6 ms·

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 h

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.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    I would prefer the FCC be more transparent about what he transmitted and use that to justify the fine. 34k is a powerful enough deterrent that it could cost a life. What if a neighbor runs over and says someone is seriously injured a half mile down the road and the phone+cell towers are out. Do you risk the $34k and transmit? What if it's a stranger instead of a neighbor?
    - lazide 4y ago
      That’s a pretty ridiculous scenario - there are plenty of emergency frequencies he could have used. He used active ones being used in an emergency because he wanted the attention and to feel important, not because it was actually helpful or necessary to save any lives. Which is why he got fined so heavily. If it was a real life and death emergency, that isn’t what happens.
    - oefrha 4y ago
      I have a ham radio license at ARRL. If your equipment can transmit at specific emergency service frequencies, 99.999% of the time you can also transmit on the wide band of ham frequencies, and there will be people on those frequencies ready to make phone calls to whatever services you need, if you can’t do so yourself. You don’t know what you’re talking about. This dude transmitted eight fucking times and someone had to drive there to stop him.
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      > I would prefer the FCC be more transparent about what he transmitted and use that to justify the fine. If you're really curious, go and do the research then - if it's not public record, you can file a Freedom of Information request. But why do you care so much? In your hypothetical scenario, you can transmit just fine - just use the proper emergency / SOS channels, not the ones reserved for e.g. the fire department, you're more likely to get help then. I don't see why so many people seem to struggle with this basic concept.
    - t0mas88 4y ago
      Everyone with a license to operate some kind of maritime, aviation or other radio also knows which frequencies are designated for emergencies. Those frequencies are monitored 24x7 all over the world by for example the coast guard, ATC and nearly every airplane in cruise flight (and I guess also ships, not sure how it works there). Jumping in on a non-open frequency that is used for firefighting coordination, with a callsign that is specifically chosen to sound as "part of the team", it just a stupid stunt that deserves to be prosecuted.
- teraflop 4y ago
  The complaint says: > on July 17th and 18th, firefighter personnel working on the “Johnson” fire [...] began receiving unauthorized radio transmissions from an individual identifying as “comm tech.” This individual interrupted fire suppression activities and began advising the firefighters and aircraft personnel of hazards at a radio repeater site located at Elk Butte. [...] This individual, subsequently identified as Frawley, admitted to transmitting on government frequencies and doing so as a “comm tech.” The fire operations section chief instructed Frawley to cease operations on the frequency and returned to his post. so it doesn't sound like they were very happy with his "help".
- somerandomqaguy 4y ago
  The PPF mentioned that the Fire Operations Section Chief for the wildfire drove out to where Fawley (the transmitter) was operating from and specifically told him to stop, as he had been repeatedly transmitting over two days. I think the big part was that it was on the same frequency that the ground crews and fire fighting aircraft were using to coordinate with each other.
- mike_d 4y ago
  > I would be interested in hearing the opinion of the local crews, if he actually was helpful. Absolutely not. He identified himself as "comm tech" in his transmission. At that point the person managing traffic logs in the Communications Unit checks their sheet provided by the Operations Section and sees no "comm tech" assigned to the incident. This gets reported up to the Logistics Section Officer and then escalated to the Incident Commander. Every asset in the field is checked out, logged, and checked back in for safety reasons. You now have to divert resources to a search and rescue mission for your missing "comm tech" and the entire command post is going back rechecking EVERYTHING. Edit: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_d... if you want to torture yourself with the details of how these types of things are handled
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >Absolutely not. You would absolutely not want to learn the opinions of the fire crews about if he was helpful or not?
    - palmetieri2000 4y ago
      Seems pretty clear that they are replying to the 'if he was helpful'...
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Ok, so they are just making up an answer and speaking on behalf of the fire crew.
        palmetieri2000 4y ago
        Just reading the other comments here and you can easily see the quotes others have provided from the relevant emergency people who told this guy to stop, in person, from interfering. He ignored them and deserves this fine.
gabereiser 4y ago
Plain and simple, he broadcasted on frequencies he was not authorized to broadcast on. Easy to enforce as no ARRL member is allowed to talk on those frequencies. Helpful or not.
- sitzkrieg 4y ago
  *fcc licensd amateur radio operator arrl has nothing to do with it to be pedantic
- captainmuon 4y ago
  I would think that if there is an emergency in a very rural area, it happens often that people contact the fire dept. / authorities via their radio frequencies, even if it is strictly speaking not legal. I read something the other day where they were looking for a crashed plane, and somebody radioed them with details.
  - zorpner 4y ago
    There's no need for speculation -- the individual in question is not only a licensed amateur radio operator, but holds additional licenses for commercial microwave links. They are well aware of the rules, and chose to violate them, repeatedly, after being instructed not to by the very emergency response personnel they were purportedly trying to help (in fact, they were trying to manipulate the emergency response to save some of their own equipment). It's baffling to me how many people here are defending them. This is about as clear-cut as it gets.
  - solar-ice 4y ago
    The definition of emergency in this context is pretty close to "someone's gonna die if I don't make this transmission". He knows this. Every amateur radio operator knows this. He didn't make a mistake.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    Which is absolutely fine, but there are (or should be, I'm not a radio guy) channels they can do that on / with that do not interfere with the people on the ground needing to coordinate.

