9 ms·

FCC proposes record $34k fine for unauthorized transmissions during wildfire

97 points by 7402 4y ago

teeray 4y ago
RACES/ARES exists as a sanctioned interface between amateur radio and public safety. It’s perplexing that he felt he couldn’t disseminate his information that way. Being an extra class, he definitely knew about it.
- ed25519FUUU 4y ago
  That’s an important distinction here. He’s getting roasted not just because he interfered, but because he interfered even though he knew very well he was not supposed to.
amerine 4y ago
Rules are rules I guess? Seems kinda outrageous
- nickphx 4y ago
  I imagine there are less disruptive communication channels available to get relevant information to firefighters?
- seventytwo 4y ago
  I wish they’d go after corps for violations with the same vigor.
  - User23 4y ago
    I’m under the impression they will vigorously go after corps for interference.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    corps?
    - zo1 4y ago
      Think they mean corporations. I.e. For all the illegal stuff they do and then don't get fined nearly enough for.
      - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
        Or cops, who seem to live above the law. I mean they literally do because they have the monopoly on violence - in theory - but they cross boundaries on a regular occurrence.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        > Or cops, who seem to live above the law. I mean they literally do because they have the monopoly on violence ... The government has a monopoly on violence. Police can only do what the government permits (legally or customarily).
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  He was licensed, had a commercial business operating equipment, and interfered multiple times during a public emergency. The intent might have been good, but this is a "fuck around and find out" fine to discourage other people who should also know better from trying similar things in the future.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  There are rules that allow breaking the rules when it’s actually needed, not when unsolicited help is being given despite requests to stop.
- more_corn 4y ago
  I thought it was outrageous at first. Dude was just trying to help. I guess the question is just how disruptive was he? I’ve got incident response training so I understand the worry about having randos in the mix. But this seems a bit extreme.
rudyfink 4y ago
If anyone else wants more detail, this is the FCC's page on the notice: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fine-interrupting-communications-during-wildfire https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fine-interrupting-... This appears to be the agency's statement: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.pdf
baldeagle 4y ago
I think this has to be seen in the larger context. The broadcaster was trying to be helpful, but broke the rules. No conclusión presented if he was actually helpful. But aside from intent, if the government didn’t enforce this strictly, it would open up the opportunity for all number of ‘helpful’ folks to chime up in the future, which could have a slippery slope. They don’t want to be in the business of carving out a ‘helpful’ exception and then have to draw the line on how helpful is worth it. Seems like a recipe for inconsistent enforcement.
- devmor 4y ago
  I would be interested in hearing the opinion of the local crews, if he actually was helpful. Then again, that news could have the opposite of a chilling effect and cause people trying to be helpful to interfere in future situations.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    I have a feeling, even if the information was helpful, the net result was not. Having someone else on the radio net providing information of unknown provenance directly to firefighters screws up command and makes everyone nervous. It's a big distraction at a time no one needs it.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Imagine at your job there is a crisis. Everyone is overworked, on edge, every minute counts. Then a random person appears and starts giving you and your co-workers 'information'. Whoever they are, GTFO! And probably your crisis isn't life and death.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    People who flaunt protocols to offer unsolicited “help” are usually the type who are annoyingly full of themselves, who are more likely to just drain limited resources or worse, make a mess of things. Don’t be that guy. One would hope $34,000 is a powerful deterrence.
kloch 4y ago
There is an exception under part 97 (covering amateur radio licensees) for emergency communications. I suppose this will depend on the contents of his transmissions and if they were truly necessary and justified and if "normal communication systems" were not available. > § 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property. > No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.403 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.403
- X-Cubed 4y ago
  > when normal communication systems are not available. I think that would be the key point to the exemption. He likely could have contacted the fire service by telephone or other "normal communication systems".
- bombcar 4y ago
  There’s a similar law on the books in the FAR for pilots: (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. But you can’t just declare emergency and do whatever you want (people have been caught abusing this to get priority on landings, etc).
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  There's a lot that's not discussed here, and it's hard to make judgements. When I think of emergency transmissions, there must be an immediate need: "watch out, the tower is about to collapse". I get the feeling that this guy was making transmissions that were more like status updates about an emergency. "Seeing some flames here..." Etc.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Carveouts like that are for… well actual needs not people who are really interested in being helpful despite the lack of need. Some guy with a radio went beyond this despite being told to stop.
mberning 4y ago
I hope he can afford some good lawyers. It’s likely there is no evidence of any actual harm being done, just the potential for harm. $34k seems unnecessarily punitive in this case.
