InterceptRadio.com Forums

Oregon has a similar bill as well and hams down here are also talking about it as well. I see it as mostly geared to those that use glue to stick their cellphone to their ears, instead of driving.

I also feel its misunderstood to also apply to ham radio users as well.

We see a lot of MVA's where people are fiddling with thier phone driving instead of having two hands on the wheel like they should. California, I think have a more stricter law in place that allow drivers to access their phones via a wireless microphone installment to one's vehicle or at least to a blue tooth device or earphone.

I personally wear an ear phone type device and answer with a one touch button on the phone or other disginated button on the phone.

I say its kinda hard at what it appeals to right now, I know a few years ago, hams in New York were able to turn their bill around and grandfathered ham radio into emergency communications as part of the bill or something.

Jeff

Will it include the law enforcement agencies using computers while driving and talking on their cell phones???????
I don't think so

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The bill says it will be illegal to hold a device to the drivers ear. Does anybody here drive while holding their microphone to their ear ???

This law should be one of those deals where if using a cell phone causes the wreck, then extra cite or the user will be the at fault driver.
Most cops (I'm retired so I can say this) read right of the screen while driving.
In WA, RCW says something about TV viewers visible to the driver, except LE/FIRE. TV? Nope, I was watchin a DVD officer.

The bottom line is that the FCC can overturn any such law. The FCC -- Federal Government "occupies" control over all transmitting devices -- even cellphones. However "cellphones" have shared control by the FCC and State PUC - as a public utility. Radio & TV stations as well as HAM and Public Safety is NOT. Therefore -- Federal courts will overturn any such State Law. Otherwise -- it would open the door for States to control ALL other areas of "commuications" -- putting the FCC out of business. Congress will not let that happen. The FCC has made several "Declaritory Rulings" against such State Laws in the past -- Much a do about nothing. Former State Attorney General Slate Gorton -- had his butt kicked by the Federal Courts -- when he tried to get the State of Washington to regulate the size of food boxes (Ceral, olives, etc). Interstate Commerce is also an area of law "Occupied" by the Federal Government alone. Feds two -- States Zero.

I have outlived 5-6 FCC commissioners, including Reed Hunt, they can throw what they will at me...

Ok, so Reed is still with us

I had the FCC staff tell a local county judge that they would yank his HAM ticket -- (and a lot more) if he didn't stay out of the FED's way -- in a County Zoning Hearing -- with a Broadcast Station --in Oregon. The locals didn't like a new FM tower. The FCC said "Done deal. It's not your turf -- stay out of it". (See KLAD Vs Klamath County).

:D The FCC moves VERY slowly. But -- until it becomes law -- there is nothing the Feds can do -- UNLESS someone "ASKS" for a "Declaritory Ruling" on the proposed new State Law. FCC staff do not sit and read about the "real world". There are pending AM/FM Applications that are ten years old. The Los Angeles area (Cerrotos) FCC office wanted to mount a needed antenna on top of thier FCC office. The City of Cerritos said NO and gave the FCC a "ticket". After two years -- the FCC has a "movable" power driven antenna on top of the 8 story office building -- and the City of Cerritos and the local Cable TV company can provide special sevices on the cable sysem -- by way of a special FCC wavier. Get the picture ---.

The KRKO AM tower siting was a "local zoning issue". The KLAD FM siting issue was "a special conditional use permit". No State can attach a restriction on the use of a radio or TV license. Operation and license of all communications services are under "Federal Authority". The FCC got around the Cerritos zoning -- by giving the City permission to use the Cable TV -- to provide "extended video and telephone service". It was a local zoning issue. Restricting any use of a licensed communications service -- is not a "local zoning issue". The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the Constitution and the laws of the United States --- shall be the supreme law of the land. It trumps local laws.