Hams Under the Gun in the Sunshine State

[K2PG]

On Friday, July 1, a new state law took effect in Florida making it a felony for anyone, even a licensed radio operator in a licensed service, to cause interference to radio or television broadcast reception. This has serious implications for amateur radio, given several nasty RFI and TVI disputes that have occurred there over the years.

Here is a quote from Amateur Radio Newsline: "On July 1st, a new Florida state law took effect that makes it a felony
offense to transmit without a license or cause radio interference to a
licensed broadcast station even if you have a license.  According to
information provided by a reader of the C-G-C Communicator and a post
by William Sinbine, N4EXO, to QRZ.com, state measure F-S 877.27
provides penalties ranging up to a $100,000 fine and five years in
prison for each offense.  And, as written, even if you hold an FCC
issued radio operator's license, the holder of a broadcast license takes
precedence." (Italics supplied)

It appears that someone did not do his homework in Tallahassee. While this law was inspired by an explosion of pirate broadcasting activity in Florida and by problems with CB'ers and freebanders running excessive power and causing RFI/TVI/BCI, this obnoxious law paints hams with the same brush.

The "Newsline" article further states that the ARRL has been pushing the FCC to use federal preemption to nullify the Florida statute and that the FCC has been "sitting on the matter". Perhaps someone from either the League or from various Florida radio clubs should have taken a trip to Tallahassee to kill or amend this thing before it had a chance to become law. With the plethora of poorly-designed consumer electronics products on the market and the population density of many communities in that state, this law essentially outlaws amateur radio in Florida. Of course, the Florida Association of Broadcasters has the money to buy off politicians. Since the League is a nonprofit organization, tax laws prevent it from lobbying anyone, either in Congress or in state legislative bodies.

Perhaps we should remember that the next time a hurricane sweeps through that state. I know I won't be spending my vacation dollars there!

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Good Morning Phil,

 I wasn't aware of this and Thank You for sharing with the group, this is quite a Statement.

 It would Behoove what Amateur populace in the area there to band up and make some kind of inroads with the FCC on this matter. That's Hostile mandating.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

On Friday, July 1, a new state law took effect in Florida making it a felony for anyone, even a licensed radio operator in a licensed service, to cause interference to radio or television broadcast reception. This has serious implications for amateur radio, given several nasty RFI and TVI disputes that have occurred there over the years.

Here is a quote from Amateur Radio Newsline: "On July 1st, a new Florida state law took effect that makes it a felony ...

Newsline should check their sources before posting news that's a year old
:
1st QRZ post, June 1, 2005: "As of July 1, 2005 a new Florida statute (S. 877.27) makes it a 3rd degree felony to transmit without a license or cause radio interference to a licensed broadcast station in the State of Florida, with penalties ranging up to $100,000 fine and five years in prison."

Further down the same post:
"The Florida Legislature enacted the law, §877.27 of the Florida Criminal Statutes (under "Miscellaneous Crimes"), last year. It took effect July 1, 2004. Violations would be considered third-degree felonies in Florida."


Starting on page 20 of this thread, the story finally changes:

And from the Assistant Attorney General of Florida

Office of the Attorney General
Opinions Division
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL

June 9, 2995

Dear Mr. McVey

Thank you for contacting this office regarding the application of section 877.27, Florida Statutes, to amateur radio operators whose transmissions may interfere with commercial broadcasts.  Attorney General Crist has asked that I respond to your inquiry.

Regrettably, the authority of this office to render formal opinions is statutorily limited to responding only to public officials and entities on questions involving their own powers and duties under state law.  This precludes offering legal opinions to private citizens.  Moreover, the opinions of this office are advisory in nature and, while have been found to be persuasive in certain instances, are not binding.

In this instance, the operation of short-wave radios may implicate federal law.  Section 877.27, Florida Statutes, enacted in 2004, became effective July 1 of that year.  The legislative analysis of the bill discusses its application to individuals who act outside FCC regulations and the potential federal preemption of the field of radio interference.  You may wish to contact the Federal Communications Commission to determine whether your activity is exempt from licensure as mentioned in section 877.27(1)(a), Florida Statutes, or otherwise complies with federal regulations.

Please understand the inability of this office to become more directly involved in this matter at this time.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lagran Saunders
Assistant Attorney General

[Pete, WA2CWA]

To Pete (WA2CWA), all others who have adopted ARRL-worship as their religion,

For many of us, it's good to have religion.

