FCC: Out of touch with the global community?

[Moleculo]

I was on my way home from Phoenix tonight on a Southwest flight, when I decided to pick up the Southwest Magazine in the back pocket of the seat. There was a very interesting article on a new problem the FCC is facing: Cell phone jamming.

You see, the problem is that there are some neat devices out there that we can buy that will jam cell phone reception, making it impossible to use a cell phone in the vicinity of a jammer. These devices are illegal.......but only in the U.S.

In the rest of the world, people are viewing it the right of movie theatres, restaurants, and other businesses to use cell phone jammers to limit cell phone usage. But in the U.S., this is strictly illegal. However, the article reports that the biggest buyers of this technology are our own military (used currently in Iraq) and also our own prison system (apparently smuggled cell phones into prison is a big problem). So how does the government justify that it's OK for the prison system to break the FCC laws? Well that's part of the problem. The other issue is that apparently there's little that the FCC can do to enforce their own regulations in both the government or private sector.

My question is....If the rest of this entire planet thinks that it is perfectly within a person or business' rights to use this device, is the FCC out of touch with everyone else in prohibiting such devices? Can any similarities be drawn between this problem and the Export Radio problem? Also, if many other countries have already gotten rid of CW requirements for HF amateur privileges, how out of touch is the FCC with the rest of the world considering they haven't acted on this topic either? Is it time for us to question whether or not the FCC has their head too far up their own ass to be able to peer outside of it to understand the global perspective on such topics??

 

[CDX126]

The problem is, once you allow certain devices where do you draw the line. If you allow say the cell phone jammer, why not allow the next device and so on.There are many things developed the the US, that the US Population doesn't see and may never see. Truth be told. we are to GREEDY and most likely can't handle the responsibility that comes with it anyway. Look at the CB for instance.(not picking on them) In some contries they cut off your hand for stealing. Does this mean we should?

 

[yama junk owna]

Here is the problem, the FCC is a goverment agency and being so the people in it are there due to politics (good ole boys), they don't have a clue when it comes to anything related to radio. They listen to the lobbyist (ARRL, etc.) and this is why we get these rules that are so far out of touch as they are. Take for example the cb - ham deal, anybody that has been around radio for any length of time knows that cb is a more used service (by a three to one margin or more) than ham, but they refuse to do anything to help the problem, due to the input of a few. Then instead of making ham attractive they seem to want to run off as many new comers as possible. The whole problem is there is to much greed in the goverment at all levels, if it wasn't the FCC would be staffed with people that knew and understood what they were trying to regulate, they would step up to the plate, tell the lobbyist to shut up and pass some rules that are in line with the modern world instead of living in the 1950's, with stupid rules that cannot be enforced ( THE 150 MILE CB RULE) having things like that on the books just shows the amount of knowledge or lack of that is in the agency!!! You know about a year or so ago, the FCC passed a rule that it is ok for a large media co. to own all the tv, radio, and newspapers in an area I think thats what is called a monoply and thats a good thing? But it is still illegal for someone to talk dx on a cb makes perfect sense dosen't it

 

[C W Morse]

o

While part of what you say about the political makeup of FCC, the actual regulators within FCC are "in the ranks" people. There are lawyers (to intrepret the laws) and engineers and technical people that are career employees based on their training and education.

While the use of cellphone jammers, pro and con, is a touchy issue, I have heard why FCC is against them. The fear is that if a cellphone is jammed, there could be a situation where it could cause loss of life. For example, a school is threatened by
gunmen. Perhaps, the teachers onscene can't get to the jammer to turn it off. People get killed by random shooting whereas, if there were no jammers it wouldn't be an issue. WRT the prisons, I can see how the ability to make cell calls at will could be a security risk. No easy answer.


Time and again, we discuss the issue of rules under which CB radio chafes and squirms. And of course, Amateur Radio become a butt of why this, why that. Quantity doesn't NOT make quality, numbers are not ALL that is important. Which is easier to "fence": 4 cows, or a raging, unruly, stampede? We speak of GLOBAL issues and want a LOCAL solution--nationally speaking. :? The simple answer is that if CB radio were "unleashed" upon the entire world community, havoc would ensue with a backlash against the US in terms of world relations and trade. If the US decided to open the gates and relax the CB rules, the cattle would stampede! :shock: It is simply not a good thing. While we don't necesarily HEAR about it, there have ALREADY been complaints to US authorities from other countries about the CB band! :!: Congress has not yet seen it enough of a diplomatic issue to allocate funds to re-corral the cattle!

