FCC Enforcement Actions

Posted on 5 July 2024 by Bob K0NR — 5 Comments ↓

When teaching ham radio license classes, I often get asked whether the FCC enforces the Part 97 rules and regulations. That is, how likely is it that the FCC would come after me if I violate the rules? This same question surfaces concerning the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).

This morning, I looked at the FCC Enforcement Actions page, to see what’s there. First off, there are a ton of actions against unlicensed FM broadcast stations, in response to the PIRATE Act pass by Congress in 2020. There are also many actions against people operating RoboCall systems via telephone. If you find yourself bored, go ahead and read through these enforcement actions.

Here are some actions taken by the FCC concerning Amateur Radio and GMRS in the past few years:

In June 2022, the FCC sent a Notice of Violation to David Dean, K0PWO, concerning a continuous carrier signal on 7.033 MHz from a remote station near Fairplay, Colorado. I recall there being a ruckus about this incident in the ham radio community but I did not know it resulted in a Notice of Violation.

In June 2022, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (FCC talk for “we are fining you”) of $34k to Jason Frawley, WA7CQ. The FCC says that Frawley used his ham radio to transmit on frequencies allocated and authorized for government use during the Johnson wildfire near Elk River, Idaho.

In November 2022, the FCC sent a Notice of Violation to David Dean, K0PWO. (This is the same person with the stuck transmitter in June 2022.) The FCC received a complaint from the State of Colorado that someone (later found to be Dean) had an illegally cloned radio transmitting on the State’s digital trunked radio system (DTRS) without authorization.

In June 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Martin Anderson, GMRS WQQP653 in Vancouver, WA. This relates to a stuck transmitter, apparently due to a faulty transceiver at a repeater site. It transmitted continuous, unmodulated signals on the frequency of 462.725 MHz.

In August 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Jonathan Gutierrez, GMRS license WRTD259 in response to a complaint of intentional interference to a 462.625 MHz repeater in Mt. Holly, Pennsylvania.

In August 2023, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to Alarm Detection Systems, licensee of radio station WQSK406 in Louisville, Colorado. This is not ham or GMRS-related but involves a business band radio on 460 MHz. Apparently, the company continued to operate legacy “wideband” FM radios after the FCC required business band radio users to switch to “narrowband” radios (12.5 kHz channels). I found this interesting because it is an action related to the use of improper radio gear and emission type.

In May 2024, the FCC issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation to Skydive Elsinore, LLC, a skydiving company in Lake Elsinore, CA. This company was transmitting in the 70 cm amateur band on 442.725 MHz without a proper license.

From these notices, we can see that the FCC does enforce amateur and GMRS rules, but not as often as we’d like to see. Usually, the situation has to be a big nuisance before it escalates enough for the FCC to take action. If you make a simple mistake once or twice, you are highly unlikely to be cited. If you are a more consistent or flagrant rule breaker, then you might get a visit from the FCC.

Remember that the ARRL has the Volunteer Monitor program, operating under a formal agreement with the FCC, that can assist with on-the-air violations.

73 Bob K0NR

Adios Symbol Rate Limit

Posted on 29 October 2023 by Bob K0NR — 4 Comments ↓

The FCC will be voting on and will likely approve a Report and Order that eliminates the symbol rate restriction on HF data transmissions, replacing it with a bandwidth limit of 2.8 kHz. See FCC To Vote on Removing Symbol Rate Restrictions. The symbol rate limit of 300-baud is an obsolete way of limiting the signal bandwidth, created back when the data transmissions were predominately Frequency Shift Keying (FSK). It was a simple, practical way to regulate the bandwidth at that time but technology has moved on. The use of digital signal processing and efficient wireless encoding techniques require a better approach to bandwidth regulation.

A practical impact of this change is to allow higher speed protocols such as PACTOR-4 having a bandwidth of 2.4 kHz. I suspect we will see other protocols emerge that squeeze the best data rate out of the 2.8 kHz bandwidth.

Living in a Narrowband World

The FCC proposal implements a 2.8 kHz bandwidth limit on data emissions on the HF bands. Some folks have suggested a narrower bandwidth while others argue that wider bandwidth signals should be allowed. And some even think we should have no bandwidth limit at all.

The problem is that the amateur HF bands are not very wide. For example, the popular 20m band is 14.0 to 14.350 MHz, providing only 350 kHz of spectrum. Common practice on this and the other HF bands is to use modulation types that have bandwidths of 3 kHz or less. (Yeah, AM signals are twice that wide, at 6 KHz, a topic for another day.) Of course, CW and some of the data modes are much narrower than 3 kHz. But the general approach to regulating HF is to allow many narrowband signals on the band. Limiting HF data transmissions to 2.8 kHz bandwidth is consistent with existing practice while still allowing for innovation and experimentation.

VHF/UHF Bandwidth Limits

The FCC also plans to issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR) that:

Proposes to remove the baud rate limitation in the 2200 meter and 630 meter bands, which the Commission allocated for amateur radio use after it released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2016.
Proposes to remove the baud rate limitation in the VHF and UHF bands.
Seeks comment on the appropriate bandwidth limitation for the 2200 meter band, the 630 meter band, and the VHF/UHF bands.

I won’t comment on the 2200 meter and 630 meter bands. The FCC proposes to remove the symbol rate limit on the VHF and UHF bands and asks what bandwidth limit is appropriate. The current bandwidth limits are 20 kHz for the 6m and 2m bands, 100 kHz for the 1.25m and 70 cm bands, and the FCC seems fine leaving these the same. Authorized emission types are listed in FCC Part 97.305.

