Laws will be altered so as truckers can be treated as criminals such as no right to refuse search.
Coconino County, AZ "bans" CB and Ham Radio!
Discussion in 'CB Radio Forum' started by Gadfly, May 5, 2014.
Page 4 of 6
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
WRT radio, (which is what we are talking about here), they've already had the "right" to INSPECT (your CB station) IF you have a CB installed since 1958. Part 95, US Code, is specifically crafted to permit that. But any "search" is to be directed specifically to the radio/amp itself. If you have no two way, CB, amateur radio installed, any such rights come from other laws or DOT of which I am not familiar. You also CAN refuse the search (unless they have a warrant) BUT.........because they are looking at some issue pertaining to the radio(s), Part 95 states that you MUST permit INSPECTION of your CB station and refusal can generate a fine for that refusal. People often get that mixed up.
Ridgeline: "I would agree with you but the cell phone service is just like any other leased or rented radio service where you may own the equipment but you lease the use of the radio frequency (channel) under someone's license. Trunked radio services are one such area where this happens, so they too are a appliance used, not a license holder. I worked for a couple companies that just did that, they leased a channel or two from a company that had multiple repeaters and these companies purchased the radios, had the service program them and just paid a monthly fee". (Quote)"
Oh, but there's a "but"!~
Remember: EACH radio service comes under DIFFERENT parts of the US Code of Regulations! For example, amateur radio is under Part 97, CB is under Part 95, commercial falls under Part 90. Cell phones come under a different "Part". Each service has rules outlining how each service is to be used, and how each one is regulated by FCC. I can do different things with ham radio, for example, that CB is not legally allowed. Thus, how cellphones are USED versus a leased radio service is differently regulated under the Code. Yes, a licensee may permit 'blanket' use of specific authorized frequencies, whether rented or simply used by employees of the company (like the gas company). Cellphone were from the start recognized as a consumer appliance that would be used by millions, so the way they are regulated had to be different. As part of the way cellphones are handled, the duplex and public utility had to considered. Trunked radio systems come under Part 90 (?), I think it is.
SO. As part of the way mobile radio systems have been handled, the key here is "MOBILE. The very purpose of the mobile radio was, historically, to provide quick and convenient flows of information to where it was needed, whereas before, one had to pull off the road and find a phone or a booth (a vanished part of Americana). Mobile radio was not only allowed but encouraged by FCC, and this was reflected in the rules. "Distracted driving" wasn't an issue--even when CB radios became hugely popular in the 70's! While it is obvious there have, perhaps, been accidents caused by people using a radio, the instances of such is so small as to be microscopic! If this thing about driving distracted had anything to do with radio, it would have reared its head in the 70's!~ But it DIDN'T! Meanwhile, FCC not only allowed such use, understood that THAT (mobile) was the purpose of "mobile" radio (DUH!), they went so far as to aggressively endorse such use by publishing a 'Friend of the Court' brief during another issue that was affecting the Amateur Service! THAT is part of the public record, and they can't just take it back 20 years hence! (See the abbrev. version a few pages back)
To ME, it is clear that the evidence, the existing regulations, FCC's own position, published documents, the existing Rules 1) assert that FCC is the sole authority with regard to radio by Rule and traditional authority of the Comm. Act of 1934. 2) Local authorities have NO BUSINESS trying to "regulate" two way radio of any sort: they are overstepping their authority.
Local authorities CAN, using existing "Distracted Driving" laws and ordinances, cite you for the ACT of distracted driving itself--such as swerving, driving too slowly (cellphone stuck to your ear), failing to start up at a light, etc. These ARE signs of "distracted driving"---NONE are often attributed to the USE of a microphone because the way radio devices are USED are different from a cellphone. There has NEVER been any evidence that our CB radios/ham radios have ever made any impact on distracted driving. The mere USE of a push button microphone does NOT cause "distracted driving", nor should that single act be cause to ticket for "distracted driving".
