Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

arrl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

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

#41

Post by Robotbeat »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

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 agree. Is SDR gonna be made illegal? Same idea.

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

#42

Post by PragmaticPulp »

Syonyk wrote: 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…

> 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

They weren't even pretending to hide it. The product listings showed which channels were selectable and it looks like the dip switches were easily accessible:

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/1-2ghz-mg-500mw-8ch-a-v-wireless...

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

#43

Post by underseacables »

sciurus wrote: post #34
underseacables wrote: post #3

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.

I have a secret for you, and it’s an app called Libby, which you use with your public library card you digitally check out the books, magazines, and audiobooks from the library. The ARRL magazine is completely free through the library app. You can read it right now totally free.

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

#44

Post by jonah »

walrus01 wrote: post #31
jimktrains2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Our local club has a 40 mile, 30 Mbps, 5 GHz link that has a lot of services hanging off of it including an HD video stream.

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

#45

Post by paranoidrobot »

Robotbeat wrote: post #41
R0b0t1 wrote: 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.

I agree. Is SDR gonna be made illegal? Same idea.

I believe most of the SDR community is about receiving, which is by and large, legal.

The bits I've seen involving SDR transmission has been very clear that it's only to be done if you're a licensed operator.

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

#46

Post by jlarocco »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

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.

It is up to the end user to not break the law. But...

> In its earlier Forfeiture Order, the FCC said it had made clear that “[d]evices used in the Amateur Radio Service do not require authorization prior to being imported into the United States, but “if such equipment can operate in amateur and non-amateur frequencies, it must be certified prior to marketing and operation.” The FCC investigation found that 65 models of devices marketed by HobbyKing did not have the required FCC certification.

It's also up to the equipment manufacturer or importer to make sure the equipment they sell in the United States is certified by the FCC.

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

#47

Post by azernik »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #29
duskwuff wrote: post #14

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.

EM spectrum is something sovereign states take Very Seriously, and if that requires hardware makers to lock their hardware in to approved frequencies so be it (from a state perspective).

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

#48

Post by mnouquet »

wrs wrote: post #20
ridaj wrote: 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.

> Making an official complaint to the appropriate government enforcement agency is the exact opposite of “vigilantism”.

You're right, it's straight delation.

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

#49

Post by quercusa »

Syonyk wrote: 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…

I suspect this bit didn't endear them to the FCC either:

HobbyKing had told the FCC that it had no notice of the Commission’s authorization requirements; that the Fifth Amendment relieved HobbyKing of its duty to respond; that the forfeiture amount was inappropriate because its parent company, Indubitably, Inc., lacked the ability to pay to the Forfeiture Order; and that the Commission was time-barred from taking action against ABC Fulfillment Services LLC because it was not part of HobbyKing’s business.

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

#50

Post by justin66 »

ridaj wrote: 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…

> It's somewhat surprising for a radio amateur group to take it upon themselves to complain to the FCC... Sounds a bit like spectrum vigilantism to me.

Surprising? Have you met any hams?

Post reply on HN