From the FCC's files.
ENFORCEMENT: ALASKA CB OPERATOR ISSUED PROPOSED $12500 FINE
The FCC has
issued a $12,500 Notice of Apparent Liability to Monetary Forfeiture to Glenn S.
Yamada, of Kenai, Alaska. This based on allegations that he essentially operated
his C-B station in a manner that interfered with international aviation traffic.
--
This story goes back to last January. Thats when the
FCC received a complaint regarding interference to an authorized user on 21.964
MHz in the aeronautical band. According to the regulatory agency, the problem
concerned a male subject talking and interfering with the control and monitoring
of air traffic over the North Atlantic.
The FCCs High Frequency
Direction Finding Center was called into action. On January 31, its operators
observed a subject matching the details of the compliant transmitting on 21.965
MHz using the call sign 1600 Alaska. Of even more interest, the actual operating
frequency was 27.025 better known as CB channel 6. Direction finding techniques
placed the transmissions were coming from Kenai, Alaska. Subsequently, an agent
from the FCCs Enforcement Bureau in Anchorage used direction finding techniques
and found the source of the interfering signal to be coming from the residence
of one Glenn S. Yamada.
The agent, accompanied by an officer from the
Kenai Police Department, inspected Yamadas station on February 6[SUP]th[/SUP].
At that time the agent found a non-certificated CB transmitter and a linear
amplifier as part of Yamadas CB station. During questioning, Yamada admitted to
the agent that the linear amplifier was capable of generating a power output
level of 200 watts. The agent observed that the transmitter and the linear
amplifier were connected to a transmission cable and ultimately to the
directional antenna in the back of Yamadas residence. Yamada told the agent
that this was his hobby setup and that he had been operating it for the last
several weeks using the made up call of 1600 Alaska.
Now, in its July
14[SUP]th[/SUP] finding authorizing the proposed $12,500 fine, the FCC says that
Yamada apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934 and Sections 95.409(a) and 95.411(a)(1) and (b) of
the FCC Rules. This by operating his CB radio without requisite Commission
authorization. In simpler terms, it means that his station equipment was not FCC
certified and he was running power in excess of the maximum allowed on the 11
meter band.
And when it issued the Notice of Apparent Liability, the
regulatory agency also stated that given the public safety concerns of the
violations that it was directed Yamada to submit a statement signed under
penalty of perjury confirming whether he is still engaged in CB operations. If
so, he is to state whether he is using a certified CB transmitter. Also, to
certify that he has not attached any linear amplifiers to his CB station.
Yamada must submit this statement to the FCC Office in Anchorage no later than
August 17[SUP]th[/SUP]. Thats the same day when payment of the $12,500 Notice
of Apparent Liability is also due.
**
UH OH! Man gets $12,500 fine for interference
Discussion in 'CB Radio Forum' started by Gadfly, Jul 28, 2012.
Page 1 of 5
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
yup, all the super truckers with the gazillion watt radios and echo boxs are actually committing are crime.
do you really need 300 watts to find out if you have a dock door at the shipper 200 ft away ??
windsmith, Marksteven and HwyPrsnr Thank this. -
I guess he'll pay them with smoked salmon!
Logan76, Big Don and RALPHMANBEARPONY Thank this. -
do you really need 300 watts well according to the SUPERTRUCKER creed YES you do along with the PING , reverb , echo box and all the other Nonimpressive Junk
Marksteven Thanks this. -
Notice he wasn't anywhere close to the CB band.......!
-
cuuuuuuuuuuuuuum onnnnnnnnn
-
Read that whole paragraph it says he was actually operating on cb ch6.25(2)+2 Thanks this.
-
He was causing interference on a channel he wasn't supposed to be using. Bleeding over to other channels is annoying at the very least...and when it bleeds into the non-cb frequencies it can become a problem. In this case, he was bleeding over into the aeronautical band...interfering with aviation traffic....which is what got him busted, because those users view their radio as an invaluable tool to help them do their job and get where they are going safely. When you interfere with that, they are going to file complaints...and those complaints will be investigated....and that's when you get caught.
If he hadn't been bleeding over into other channels, he never would have been caught....because nobody who mattered would have filed a complaint. -
Possibly many reasons for the 21.965MHz complaint being caused by a 27.025 MHz CB equipment. If his amplifier was a ham radio type, he might have ignorantly had it on the 15 meter (21MHz) band and still got 200W from it due to overdriving the heck out of it. Strange things happen when equipment is abused and a determined idiot can make a piece of equipment do things it should not. Could the article have a typo and instead of 21.965 it should have been 27.965? Only ask because it is strange.
truthfully 4W or 12W PEP or whatever is the precise power rating for CB, it could reasonably be allowed more today with all the noise that does not come from CBs in that same 40 channel spectrum. It seems like the band is noisier than it was a long time ago and a good portion of it is from vehicle electronics.
It would be nice if a 100W limit was allowed, and a switch on the set for choosing between high and low power, 100W PEP or the customary 12W PEP for example. I doubt that the majority of CB users would properly make use of the function though and use the 100W setting all the time.
The justification for the request for higher power is for safety reasons and more distance on the road at times when there is no one in range on a stock CB. It does make a difference of a few more miles. Most of the "ham radio community" would probably be against it but it is none of their business as long as it does not interfere with anyone else.
One thing I'd like to see in CB radios is a mandatory minimum level of performance for the receiver. If I am stuck with a lowly 12 watt transmitter, it would be useful to have a receiver that is at least as good against noise and adjacent channel interference as in a high quality and selective ham radio. I'd have a chance of hearing the other 12W station.. The manufacturers would scream about that because it would be the end of the $40 radio.
No one wants to pay for receivers, only transmitters.Ougigoug Thanks this. -
Guess I'm getting blind in my old age
Last edited: Jul 28, 2012
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 1 of 5