- mlyle 4y ago
  This is actually tiny compared to their statutory authority of forfeiture, which is $22,001 per transmission. Instead: > of a $10,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of apparent unlicensed operations30 and a $7,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of harmful interference),31 for which Frawley is apparently liable. We caution Frawley that future violations of this kind may result in significantly higher forfeitures or revocation of his amateur license. He's free lawyer up, but the first round of litigation is before an administrative law judge and all that's required is the preponderance of the evidence, as they are not seeking a criminal conviction.
  - mberning 4y ago
    Sure, a piece of paper says they could penalize him much more. It doesn’t change the fact that they are trying to take an amount of money that could well be 25% or even 50% of his yearly income. It’s excessive in my eyes. This kind of thing is why people are so reflexively against federal regulation of anything. You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster, give us half your income. Oh, you caught the wrong kind of lobster, just go ahead and declare bankruptcy.
    - bityard 4y ago
      > You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster If you read TFA, you'd know that's not at all what happened. He is a licensed amateur radio operator and knew the rules, and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. This was no accident or harmless mistake. I think the fine is justified.
      - mberning 4y ago
dosman33 4y ago
At first blush this looks like the government smiting a flea with a sledge hammer. But it sounds more like there's more to this story. The forest service took the time to track him down on their own which says a lot right there - they literally have bigger fires to deal with, but spent the time to track this guy down to deal with him. Sounds like he was being an active nuisance.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It's really hard to say without the the factual evidence and everyone in this thread is speculating.A thousand Acre fire isn't that big, less than two square miles. If he was in the proximity, tracking him down might have looking over their shoulder at the radio tower Tower and telling him to knock it off. The obvious questions are how disruptive was he and what were his intentions. This information is not present. 8 transmissions over two days could be annoying or nothing. Big difference if he's informing them where a trapped family is or is bullshiting wasting airtime
  - greggsy 4y ago
    > A thousand Acre fire isn't that big, less than two square miles. That could have spread to a thousand times the size, resulting in a massive loss of life and assets. > The obvious questions are how disruptive was he and what were his intentions. That’s not to point. He clearly knew he shouldn’t do it, and knew (or refused to accept) the reasons why. The fact is, this kind of behaviour needs to be addressed to avoid interference during a more catastrophic incident in the future. Given the pattern of wild fires in the past few years, is almost certainly a ‘not if but when’ event.
- LMYahooTFY 4y ago
  > The forest service took the time to track him down on their own which says a lot right there - they literally have bigger fires to deal with, but spent the time to track this guy down to deal with him. It says in the article he disclosed his location.
  - 4y ago
imglorp 4y ago
They're not super consistent with enforcement. I once filed an FCC complaint about a broad frequency disruption to broadcast radio in one location. As you drove down the street everything went from fine to static and then fine again. I suspect it was merely a bad transformer on a power pole, arcing or something. Anyway, nothing was ever done and it went on for years.
- brazzledazzle 4y ago
  In the absence of infinite resources an enforcement division of a regulatory agency has to prioritize. It is unfortunate that it went unchecked for that long though.
  - mberning 4y ago
    You can’t fine a broken transformer $34k.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Nice snark, but... you can fine utilities who don't promptly fix a problem way more than $34k, though. The problem is, someone would actually have to figure out who's fault it is and who to contact about the problem. Getting the FCC to roll one a very limited number of vans to figure it out is hard. (You'd have been better off writing one of the utilities on the pole and copying the FCC, because they generally take their obligations seriously to avoid RFI to avoid fines, and would tend to figure it out even if it's someone else's problem). In the case of this dude-- no need to figure it out. It was annoying enough to the Forest Service that they had to find him and tell him in person to stop.
      - mberning 4y ago
        It’s good to know that broken equipment can pollute the airwaves for years unchecked, and even if the broken equipment was found and the responsible party identified, they would still be given opportunity the rectify the situation even though they have been in violation for potentially years. But a guy with a bad judgment call in a natural disaster can get a $34k fine immediately, and the agency will brag about how it is the largest ever.
gorgoiler 4y ago
Sad to see a licensee not following the rules. The tradition of amateur radio is very much one of playing by the rules in one of the purest forms of shared commons there is (outside of an actual common).
walrus01 4y ago