Sorry, Pete, but the high priests of Newington won't (or can't) do a damn thing to stop this.

Since I didn't bring up Newington, you did, you might want to review the complete text of their current action on this:
From ARRL LETTER, March 4, 2005:

LEAGUE ASKS FCC TO VOID FLORIDA RFI STATUTE

The ARRL has asked the FCC to invalidate a Florida law that prohibits anyone
making radio transmissions without a license or Commission "exemption" from
interfering with licensed broadcast stations. In a Request for Declaratory
Ruling to the Commission February 25, the League maintains that only the FCC
has authority to regulate radio stations and RFI. By prohibiting
interference to broadcasters, the ARRL contends, the Florida law could have
the apparently unintended consequence of affecting ham radio licensees as
well as operators of certain unlicensed Part 15 devices, such as cordless
telephones.

"What is clear is that no radio transmissions, licensed or not, are
permitted if they result in interference to public or commercial radio
stations licensed by the Commission," the League said. "Thus, it would
appear that Commission-licensed Amateur Radio stations in Florida are
subject to felony prosecution if their transmissions interfere with
interference-susceptible broadcast or other radio receivers used in
listening to public or commercial radio stations."

The law also could subject operators of Part 15 unlicensed intentional
radiators that interfere with broadcast stations to felony criminal
prosecution, the League said, adding that it "could be interpreted to
prohibit operation of Part 15 devices entirely."

Citing case law and legal opinions dating as far back as the 1930s, the ARRL
requested a declaratory ruling from the FCC that the Florida statute
"exceeds the jurisdiction of the State of Florida and intrudes on the
exclusive jurisdiction afforded the Commission by the Communications Act of
1934 as amended, to regulate radio stations and to address interference
phenomena."

The Florida Legislature enacted the law, §877.27 of the Florida Criminal
Statutes (under "Miscellaneous Crimes"), last year. It took effect July 1,
2004. Violations would be considered third-degree felonies in Florida.

The ARRL says it's not clear that Florida lawmakers intended the law to be
as broad in its application as it reads, but that the new law--apparently
aimed at unlicensed "pirate" broadcasters--"nonetheless on its face
prohibits any person from causing interference" with an FCC-licensed
broadcast station.

Although the Communications Act of 1934 does not specifically preempt state
regulation of RFI matters, Congress clarified in 1982 that all
telecommunications are interstate and subject to exclusive regulation by the
FCC, the ARRL pointed out. It cited the Communications Amendments Act of
1982, Public Law 97-259 to support its stance.

"The legislative history of the Communications Amendments Act of 1982
demonstrates that Congress intended to completely preempt the regulation of
RFI," and leave it solely in the hands of the FCC, the ARRL said. The League
also noted that courts "likewise have refused to allow private lawsuits
against commercial broadcasters to abate RFI problems."

In a 2003 case, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the FCC "held clearly that
all attempts by states and municipalities to regulate RFI are void as
preempted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," the ARRL said. The
League's petition concludes that the Florida statute "is void as preempted
by federal communications law."

Given Newsline's inaccurate reporting of this item, 7/1/05, makes you wonder about some of the other items in this report.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

"... unless the person obtains a license..."

"... to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to,..."


How is this a threat to licenced amateur radio ops?

To Pete (WA2CWA), all others who have adopted ARRL-worship as their religion, and others on this forum...it gets better! Here is the actual text of Florida Statute 877.27, obtained from the official state government Web site, http://www.myflorida.com :

877.27  Unauthorized transmissions to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission prohibited; penalties.--

(1)  A person may not:

(a)  Make, or cause to be made, a radio transmission in this state unless the person obtains a license or an exemption from licensure from the Federal Communications Commission under 47 U.S.C. s. 301, or other applicable federal law or regulation; or

(b)  Do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio transmission or interference to occur.

(2)  A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.  (Italics supplied)

As you can see, no provision is made for TVI or BCI that results from the operation of a legitimate amateur radio station, even if it is caused by faulty consumer electronics equipment, except for making the amateur radio operator liable to a stiff fine or a prison sentence. If you live in Florida, don't wait for the ARRL to do something about this. Get yourself and your local amateur radio clubs up to Tallahassee to push for an amendment to this statute...or sell your radios and buy yourselves some golf clubs or fishing tackle and do whatever people do when they retire to Florida and wait to die. This law illustrates the folly of non-technically oriented state legislatures trying to usurp the authority of federal agencies that should have the expertise to regulate such things.

