PDA

View Full Version : NAL to Part 90 Station Owner for Jamming and Failure to ID



W3WN
09-22-2016, 12:43 PM
From today's FCC digest:

PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LICENSEE OF STATION WQJM334, WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA. The Enforcement Bureau proposes a penalty of $25,000 against Public Safety Technologies, Inc. for causing interference to other Part 90 licensees, making exclusive use of shared frequencies, and failing to transmit the station's call sign. Action by: Regional Director, Region Three, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 09/21/2016 by NAL. (DA No. 16-1030). EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-1030A1.docx
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-1030A1.pdf

Now I have to wonder out loud, but rhetorically... if it was so easy for the Part 90 licensee who was being jammed to get someone from the FCC to investigate, why is it so hard for hams to get the same relief? (Remember, that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it)

VE7DCW
09-23-2016, 03:39 PM
Is "part 90" the FCC regulations covering public safety communications i.e. police,fire and the rest of it.Maybe it's regarded as more important than the Amateur radio bands as I answer with naivety :mrgreen:

WZ7U
09-23-2016, 04:20 PM
Sounds about right. Am I?

PA5COR
09-23-2016, 04:22 PM
Yep, same here.

K6BSO
09-23-2016, 04:47 PM
Not public service, Land Mobile/Business band. The reason the FCC pays attention is that license holders in those bands pay for the privilege while issuing a ham ticket costs the FCC money they don't get back.

WZ7U
09-23-2016, 09:10 PM
A ha! Again and as always, follow the benjamins

PA5COR
09-24-2016, 05:42 AM
Well, since last year we are back paying for the license every year.
Not much 32 Euro's a year r so, but still...
Having the A.T. ( Dutch FCC) residing under the economic Minister doesn't help, it is clear financial reasons take prevalence over ham radio.