Live data from Hacker News

FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

arrl.org

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do professional microwave radio systems and have next to no interest in getting involved in analog ham stuff.

Ham radio is as analog as your microwave systems are. I'm not going to convince you to become a ham, but hams have a lot of digital voice and data modes at their disposal.

Next to none of which are actually useful for serious IP data traffic any any usable data rates or applications. I'm quite familiar with all of the weird things like psk 31.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#32

HobbyKing does not honor the CAN-SPAM Act either. I don't like companies that act like bullies.

This is good to know thank you, have they ever been confronted about this?

I had to point out the relevant parts of the CAN-SPAM Act and the potential liability before they would honor an opt-out request. They were emailing constantly and whatever opt-out mechanism wasn't working (had no effect).

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

Then people would buy phone jammers if they could easily be sold

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#34

This is unfortunate but I’m more displeased with the ARRL. They spend millions on lobbyists and politicians, pay the President A quarter of a million a year, and they’re really not doing that much for it. The website is seriously lacking an up-to-date information about state and federal issues, and I’m very dismayed at what seems to be a lot of money spent but very little to show for it. Ive been an Extra since 2002…

To me the ARRL membership is worth it for the magazines and email newsletters.

"Seriously lacking" is a good description of their website overall, though.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#35
post #33
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

Then people would buy phone jammers if they could easily be sold

Kits are already easy to buy. People don't bother buying the kits because if you use the jammer generally you are found. Occasionally pops up in the news.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#36
post #15
post #10

Ahh, hobbyking. I used to order RC and electronics stuff from them, back before off the shelf drones became common enough that regulations ramped way up. Their checkout pipeline used to have a drop-down box for what percent of the orders value to declare on the customs documents. IIRC, the default value was 30%... It was also always interesting seeing what machinations they were using when orders of LiPo batteries wo…

> ...and showed up with a surprising lack of stickers related to the contents. Yeah... screw 'em if they're doing that. I've never ordered from them, because I really, really do not like pouch cells (pouch LiCoO2 is terrifying). I've done a lot of work with lithium packs, mostly 18650s, and was the sole supplier of rebuilt BionX ebike battery packs in North America for a few years until some other people got their re…

Oh my it’s the battery guy!

Shipping batteries is why I stopped kitbreaking Milwaukee sets from Home Depot. Too complicated.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#37
post #15
post #10

Ahh, hobbyking. I used to order RC and electronics stuff from them, back before off the shelf drones became common enough that regulations ramped way up. Their checkout pipeline used to have a drop-down box for what percent of the orders value to declare on the customs documents. IIRC, the default value was 30%... It was also always interesting seeing what machinations they were using when orders of LiPo batteries wo…

> ...and showed up with a surprising lack of stickers related to the contents. Yeah... screw 'em if they're doing that. I've never ordered from them, because I really, really do not like pouch cells (pouch LiCoO2 is terrifying). I've done a lot of work with lithium packs, mostly 18650s, and was the sole supplier of rebuilt BionX ebike battery packs in North America for a few years until some other people got their re…

Not that I advocate it, but I can see why they are trying to skirt the rules. It’s tough now as a consumer to just order LiPos for a reasonable price and trust that they aren’t going to be a risk of catching on fire. HobbyKing is one of the few LiPo vendors right now that have managed to achieve trustworthy B2C LiPo batteries at a reasonable price point. I’m guessing they are really trying to maintain that position.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#38
post #20
post #16

It's somewhat surprising for a radio amateur group to take it upon themselves to complain to the FCC about interference to a whole bunch of infrastructure-critical systems like satellite positioning, air traffic control, etc. Sounds a bit like spectrum vigilantism to me. Or was there actual harm done to these systems? You'd hope that if it was really critical there'd be more investigations by the government vs waitin…

Making an official complaint to the appropriate government enforcement agency is the exact opposite of “vigilantism”. Vigilantism would be hams deliberately crashing the drones with jammers, or something.

Hams have done just that - famously chasing the Russian woodpecker iirc off of frequencies they wanted to use.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#39
post #2

This appears to be "video streaming" style transmitters, not an ADS-B out sort of location transmitter or anything. And it seems that HobbyKing just... hoped nothing would happen. > As spelled out in ARRL’s 2017 complaint, the ARRL Laboratory had documented that the operating frequencies of these drone TV transmitters near the 1.3 GHz amateur band were dip-switch selectable for frequencies internationally assigned fo…

Wow that could have affected WAAS GPS approaches for aircraft which is rather critical stuff. (WAAS approaches allow for airplanes to descend to much lower altitudes without ground visibility. Basically the GPS equivalent of the Instrument Landing System.)

And Mode S has serious implications for TCAS systems (preventing air to air collisions.)

Extremely bad to be messing with those frequencies. Potentially catastrophic.

Re: FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

#40
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IIRC these switches were not user accessible. They were definitely user accessible in at least some of the products. Here are a couple of the devices named in the FCC complaint which obviously had exposed DIP switches: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aomway-700tvl-cmos-hd-camera-nts... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless... https://hobbyking.com/en_us/x40-l-25mw-tx-cnc-alloy-cas.html There were…

I still don't feel great about this. It should be up to the end user to not break the law.

I’m not going to trust aircraft safety to one jackass who might not care about the law — or might not even be aware of the consequences of what they are messing with.
Post reply on HN