FCC-Compliant wireless video  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Aerial Photography and Video >> FCC-Compliant wireless video
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/4/2003 11:03:28 PM   
Gibsonia


 

Posts: 34
Joined: 11/14/2002
From: Gibsonia, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I started a thread a week or so ago, about "spy cams." This sparked lots of discussion around FCC compliance of the camera, transmitter, and receiver. I think those of us following these discussions are now much more aware at least of how many of the "cheap" camera units on the market don't satisfy FCC requirements if you don't have the appropriate FCC license to use them, if they're even legal at all.

My question is: what's the REAL risk of going ahead and using these cameras? I'm playing a bit of "devils advocate" here, but I really am wondering how much potential ramification there is to using these devices, especially since there seems to be a lot of people using them these days. Are we all at real risk of liability or litigation?

Thanks for any response,
Rob
       Post #: 1

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/5/2003 2:23:40 AM   
warlock1174



Posts: 389
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Sylva, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Having invested an enormous amount of time researching wireless video transmitters, FCC compliance, and other rules and regulations, here's what I discovered...

It is perfectly legal to use wireless cameras... (Just not for profit.) For example, the x-10 wireless camera sytem. (We started with this model...) These cameras operate at 2.4 ghz. (as do most of the other brands and models on the market.) These cameras have an FCC tag attached to them which states that they must, among other things, not cause interference, and must accept any interference. That is usually not a problem, as there are not many devices currently operating on the 2.4 ghz range that would have or cause a negative impact...

The bigger issue is using the frequency for profit. We found that it is an interesting legal issue, which has its own loopholes. The FCC states that the frequency not be used for profit. This also applies to your remote transmitter. Well, the way I see it, I am selling PHOTOGRAPHS. Photographs taken with a camera. The means by which the camera comes to take the photos is irrelevant. (At least from a legal standpoint.)

So, LEGALLY, you should be o.k.
We spent a lot of time discussing with lawyers, the FCC, and HAM operators the issues with RC aerial photography.
Basically, what it came down to was that as long as you are selling photographs, you're in the good. The video feed serves as a means to obtain an idea of what the potential picture may look like...

_____________________________

If at first you don't succeed... get a bigger hammer...

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 2

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/5/2003 9:22:03 AM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Amateur radio use is for personal hobby applications. Hams are not allowed to use ANY of their radio equipment in a way that would serve to be benefit their own business or their employer.

A "business" does not have to be a business in the traditional sense. It can be an agency, organization, group, club, one man show, etc. It does NOT need to involve an exchange of money. Third party business communications are allowed if they do not directly involve business discussions (there is another license class for commerical use).

Furthermore, it is illegal for a ANY unlicensed user to operate amateur radio equipment unless they are in direct supervision of a license operator. Otherwise it is illegal. There are NO exceptions. Ham related equipment is basically anything that a hobbyist would use that is not labeled as FCC Part 15 registered.

{Fatherly mode on}

As far as the consequences of operating without the license, it is a lot like asking if any law is worthy if you believe you will get away with ignoring it. So, perhaps a better question to ask is if it is morally responsible to ignore the laws/rules.

The ham guys are hobbyists just like us. They have invested time to learn the operational, safety, and technical aspects of the hobby. They usually have significant sums of money tied up in equipment. Ham operators follow the rules and are courteous to other hams.

Here is the best analogy that I can muster up:
A stranger arrives at the club flying field and does not bother to introduce himself. He proceeds to ignore the freq control board. He flies in such a way that he is a distraction and generally takes the fun out of your own flying.

That is what is happening when non-hams use the the license-required airways. Only in this case, the rude action is illegal. The chances of getting hit with the $10K/day fine is very low (nearly nil). But an illegal operator should be prepared to face whatever occurs if they are caught.

I have seen fellows spend a considerable amount of time trying to find a loophole to get around the need for a ham license. That same energy could have been used to earn the ham ticket! Given the ease to obtain a USA ham license, there is no valid reason to not do so. Gosh, even grandmothers are doing it.

At this point I have done all I can to encourage the RCU forum users to earn a ham ticket so that can operate their video gear in a way that helps everyone and promotes both hobbies (R/C and ham). I am not the ham police -- just a fellow R/C'er that believes that respect for other hobbies is important too. At this point, the final decision is yours alone.