Oh wow I literally know this guy. Jason Frawley. He's a big part of a very vocal group of rural, deep red state WISP operators who think they're god's own gift to network engineering, and mostly worship at the altar of one specific political figure. Watching their antics has been an endless source of amusement. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Jason and his cohort shoot themselves in the foot with some ill-advised network architecture, rf engineering or network engineering design choice... That he's out there interfering with licensed bands and emergency services is totally unsurprising. That's only the tip of an iceberg of weirdness. There are very, very few FCC enforcement bureau staff members in WA, ID, OR. You have to do something really egregious to get on their radar screen. Every time the FCC fines someone $10k+ it goes in their public daily digest emails as a "notice of apparent liability" and is quite a rare event in the Pacific Northwest. It is not at all as if the FCC has vans full of guys with spectrum analyzers and such driving around the area trying to hunt down and fine people for petty reasons. To get fined by them you really have to go far outside the accepted norms for two way radio or wisp operations in the area. He has network equipment and repeaters at the mentioned elk butte site and probably thought he was doing something to protect his gear. His FCC licensed part 101 fdd band plan ptp microwave links are all part of the public record as part of the FCC ULS public data for the curious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gumby 4y ago
This is an ARRL news article. Those speculating that the FCC is unfair, didn’t know if The firefighters had a problem with it, are not being transparent, etc can just click through and read for themselves the actual FCC notice, which is a public record. I quote its beginning: > On July 22, 2021, the Commission received a complaint from the U.S. Forest Service alleging that an individual had been transmitting on government radio frequencies 148-174 MHz without authorization, and that the individual was causing radio frequency interference to the U.S. Forest Service firefighter’s fire suppression aircraft in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
devmunchies 4y ago
Tangential, but are fines from FCC, SEC, etc a violation of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle? When a single org has the power to target a citizen, name the crime, pass a guilty verdict, and enforce a penalty, then what keeps them from becoming just a political a tool for the people in the driver’s seat?
- ROFISH 4y ago
  This in particular has been in the news: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-threatens-to-upend-sec-s-use-administrative-proceedings https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...
- walrus01 4y ago
  If you're worried about the FCC being a political tool I'd suggest going to Google a bit about Ajit Pai first... That horse escaped the barn door a long time ago.
- bsder 4y ago
  > Tangential, but are fines from FCC, SEC, etc a violation of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle? I believe that you can take these kinds of things to trial in federal court, if you so wish (I'm pretty sure companies take stuff from the SEC to court all the time). However, for the FCC to actually smack you down, you generally have done something egregiously stupid and they explicitly told you to stop and you ignored them and they have you dead to rights. So, you can take it to court. Your probability of winning is just realy, really, really low.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  No? They did an investigation, found that he was guilty of broadcasting on channels he was not allowed to (see the documents, witness statements, recordings etc), and was fined accordingly. The FCC is a government organization with the authority to fine people for violations of the rules and laws. And of course, as civilian or person-getting-fined-by-the-fcc, you have the right to fight these rulings, in court if needs be, if you do not believe the fine was justified. That's how the system works; I'm not sure what else you want.
mint2 4y ago
I don’t get why people are so defensive of a guy who breaks rules using equipment he has a license for. Will people protest fines for Flying airplanes in restricted airspace’s? Protest fines for driving cars on in areas that are clearly prohibited? Radio equipment of that sort requires a license and that means one is responsible for being knowledgeable of regulations and respect the regulations.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  It is, unfortunately, the new libertarian ... "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" has become "I can swing my fist where ever I bloody well choose and you had better move your goddamn nose if you don't want it broke"
  - specialist 4y ago
    Yup. I've been learning about James M. Buchanan, the Virginia School's "political economy", and their particular notions of "liberty". What they really advocate is freedom from consequences. Maximal individualism at the expense of the common good. As a Gen-X, my early exposure to right-libertarian notions was thru Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, etc. So edgy, so attractive. Sign me up! I so wish young me had known about Buchanan, John Birch Society, etc. Would have saved myself a lot of time.
can16358p 4y ago
Just a thought experiment (not defending him or anything): If he (albeit illegally) provided extremely useful information to the firefighters that prevented a bigger spread and possible saved lives, would FCC still fine it? e.g. Jumping in the plane's communication frequency and telling them the coordinates where a fire they haven't realized, say, is moving very close to a oil refinary. (Just made it up but you get the idea)
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure in that scenario the response would have been an "acknowledged unknown comms, thank you and leave the channel" After multiple "gtfo" this isn't the scenario...
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Well yeah, there are always exceptions and this isn't an automatic ruling. But it does not apply here, and you can read the details to see why not. As for your hypothetical scenario, why would they hijack the plane's communications channel, instead of contact the central fire fighting authorities through the proper channels? If you don't know what the proper channels are, you shouldn't have a license. This is another reason the guy was fined; it wasn't a random that happened to find a radio set to the reserved frequency (or however these things work), it was a licensed radio operator, they get trained and tested. And he repeated offenses, despite being told to stop / get off the channel.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  If you want to talk to a plane about an emergency, you would use the designated emergency frequency. A trained radio operator is supposed to know that frequency.