This law sets a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the country. It doesn't really matter when this law actually took effect, as it is still a cyanide pill for amateur radio in the state of Florida. Moreover, the state assistant attorney general did not answer the concerns of the person who wrote about this law. Sorry, Pete, but the high priests of Newington won't (or can't) do a damn thing to stop this.

[Bill, KD0HG]

It's good to see that the Florida legislature is busy passing laws to cover every area of human conduct that they can think of.


..

[k4kyv]

(b) Do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio transmission or interference to occur.

The language is a little ambiguous.  Does the word "unlicensed" modify "radio transmisson to", or "radio transmission to, or interference with"?
 
The intent of the law appears to be the prohibition of interference to a licensed radio station by an unlicensed station.  "Licensed" is not clearly defined as exclusively a broadcast licence.  Amateurs are licensed.  Even CB'ers, if the CB station is operating in accordance with the CB rules, are considered "licensed."

The problem amateurs might have is that a lawyer representing a broadcast station or a person receiving interference, might say that the wording of the law does not clearly indicate whether the interfering station falls under this statute if and only if it unlicensed.

To avoid this ambiguity, all the writers of the legislation would have to have done would have been to repeat the word "unlicensed" so that the text would read: "(b) Do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to, or unlicensed interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio transmission or interference to occur. "

Also, the text implies inclusion of other licensed services besides broadcasting: "radio transmission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission".  By definition, broadcasting is one-way transmission.  You cannot make a radio transmission "to" a broadcast station, but you can interfere "with" it.  The words "radio transmission to" imply licensed two-way communication service, including amateur radio.  

In addition to covering pirate broadcasters, this law would apply to anyone who put an unlicensed transmitter on police frequencies or other two-way services and attempted bogus communication "to" them.  I believe this type of conduct has made the news in the recent past.

Actually, they could have left out part "b" altogether, since part "a" already precludes operating a transmitter without a proper FCC licence, a necessary prerequisite to making unlicensed transmissions or causing unlicensed interference.

Another ambiguity: if a licensed station causes interference to another service because of suprious emissions or harmonics.  Is this interference "licensed" or "unlicensed"?

As for federal pre-emption, I believe the FCC has already given the green light to some state or locality that passed a law a couple of years ago allowing the arrest of unlicensed CB operators.  I'm not so sure that this is a good thing, since it allows state and local governments to get a foot in the door to regulating radio transmitters.  Non technical lawmakers can bungle their way through all sorts of invalid acts involving radio, but even if the law is clearly bogus, the licensed operator who was operating perfectly leglally may end up having to hire a lawyer and pay legal fees.

The writers of this legislation need not only take a refresher course in communications law, but in basic English sentence structure.  This is the sort of thing that has lawyers arguing, for $300 an hour,  over things like the definition of "is."

State and local governments should leave radio regulation to the FCC.

[w3jn]

So if someone's malfunctioning 49 MHz baby monitor interferes with a licensed ham's gay 6-meter activities that would constitute a felony?

I'm not a lawyer,  nor do I play one on TV, but I dimly recall that felonies involve either mal aforesight (ie purposeful actions that cause harm to someone else) or do so in essence by virtue of a callous disregard.  

Doesn't seem to be the case in 99% of RF interference cases - it's unintentional - malfunctioning equipment on either end, or just physics (too much RF into the front end of a TV receiver).  But then there are always examples such as Johnny, Glenn, etc...

[K8SWL]

Even though I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, I find it hard to interpret this one. But like most laws, it's written to require interpretation and no dounbt clarification in a higher court before it's all over. No wonder lawyers make money.

[Jim, W5JO]

The writers of this legislation need not only take a refresher course in communications law, but in basic English sentence structure.  This is the sort of thing that has lawyers arguing, for $300 an hour,  over things like the definition of "is."

State and local governments should leave radio regulation to the FCC.

Come on Don.  You know better than to expect lawmakers to know the English language in Flordia of all places.  By the way, Oklahoma is just as bad and other places are worse.  I kind of hope the Supreme Court nomination will tie up the U.S. Congress.  At least they won't be busy with stupid legislation and maybe it will spill over to state legislatures.

[WA1GFZ]

another boosh strikes again

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

So if someone's malfunctioning 49 MHz baby monitor interferes with a licensed ham's gay 6-meter activities that would constitute a felony?

I'm not a lawyer,  nor do I play one on TV, but I dimly recall that felonies involve either mal aforesight (ie purposeful actions that cause harm to someone else) or do so in essence by virtue of a callous disregard.  