With 4 MHz of spectrum, the 2m band is much wider than any of the HF bands. It might be tempting to conclude that there is plenty of room for wideband signals on this band. Many hams think 2 meters is just used for FM simplex and repeaters but a closer look reveals that it supports many diverse modes: weak-signal SSB/CW, meteor scatter, EME, FM simplex, FM repeaters, digital voice modes (D-STAR, DMR, Fusion), satellites, and more. The 20-kHz limit seems appropriate, as it roughly matches the bandwidth of the most common (FM) voice signals on that band. It is not an appropriate band for trying out wider bandwidth signals.

The 6m band should probably keep the same 20-kHz limit. (I don’t think there is a compelling reason to change it.) The 1.25m band already allows 100-kHz bandwidth data signals, which some radio amateurs have used for higher-speed data links (still not what I would call wideband).

The 70 cm band is much bigger (420 MHz to 450 MHz) and could accommodate some wider bandwidth signals. Perhaps the existing 100-kHz limit should be increased? Keep in mind that fast-scan ATV is allowed on this band with a bandwidth of 6 MHz. Maybe we can make some room for a few larger bandwidth data channels, to encourage innovation and experimentation.

The bands above 70 cm have no bandwidth limit other than the signal must stay within the designated ham band. It has been this way for a long time, without causing any issues (that I know of).

Conclusion

The FCC’s proposal makes a lot of sense and it is long overdue. Frankly, it is a bit of an embarrassment that it has taken so long.

Better late than never.

73 Bob K0NR

13 Nov 2023 Update: The FCC adopted these new rules.

My Comments On The Proposed FCC License Fees

Posted on 10 September 2020 by Bob K0NR — 15 Comments ↓

You have probably heard about the FCC proposal to establish a $50 application fee for Amateur Radio licenses. This is part of an overall redesign of the FCC’s fee structure, affecting many radio services, not just amateur radio.

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is found in Docket 20-270. The public is invited to submit comments on the proposal via the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). It is relatively easy to do. You can upload a document with your comments or use “express comment” to just type in your comments. If you are short on time, you could simply submit a few sentences supporting or opposing the licensing fee along with your reasoning. The only tricky thing you need to know is the proceeding number: 20-270.

I thought this was important enough that I put together my thoughts and submitted them. The short version of my comments are:

The $50 fee seems excessive, compared to the cost of relatively simple amateur radio license transactions. (If it really costs the FCC $50 to do this, they need to redesign their system.)
The $50 fee will be a barrier to getting an amateur radio license for many potential licensees. That’s my opinion based on interacting with a large number of new licensees coming through our club’s Technician license class.
I support charging a smaller fee, in the range of $15 to $25.

You can read my complete comments here:
Robert Witte K0NR Comments MD Docket No. 20-270

73 Bob K0NR

Radio Club Petitions FCC To Fix Call Area Confusion

Posted on 1 April 2019 by Bob K0NR — 7 Comments ↓

The Sundance Mountain Radio Association recently filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the FCC to reestablish consistency between the call area indicated by an amateur radio callsign and its actual physical location. The current rules allow an amateur radio licensee to retain their current callsign when moving to a new call area and to operate outside of their normal call area without any special indicator. The proposed changes would no longer allow this practice and would force a change to all existing licenses to match the station location indicated on the amateur radio license.

In its petition, the Sundance Mountain Radio Association asserts that there is unnecessary and harmful confusion caused to daily amateur radio operation because the radio callsign is not a reliable indicator of station location. “It is common to work a W9 station and find out the guy actually moved to Florida years ago,” said Leroy Walker (KVØCO), President of the Sundance Mountain Radio Association (Palmer Lake, CO). “This wastes precious time when I am trying to work a particular state or area of the country. The other day, a KL7 station came booming in on 160m and I thought I had a new DXCC entity. Turns out, he was in Nebraska.”

License Modification

The petition proposes that the FCC automatically modify all amateur radio callsigns in the Universal Licensing System such that the call area indicated in the license matches the station location on record. For example, a licensee with the callsign W6ABC living in Texas would receive a new callsign, W5ABC. In the event that W5ABC is not an available callsign, W6ABC would receive a sequentially-issued callsign from Group A, Group B, Group C or Group D, depending on license class. The petition proposes that all future changes in station location be subject to the same procedures, ensuring that all callsigns are consistent with geographical call area. In addition, all vanity license applications must conform to this rule. Radio amateurs operating outside their call area temporarily will be required to identify as “portable” or “mobile” and indicate the actual operating call area (e.g., W6ABC/5).

This is an initial Petition for Rulemaking and the FCC has not yet responded. Walker mentioned that this proposal is the first of many expected to be put forth by the radio club’s Committee to Fix Amateur Radio. Leroy said, “We’ve got a really smart group of guys coming up with some great ideas to improve ham radio.”

Please note the date of publication.
Filed as #satire #humor #fakenews

FCC Considers Changes to Amateur Radio Licensing

Posted on 25 March 2019 by Bob K0NR — 22 Comments ↓

The FCC has invited public comments on two proposals to change the licensing requirements for amateur radio operators. Both of these proposals are aimed at attracting and retaining new amateur radio licensees.

Tyro

The first one is the “Tyro” license proposal from Gary/AD0WU that creates a new license class with minimal licensing requirements and operating privileges on the 70 cm band. See the complete proposal on the FCC website.

