FCC admits it cannot search your home

[Sonwatcher]

Again, the article was referencing part 15 devices .The only guidance in the literature for this device is-

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject
to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful
interference, and (2) This device must accept any interference received,
including interference that may cause undesired operation. Privacy of
communications may not be ensured when using this phone.
To insure the safety of users, the FCC has established criteria for
the amount of radio frequency energy various products may produce
depending on their intended usage. This product has been tested
and found to comply with the FCC’s exposure criteria. For body worn
operation, the FCC RF exposure guidelines were also met when used
with the Uniden accessories supplied or designed for this product. Use
of other accessories may not ensure compliance with FCC RF exposure
guidelines and should be avoided.

It also states -

If this equipment causes harm to the telephone network, the telephone
company will notify you in advance that temporary discontinuance
of service may be required. But if advance notice isn’t practical, the
telephone company will notify the customer as soon as possible. Also,
you will be advised of your right to file a complaint with the FCC if you
believe it is necessary. The telephone company may make changes in
its facilities, equipment, operations or procedures that could affect the
operation of the equipment. If this happens the telephone company will
provide advance notice in order for you to make necessary modifications
to maintain uninterrupted service.

Changes or modifications to this product not expressly approved by
Uniden, or operation of this product in any way other than as detailed by
the owner’s manual, could void your authority to operate this product.

That is far different to the statement that was included with the literature that came with my CB radio-

The Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service is under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission (F .C.C.). Any adjustments or alterations which would
alter the performance of the transceiver's original F.C.C. Type Acceptance or which
would change the frequency determining method are strictly prohibited. Replacement
or substitution of Crystals, Transistors, ICs, Regul~tor Diodes or any other part
of a unique, nature, with parts other than those recommended by us, may cause
violation of the technical regulations of Part 95 of the F.C.C. Rules or violation of
Type Acceptance requirements of Part 2 of the Rules.

ELIMINATION OF LICENSING
The Federal Communications Commission (F .C.C.) has ruled that Citizens Band (CB)
Radio Service operators no longer are required to obtain an F.C.C. license to operate
their CB equipment. In doing so, the F.C.C. also decided to permit CB station
operation without station identification.
Elimination of individual station licenses results in no lessening of the operating
privileges or responsibilities of CB users. An operator of a CB radio station is still
required to comply with the Communications Act and with the rules of CB Radio
Service

 

[n0zna]

They need the money,plain and simple.With the cut backs in funding.They are out hunting.If you dont speed on the highway you wont get a speeding tickit.They can come anytime and i will give them a cup of coffee.I run a old Siltronix1011d on 24.400usb.It doent even have 11mtrs in it anymore.I run a old Washington on 11mtrs,no amp.I know about government and funding,im a ex-police officer in a small town,and they said bring us the money.And thats what the FCC is doing now.If you dont splatter on neibors,or 10 or 12 mtrs.You dont have to worry.73s de JW

 

[Sonwatcher]

My question is does the FCC give enough written information to the consumer when using a part 15 device to warrant known user responsibility for inspection and and a fine if inspection refused ?

 

[Robb]

My question is does the FCC give enough written information to the consumer when using a part 15 device to warrant known user responsibility for inspection and and a fine if inspection refused ?

You can bet that their legal disclaimer has been written by the legal dept and reviewed before publishing. The thing is, they don't also give you a full explination of the implications of any voilations of such a statement. They have left that open to interpretation of the prosecutor in a courtroom - should it go that far.

It is enough information - as far as they are concerned? Is it enough info for the consumer? Obviously, if we must have a thread about - absolutely not. Have the FCC done all that they have to in this regard? They probably have - but we know it isn't enough.

 

[C2]

It's the American Gestapo. They are going to do anything they want anytime they want.

You may try and fight the battles, but the war is already over...

 

[C W Morse]

It's the American Gestapo. They are going to do anything they want anytime they want.

You may try and fight the battles, but the war is already over...

I don't think that's the case. Let's put this in a different context. Let's say a crooked neighbor slips in your house and steals a valuable coin collection. You were gone, but another neighbor SAW the crook go into his house with the collection. What would you do if there were no ability of the authorities to obtain a a warrant? WHAT then? You KNOW the thief has your property, but the cops can't DO anything about it!