The rules, imperfect as they are, seek to promote order and good will, not only for US radio users, but to prevent interference to OTHER countries as well. Therefore, CB radio is contained(?) within the existing rules with the means that FCC is allocated by Congress. However----and I keep saying this--
there are avenues for one to GET all the things CBers believe they should have. That is, again, the Amateur license that seeks to encourage good operating practice, community service, and technical knowledge among our neighbors both here and abroad. Anything else would be throwing the gates wide open and allowing the cattle to stampede roughshod over all other radio users! I hope to goodness that NEVER happens!

73

CWM

 

[C2]

Well, I have never seen a cop get busted for not following the vehicle code. They park on the sidewalks, drive the wrong way, and speed all the time. That is why prisons can use jammers, I guess.

The FCC has acted on the code thing...they have proposed complete elimination, which is a great idea, IMHO.

I can hardly imagine that complaints about the CB band is really an issue. There are so many other services that use spectrum with similar propogation that could be considered just as unpalettable.

Remember Quantity doesn't NOT make quality...

 

[Sonwatcher]

I still don't see a good explanation as to why it would be bad to drop the 150+ mile limit on 11 meters as it is an HF band naturally condusive to DX. I don't see a problem if it is opened up to Type accepted radios using legal limit power. The signals and voice are already present whether you address the distant station or not.You are not adding anything more than what is already there naturally.

 

[C W Morse]

o

Percentages. It is a matter of opening the gates and letting the cattle stampede in. Now, there is an impediment to random and unfettered access to the "skip" stations. It's like setting a speed limit. *Some* will obey the limit, some will not. WRT distant stations, *some* don't talk "skip", and others do. Some people are law-abiding, some are not. Thus, if you make the speed limit 100 miles per hour--even when the road will not support that speed, some of the ones that otherwise wouldn't go that fast would drive 100. Now you have hundreds of missiles (cars) flying down the road looking for a place to wreck.

So! If you just throw open the gates for unbridled distance talking, it then makes an already bad situation worse. Yes, distant stations *may* hear you talking locally, but just like your car will run that 100 MPH, it doesn't mean you HAVE to do it! Regulations attempt to minimize interference.

Next, there are treaty issues involved. Remember: ALL 27 MHZ stuff is not necessarily "CB" in other countries! We (in the US) are bound by treaties that regulate how we will use 27 MHZ inside our own borders. We AGREED to abide by those treaties.

So, it goes right back to the nitty gritty. CB is NOT, nor was it ever intended to be, a hobby nor "compete" with Amateur Radio for spectrum or privileges. In any endeavor there is a right way and a wrong way to go about an issue. And the way to get the things CB "hobbiests" clamor for are provided by the Amateur ticket! 8)

CWM

 

[Sonwatcher]

Regulations attempt to minimize interference

The interference is already there whether regulated or not. Just because it is regulated doesn't make the existing transmissions non existing. They are there because of the characteristics of the band CB is alocated to.. They are there with a type accepted legal output radio. It doesn't cause anymore interference than what is already present. So since that is the reality of the matter what would be a hinderence to adjust the limit legally ?

Example-
If 4 people are talking locally in 4 different areas and if all 4 people hear each other and say "hi" no additional interferance was made because their voices were already there no matter where they were talking.

 

[AudioShockwav]

How many other countrys have the 153 Limit Law?
Must have if it is "International", I can`t see how just the US has to abide by it.
Jerry, can you copy and paste the text of this International Treaty document so I can read it?
Or point me to a reference were I can obtain more info?
(other than Rileys Phone number, thats Brocks Job)

Thanks,

73
Jeff

 

[Moleculo]

How about some other areas where the FCC is out of touch with the global community? I have a few examples:

HDTV: How long did that take for Japan and other countries to convert over completely to, yet the FCC is still getting paid off here by the broadcasters to delay it?

G3 Cell phones: We're FINALLY seeing these devices here. This has NOTHING to do with the manufacturers...they already make them for all of Europe that converted their entire infrastructure a few years ago. We just couldn't get them going here because the FCC was too busy trying to worry about all the "licensing" costs of the bandwidth (read "we want paid first before we'll license the spectrum")

I'm sure if I think about it I can come up with more examples....

 

[C W Morse]

How many other countrys have the 153 Limit Law?
Must have if it is "International", I can`t see how just the US has to abide by it.
Jerry, can you copy and paste the text of this International Treaty document so I can read it?
Or point me to a reference were I can obtain more info?
(other than Rileys Phone number, thats Brocks Job)

Thanks,

73
Jeff

Type "International Telecommunications Union".The USA abides by it because we SIGNED a treaty. It was the ITU that proposed dropping code to start with, and it was the agreements made by that organization that made Code part of the requirement for access to HF uintil recently. Each nation now can decide if they want to keep Morse because the agreement has changed.

