E1643: The REAL Reason the FCC Cited This Ham Radio User

Discover the shocking case of an amateur radio operator cited by the FCC for allegedly transmitting on commercial frequencies owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Learn about the regulations, consequences, and what this means for the ham radio community. Stay informed on radio frequency compliance!

This video is sponsored by Ham Radio Prep - get 20% off of all of their courses with code JASON20 here - https://hamradioprep.com

NatComMag Article - https://natcommag.substack.com/p/basic-ham-radio-utah-operator-cited-by-fcc?publication_id=1542473&post_id=174493974&isFreemail=false&r=22awqa&triedRedirect=true

FCC Document - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-414789A1.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ham-radio-2-0--2042782/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The FCC has cited a Utah Ham radio operator for
allegedly transmitting on a commercial frequency owned by the Bureau
of Land Management. Is this a legit complaint, is it
a mistake or is something nefarious going on? Let's take
a look. I've gotten this article from National Communications Magazine

(00:24):
natcommag dot com. I highly encourage you guys to sign
up and subscribe to natcommg. It is a paid subscription service.
I pay I think it's five dollars a month and
I run across some really cool articles. So if you
like this type of video, then subscribe to NatCom mag.
I'll put a link in the description below this and

(00:46):
they bring up a few interesting key points in this article.
This is kind of why I like reading stuff from them.
Basic Ham Radio Utah operator sided by the FCC? What
was the real issue with the technician class Ham allegedly
transmitting on a federal frequency? And says summary of the
articles right here we discussed the FCC citation of Utah
Ham accused of transmitting on federal frequency in light of

(01:09):
a few details. Was the agency overly aggressive and going
after the licensee? Is there more to the story? We
question the handling of this incident, and after reading through
the article, I kind of agree with what they're saying.
An amateur radio operator in Utah has been cited by
the FCC for allegedly transmitting on a VHF frequency reserved
for federal government use by the FCC. But was the

(01:32):
FCC overly aggressive in its action? So we scroll down
here and we look at reading between the lines and
reviewing the additional information, not including the citation issued by
issued yesterday September twenty four, twenty five. I'm reading this
about a week after this was posted. We might be
led to believe that the action was not warranted. Read

(01:52):
along below as we explain why the FCC possibly could
be wrong in its action in this instance. While there
are scant details incline in the FCC's notice of violation,
if you click on this link, it takes you to
this page here notice of violation, and this says as
the article we're about to read, this all says that
they accused him of transmitting on this frequency and he

(02:13):
admitted to it. According to this article, and according to
what we're about to read, he did admit to transmitting
on this wrong frequency. So we're gonna read more on
that and see what that has to say. The letter
was sent to Matthew Davidson KG seven e FI, a
technician class ham who lives in west Boundful Utah, a
suburb north of Salt Lake City. The FCC alleges it

(02:36):
received a complaint of unauthorized operations on one seventy three
six seven five megahertz on July tenth, and that the
station transmitting on that frequency was using the call sign
of kg says KG seven e fi that technician class
amateur license issued to Davidson. The FCC indicates in its
letter that the matter was turned over to its Enforcement
Bureau's office in Denver, Colorado. Field agent's interviewed Davidson on

(02:59):
July twenty eighth, at which time he allegedly allegedly admitted
to transmitting on a frequency on which he does not
have a licensed authorization to use because he reportedly used
his amateur RIDO callsign on the federal frequency. He also
admitted transmitting on a non amateur frequency. Lastly, he admitted
to improper operation operation of his station accordance with FCC rules.

(03:20):
That's basically what this notice of violation letters says right here.
Licensee for radio communications or transmitted energy. No person sell
operate apparatus for transmission of energy and communications or signals
by radio authorization required and authorization frequency bands. That's what
this is talking about right here. Let's take a look
at a few of the facts. First, Davidson is alleged

(03:41):
to have transmitted on one seventy three six seventy five,
which is a frequency used by the Federal Bureau of
Land Management Salt Lakes District in central and Northern Utah
from multiple mountain peaks. The frequency is used as a
repeater output, meaning that's the frequency you listen on, meaning
that another frequency one six four seven seventy five he's
used as the repeater input. So, in other words, in

(04:05):
order to hit this repeater, he would have had to
have this proper offset and CTCSS tone programmed into his radio.
It says right here. Different ctcssis and DCS codes are
used to access the repeaters located in Black Crook, West Mountain,
Logan Peak, and Red Spur. And this repeater is used
for US Forced Service firefighters to communicate over a vast

