No FCC Monitoring on CB?!?!?

[Robb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by n8yx

FWIW, I used to hear a LOT of 300-baud packet on 27.540 in years past. These guys were using the F6FBB packet BBS software package and some were gatewayed into the AMATEUR packet nets...

Yup, CB packet took off in the early 90s, with 27540 as the main day freq.
A tentative call sign system was even established, and at one point just before the hammer fell, it was estimated there were approximately 200 U.S. CB packet stations, plus numerous foreign stations. Enter the FCC Field Operations Bureau with the Powder Springs Monitoring station in the lead and dozens of NALs were issued, as well as many on site inspections. The Powder Springs Monitoring Station had been systematically detecting and identifying U.S. CB packet stations in preparation for a simultaneous nationwide bust. That went down in 1994, if I recall, and in one 48 hour period, dozens of U.S. packet stations got a knock at their door, while dozens of others received NALs in the mail. If you had been watching CB packet activity closely at that time, virtually all U.S. CB packet activity went suddenly silent. The few packet stations which had not yet been identified
closed up shop permanently, after word of the nationwide bust spread quickly.

Fast forward to 2009. There is no more FCC FOB, and all monitoring stations were permanently closed in 1996. The FCC Field Operations Bureau, along with the hundreds of employees which staffed it, was abolished by Reed Hundt in 1996. The FCC today has no monitoring network and no monitoring capability, not to mention the loss of the highly skilled engineers and technicians which staffed these facilities. All that remains today is a limited ability in Laurel, MD to take a bearing on a signal of interest, plus a few resident engineers spread out across the entire U.S. Traditional monitoring for enforcement died in 1996.
-excerp from qrz.com today
Is this true?
Are the CB freq's no longer being monitored by the FCC?
Are CB'ers using digital modes on 11 meter?
If its true, then let me save you the trouble - 'Where the heck have I been?"

 

[C2]

I've heard plenty of digital on 11m, CW too!

 

[W5LZ]

I would have to say that I tend to take things like this with a fairly large grain of salt for several reasons.
First, is everything that happens on a frequency starting with the numbers '27'.XXXX Mhz automatically done by 'CB'ers? Sure, 27.540 is awfully close to the CB band, but not everything between 27.405 and 28.000 is CB related, believe it or not. Especially during that time period. There really were spots in that range that wre used (legally) by other services which did include several digital modes.
The FCC Field Operations Bureau has been curtailed by a very large extent. I certainly wouldn't say that it's gone completely. It may not be called the 'FOB' any more, and there certainly aren't all that many in whatever it's called now, but I honestly don't think I would count on there not being any FCC people who come knock on your door now.
DF'ing stations/services. Yes, they are still there. Most of that sort of stuff is remotely done from a central location. No idea where that location is, probably Maryland. And considering how things have been restructured in the last 10 - 15 years, probably has something to do with Homeland Security. If it's needed, I'll bet they even have people driving around in cars with weird antennas on them. In most cases, those people in cars are not needed, the system is accurate enough to get within a couple of yards of what they are looking for. If 'Google' can do it, what makes you think the government can't, with a lot more accuracy?
Are CB'er monitored like they used to be? I very much doubt it. Sort of one'a those "put'em all in this one spot and let'em do what they want to until it gets completely out of hand" thingys. All sorts of agencies do that sort of thing. It's gotten big enough that I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to have to gather up every CB radio in the country, would you? Talk about job security!
There are several reasons why 'attribution' may not have been included in this quote, not too sure I would have 'cut-n-pasted' the whole thing if it had been me doing the posting. But I also think that if I had written the original post/article I would have included some references to prove what I said.
Does any of this mean that the above isn't true? Of course not. But it does make me wonder...
- 'Doc

 

[park]

FYI,

A CB'er in Austin got a nasty gram last year from the fed's for interfering with truck drivers daily for months, he lives near IH-35.

 

[Peddler]

That was most likely a result of several complaints. From what I see, the FCC is purely reactive and not proactive.

 

[Wire Weasel]

Yep, no FCC monitoring of CB in years. They only grudgingly respond to many multiple complaints of extreme interference or foul play.

You'll get much faster attention if a CB'er is like located near an airport or police station or something and is bleeding in on them with a real trashy signal.

Evidence the plethora of CB shops, truck stops, ect...openly and blatently selling amps and exports radios. All illegal to use here and supposed to be illegal to sell here. They are legal for EXPORT only....which is why they're called exports...duh. Yet the FCC 99.9% lets all this slide making only a token bust on a shop here or there once or twice a year.

FCC away? Good for us !!!! Anything goes radio....just keep it....ah...er.....reasonable

 

[Happy_Hamer]

Well I was turning the VFO and I heard 2 guys on 11 meterish ( 27.555 ) sending SSTV.

They were sending porn back and forth to each other.

Unfortunately they were not the brightest because they did not know they were sending with their call sign.

I looked them up on QRZ and seen they had an email address.

Because I am a nice guy I sent both an email about their call sign, they must have been close to the computer because they removed their call sign from the program they were using to send SSTV and sent me an email thanking me.