When FCC first proposed a "Citizens Band" on HF in the 50's, the ITU and member nations said WHOA! You CAN'T do that because it would create massive interference. In order to get
modifications to existing treaties, FCC had to agree with certain
restrictions and one of them was to restrict CB stations to 4 watts and put a limitation on how far they could talk. After all, CB was NOT to be a "hobby" band, and, indeed, at first, you could ONLY talk to other stations attached to YOUR own station!

Once again, while other stations may "hear" your transmissions, it does not mean that you MUST talk to them. The relaxation of the 155 mile rule would encourage and facilitate exactly what is not CB's purpose--hobby communications for the sole purpose of talking. To those with a vested interest in this (talking on a radio for huge distances without real purpose or training as to how such could be harmful)they, indeed, cannot see any harm. But the thing is that what we don't HEAR most certainly CAN cause harm to other stations and countries. *WE* (USA) are not the owners of the
entire spectrum, nor can we tell the rest of the world how to manage THEIR own spectrum. IF we just suddenly remove restrictions on distance-talking, it is the equivilent of bustin' a dam! We HAVE to get along with other nations, and the way we do it is by entering into agreements and treaties the same way we negotiate nuclear arms restrictions. Allowing unfettered access and non-regulated CB by removing the !55 mile rule is like pouring your dirty dishwater into the neighbor's yard. Your neighbors ain't gonna like that and the community of Nations would NOT like that, either!

73
CWM

 

[Sonwatcher]

Jerry, I guess I'm dumb and just don't get it. Either that or you are missing my point. How is using a LEGAL 4watt radio that is ALREADY transmitting skip going to harm the frequency ??? It is there whether you , I, or the FCC, or other nations want it there or not. I do not produce anymore interference than what I am naturally producing when I talk local. If the conditions are there I am being heard. The 153 mile rule does not turn off my signal. So how am I producing anymore interference than what is there because of natural conditions ? Mole, someone explain where I am wrong .

 

[Hoosier 789]

FCC out of Touch

One thing to consider is the fact that all countries Do Not use the same frequencies for CB that we do. If you could find the Freq. allocations dictated by the ITU, You would find that some of the so called "Free Band" areas are used by other entities in other countries. Just as our "so called" Free Band in this country is anything but free. You Can go on line and download the Frequency allocations for 25mhz to 30mhz and you will find VERY few frequencies, especially in the 26 to 28mhz portion that are vacant. Most are assigned to DNR (Dept of Nat'l Resources), Oil Co's, Military, and even a couple of Comm. Radio Stations. So don't think for a moment that just because a freq. is not being used as far as you can tell, that it is totally vacant. Just suppose for a moment that you have (and paid for) a certain freq. which is Low Pwr. (1/2 watt to say 1 1/2 watt short range Comm. with your employees and they cant hear you or you cant hear them because someone is talking skip on your freq. Hey!, they cant hear you, to them the freq is dead. Multiply this by approx. 10 mil. and what do you have. Now do you understand the reasons and treaties. Yes it would be nice to be able to talk unabated more than 153 mi., but thats why some of the rules we have to live by. As a Ham operator you dont have the distant restrictions, just power restrictions depending on license class. Hoosier.

 

[Sonwatcher]

I never mentioned the freeband area. I am talking about the CB band period. LEGAL radio , LEGAL power, NATURAL conditions.

Here is a simplified example-
Say there is a law that states you cannot wave to out of state cars on the highway you pass. You are driving a legal car at the legal speed on a legal highway and you are passing out of state cars. If you wave you did not cause any problem or add to a problem accept you broke the rule. As far as you and the cars on the highway, they were there whether you waved or not just by the fact all were driving on an allotted highway they were all legally allowed to drive.

 

[Sonwatcher]

I would like to add that this seems to be answered only in the mind-set of legal and illegal-

Some people are law-abiding, some are not

As some one else once put it-

this is a technical question, not a legal one. Please don’t respond with “Because it’s ILLEGAL!” I know that………..I want to know the technical reasons for it’s illegality.

based on the way and the questions I have continually presented-

How is using a LEGAL 4watt radio that is ALREADY transmitting skip going to harm the frequency ??? It is there whether you , I, or the FCC, or other nations want it there or not. I do not produce anymore interference than what I am naturally producing when I talk local. If the conditions are there I am being heard. The 153 mile rule does not turn off my signal. So how am I producing anymore interference than what is there because of natural conditions

On the legal frequencies.