NAL to Part 90 Station Owner for Jamming and Failure to ID

[W3WN]

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]

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]

Sounds about right. Am I?

[PA5COR]

Yep, same here.

[NQ6U]

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]

A ha! Again and as always, follow the benjamins

[PA5COR]

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.