I find this proposal severely flawed with way too many details that would need to be written into Part 97. For example, the proposal establishes 99 specific repeater/simplex channels in the 430 MHz portion of the band. Oh, and the repeaters use a non-standard 9 MHz offset. There’s lots more in the proposal that make it a non-starter.

Still there is a nugget of an idea in here: a GMRS-like entry-level amateur radio license that is super easy to get. This could be an easy-peasy gateway into ham radio for kids, spouses and family members. However, I expect the FCC to just dismiss this petition without serious consideration.

Enhanced Technician

The second proposal is from the ARRL (see this ARRL news item):

The FCC has invited public comments on ARRL’s 2018 Petition for Rule Making, now designated as RM-11828, which asks the FCC to expand HF privileges for Technician licensees to include limited phone privileges on 75, 40, and 15 meters, plus RTTY and digital mode privileges on 80, 40, 15, and 10 meters.

The proposal would “add limited High Frequency (HF) data and telephony privileges to those currently available to Technician Class Amateur licensees.” The objective is to sweeten the Technician privileges to both attract new licensees and to retain existing Technicians (and maybe get them interested in moving up to General). There is an assumption/belief/hope that providing some HF telephony and digital privileges will accomplish these goals.

I am disappointed in the lack of data-driven analysis in support of this proposal. The ARRL filing claims that they “studied the comparable entry level license class operating privileges of other countries” but provided no data. There are different licensing schemes around the world…maybe we should compare and learn something from them. The data they did provide was survey data of ARRL members…which is really just an opinion poll: what do you think we should do with the licensing structure? This is not a great way to create public policy.

What’s the Objective?

Let’s start with the objective, which the ARRL petition says is “developing improved operating capabilities, increasing emergency communications participation, improving technical self-training, and increasing growth overall in the Amateur Radio Service.” I think this is a reasonable goal.

For some reason, every time there is a concern about improving and growing amateur radio, the proposed solution is a change in the licensing structure (usually to make it easier to obtain operating privileges). If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. While the licensing structure should be improved over time, it should not be the first (or only) tool to apply. The ARRL needs to take a much more strategic approach to working towards the objective. Fortunately, I see positive signs they are moving in the right direction. See ARRL CEO Howard/WB2ITX Speaks.

Back To Licensing

There is a worthy idea in the ARRL proposal:
Change the entry level license (Technician) to provide a taste of HF phone and digital privileges, so it attracts more people to the hobby AND get them more deeply engaged. This might actually work.

I am not an unbiased observer because I have plenty of fun playing around with radios on frequencies above 50 MHz. I originally thought I would be a Technician for life but gradually got pulled into the fun below 30 MHz. So part of my brain says “Technicians just need to figure out how to have fun on VHF/UHF.” There is a lot to be said for having the entry level license be focused on VHF/UHF to learn basic radio operating. HF can come later.

Another part of my brain sees the excitement and growing popularity of the WSJT-X digital modes, especially FT8. Why do Technicians get to use CW on some of the HF bands but not other digital modes? That seems kind of silly in the year 2019. And making HF contacts with other states and countries on SSB is a lot of fun, too.

Another question to ask is “what harm could be done by this proposal?” We could see a lot more activity in the portions of the HF bands Technicians are given. Maybe so much that those subbands get overrun with signals…seems like a potential problem. Some people have argued that giving Technicians these HF privileges will cause them to not upgrade to General. That seems like a low risk…if they get hooked on HF operating, they will upgrade to get access to additional spectrum.

There are really two assumptions in play here:

Attract Assumption: More people will be attracted to ham radio due to the expanded Technician HF privileges.
Retain Assumption: That Technicians will be more engaged in ham radio activity due to the expanded HF privileges (perhaps upgrading to higher license classes).

The distribution of US amateur radio licenses is roughly Amateur Extra (20%), General (23%) and Technician (50%), the remaining 7% are Novice and Advanced. So roughly half of US radio amateurs have decided to get their “VHF oriented” license while the other half have gone on to get an “HF privileged” license. Frankly, I don’t see the General license exam as a big barrier…I see people studying for it in our license classes and 90% of them are successful on the exam. But the exam is yet another thing to do, so it does represent an obstacle to overcome, just not a big one. What I do see them struggling with is actually getting on the air with HF. See Getting On HF: The Fiddle Factor. Easier licensing is not going to address that problem.

Who Wants HF?

Many Technicians are just fine with the operating privileges they have. I even noted some Tech’s complaining they are tired of OF hams telling them they need to fall in love with HF. Interesting. I don’t have reliable data on what Technicians think but I see several types of Technicians that are quite happy with their existing privileges:

Family/Friend Communicators – these folks are not hard core radio amateurs but they got their license to communicate with friends and family.
Outdoor Enthusiasts – these folks use ham radio to augment their outdoor activities: hiking, biking, offroad driving, camping, fishing, etc.
Emcomm and Public Service Volunteers – these hams are involved in local emergency response, support of served agencies (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) or providing communications support for marathons, parades, charity walks, etc.
Technical Experimenters – many radio amateurs are into experimenting with technology and the bands above 50 MHz offer a lot of opportunity for that.

I don’t know what percentage of Technicians are unconcerned about HF privileges but it is significant (half of them? perhaps more?) Providing HF privileges to this group will not have much of an effect. It seems like the ARRL should have data on this before serving up a proposal to change the licensing structure.

