are my own words in a post I made there on QRZ a few days ago. I think I'm safe here since I am quoting myself, and it IS public information. So here goes. I think you'll like what it says regarding radio, amateur radio in particular. They are also FCC's own words and were written during a time when ham radios were being falsely seized as "scanners"!

(QUOTE)
(Quote) " There is a strong Federal interest in promoting amateur communications...............Evidence of this interest lie in the comprehensive set of rules the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service. These rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency allocations, technical standards which amateur equipment must follow. We (FCC) recognize the Amateur Radio Service as a voluntary, non-commercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. .........Moreover, the ARS provides a reservoir of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts who can be called upon during time of local & national emergency..........."

"This federal interest in the amateur service is also reflected in Section 97.1 of our rules, 47 CFR. This provides that the amateur service exists to 'continue and extensively........use the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art. This regulatory purpose is consistent with the Communications Act requrement that "it shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies to the public."


(Here's where it starts to get interesting!)

Para. 10 "The strong federal interest in the preservation and advancement of the amateur service is also demonstrated by Congress' recent recognition of the goals of the Amateur Service in a "Sense of Congress" provision in which Congress strongly encouraged and supported the Amateur Service. Congress therein directed all Government agencies to take into account the valuable contributions of amateurs WHEN CONSIDERING ACTIONS AFFECTING THE AMATEUR SERVICE. We believe that the strong federal interest in supporting the services provided by amateurs CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOMPLISHED UNLESS AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS ARE *FREE* TO OWN AND OPERATE THEIR STATIONS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE PERMITTED BY THEIR LICENSES AND ARE NOT UNREASONABLY HAMPERED IN THEIR ABILITY TO TRANSPORT THEIR RADIO STATIONS ACROSS STATE AND LOCAL BOUNDARIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSMITTING ON AUTHORIZED FREQUENCIES! INDEED, AS A RESULT OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY MAKING SMALLER, LIGHTER RADIOS COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSLY AMENDED ITS RULES TO FACILITATE AND (GET THIS) *ENCOURAGE UNRESTRICTED MOBILE AMATEUR OPERATIONS."

Para. 12..............................................."We (FCC) find, that under current conditions....................... such laws prevent amateur operators from *USING THEIR MOBILE STATIONS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED under the Commission's rules............and are in clear conflict with federal objectives of facilitating and promoting the Amateur Radio Service". (UNQUOTE)

This was well prior to 9/11 and it was clear, that Congress and our FCC had a clear federal interest in "promoting and facilitating the amateur service and the mobile operations contained within.

The issue of "distracted driving" had not yet become such a huge issue, and there was no way for FCC to anticipate that there would be any restrictions on our amateur operations, except the then current scanner law issue.

There is neither a physical nor a compelling local interest and no rationale for "banning 'amateur mobile use'. It is NOT the two way radio that is the overwhelming cause of "distracted driving", but the cellphone.

Such laws, varying from locale to locale, are likely to be arbitrary, capricious, and difficult to keep up with for the traveling ham. Furthermore, some might go so far as to use this as a way to confiscate the equipment they could not due to the federal 'scanner' preemption as well as fining the hapless ham who fell into their "web".

Such laws are hypocritical. In the case of Coconino County, and possibly others who might follow their lead, they might pull hams over on Monday and cite them, then on Tuesday, there's a forest fire and they want hams to do spotter duty and move people around. What would YOU do while holding that fresh, day old ticket in hand? I know what I'd do. The H*ll with ya, buddy!

I am firmly of the belief that there is enough precedent in the above, the long history of amateur radio mobile use, its proven ability in emergencies, that proof already exists that 1) FCC has complete authority over amateur radio, 2) that their Declaratory Order shows that their rules clearly authorize mobile operation, 3) Their intent is clear that they wish to 'facilitate and promote the mobile use of amateur radio", and permit the "transport and unrestricted use of amateur radio across state and local boundaries."

Then there is this: The mere holding of a mike, or changing the FM radio, adjusting the A/C---none of these have any significant impact, or present a likely danger while driving. Local authorities already have the ability to ticket those who appear to be weaving, running off the road, following too closely. They should NOT be able to ticket the holder of a valid federal license (commercial, CB or ham) simply because a cop spots him using a mike.

And this is the basis upon which I am thinking of asking for a Petition for Rulemaking from FCC. Either a clarification/update of the Commission's rules, or an amendment to the Rules to specifically authorize unlimited mobile operations in the amateur service. It should apply to CB and commercial, too, but *they* will have to ask for their own. Such laws are BULL**** and, may be used as a way to enhance revenue. They do NOT reduce distracted driving, but punish the innocent along with the guilty (cellphone/texters).

This affects YOU guys, too, so what do YOU think? Me, we have TOO many stupid laws as it is, and we are losing freedoms in the name of false security every day! It is time to stand our ground!

GF