97 points by 7402 4y ago

RACES/ARES exists as a sanctioned interface between amateur radio and public safety. It’s perplexing that he felt he couldn’t disseminate his information that way. Being an extra class, he definitely knew about it.

ed25519FUUU 4y ago
That’s an important distinction here. He’s getting roasted not just because he interfered, but because he interfered even though he knew very well he was not supposed to.

amerine 4y ago

Rules are rules I guess? Seems kinda outrageous

nickphx 4y ago
I imagine there are less disruptive communication channels available to get relevant information to firefighters?
seventytwo 4y ago
I wish they’d go after corps for violations with the same vigor.
- User23 4y ago
  I’m under the impression they will vigorously go after corps for interference.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  corps?
  - zo1 4y ago
    Think they mean corporations. I.e. For all the illegal stuff they do and then don't get fined nearly enough for.
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      Or cops, who seem to live above the law. I mean they literally do because they have the monopoly on violence - in theory - but they cross boundaries on a regular occurrence.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        > Or cops, who seem to live above the law. I mean they literally do because they have the monopoly on violence ... The government has a monopoly on violence. Police can only do what the government permits (legally or customarily).
AlotOfReading 4y ago
He was licensed, had a commercial business operating equipment, and interfered multiple times during a public emergency. The intent might have been good, but this is a "fuck around and find out" fine to discourage other people who should also know better from trying similar things in the future.
colechristensen 4y ago
There are rules that allow breaking the rules when it’s actually needed, not when unsolicited help is being given despite requests to stop.
more_corn 4y ago
I thought it was outrageous at first. Dude was just trying to help. I guess the question is just how disruptive was he? I’ve got incident response training so I understand the worry about having randos in the mix. But this seems a bit extreme.