My Thoughts

What do I think? I think this proposal most likely will not make a significant difference with regard to attracting and retaining new radio hams. Something else is needed to do that, such as effective training programs, strong local clubs and mentors available to help newbies get started and build skills.

But it might just work. Maybe HF is the bright shiny object that will motivate people to pursue amateur radio.

So count me as agnostic on this proposal. I won’t be filing comments with the FCC. What do you think?

73 Bob K0NR

We’ve Got Some Explaining to Do

Posted on 4 May 2017 by Bob K0NR — 11 Comments ↓

There was a fun interaction on twitter the other day about how we represent amateur radio to the general public. It started with this tweet from @FaradayRF:

This refers to an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper where the author decided to use the theme of “ham radio is retro” to tell the story of a ham radio gathering at NAB. I really hate it when ham radio gets positioned as “old technology” in the world of awesome wireless stuff. Clearly, some of our technology is dated, but the amateur service includes lots of new technology and experimentation. (Actually, the tone of the article was very positive, so we shouldn’t complain too loudly.)

So I replied, along with a few other folks:

So KB6NU and KC4YLV took the discussion back to good old Part 97 of the FCC rules. (You ever notice how often radio hams like to quote Part 97? It’s right up there with the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) I tried to recall from memory the five things listed in 97.1 as the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, but failed.

I had to look them up, so I’ll save you the trouble and list them here. Actually, I am going to provide the KØNR Abbreviated Version (go here to see the full text):

Part 97.1 Basis and Purpose of Amateur Radio
a) Voluntary public service, including emergency communications
b) Advancement of the radio art
c) Advancement of communication and technical skills
d) Expansion of trained radio/electronics enthusiasts
e) Enhancement of international good will

These five things are still relevant and are being pursued today. Not all radio amateurs contribute to every one of these but as a group we are doing these things. The good news is that many non-hams do understand the When All Else Fails aspect of ham radio…most have had their cellphone become a useless brick during major incidents. Items b, c and d are all about learning new things, building skills and expanding the number of radio hams. We should talk more about that. Enhancing international good will may seem a bit quaint but this crazy world can always use another dose of that.

Part 97 does leave out one thing that is the ultimate attraction and, in fact, the universal purpose of ham radio:

To Have Fun Messing Around with Radios.

73, Bob KØNR

Ten Year Trends in US Ham Licenses

Posted on 22 December 2015 by Bob K0NR — No Comments ↓

In November 2005, I took a look at some statistics on FCC amateur radio licenses. At that time, I compared the number of ham licenses to such things as the US population, number of cell phones in use and the number of birdwatchers in the US. Interesting stuff.

Ten years later, we can take a look at the how the composition of FCC licenses has changed. The total number of licenses has grown to over 733k, increasing 11% over 10 years. This is a small growth rate, only 1% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).

	Extra	Advanced	General	Technician	Novice	Total
Nov 2005	107,177	74,351	135,023	317,839	26,882	661,272
	16%	11%	20%	48%	4%	100%
Nov 2015	139,515	48,272	172,239	362,580	10,988	733,594
	19%	7%	23%	49%	1%	100%

% Change	30%	-35%	28%	14%	-59%	11%

Source: www.ah0a.org

No surprise that the number of Advanced and Novice licenses has decreased because the FCC stopped issuing those licenses. Technicians represent about half of the licenses, a proportion that has remained steady over the decade, increasing 1 point. The percent of Generals increased by 3 points, to 23%. Similarly, Extra Class licenses increased by 3 points to 19%.

I reported the ARRL membership as approximately 152k in 2005. The 2014 ARRL Annual Report shows 165,663 members resulting in a growth rate of about 9% over 9 years (not ten). I’ll go ahead and “spot them” another point of growth in the tenth year and call it 10% over ten years. So it seems that ARRL membership is roughly keeping pace with the growth in amateur radio licenses, put probably not gaining on it.

Another question is how are amateur radio licenses keeping pace with US population growth? During the period of 2005 to 2015, the US population grew about 9%, which means that the number of FCC licenses is actually growing slightly faster than the overall population. Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

At this point, many of us will ask how many of those FCC license holders are actually active in ham radio. Hard to say…perhaps a topic for another post.

73, Bob K0NR

This Spewed Out of the Internet #31

Posted on 16 September 2015 by Bob K0NR — No Comments ↓

This is another update on important stuff spewing forth from the interwebz. It has been a while since I’ve done this, so we’ve got some catching up to do.

The KØNR Radio Site has expanded to Facebook. “Like” us there.

Check out the statewide email list available to Colorado radio amateurs. Join us there to stay informed about regional events.

Grid locators are important for VHF/UHF operating. I came across this web site that does a good job of mapping the grids. Over at HamRadioSchool.com, I wrote a Shack Talk article that explains Simplex, Duplex, Offset and Split. Also, Stu WØSTU posted a very helpful article explaining NVIS (Near Vertical Incidence Skywave) Antennas.

In June, Keysight Technologies donated some professional measurement software to the ARRL. Yeah, I had something to do with that.

From the Cheaters Gonna Cheat Department:

CQ Magazine busts UT5UGR for padding his log in CQ WW contest
The FCC fines David J. Tolassi, W4BHV, for failing to identify properly
The FCC also went after Michael Guernsey, KZ8O, with a $22,000 fine. Ouch.
The FCC also fined Daniel R. Hicks, KB8UYZ, for malicious interference to VHF repeaters.