Doesn't seem to be the case in 99% of RF interference cases - it's unintentional - malfunctioning equipment on either end, or just physics (too much RF into the front end of a TV receiver).  But then there are always examples such as Johnny, Glenn, etc...

Maybe the Heats Getten to em John. Ya know Florida...


And I din't evns say Hi Hi...

[Pete, WA2CWA]

So if someone's malfunctioning 49 MHz baby monitor interferes with a licensed ham's gay 6-meter activities that would constitute a felony.

The 6 meter band must be really different down in your area.

[Jack-KA3ZLR-]

Well Pete,

 Earning a W.A.T. Cert on 6 now carries a possible visit with Bubba and Butch down at the Penn..?.., ya have to watch modified legislation it has an inherent proctological comparison to ignorance of the law disputes.

This wasn't my Idea and i'm not in charge there..

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

That's my point. It's not that clear cut and can be easily interpreted that hams are exempt. Since this law was clearly passed to go after pirate broadcasters, I don't think hams have much concern. I'll be standing by for the first Florida ham strung up under this law for TVI. If it doesn't happen within the next year, will you buy me a beer Phil?

(b) Do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio transmission or interference to occur.

The language is a little ambiguous.  Does the word "unlicensed" modify "radio transmisson to", or "radio transmission to, or interference with"?
 
The intent of the law appears to be the prohibition of interference to a licensed radio station by an unlicensed station.  "Licensed" is not clearly defined as exclusively a broadcast licence.  Amateurs are licensed.  Even CB'ers, if the CB station is operating in accordance with the CB rules, are considered "licensed."

The problem amateurs might have is that a lawyer representing a broadcast station or a person receiving interference, might say that the wording of the law does not clearly indicate whether the interfering station falls under this statute if and only if it unlicensed.

To avoid this ambiguity, all the writers of the legislation would have to have done would have been to repeat the word "unlicensed" so that the text would read: "(b) Do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio transmission to, or unlicensed interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio transmission or interference to occur. "

Also, the text implies inclusion of other licensed services besides broadcasting: "radio transmission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission".  By definition, broadcasting is one-way transmission.  You cannot make a radio transmission "to" a broadcast station, but you can interfere "with" it.  The words "radio transmission to" imply licensed two-way communication service, including amateur radio.  

In addition to covering pirate broadcasters, this law would apply to anyone who put an unlicensed transmitter on police frequencies or other two-way services and attempted bogus communication "to" them.  I believe this type of conduct has made the news in the recent past.

Actually, they could have left out part "b" altogether, since part "a" already precludes operating a transmitter without a proper FCC licence, a necessary prerequisite to making unlicensed transmissions or causing unlicensed interference.

Another ambiguity: if a licensed station causes interference to another service because of suprious emissions or harmonics.  Is this interference "licensed" or "unlicensed"?

As for federal pre-emption, I believe the FCC has already given the green light to some state or locality that passed a law a couple of years ago allowing the arrest of unlicensed CB operators.  I'm not so sure that this is a good thing, since it allows state and local governments to get a foot in the door to regulating radio transmitters.  Non technical lawmakers can bungle their way through all sorts of invalid acts involving radio, but even if the law is clearly bogus, the licensed operator who was operating perfectly leglally may end up having to hire a lawyer and pay legal fees.

The writers of this legislation need not only take a refresher course in communications law, but in basic English sentence structure.  This is the sort of thing that has lawyers arguing, for $300 an hour,  over things like the definition of "is."

State and local governments should leave radio regulation to the FCC.

[John Holotko]

I don't understand this. Since when can a local law superseed federal law regarding interference to broadcast stations and penalties (fines, imprisonment) levied against licensed radio services ?? I thought thats what the FCC was for ??

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Yuengling is good stuff. I especially like their Black and Tan.

That's my point. It's not that clear cut and can be easily interpreted that hams are exempt. Since this law was clearly passed to go after pirate broadcasters, I don't think hams have much concern. I'll be standing by for the first Florida ham strung up under this law for TVI. If it doesn't happen within the next year, will you buy me a beer Phil?

Yes, I'll buy you a beer, Steve. Our best brand locally is Yuengling. But, I do emphasize my point that Paragraph (b) is broadly worded and it can easily make a licensed ham liable for penalties if his station causes TVI or BCI.

There will probably be a very nasty test case in Florida over this law.