rudyfink 4y ago

If anyone else wants more detail, this is the FCC's page on the notice: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fine-interrupting-communications-during-wildfire https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fine-interrupting-... This appears to be the agency's statement: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.pdf

baldeagle 4y ago

I think this has to be seen in the larger context. The broadcaster was trying to be helpful, but broke the rules. No conclusión presented if he was actually helpful. But aside from intent, if the government didn’t enforce this strictly, it would open up the opportunity for all number of ‘helpful’ folks to chime up in the future, which could have a slippery slope. They don’t want to be in the business of carving out a ‘helpful’ exception and then have to draw the line on how helpful is worth it. Seems like a recipe for inconsistent enforcement.

devmor 4y ago
I would be interested in hearing the opinion of the local crews, if he actually was helpful. Then again, that news could have the opposite of a chilling effect and cause people trying to be helpful to interfere in future situations.
- mlyle 4y ago
  I have a feeling, even if the information was helpful, the net result was not. Having someone else on the radio net providing information of unknown provenance directly to firefighters screws up command and makes everyone nervous. It's a big distraction at a time no one needs it.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Imagine at your job there is a crisis. Everyone is overworked, on edge, every minute counts. Then a random person appears and starts giving you and your co-workers 'information'. Whoever they are, GTFO! And probably your crisis isn't life and death.
- oefrha 4y ago
  People who flaunt protocols to offer unsolicited “help” are usually the type who are annoyingly full of themselves, who are more likely to just drain limited resources or worse, make a mess of things. Don’t be that guy. One would hope $34,000 is a powerful deterrence.

kloch 4y ago

There is an exception under part 97 (covering amateur radio licensees) for emergency communications. I suppose this will depend on the contents of his transmissions and if they were truly necessary and justified and if "normal communication systems" were not available. > § 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property. > No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.403 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/97.403

X-Cubed 4y ago
> when normal communication systems are not available. I think that would be the key point to the exemption. He likely could have contacted the fire service by telephone or other "normal communication systems".
bombcar 4y ago
There’s a similar law on the books in the FAR for pilots: (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. But you can’t just declare emergency and do whatever you want (people have been caught abusing this to get priority on landings, etc).
bjt2n3904 4y ago
There's a lot that's not discussed here, and it's hard to make judgements. When I think of emergency transmissions, there must be an immediate need: "watch out, the tower is about to collapse". I get the feeling that this guy was making transmissions that were more like status updates about an emergency. "Seeing some flames here..." Etc.
colechristensen 4y ago
Carveouts like that are for… well actual needs not people who are really interested in being helpful despite the lack of need. Some guy with a radio went beyond this despite being told to stop.

mberning 4y ago

I hope he can afford some good lawyers. It’s likely there is no evidence of any actual harm being done, just the potential for harm. $34k seems unnecessarily punitive in this case.

mlyle 4y ago
This is actually tiny compared to their statutory authority of forfeiture, which is $22,001 per transmission. Instead: > of a $10,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of apparent unlicensed operations30 and a $7,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of harmful interference),31 for which Frawley is apparently liable. We caution Frawley that future violations of this kind may result in significantly higher forfeitures or revocation of his amateur license. He's free lawyer up, but the first round of litigation is before an administrative law judge and all that's required is the preponderance of the evidence, as they are not seeking a criminal conviction.
- mberning 4y ago
  Sure, a piece of paper says they could penalize him much more. It doesn’t change the fact that they are trying to take an amount of money that could well be 25% or even 50% of his yearly income. It’s excessive in my eyes. This kind of thing is why people are so reflexively against federal regulation of anything. You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster, give us half your income. Oh, you caught the wrong kind of lobster, just go ahead and declare bankruptcy.
  - bityard 4y ago
    > You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster If you read TFA, you'd know that's not at all what happened. He is a licensed amateur radio operator and knew the rules, and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. This was no accident or harmless mistake. I think the fine is justified.
    - mberning 4y ago