The Ham Hijinks crew continues to contribute some ~~outstanding literary works~~ stuff to the ham radio community. Recently, they’ve latched onto the theme of hams using cheap radios to not make any contacts on VHF:

Dodge uses Morse Code in one of their car commercials. Speaking of cars, check out Wired’s article: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway.

Steve WGØAT created another great goat-enabled SOTA video, this one with Clay NF1R on Mount Herman.

I heard this song by Phil Collins on a the radio recently and I’m convinced it’s about the heartbreak of trying to work a rare DXpedition. Give a listen.

And then there’s this…a very well done video about ham radio that has lots of people talking.

Well, that’s all for now.

73, Bob K0NR

Can I Use My Ham Radio on Public Safety Frequencies? Updated

Posted on 22 May 2015 by Bob K0NR — 14 Comments ↓

This is an update to one of my most popular posts.

We have quite a few licensed radio amateurs that are members of public safety agencies, including fire departments, law enforcement agencies and search and rescue. Since they are authorized users of those public safety channels, they often ask this question:

Can I use my VHF/UHF ham radio on the fire, police or SAR channel?

It is widely known that many amateur radios can be modified to transmit outside the ham bands. The answer to this question used to be that amateur radio equipment cannot be used legally on public safety channels because it is not approved for use under Part 90 of the FCC Rules. (Part 90 covers the Private Land Mobile Radio Services.) The only option was to buy a commercial radio with Part 90 approval and a frequency range that covered the desired amateur band. Some commercial radios tune easily to the adjacent ham band but some do not. The commercial gear is usually two to three times as expensive as the amateur gear, and just as important, does not have the features and controls that ham operators expect. Usually, the commercial radios do not have a VFO and are completely channelized, typically changeable only with the required programming software.

The situation has changed dramatically in the past few years. Several wireless manufacturers in China (Wouxun, Baofeng, Anytone, etc.) have introduced low cost handheld transceivers into the US amateur market that are approved for Part 90 use. These radios offer keypad frequency entry and all of the usual features of a ham radio. It seems that these radios are a viable option for dual use: public safety and amateur radio, with some caveats.

New radios are being introduced frequently, so I won’t try to list them here. However, you might want to do a search on Wouxun, Baofeng and Anytone for the latest models. I will highlight the Anytone NSTIG-8R radio which I have been using. It seems to be a well-designed but still affordable (<$75) handheld radio. See the review by PD0AC.

Some Things to Consider When Buying These Radios

The manufacturers offer several different radios under the same model number. Also, they are improving the radios every few months with firmware changes and feature updates. This causes confusion in the marketplace, so buy carefully.
Make sure the vendor selling the radio indicates that the radio is approved for Part 90 use. I have seen some radios show up in the US without an FCC Part 90 label.
Make sure the radio is specified to tune to the channels that you need.
The 2.5-kHz tuning step is required for some public safety channels. For example, a 5-kHz frequency step can be used to select frequencies such as 155.1600 MHz and 154.2650 MHz. However, a 2.5 kHz step size is needed to select frequencies such as 155.7525 MHz. There are a number of Public Safety Interoperability Channels that require the 2.5-kHz step (e.g., VCALL10 155.7525 MHz, VCALL11 151.1375 MHz, VFIRE24 154.2725). The best thing to do for public safety use is to get a radio that tunes the 2.5-kHz steps.
Many of these radios have two frequencies in the display, but only have one receiver, which scans back and forth between the two selected frequencies. This can be confusing when the radio locks onto a signal on one of the frequencies and ignores the other. Read the radio specifications carefully.

Recommendation

There are a number of reasonably good radios out there from various manufacturers. My favorite right now is the Anytone NSTIG-8R but I also like the Wouxun KG-UV6D. The Baofeng UV-5R continues to be popular in the amateur community as the low cost leader. However if you show up at an incident with the Baofeng, your fellow first responders will think it is a toy. Which leads to a really important point: the established commercial radio manufacturers such as Motorola, Vertex, etc. build very rugged radios. They are made for frequent, heavy use by people whose main job is putting out fires, rescuing people in trouble and dealing with criminals. These low cost radios from China are not in the same league. However, they can still serve in a less demanding physical environment while covering the Amateur Radio Service (FCC Part 97) and the Private Land Mobile Radio Services (FCC Part 90).

73, Bob K0NR

Three Steps to Getting Your Ham Radio License

Posted on 12 October 2014 by Bob K0NR — 2 Comments ↓

These are the three basic steps to getting your USA amateur (ham) radio license: 1) Learn the Material 2) Take Practice Exams and 3) Pass the Real Exam.

This article is very short and to the point, for a more detailed discussion see Stu (WØSTU)’s article over at HamRadioSchool.com.

1. Learn The Material

The entry level ham radio license is the Technician License, so you’ll need to get a book that covers the theory, regulations and operating procedures required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). My recommendation is the Technician License Course over at HamRadioSchool.com, which offers an integrated learning system (web, book and smartphone app).

While you can learn the material on your own, many people find classroom instruction to be very helpful. Check the ARRL web site for courses in your area or just do an internet search for “ham radio license class” and your location.

2. Take Practice Exams

The question pool for the Technician Level Exam is made public, so you have access to every possible question that will be on the exam. Better yet, various organizations have created online practice exams so you can test yourself in advance. After you study the material, take these practice exams to test your knowledge. Go back and study any topics you are having trouble with on the exam. A passing grade is 74%, so you’ll want to be consistently above that before trying the real exam.