Should I have reported him to the FCC?

No harm no foul if you ask me.

 

[Wire Weasel]

Yo da man hamma'

I didn't see nuthin'


And I agree that anything that occurs outside of 40 ch. shouldn't be referred to as CB. It's 11 meter freebanding.

 

[hookedon6]

Well I was turning the VFO and I heard 2 guys on 11 meterish ( 27.555 ) sending SSTV.

actually, there is some legal sstv activity @ 27.700 (+/-) ..... if ya have the "correct" ticket.

 

[Moleculo]

Well I was turning the VFO and I heard 2 guys on 11 meterish ( 27.555 ) sending SSTV.

They were sending porn back and forth to each other.

Unfortunately they were not the brightest because they did not know they were sending with their call sign.

I looked them up on QRZ and seen they had an email address.

Because I am a nice guy I sent both an email about their call sign, they must have been close to the computer because they removed their call sign from the program they were using to send SSTV and sent me an email thanking me.

Were the pics any good?

 

[Robb]

The same fellow that I quoted and replied to offered more clarity to his statement. and I quote:

"..You may have misunderstood the historical information I was providing?
The commission ended CB enforcement sometime in the 1970s, when CB was deregulated. The freq 27540 is consider out-of-band operation. I have no idea what you mean by "abandon."? If you are referring to enforcement monitoring, as I said, that ended during the 1970s when CB was deregulated. A public statement was issued at that time. All proactive spectrum monitoring for enforcement ceased in 1996, when Reed Hundt abolished the Field Operations Bureau, under the Clinton administration's Reinventing Government initiative. However, token administrative enforcement, which does not involve tradition enforcement monitoring, is still conducted. You can read the FCC Daily Digest to track those actions. I am not here to prove or disprove anything. My intent was to provide some interesting historical information from a first hand perspective in the 1990s on CB packet operations.."
-end quote from qrz

Well, tht would mean that there isn't any visits by our "Men in Black"; or does it mean that out-of-banders, hi-power stations, or spurious emission stations are the exception to the rule?
Or are Ham's being used to do the same thing - as they self-monitor in their bands as well?

 

[dudmuck]

here is the most recent example of FCC monitoring:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-288038A1.html

They monitored CB, but only in response to complaints of interference to TV.

you can browse what the fcc does EB - Field Issued Citations, Notices of Apparent Liability (NAL) and Notices of Violation (NOV)
They are quite aggressive against unlicensed FM broadcasting, which would suggest some kind of active monitoring of FM.

But for CB and ham radio, they only do something if alot of people complain.

 

[Wire Weasel]

actually, there is some legal sstv activity @ 27.700 (+/-) ..... if ya have the "correct" ticket.

Okay I'll bite, may I ask what legal, non commercial or utility SSTV takes place on 27.700?

 

[C2]

This is the way the enforcement branch is going in general.

No more beat cops, really, at least they don't have foot patrols. They spend their time responding to complaints, and are now getting more selective in what they will actually respond to.

Very soon, burglary of personal property will be treated the same as burglary of spectrum. What I mean is that, a one off smash and grab will be treated as a civil matter (it will be up to you to deal with it), but a rash of such activity will ellicit a response.

 

[Robb]

I'm not quite clear about the Mr. Torres case. But from what can be gathered from the document provided by the FCC, there are some inconsistencies. Operating on 26.71Mhz, using a SSTV mode, not identifying his station every ten minutes, or using a radio modified for frequency other than for which it was specified to do? Yes to all; but only cited for two. Generous and lenient of these FCC representatives? I think not.

It also appears that Mr. Torres was visited a second time and received his second notice of violation. $4000 is more than a little bit draconian - but twice that is absurd. Of course, it's a little absurd that the FCC didn't confiscate the offending radio. They had the authority and the mandate to do just that. It appears that they set him up to do it all over again by not taking it - as it was their assigned duty to follow through. I can understand rules, and having fines, and going after people who operate their radio improperly - but the punishment is hardly to scale of the offense. And in light of the fact that the FCC Agents didn't do their job right in the first place, they have wrongfully violated him for a second time.

Does a $200 fine seem too little for such an offense? Individuals charged with felonies are charged the same fine as Mr. Torres has. So, is he guilty of a felonious act? Would a sum of even $400 be enough to make anyone mindful of making another mistake? What were you fined the last time you drove too fast - or ran a red light? Did the fine and the violation on your record make you more mindful of the laws and penalties? So - does $4000 seem equal to the offense - twice? Mr. Torres holds a Extra class license; did he have any prior violations before this? To say he has recieved draconian treatment is not being generous; it is accurate.

It's your country and your laws. What are you going to say to you elected officials about this - if at all? The FCC has already destroyed CB and the laws/regulations still aren't quite up to what they should be. Is radio different in Europe? Why? Because technology and regulations need to change to fit the environment in order to allow it to be effective and efficient. Europe has already done this. We haven't.

The US clearly appears to be far behind the times and must change. This isn't about abortion or other controversial issues. We are talking about radio, old regulations, and new tech. Once again, change must be sought out by the people...