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.
- aeternum 4y ago
  I would prefer the FCC be more transparent about what he transmitted and use that to justify the fine. 34k is a powerful enough deterrent that it could cost a life. What if a neighbor runs over and says someone is seriously injured a half mile down the road and the phone+cell towers are out. Do you risk the $34k and transmit? What if it's a stranger instead of a neighbor?
  - lazide 4y ago
    That’s a pretty ridiculous scenario - there are plenty of emergency frequencies he could have used. He used active ones being used in an emergency because he wanted the attention and to feel important, not because it was actually helpful or necessary to save any lives. Which is why he got fined so heavily. If it was a real life and death emergency, that isn’t what happens.
  - oefrha 4y ago
    I have a ham radio license at ARRL. If your equipment can transmit at specific emergency service frequencies, 99.999% of the time you can also transmit on the wide band of ham frequencies, and there will be people on those frequencies ready to make phone calls to whatever services you need, if you can’t do so yourself. You don’t know what you’re talking about. This dude transmitted eight fucking times and someone had to drive there to stop him.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    > I would prefer the FCC be more transparent about what he transmitted and use that to justify the fine. If you're really curious, go and do the research then - if it's not public record, you can file a Freedom of Information request. But why do you care so much? In your hypothetical scenario, you can transmit just fine - just use the proper emergency / SOS channels, not the ones reserved for e.g. the fire department, you're more likely to get help then. I don't see why so many people seem to struggle with this basic concept.
  - t0mas88 4y ago
    Everyone with a license to operate some kind of maritime, aviation or other radio also knows which frequencies are designated for emergencies. Those frequencies are monitored 24x7 all over the world by for example the coast guard, ATC and nearly every airplane in cruise flight (and I guess also ships, not sure how it works there). Jumping in on a non-open frequency that is used for firefighting coordination, with a callsign that is specifically chosen to sound as "part of the team", it just a stupid stunt that deserves to be prosecuted.
teraflop 4y ago
The complaint says: > on July 17th and 18th, firefighter personnel working on the “Johnson” fire [...] began receiving unauthorized radio transmissions from an individual identifying as “comm tech.” This individual interrupted fire suppression activities and began advising the firefighters and aircraft personnel of hazards at a radio repeater site located at Elk Butte. [...] This individual, subsequently identified as Frawley, admitted to transmitting on government frequencies and doing so as a “comm tech.” The fire operations section chief instructed Frawley to cease operations on the frequency and returned to his post. so it doesn't sound like they were very happy with his "help".
somerandomqaguy 4y ago
The PPF mentioned that the Fire Operations Section Chief for the wildfire drove out to where Fawley (the transmitter) was operating from and specifically told him to stop, as he had been repeatedly transmitting over two days. I think the big part was that it was on the same frequency that the ground crews and fire fighting aircraft were using to coordinate with each other.
mike_d 4y ago
> I would be interested in hearing the opinion of the local crews, if he actually was helpful. Absolutely not. He identified himself as "comm tech" in his transmission. At that point the person managing traffic logs in the Communications Unit checks their sheet provided by the Operations Section and sees no "comm tech" assigned to the incident. This gets reported up to the Logistics Section Officer and then escalated to the Incident Commander. Every asset in the field is checked out, logged, and checked back in for safety reasons. You now have to divert resources to a search and rescue mission for your missing "comm tech" and the entire command post is going back rechecking EVERYTHING. Edit: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_doctrine-2017.pdf https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_nims_d... if you want to torture yourself with the details of how these types of things are handled
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Absolutely not. You would absolutely not want to learn the opinions of the fire crews about if he was helpful or not?
  - palmetieri2000 4y ago
    Seems pretty clear that they are replying to the 'if he was helpful'...
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Ok, so they are just making up an answer and speaking on behalf of the fire crew.
      - palmetieri2000 4y ago
        Just reading the other comments here and you can easily see the quotes others have provided from the relevant emergency people who told this guy to stop, in person, from interfering. He ignored them and deserves this fine.

gabereiser 4y ago

Plain and simple, he broadcasted on frequencies he was not authorized to broadcast on. Easy to enforce as no ARRL member is allowed to talk on those frequencies. Helpful or not.

sitzkrieg 4y ago
*fcc licensd amateur radio operator arrl has nothing to do with it to be pedantic
captainmuon 4y ago
I would think that if there is an emergency in a very rural area, it happens often that people contact the fire dept. / authorities via their radio frequencies, even if it is strictly speaking not legal. I read something the other day where they were looking for a crashed plane, and somebody radioed them with details.
- zorpner 4y ago
  There's no need for speculation -- the individual in question is not only a licensed amateur radio operator, but holds additional licenses for commercial microwave links. They are well aware of the rules, and chose to violate them, repeatedly, after being instructed not to by the very emergency response personnel they were purportedly trying to help (in fact, they were trying to manipulate the emergency response to save some of their own equipment). It's baffling to me how many people here are defending them. This is about as clear-cut as it gets.
- solar-ice 4y ago
  The definition of emergency in this context is pretty close to "someone's gonna die if I don't make this transmission". He knows this. Every amateur radio operator knows this. He didn't make a mistake.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Which is absolutely fine, but there are (or should be, I'm not a radio guy) channels they can do that on / with that do not interfere with the people on the ground needing to coordinate.