(04:27):
region because it is located on a mountain peak. Okay,
we've seen that before. We saw repeaters located on mountains
used post Hurricane Heleen in North Carolina and Tennessee to
pass traffic into an out of devastated areas after the
hurricane had knocked out all power and communications access in
that area. Thus, the FCC is claiming that Davidson was

(04:49):
transmitting on a repeater output frequency, not the input frequency,
to retransmit his signal over a wide area. It seems
ironic that the signal would have been heard over a
wide enough area in the mountainous range that it would
have been identified as interference per se. Was the FCC's
letter incorrect and that Davidson actually was transmitting on the
repeater input frequency, that scenario would make more sense to

(05:11):
trigger an FCC investigation. So, in other words, what they're
saying was if he actually transmitted on the one seventy
three sixty six or seven seven five one seven three
seven seven five frequency with an HT radio, which it
doesn't really say what radio he's using. But if he
had done that with and not hit the repeater, but
was transmitting on the output frequency, how far would the

(05:32):
signal have actually gone. Probably not very far, and he
would not have been king that repeater on top of
the mountain if he didn't have the proper input frequency
and CTCSS tone programmed into the radio. Now, sometime they
talk about this later in the article. Sometimes we as
hams will program stuff like that for monitoring sake, and
in your programming software you can usually check a box

(05:53):
that says disallowed transmit or turn off transmit to where
if you accidentally key up that side of the radio.
How many times if you had your radio with dual
watch on or dual receive on and you key up
thinking you're on the top band, but you're on the
bottom band or vice versa, and you start talking, you
look down you're like, oh, crap, I'm on the wrong frequency. Well,
that could have been what happened here maybe, But again,
if he was transmitting on the output frequency, his signal

(06:15):
wouldn't have gotten that far. Now, if you want to
learn more about transmitting frequencies, where we can and can't transmit,
how to use radios, how to properly use radios, and
get your HAM radio license, head over to ham radioprep
dot com. Use the code of Jason twenty to get
twenty percent off of all of their HAM radio courses,
including a new MCom course that they came up with

(06:36):
last year, a balfang basics course which will teach you
how to properly program your bowfang so that this type
of thing doesn't happen. And a new satellite course that
they developed just a couple of months ago. Jason twenty
will get you twenty percent off of all of the
courses at Ham Radio Prep. They are today's sponsor, so
thank you Ham Radio Prep for sponsoring this channel. The
frequencies and tones are codes to access the repeaters are

(06:57):
readily available on the internet. Yeah Radio Reference dot com.
You can find a lot of that stuff, especially to
aid forest firefighting efforts. The BLM and Forest Service published
those frequencies to allow coordination communications for large scale fires.
In reading the FCC's letter, it appears the alleged violator
cooperator with the FCC agents in admitting he was at fault.
That is what this letter right here says. Perhaps the

(07:18):
FCC decided to formalize the investigation issue and notice of
violation to allow him to respond formally. This also allows
the alleged violator to respond that he has taken steps
to ensure the situation will not occur again in the future.
This would be what the FCC would prefer to see
instead of a flagrant misuse of the frequency and non
response resulting in a possible fine and or imprisonment. So

(07:39):
I've talked in the past about other articles where letters
have been sent to a couple of cbe guys and
I think maybe a m ray to operator one time,
and letters have been sent over and over and over again.
They came and knocked on his door. He wouldn't answer
the door, different guys, different a couple different guys with
this situation, and they finally did find him and he
just flat out and never paid the fine. So at
least this guy's talking to the FCC, So hats off

(08:01):
to him. If he made a mistake. How many of
us have never made that mistake. I don't think I've
ever made that mistake by transmitting on a commercial frequency.
I have mistakenly thrown my call sign out on a
GMRS repeater before it was just a mistake. Now I
have a GMRS license and I'm authorized to talk on
that repeater and that frequency. I just used the wrong
call sign. According to what I'm reading here, there's nothing

(08:23):
nefarious going on. This guy was not getting on there
blatantly causing interference, trying to disrupt communications or efforts by
the BLM or the federal agency at this point in time.
So I'm just like, Okay, why is this a big deal?
We all know there are some hams who programs safety
frequencies into their radios. YEP. While usually amateur, usual amateur
equipment won't allow transmission outside of band important, modified radios