Well, in the case of radio and the governing regulations, I already stated that the rules are slightly different. FCC CANNOT just bull their way into your house if you refuse to allow the inspection. What's "Gestapo" about that? You said, "NO! You can't come in". And that SATISFIES Constitutional law. BUT! YOU agreed to ALLOW inspection by first keying your mike, so when the agents knock on your door, they ALREADY have evidence of 1) excess power, or 2) splattering, or 3) unauthorized frequency use, or a combination of these. If they COULD not make inspections, then the REST of the radio users would have a really hard time using the radio. Why should an outlaw radio jerk, demonstrating his disdain for the rules, be allowed to continue to interfere with legitimate users while the FCC has its hands tied attempting to protect LAW-ABIDING citizens?

I just don't see where FCC is busting down doors all over the place, rousting innocent (?) citizens. They ONLY answer complaints of interference, and in order to do that, they MUST inspect the equipment that is culpable. I don't KNOW of this menacing "Gestapo" that is pouncing on "poor, poor ole" radio operators, jerking their radios out of their hands and slappin' them upside de head with their Connex !
Where's there's SMOKE, there's FIRE, and the only reason I can think of that people are so afraid of FCC (or even the PO-LEECE), they've got something to hide. IF you are breaking the LAW with your Connex or amplifier, then you OUGHT to get busted, Chances are you are bothering another innocent citizen!

Now I can see how an unfamiliar public, unaccustomed to Common Carrier communications and seeing their Part 15 devices as just an appliance.......
.....well, I can see how they would be confused over the inspection rules.
Yet they have the SAME protections against Search & Seizure as anybody else. Unless the Communications Act itself is changed, ANY device that emits RF, intentional or otherwise, is subject to FCC oversight. IF you AIN'T dong something wrong wid de radio, why not invite the agent in for a cup of coffee? Most of these fellows are actually highly intelligent, trained, professional (and even NICE) people that are fun to work with!!!!

CWM

 

[n0zna]

Thats the truth.If you run a clean station,on what ever 11 mtrs 10mts you dont have to worry.If you have a big ampa nd run alot of modulation,you might get a visit.Just for your info,the key is splattering and echo and roger beeps....that is a good sign you have a export radio,73s de JW

 

[Sonwatcher]

I still find it not really addressing part 15 devices that give very limited information to the everyday consumer not affiliated with CB or Ham communication laws. Again, if you read the limited statements contained in the literature accompanying these devices compared to the statements found ( that I posted on the previous page ) within the literature of a CB radio it is very vague as to what kind of responsibility the consumer has with the item or the FCC . If the FCC showed up to inspect a baby monitor the person would likely have no idea what is what and may say "No" you can't come in my home. But then unknowingly open themselves up to a fine that they knew nothing about nor informed of in the literature accompanying the device .

 

[Moleculo]

I don't know why this discussion keeps slipping back into CB & Ham inspections. This topic is not about those types of devices or "stations". By continuing to bring those types of inspections up in this thread you are confusing the topic. Give the CB/Ham stuff a break in this thread already.

The average consumer does not know anything about the FCC's claimed ability to inspect their homes by buying a baby monitor, cordless phone, or Ipod, nor would they agree to that if they did. That's what this thread is about:

STAY ON TOPIC.

 

[C2]

What in the WORLD are you talking about?

you AGREED to abide by PART 95, Title 47, US Code by the very ACT of keying your transmitter...

I KNOW what you are trying to achieve by wrapping up in the Constitution.

CWM

This is exactly why you would make a good bible thumper. Part 95 is irrelevant because we are talking about the GRANDMA's of the world that are NOT hams or CBers, but just happen to have a device, like a cell phone, maybe even a fancy remote control, or perhaps just a noisy transformer...

AND, the statement that the FCC made that they had the authority to search GRANDMA's home without a warrant, or impose a steep fine on her for refusing the warrantless search.

Should GRANDMA be subject to part 95 even though she is NOT a ham? or should her constitutional rights be trumped?

Perhaps GRANDMA should study part 15? Does that part mandate or imply consent to warrantless searches?

 

[C2]

Let's put this in a different context. Let's say a crooked neighbor slips in your house and steals a valuable coin collection. You were gone, but another neighbor SAW the crook go into his house with the collection. What would you do if there were no ability of the authorities to obtain a a warrant? WHAT then? You KNOW the thief has your property, but the cops can't DO anything about it!

CWM

The context is completely irrelevant. We are not saying there should be no means to OBTAIN a WARRANT, but a REQUIREMENT to obtain one before any search can be "asked" for without penalty of refusal.

The context would be identical if the cops knocked on your door and said to YOU, CWM, "Hey Bub, we wanna come in, turn hour house upside down, and look for illegal drugs."

And I bet, even though YOU have nothing to hide, would ask if they had a warrant, and if not, would refuse to allow a bunch of burley police officers into your home. AND, since you refused the search, you would then receive a heafty fine for refusing to allow the warrantless search.