dosman33 4y ago

At first blush this looks like the government smiting a flea with a sledge hammer. But it sounds more like there's more to this story. The forest service took the time to track him down on their own which says a lot right there - they literally have bigger fires to deal with, but spent the time to track this guy down to deal with him. Sounds like he was being an active nuisance.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
It's really hard to say without the the factual evidence and everyone in this thread is speculating.A thousand Acre fire isn't that big, less than two square miles. If he was in the proximity, tracking him down might have looking over their shoulder at the radio tower Tower and telling him to knock it off. The obvious questions are how disruptive was he and what were his intentions. This information is not present. 8 transmissions over two days could be annoying or nothing. Big difference if he's informing them where a trapped family is or is bullshiting wasting airtime
- greggsy 4y ago
  > A thousand Acre fire isn't that big, less than two square miles. That could have spread to a thousand times the size, resulting in a massive loss of life and assets. > The obvious questions are how disruptive was he and what were his intentions. That’s not to point. He clearly knew he shouldn’t do it, and knew (or refused to accept) the reasons why. The fact is, this kind of behaviour needs to be addressed to avoid interference during a more catastrophic incident in the future. Given the pattern of wild fires in the past few years, is almost certainly a ‘not if but when’ event.
LMYahooTFY 4y ago
> The forest service took the time to track him down on their own which says a lot right there - they literally have bigger fires to deal with, but spent the time to track this guy down to deal with him. It says in the article he disclosed his location.
- 4y ago

imglorp 4y ago

They're not super consistent with enforcement. I once filed an FCC complaint about a broad frequency disruption to broadcast radio in one location. As you drove down the street everything went from fine to static and then fine again. I suspect it was merely a bad transformer on a power pole, arcing or something. Anyway, nothing was ever done and it went on for years.

brazzledazzle 4y ago
In the absence of infinite resources an enforcement division of a regulatory agency has to prioritize. It is unfortunate that it went unchecked for that long though.
- mberning 4y ago
  You can’t fine a broken transformer $34k.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Nice snark, but... you can fine utilities who don't promptly fix a problem way more than $34k, though. The problem is, someone would actually have to figure out who's fault it is and who to contact about the problem. Getting the FCC to roll one a very limited number of vans to figure it out is hard. (You'd have been better off writing one of the utilities on the pole and copying the FCC, because they generally take their obligations seriously to avoid RFI to avoid fines, and would tend to figure it out even if it's someone else's problem). In the case of this dude-- no need to figure it out. It was annoying enough to the Forest Service that they had to find him and tell him in person to stop.
    - mberning 4y ago
      It’s good to know that broken equipment can pollute the airwaves for years unchecked, and even if the broken equipment was found and the responsible party identified, they would still be given opportunity the rectify the situation even though they have been in violation for potentially years. But a guy with a bad judgment call in a natural disaster can get a $34k fine immediately, and the agency will brag about how it is the largest ever.

gorgoiler 4y ago

Sad to see a licensee not following the rules. The tradition of amateur radio is very much one of playing by the rules in one of the purest forms of shared commons there is (outside of an actual common).

walrus01 4y ago

Oh wow I literally know this guy. Jason Frawley. He's a big part of a very vocal group of rural, deep red state WISP operators who think they're god's own gift to network engineering, and mostly worship at the altar of one specific political figure. Watching their antics has been an endless source of amusement. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Jason and his cohort shoot themselves in the foot with some ill-advised network architecture, rf engineering or network engineering design choice... That he's out there interfering with licensed bands and emergency services is totally unsurprising. That's only the tip of an iceberg of weirdness. There are very, very few FCC enforcement bureau staff members in WA, ID, OR. You have to do something really egregious to get on their radar screen. Every time the FCC fines someone $10k+ it goes in their public daily digest emails as a "notice of apparent liability" and is quite a rare event in the Pacific Northwest. It is not at all as if the FCC has vans full of guys with spectrum analyzers and such driving around the area trying to hunt down and fine people for petty reasons. To get fined by them you really have to go far outside the accepted norms for two way radio or wisp operations in the area. He has network equipment and repeaters at the mentioned elk butte site and probably thought he was doing something to protect his gear. His FCC licensed part 101 fdd band plan ptp microwave links are all part of the public record as part of the FCC ULS public data for the curious.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