These are a few of the available online practice exams: qrz.com, eham.net and aa9pw.

3. Pass the Real Exam

The FCC exams are administered by radio hams known as Volunteer Examiners (VEs), so the exam session is sometimes called a VE session. In most areas, there are exam sessions given on a regular basis. Check the ARRL web site to find a license exam session in your area. If you are taking a class, there may be an exam session included in the schedule.

Be sure to follow the instructions of the local VE team, since policies and procedures do vary. If you’ve studied the material and checked your knowledge by taking the practice exams, you should have no problem passing the Technician level exam.

4. One More Thing

Actually, there is one more step to this process. Getting the required FCC license is just the start, a learners permit for amateur radio. You’ll need to get on the air and gain some practical experience. It is extremely helpful to have some assistance during this process, so I recommend that you connect up with a local ham radio club. If you can’t find a club then perhaps make contact with a local ham or two.

Of course, it would be even better if you can do Step 4 ahead of Step 1 and get some help along the way. There are many radio hams out there that are willing to assist. However, it may be a challenge to find one. You can always drop me an email and I will do my best to help out.

73, Bob K0NR

This Spewed Out of the Internet #28

Posted on 23 July 2014 by Bob K0NR — No Comments ↓

More important things have spewed forth from the interwebz:

HamRadioNow interviews the Ham Hijinks guys and has the nerve to actually publish the video. Later the Hijinks crew posted this article about changes being made to Field Day.

Baofeng is going to change its name. Or is this just another Ham Hijinks article?

WE2F writes: 146.52 Reasons to Monitor VHF Simplex but whatever you do, do not use 146.52 MHz on Field Day. Mike AD5A posts Why Operate QRP from Summits? The FCC kicks the butt of a cell phone jammer manufacturer, to the tune of $34.9M and also fines a couple of 14.313 MHz problem children.

A Broadband Over Powerline (BPL) provider bites the dust. Did I mention that it is a really dumb idea to transmit bits over AC power lines?

I did a little explaining about those antenna connectors on handheld radios. Randy (K7AGE) has a neat video showing some basic 2m FM portable operating.

I knew it: Digital is overrated and vinyl is making a comeback. Really.

Due to popular demand, I updated the VHF QRP page. Yes, some radio hams do operate QRP above 50 MHz…apparently for the same reasons that people operate HF QRP. Which is to say we really don’t know why.

I also found that the domain name for the Colorado 14er Event was broken, so I fixed it. See ham14er.org This event is the most fun you can have dorking around with radios in the Colorado mountains. Also, be sure to check out these operating tips.

73, Bob K0NR

This Spewed Out of the Internet #27

Posted on 22 April 2014 by Bob K0NR — No Comments ↓

More important things spewing forth from the interwebz:

The Ham Hijinks guys have been at it again, with this article: New Drug Aims To Get More Hams On The Air
Warning: Do Not Take These Guys Seriously, It Only Encourages Them

Chiming in on April 1st, Dan KB6NU reported that the FCC is going to reinstate the Morse Code test.

I posted an article about using UTC over at HamRadioSchool.com: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

KB9VBR has a nice article that explains the common types of antenna connectors used with ham radio.

Elliot KB0RFC has been writing some interesting stuff about D-STAR, DMR and other things digital on his blog. See his latest article: Developing a DMR / D-STAR radio

James R. Winstead, KD5OZY, of Coleman, Texas found out that sometimes the FCC does show up and bust radio amateurs that are causing problems on the air. See the ARRL article here. It always cracks me up when the FCC Engineer reports that during their station inspection, the offender’s radio is still tuned to the frequency where the problems were occurring.

Serious DXers all over the world are in severe depression after finding out that Crimea is Not a New DXCC Entity. Conspiracy Theory: the whole thing was instigated by a group of hams that believed Crimea would be a new one.

73, Bob K0NR

FCC Considers Encryption on Amateur Bands

Posted on 26 June 2013 by Bob K0NR — 4 Comments ↓

Just when things were terminally boring on the amateur radio regulatory front, the ARRL reports that “The FCC is inviting public comments on a proposal from a Massachusetts ham to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to permit the encryption of certain amateur communications during emergency operations or related training exercises.” The FCC is seeking comments on the Petition for Rulemaking RM-11699, submitted by Don Rolph (AB1PH). My email and twitter feed started filling up with passionate pleas to either support this petition or to kill it.

This idea has been around for a while but I don’t recall the FCC considering action on it. The issue is that “messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning” are prohibited by Part 97 rules for the Amateur Radio Service. (Actually, that is not completely true since an exception exists for control of stations in space and radio-controlled models.) This rule has a very important role in enabling the “self policing nature” of the amateur radio service. That is, everyone can listen to the content of all radio communications, allowing improper use of the spectrum to be exposed. (Note to self: file a petition to require encryption when using 14.313 MHz.)

This rule can be a barrier when ham radio Emcomm organizations are providing communications for served agencies (e.g., the Red Cross, fire departments, medical response, law enforcement, etc.) These served agencies do not want sensitive information passed over the radio “in the clear.” Sensitive information includes items such as medical/patient information, location of emergency responders and supplies, damage assessments, door or gate access codes, etc.

A few weeks ago, I volunteered my time to help with communications for the Black Forest wildfire here in Colorado. So count me as someone that sees emergency communications as a key part of amateur radio. (Gosh, I think Part 97 even mentions this. See Part 97.1a) I also see that the prohibition against encryption is a does get in the way during some incidents.

