FCC Insists That Amateur Operators Wear Brown Shirts |
||
These days, not being on the right side of a government enforcement agency can cost your your life, liberty, and/or pursuit of happiness - just ask about it from politically antipolar citizens who have been descended upon physically by armed commando teams or financially crippled by the IRS or EPA. The meaning of law is nowadays declared to be whatever the bureaucrat involved thinks it should be, and nobody dares to challenge it. Amateur radio operator Daniel G. Churovich, N9RSY, of Ripley, Tennessee, recently learned how failing to comply with one FCC lawyer's interpretation of Section 97.111(a)(1) - see letter below - can result in a scary contact from The Man. The ARRL website has a news piece telling how FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Special Counsel Laura Smith issued a warning letter to the fellow for communicating with another radio operator who failed to provide proper identification per Part 97. It was not Mr. Churovich who failed to comply; it was the guy on the other end of the transmission. The ARRL has a long history of being a self-policing organization, and its members routinely conduct violations monitoring activities for quelling pirate (illegal) broadcast stations, unintentional radiation (interference) sources, unqualified operators making calls (often kids or relatives horsing around on someone's gear), malicious interference, etc. The Amateur Auxiliary of the FCC is the official title of the volunteers. From the ARRL website:
Administratively pinging an otherwise seemingly legitimate operator for failing to terminate a correspondence to another operator who is not properly identifying his call sign seems to be a bit ridiculous, if not overstepping the authority of one's office. The attorney's letter states that Mr. Churovich realized the other operator was not complying with Part 97 rule as evidenced by his repeatedly asking for station identification, so it might be reasonable to agree that the conversation should be ended, but the issuance of an official warning seems excessive, especially upon witnessing how quickly he has become famous in a negative way (do a Google search). After a lifetime of anonymity, his 15 minutes of fame comes in this way. I apologize to Mr. Churovich for adding to the dilemma with this article. From the FCC website:
Here is the takeaway lesson: The government is now monitoring every aspect of communications, be it in the form of written, spoken, digital, semaphore, or smoke signal messaging. In order to steer clear of violations, be sure to familiarize yourself with not just the letter of the law, but the whims of bureaucrats within the applicable controlling agency. Otherwise, you might find yourself in deep doodoo. I suppose I will have to be watching over my own shoulder from now on since I have dared to publically criticize the 'New' FCC*.
* For the record, I actually appreciate and deem necessary the work done by most of the Federal regulating agencies like the FCC, FAA, DOT, etc.; it is the manipulations and perversions of some in leadership positions (mostly political appointments) that often infuriate me.
See More FCC Bureaucratic Strong-Arming for another example.
Posted June 5, 2014 |
||