gumby 4y ago

This is an ARRL news article. Those speculating that the FCC is unfair, didn’t know if The firefighters had a problem with it, are not being transparent, etc can just click through and read for themselves the actual FCC notice, which is a public record. I quote its beginning: > On July 22, 2021, the Commission received a complaint from the U.S. Forest Service alleging that an individual had been transmitting on government radio frequencies 148-174 MHz without authorization, and that the individual was causing radio frequency interference to the U.S. Forest Service firefighter’s fire suppression aircraft in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

devmunchies 4y ago

Tangential, but are fines from FCC, SEC, etc a violation of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle? When a single org has the power to target a citizen, name the crime, pass a guilty verdict, and enforce a penalty, then what keeps them from becoming just a political a tool for the people in the driver’s seat?

ROFISH 4y ago
This in particular has been in the news: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-threatens-to-upend-sec-s-use-administrative-proceedings https://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-decision-...
walrus01 4y ago
If you're worried about the FCC being a political tool I'd suggest going to Google a bit about Ajit Pai first... That horse escaped the barn door a long time ago.
bsder 4y ago
> Tangential, but are fines from FCC, SEC, etc a violation of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle? I believe that you can take these kinds of things to trial in federal court, if you so wish (I'm pretty sure companies take stuff from the SEC to court all the time). However, for the FCC to actually smack you down, you generally have done something egregiously stupid and they explicitly told you to stop and you ignored them and they have you dead to rights. So, you can take it to court. Your probability of winning is just realy, really, really low.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
No? They did an investigation, found that he was guilty of broadcasting on channels he was not allowed to (see the documents, witness statements, recordings etc), and was fined accordingly. The FCC is a government organization with the authority to fine people for violations of the rules and laws. And of course, as civilian or person-getting-fined-by-the-fcc, you have the right to fight these rulings, in court if needs be, if you do not believe the fine was justified. That's how the system works; I'm not sure what else you want.

mint2 4y ago

I don’t get why people are so defensive of a guy who breaks rules using equipment he has a license for. Will people protest fines for Flying airplanes in restricted airspace’s? Protest fines for driving cars on in areas that are clearly prohibited? Radio equipment of that sort requires a license and that means one is responsible for being knowledgeable of regulations and respect the regulations.

Ensorceled 4y ago
It is, unfortunately, the new libertarian ... "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" has become "I can swing my fist where ever I bloody well choose and you had better move your goddamn nose if you don't want it broke"
- specialist 4y ago
  Yup. I've been learning about James M. Buchanan, the Virginia School's "political economy", and their particular notions of "liberty". What they really advocate is freedom from consequences. Maximal individualism at the expense of the common good. As a Gen-X, my early exposure to right-libertarian notions was thru Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, etc. So edgy, so attractive. Sign me up! I so wish young me had known about Buchanan, John Birch Society, etc. Would have saved myself a lot of time.

can16358p 4y ago

Just a thought experiment (not defending him or anything): If he (albeit illegally) provided extremely useful information to the firefighters that prevented a bigger spread and possible saved lives, would FCC still fine it? e.g. Jumping in the plane's communication frequency and telling them the coordinates where a fire they haven't realized, say, is moving very close to a oil refinary. (Just made it up but you get the idea)

Ensorceled 4y ago
I'm pretty sure in that scenario the response would have been an "acknowledged unknown comms, thank you and leave the channel" After multiple "gtfo" this isn't the scenario...
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Well yeah, there are always exceptions and this isn't an automatic ruling. But it does not apply here, and you can read the details to see why not. As for your hypothetical scenario, why would they hijack the plane's communications channel, instead of contact the central fire fighting authorities through the proper channels? If you don't know what the proper channels are, you shouldn't have a license. This is another reason the guy was fined; it wasn't a random that happened to find a radio set to the reserved frequency (or however these things work), it was a licensed radio operator, they get trained and tested. And he repeated offenses, despite being told to stop / get off the channel.
t0mas88 4y ago
If you want to talk to a plane about an emergency, you would use the designated emergency frequency. A trained radio operator is supposed to know that frequency.