But I am also worried about opening the door to significant use of encryption on the ham bands. The problem with encrypted messages is that…wait for it…you can’t decode the messages. So how do we maintain that self-policing thing? The fear seems to be that if we open the door at all to encryption, it will enable virtually anyone (amateur license or not) to transmit encrypted messages for unknown and inappropriate purposes.

The challenge is to figure out what limits could be put on encrypted operation to retain the self-policing nature of ham radio while enabling more effective emergency communications. Here are some ideas:

Limit the use of encryption to actual emergencies and training exercises. (This is already in RM-11699.)
Require that radio transmissions are properly identified “in the clear”, with no encryption. That way if encryption is used on a regular basis, steps can be taken to investigate further. (This may already be assumed by RM-11699 but I did not see an explicit statement.)
Require additional information to be sent in the clear with the station ID when sending encrypted messages. For example, the name of the served agency, the nature of the emergency or drill, or anything else that would help a random listener to judge whether it is an appropriate use of encryption.
Require archiving of encrypted messages (in unencrypted form) for some period time, available for FCC inspection.
[Added 28 June]: Avoid international regulation issues by limiting encrypted messages to US stations only.
<insert your idea here>

Still pondering this issue…what do you think?

73, Bob K0NR

Update 1 July 2013: See the article by Bruce Perens K6BP
Update 8 July 2013: See comments by N5FDL
The ARRL says “no”.

Update 18 Sept 2013: The FCC dismisses the petition.

FCC Grants Waiver on TDMA

Posted on 26 March 2013 by Bob K0NR — 1 Comment ↓

From the That Took A Long Time department, the FCC granted a waiver requested by the ARRL that clarifies the rules concerning the use of TDMA (i.e., MOTOTRBO or DMR) on the ham bands. I posted on this topic way back in March 2011, so refer to that article for the background. Update: ARRL article posted here.

I was surprised to find that the FCC quoted my comments that I filed on this proceeding:

Some commenters state the proposed rule change “removes an ambiguity in Part 97 concerning the use of single slot TDMA technology” and it “enable[s] and encourage[s] the adoption of spectrally efficient narrowband technology.” Comments of Robert Witte at 1.

OK, fine, it was buried in the footnotes but I appreciate the mention. I can now die in peace knowing that my name is in the FCC record and not associated with a rules violation 🙂

Thanks to Jeff K0RM, for pointing this out.

73, Bob K0NR

How to Get a $10,000 FCC Fine

Posted on 9 March 2013 by Bob K0NR — No Comments ↓

The ARRL web site reported on this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture from the FCC. That’s government talk for “we are fining you.”

In case you are wondering how you can get fined by the FCC, here’s the sequence of events that resulted in a $10,000 fine for this person:

Get a Technician License and then let it expire.
Repeatedly transmit on 14.312 MHz, interfering with licensed radio amateurs.
Have FCC agents track the signal to your house
When the FCC agents enter your house to inspect your radio station, leave the transmitter sitting on 14.311 MHz.
Tell the FCC agents that you will remove the microphone from the transmitter and only use it as a receiver.

Hmmm, why does 14.312 MHz sound like a familiar frequency? 🙂

73, Bob K0NR

FCC Proposes Part 97 Changes

Posted on 3 October 2012 by Bob K0NR

The FCC finally got around to addressing a number of issues via a NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND ORDER. This proposal is an odd mix of Volunteer Examiner (VE) rules, changing the license renewal grace period and dealing with a problem with emission designators.

This notice proposes changes to Part 97 of the FCC Rules and seeks comment on these proposals:

Require that VEs give examination credit to an applicant who can demonstrate that he or she formerly held a particular class of license
Provide that a CSCE provides element credit for the holder’s lifetime
Reduce the grace period for renewal of an expired license to six months
Reduce the time before a call sign becomes available for reassignment to six months (to match the grace period)
Reduce the number of VEs required to administer an examination from three to two
Allow remote observation of examination sessions by VEs (allow exams to be given via an audio and video system)
Clean up some issues in the rules concerning Morse code testing (which has been eliminated)
Allow emission types FXE and FXD to clear up issues concerning MOTOTRBO and DMR (see my previous post on this topic)

Comments on theses items must be filed with the FCC within 60 days.

73, Bob K0NR

Can I Use My Ham Radio on Public Safety Frequencies?

Posted on 1 October 2012 by Bob K0NR

There is a more recent article on this topic. Please see: Can I Use My Ham Radio on Public Safety Frequencies? Updated
We have quite a few licensed radio amateurs that are members of public safety agencies, including fire departments, law enforcement agencies and search and rescue. Since they are authorized users of those public safety channels, they often ask this question:

Can I use my VHF/UHF ham radio on the fire, police or SAR channel?

The situation has changed dramatically in the past two years. Several wireless manufacturers in China (Wouxun, Baofeng, etc.) have introduced low cost handheld transceivers into the US amateur market that are approved for Part 90 use. These radios offer keypad frequency entry and all of the usual features of a ham radio. It seems that these radios are a viable option for dual use: public safety and amateur radio.