(08:43):
could accidentally transmit to non hand frequencies. Did the person
being cited program in this active frequency in his area
to monitor and perhaps accidentally transmit on the wrong frequency
to make an amateur contact because he had mislabeled a
frequency in his radio as a HAM channel. There could
be an intype of situation of the curve, whether right
or wrong. Yeah, That's what I'm saying. So it should
also be noted that the technician license for KG seven

(09:04):
e FI originally was issued in twenty thirteen, which means
it would have expired in twenty twenty three. Your amateur
radio license is good for ten years. Ham Radio Prep
I mentioned a minute ago. That license you get is
good for ten years. If you buy the HAM Radio
Prep course, it's good forever. So when the license pool
updates once every four years. Your Ham Radio Prep subscription
will automatically update. You will not have to pay again,

(09:26):
but the license is good for ten years. However, it
appears that Davidson renewed his license just within a two
year window, so his license it expired and you have
I thought it was eighteen months, but maybe it is
twenty four months to renew. Now you can't operate during
that time, but you have like a grace period that
you can renew your license and not have to take
the test again before your license completely expires and you

(09:48):
have to start over from scratch. And that's what this
guy did. It appears that David renew his license just
within the two year window allowed for renewal of an
expired license without retesting. His new license was issued on
June fourth and occurred one month later. Did he purchase
a new radio to get back on the air with
his new license and programming incorrectly causing infrequency misuse cited
by the FCC. Did he perhaps program an amateur frequency

(10:10):
but program an incorrect frequency shift if he wanted to
transmit on one forty seven ATO, which is a repeater
in his area about forty miles from his home, and
he programmed the shift as a plus twenty six megahertz
instead of plus six hundred kill a hertz, he would
have wound up on the BLM frequency. Could a harmonic
or other garbage from a cheap import radio have caused

(10:31):
the problem placed on? That's what I thought at first.
I thought it might be a harmonic caused by a
cheap because we've done harmonic tests and SPRAYUS mission texts
on several radios on this channel. But again, an ht
A harmonic would not have been producing more than a
water or two even if it was a really bad harmonic,
and it would not have keyed that repeater if he

(10:54):
didn't have the proper input frequency and proper CTCSS tone
programmed down, So that seems very unlikely to do that. Lastly,
as many import radio users user purchasers know, many of
these cheaper radios come pre programmed with frequencies that are
all across the spectrum. It's not unusual to find frequencies
not only for amateur use, but also business, GMRS, public safety,

(11:15):
remote pickup, broadcast, and more, including federal frequencies. Did this
user in his situation pick up an import radio and
not realize the radio had been loaded with just amateur
frequencies and transmitted not realizing he was given out his
call sign. The FCC is giving David twenty days to
submit a response to the agency's Los Angeles Regional office
in Cerritos, California. The letter must include an explanation of

(11:38):
violations cited, a statement indicating what actions will be taken
to correct any reoccurrence, and include a timeline of corrective actions.
Once the FCC reviews the response, the agency will determine
whether any enforcement actions are required to ensure compliance the
United States Part FCC FCC Part ninety seven, governing amateur radios.
So this seems like they went this guy that said

(12:00):
you did this, He goes, yes, I did. Sorry, nothing
to farious nothing. You know, he wasn't being a jerk
on the air, He wasn't causing harmful interference on purpose.
He wasn't. He at least answered his door and talked
to them and spoke to them, and he admitted his
wrongdoing and to go on. So if he transmitted on
the output frequency, and again it doesn't say what radio

(12:21):
he's using, Maybe he was using fifty watt radio. Maybe
he had a base station radio with an outside antenna
and it was heard for a long way away. Maybe
he's halfway up the mountain. I don't know where he's located.
I mean, if the SEC comes and says, hey, you
made this mistake and he says, yeah, I did, I'm sorry,
my mistake won't happen again. Okay, cool? And maybe spend
a little bit more time, guys, going after people who

(12:43):
ignore your letters and ignore your citations and ignore the
fines that you impose on these nefarious and harmful interference people.
Maybe spend some time going after those people instead of
mister Davidson here, who obviously made his mistake, owned up
to it, a mitted to it, and probably just didn't
even know he was doing it at the time. So

(13:04):
what do you, guys think. I would love to know
your comments. Put a comment in this video. Check out
the links in the description below for the further information,
and check out not com Mag Not com magazine, not
a sponsor, not a sponsor it at all. Not com
mag just a great source for stories like this if
you enjoy them. All about FCC restrictions, GMRSCB, amateur RADO
everything else. Also, and if you really like this video,

(13:25):
check out these videos over here. Which YouTube thinks you
want to watch next? Seventy three