That is the issue because, as has been said time and time again, we are not talking about Hams/CBers, or folks keying their mics, we are talking everyone else that has an electronic device that could emmit some RF noise!

Stop reading between the lines until you first actually read the lines...

 

[C W Morse]

Question. Is it not true that usually when there's a problem with a Part 15 device, it is because the device itself is faulty? Chances Grandma didn't even KNOW it was bothering something. So is the issue here that the ultimate responsibility would fall on the manufacturer of the device with the NOV being, not an attempt to hassle the consumer, but a way of letting the consumer know there's a problem. I've read quite a few of the
NOV's sent to consumers and I don't recall anyone getting fined. Once notified wouldn't the owner then contact the builder of the device for relief or refund? Do you know of a case where someone was fined for refusal of inspection over a Part 15 device? I"m just asking: I don't remember seeing any.

CWM

 

[Sonwatcher]

I haven't heard of any cases but the focus is on a statement by the FCC in an article-

You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.

That’s the upshot of the rules the agency has followed for years to monitor licensed television and radio stations, and to crack down on pirate radio broadcasters. And the commission maintains the same policy applies to any licensed or unlicensed radio-frequency device.


“Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference,” says FCC spokesman David Fiske. That includes devices like Wi-Fi routers that use unlicensed spectrum, Fiske says.
The FCC claims it derives its warrantless search power from the Communications Act of 1934, though the constitutionality of the claim has gone untested in the courts. That’s largely because the FCC had little to do with average citizens for most of the last 75 years, when home transmitters were largely reserved to ham-radio operators and CB-radio aficionados. But in 2009, nearly every household in the United States has multiple devices that use radio waves and fall under the FCC’s purview, making the commission’s claimed authority ripe for a court challenge.

This is the FCC's rules under question regarding Part 15 device users-

INSPECTION AUTHORITY

Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) gives the Federal Communications Commission the "authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1), or which are subject to the provisions of any Act, treaty, or convention binding on the United States . . ." 47 U.S.C. 303 Both Section 303 of the Act, and the Rules which implement the Act, grant the right to inspect most radio operations to the Commission, and by delegated authority to the Commission's Bureaus and agents. The Enforcement Bureau conducts inspections of radio installations as part of the Bureau's function to "[e]nforce the Commission's Rules and Regulations." 47 CFR 0.111(a).

Both licensees and non-licensees must allow an FCC Agent to inspect their radio equipment. Along with the privilege of possessing a license come responsibilities such as knowing the applicable rules, including allowing the station to be inspected. Licensees should be aware of the Commission's right to inspect. Equally important, FCC Agents are allowed to inspect the radio equipment of non-licensees. Non-licensees include those individuals or entities operating in accordance with Part 15 of the Rules.

While most of the inspection mentioned deals with radio communications such as CB or Amateur Radio they also have included Part 15 home devices .
This has caused a concern.

But if you look at the FCC site it ends the above with these words-

Radio equipment is generally used in a commercial setting (e.g., commercial broadcast station, land mobile station, commercial delivery service) or a residential setting (e.g., amateur, citizen's band (CB) radio). Home-based businesses may also operate radio stations.This fact sheet addresses inspection of radio stations in both the commercial and residential settings.

Those rules for inspection do not match the statement by FCC spokesman David Fiske-

“Anything using RF energy — we have the right to inspect it to make sure it is not causing interference,” says FCC spokesman David Fiske.

The question is do they have the authority to require resident inspection and Fining the consumer if entrance is denied as they do the radio service ?

 

[C2]

I have some vague recollection of one case involving a Winegard VHF/UHF TV amplifier and it seems the FCC got heavy handed in the case. I do not have any details, however.

But, yes, all the hoopla is about the shock and awe attitude that the FCC presented in public forum.

 

[Sonwatcher]

It may be possible that at such a time the concern may have to be addressed by Congress. I found this in the House of Representatives archives-

The laws charge the FCC with serving the public interest. That means all parties – rich, poor, minorities, small business owners, rural residents, people with disabilities – should be fairly and properly treated by the Commission and its policies. It is equally vital that this Committee exercise vigilant and proper oversight of FCC activities. For some time, the Commission has not been subject to an appropriate level of Congressional oversight. This oversight slumber seems to have led to unwelcome consequences.
The FCC has strayed from its sole duty – that is, to implement the laws as passed by the Congress. The FCC is not a legislative body. That role resides here, in this room, with the people’s elected representatives.
When the FCC loses sight of its proper role, consumers suffer, as does the credibility of the FCC. I fear that this has too often been the case.