Here is a short list of the most common radios on the market:

Model	Features	Price
Wouxun KG-UV2D, KG-UV3D	Several different models with slight variation in features, check carefully before ordering 136-174/420-470 MHz 5 kHz is smallest frequency step	$120
Wouxun KG-UV6D	Several different models with slight variation in features, check carefully before ordering 136-174 / 420-520 MHz 2.5 kHz frequency step	$175
Baofeng UV-5R, UV-5RC	The UV-5RC is an updated case style 136-174 / 400-480MHz 2.5 kHz frequency step	$65

Some Things to Consider When Buying These Radios

The manufacturers offer several different radios under the same model number. Also, they are improving the radios every few months with firmware changes and feature updates. This causes confusion in the marketplace, so buy carefully.
Make sure the vendor selling the radio indicates that the radio is approved for Part 90 use. I have seen some radios show up in the US without an FCC Part 90 label.
Make sure the radio is specified to tune to the channels that you need.
The 2.5-kHz tuning step is required for some public safety channels. Your particular set of frequencies may or may not need it. For example, a 5-kHz frequency step can be used to select frequencies such as 155.1600 MHz and 154.2650 MHz. However, a 2.5 kHz step size is needed to select frequencies such as 155.7525 MHz. There are a number of Public Safety Interoperability Channels that require the 2.5-kHz step (e.g., VCALL10 155.7525 MHz, VCALL11 151.1375 MHz, VFIRE24 154.2725). The safest thing to do for public safety use is to get a radio that tunes the 2.5-kHz steps.
Although these radios have two frequencies in the display, they only have one receiver, which scans back and forth between the two selected frequencies. This can be confusing when the radio locks onto a signal on one of the frequencies and ignores the other.

Recommendation

I own 3 different models of Wouxun radios and two Baofeng UV-5R radios. I think they are all great radios for what they do. ~~For serious public safety use,~~ I would recommend getting the Wouxun KG-UV6D with the 2.5-kHz frequency step. The controls of the Wouxun are superior, including a knob for channel/VFO selection and RPT key for changing repeater shift. The Wouxun software works much better than Baofeng’s (which is really a mess). Also, if you show up at an incident with the Baofeng, your fellow first responders will think it is a toy. ~~If you are absolutely sure you don’t need the 2.5-KHz frequency step, then you might consider one of the other Wouxun models.~~

I have purchased several radios from importcommunications.com and have been very satisfied with the service. You may want to shop around for the best price.

73, Bob K0NR

FCC Says “What Restrictive Covenant Problem?”

Posted on 24 August 2012 by Bob K0NR

From the ARRL web site:

On August 20 — in response to a Spring 2012 Congressional directive — the Federal Communications Commission released its findings on the Uses and Capabilities of Amateur Radio Service Communications in Emergencies and Disaster Relief: Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 6414 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

There was hope that the thousands of comments from amateur radio operators concerning the restrictions that homeowners associations place on the use of antennas would get the FCC’s attention. Maybe the FCC would see that the overall effectiveness of the amateur radio service for emergency use is being limited by these arbitrary, overly restrictive rules? (See a summary of my comments here.)

But, the FCC responded with this simple statement:

Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common, our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a compelling reason for the Commission to revisit its previous determinations that preemption should not be expanded to CC&Rs.

I am not surprised by this response but still disappointed.

73, Bob K0NR

My Comments on FCC Proceeding 12-91

Posted on 15 May 2012 by Bob K0NR

At the direction of Congress, the FCC opened up Proceeding 12-91: COMMISSION SEEKS COMMENT ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS BY AMATEUR RADIO AND IMPEDIMENTS TO AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS.

I decided to file my comments with the Commission, which can be read in full here. I’ll also provide the short version here:

1. The contributions of amateur radio operators during disasters and emergencies is substantial and well documented.

2. The key attributes that make the Amateur Radio Service so valuable in an emergency or disaster situation include the large number of trained operators available, the tendency for many amateur radio operators to prepare their stations for emergency operating conditions, the high degree of flexibility due to the wide range of spectrum and emission types available, and the ability of amateur radio operators to adapt to adverse operating conditions,

3. Restrictions from homeowners associations banning all external antennas is a serious and pervasive impediment to amateur radio emergency communications.

4. Limitations on emission type in Part 97 should be relaxed or eliminated.

5. There is the potential to improve the use of the Amateur Radio Service within the overall planning and organization of the federal government.

There are many different issues that could be highlighted but I decided to focus on these…with an emphasis on restrictive covenants.

What do you think? File your comments with the FCC here.

73, Bob K0NR

This Spewed Out of the Internet #19

Posted on 13 July 2011 by Bob K0NR

Lots of important stuff spewing forth from the Internetz.

TWiT’s HamNation netcast keeps on going, so give it a look.

The debate continues about ~~potential~~ likely interference to common GPS receivers from LightSquared’s proposed adjacent-channel transmitters. See this recent article on the problem. If you want to dig deeper, the detailed documents are referenced here. LightSquared and the GPS industry are blaming each other. I tend to put the responsibility on the FCC, the regulatory agency that is supposed to keep spectrum and interference issues under control. This problem could be avoided by the use of basic EMC engineering but the FCC seems to be driven more by politics than engineering.

I have been playing around with Google Plus and, so far, I like it. It may be the optimist in me that says there must be an alternative to Facebook. If you need a G+ invite, send me an email: robtwitte at gmail.com

On twitter, I asked for suggestions on a big hamfest that is an alternative to Dayton. Most replies were for these: HamCom in Dallas, TX; Hamcation in Orlando, FL; Pacificon in Santa Clara, CA. Well, HamCom is out, as it conflicts with the ARRL June VHF QSO Party (the biggest VHF contest of the year). You’ve got to be freakin’ kidding me!! The other two look pretty good.

73, Bob K0NR