Thus, I am working on a Petition for Proposed Rulemaking at FCC. It will be primarily directed at amateur radio, but I will also include licensed two way and CB radios as well. I hope for a positive outcome that will help us all.
-
Gadfly,
Kudos for taking the initiative to put together (or add to) a Petition for Proposed Rulemaking. The copying costs alone can be daunting considering having to make nine (or 12?) copies of the WFT ("whole foolish thing"
so all the Commissioners get their own copies.
You're right about most trunked LMR services come under Part 90. Before I moved from the Land of Volcanoes and Earthquakes to here in Tornado Alley (I think I was better off in The Great Land...) I had a trunked 800 MHz SMR and 6 FB4 and FB6 UHF repeaters (private carrier, business use only; the FB6s were interconnected to the PSTN ("Public Switched Telephone Network"), to function as push-to-talk (half-duplex) or full duplex mobile phones. As the private carrier who held the licenses, I was ultimately bound to make sure that my subscribers followed the rules concerning language and content, and the repeaters all ID'd with my callsigns.
As I understand it, Coquonino (sp?) County in AZ has overstepped their bounds in trying to restrict use of "licensed to user" services as well as "licensed by (regulation? Whatever it is for CB and cellular; Amateur Radio requires both a user AND station license to be legal).
As far as local authorities conflicting with preemptive federal legislation, the general test is that for certain circumstances, local laws *may* place further restrictions upon Federal or State statutes/laws/regulations. FCC allows licensed amateurs to use frequencies at 10.5 GHz (immediately adjacent to public safety traffic radar, but FCC prohibits pulse modulation. In that way, an amateur may not use his ham license as an affirmative defense against a citation for possessing and/or using a "radar jammer" because the modulation mode is prohibited by the FCC. Feel free to run it in CW with an occasional voice or Morse ID, but as soon as you start pulse modulating it, it becomes suspiciously similar to the technology used in triggered radar vehicle speed detectors. (Of course, if you can convince a traffic court judge that your 10.5 GHz mobile beacon xmtr somehow heterodyned with your 440 MHz and 2m transmitters that were running APRS and DTMF control for a remote base linking and produced a mix inside of and hornswaggled the nice traffic officer's Kustom handheld radar into displaying a false reading, more power to you.) If you can keep a straight face while you give a technical spiel about non-linear frequency mixing, especially in a microwave diode's transmitter, you might just prevail.
But the state of Virginia, immediately to my north, categorically prohibits the use (to include not being mounted but within the passenger compartment) of a traffic radar detector. IIRC, so do Montana and D.C. In that case, I do not know how the state says it can get away with saying that a receiver of a licensed transmitter (licensed by the police agency) is unlawful to possess, unless it falls under the same statute that covers being unlawful to "unscramble" any encrypted transmission, along with cordless telephones, cellular telephones, and the like, where the user has, by benefit of law to have an expectation of privacy. While transmission of signals for which either the operator or the service provider from whom he/she/it subscribes may be covered, reception is not -- think "pirated satellite TV signals."
And I understand that the USDOT (or some such agency -- I'm a tech, not a CMV driver) universally prohibits the possession of radar detectors, firearms, and Schedule III ("narcotic") substances from CMVs, regardless of any licenses or prescriptions that would othewise allow their presence. I'm probably wrong on that, and I certainly welcome correction from "them's what knows".
Of course, a lot of that came about back when Newt Gingrich was talking to his mistress on his analog cellphone and was intercepted by a "scanner enthusiast", who made it public. The FCC held then that, in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, the defendant had divulged the contents of a communication to which he was not an intended or lawful participant of the conversation -- and divulged it to *himself*, a rather novel way of enforcing the law. And of course part of the fallout of that debacle was the redesign of most models of scanners to exclude both the US cellular spectrum, and to render so technically difficult to re-enable reception of that range (like by listening to i.f. images, etc.) that the prices of scanners went up a fair amount. And all because an elected official (I think he was Speaker of the House then) got caught with his hand in someone else's cookie jar.
And while federal law may permit the ownership of firearms, carrying one into the City and County of San Francisco can be cause for forfeiture of said firearms. New York City use to allow firearms only by members of accredited gun clubs, and personal weapons could only be transported under some of the most Draconian and restrictive conditions imaginable from a residence or a range to its lockup at the gun club.
Nowadays, P25 traffic is lawful to intercept -- even trunked P25 -- as long as it is not also encrypted. There are even now P25 repeaters here in NC, apparently for the use of hams with more money than God to be able to afford the appropriate subscriber radios.
Similarly, although sorta oppositely, hams, FRS, and GRMS are prohibited by the FCC from scrambling/hiding/enciphering their transmissions. Part of the trade-off for "free to use" spectrum is that " 'da gummint' " requires that $40 Chinese handhelds cannot be used by individually unlicensed users to, say, make sure that a terrorist cell (or a Boy Scout Troop running a scavenger hunt) cannot hide the location of the prize (or bomb) from their competitors or that same " 'gummint' ". Business Radio users *may* encrypt their traffic to evade industrial espionage, but it may the the supposition that the licensee has been at least minimally vetted as being legal to use such technology.
<sigh> Last weekend I even got on for Field Day, but I used QRP, single op, single xmtr, on depletable batteries that I did not recharge. A few hours of minor pileups was enough for me; it seemed everyone wanted the 5x or whatever the multiplier was for working my kind of station. When the batteries went exhausted, I was happy to pack it in. I can only do about 30 wpm; I dunno where all the 50+ wpm ops came from, but I can tell you that 14.058 was pretty hot for a couple of hours
73, and again thanks for having the fortitude to actually file with the Candy Company. It takes more patience than I can usually muster
Last edited: Jun 4, 2014
-
OK here is the rub, some of the worst drivers I have ever seen were ham radio operators.
As for the phone thing, I don't care either way, but it brings up another point, I can do remote control from my laptop over the internet to my HF rig, which I wonder if I put that on my phone as an app, would that constitute a phone use or a radio use?
-
Ridge,
Depending upon the judge and (if you're able to scare up one of the ARRL's volunteer counselors to defend you), it could conceivably come down to whether you have to hit a key on the phone ( * comes to mind) to PTT and a separate one (say # just for the point) or whether the phone is running effectively in full duplex as you use it and used VOX to trip the pickle at the HF rig.
If the former, you could likely make the case that's it's no different from any other crossband remote base controller; merely the packaging resembles the kind of device that the gendarmerie in several jurisdictions seem eager to use to supplement their coffers.
But I dunno; I are neither an en-gunn-ear nor a barrister.
Yours sounds like a fancier interface than I've seen. Wonder if I could use my shoephone to switch my Hallicrafters SX-111 to the EFJ Viking 1 on a.m. on 75m.....
73 -
Fellas,
I have undertaken this project (I hope) because I am alarmed and fearful of what *may* be coming IF there's no pushback against such laws. I am firmly of the belief that Coconino County, for one, has overstepped their bounds by attempting to regulate two way radio. There is a LONG history and precedent of "single point" regulation thru the Comm Act of 1934, and this IS the way to regulate radio because of its ability to cross state, national and international boundaries. IF we, the amateur community, the CB community, and commercial users sit back and say nothing, then we could be subjected to a hodge podge of rules and regulations that are arbitrary, capricious, and conflicting, and make it difficult for travelers who use various radio protocols to operate. Where it affects CB operators, it could be a damper on commerce. To commercial operators, ALSO a hindrance to their work. To hams, it restricts the hobby aspects, affects our emergency ops, and goes against the "Sense of Congress", its intent, AND the intent of FCC to promote and encourage "unrestricted mobile operations" in the amateur service. As I said earlier, such laws are hypocritical as they seek to ticket us one day (revenue generation?), then ask us to come help in a disaster on another! (If they did that to ME, you think I'd come help 'em?)
So at this point, I am trying to find out how to go about this, put everything together, etc I'm having trouble getting back with Laura Smith; she's not returning my calls. So we'll see where this goes.
GF
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 4 of 6