{Fatherly mode off}

BTW, this topic comes up often. Here is a similar thread: FCC Issues

General ham info is found here: http://www.hamtv.com/info.html#fccrules

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 3

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 1:03:44 AM   
LoboFlyer


 

Posts: 131
Joined: 11/2/2002
From: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Status: offline 		Don't forget that not all licensed bands are amateur bands. It is possible to get equipment that requires a different kind of license altogether...take the professional TV microwave equipment. These are licesnce-required, but not amateur. An amateur radio license would be useless and just as illegal to use as no license at all in these bands.

It is interesting to see the comment about noncommercial use. While that is true of the amateur bands, the ISM band (2.4 GHz) seems odd to put this restriction on its use. A company could use a wireless computer network within this band or even bluetooth peripherals on their computers, and still be making profits on their "RF" content.

Jeff -N0ZIG-

_____________________________

Quondo Omni Flunkus Mortati

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 4

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 1:09:01 AM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Jeff, Good point.

BTW, anything that is FCC part 15 compliant can be used in commercial applications. Many bluetooth devices are Part 15 registered.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 5

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 1:44:34 AM   
warlock1174



Posts: 389
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Sylva, NC, USA
Status: offline 		I must be missing the point of this thread... Are we discussing the legal ramifications of using these video systems for business or non-business use? Our business uses the live video link to help establish a good shot before a still photo is taken with 35mm cameras...
According to a lawyer who specializes in FCC regulations, we can use the system with no fear of legal recourse. However, if we were to "copy" the video that is transmitted and sell it, we would be in the wrong...

Have I been misinformed?

_____________________________

If at first you don't succeed... get a bigger hammer...

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 6

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 5:31:51 AM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]I must be missing the point of this thread... Are we discussing the legal ramifications of using these video systems for business or non-business use? [/QUOTE]My discussions have related to using ham equipment without a ham license.
I thought that is what the original question was trying to address.

[QUOTE]Our business uses the live video link to help establish a good shot before a still photo is taken with 35mm cameras... According to a lawyer who specializes in FCC regulations, we can use the system with no fear of legal recourse. [/QUOTE]Such an application is considered forbidden if you are using Part 97 ham equipment. Ham communications are for hobby use only.

Directly from the Part 97 rules:
Sec. 97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
---- (1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this part;
---- (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;
---- (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer.

From your description, you are really operating in a capacity that should use Part 15 or Part 90 equipment. Even though the video feed is not being charged to the customer, it is certainly being used to the advantage of a business or organization.

For example, a Taxi driver cannot use a ham radio to contact the office or arrange for his next fare. In this case his business's focus is to engage in transportation. Even so, the ham radio use would be illegal since it is being used to the benefit of his business or employer.

If you belong to ARRL then I highly suggest you contact your local district rep for the number to an ARRL legal counsel. Often simple legal discussions are provided at no-charge. If there is a loophole then the legal folks will be able to tell you how to stay within the Part 97 rulings. But, I do not think that there is such an opportunity.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 7

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 11:04:28 AM   
warlock1174



Posts: 389
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Sylva, NC, USA
Status: offline 		I am not a member of the AARL. I will check into that, though. I have contacted several other companies that do the same thing I am doing, and the general opinion from them was "no harm, no foul". Of course, I do not want to put myself in legal peril, but as was mentioned above, even using our helicopter transmitters to fly them for a business would be illegal. How, then, are so many companies able to do legitimate business? Is it simply a matter of obtaining the Ham license?

_____________________________

If at first you don't succeed... get a bigger hammer...

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 8

License Requirements - 1/6/2003 4:05:45 PM   
projectcyclops



Posts: 6
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: TX
Status: offline 		Go to [URL=http://www.projectcyclops.com/license.html]http://www.projectcyclops.com/license.html[/URL]

[email]webmaster@projectcyclops.com[/email]

There is some info handy there!

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 9

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/6/2003 9:36:03 PM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

...even using our helicopter transmitters to fly them for a business would be illegal.
This is true if your R/C system is on 6-meters (50/53Mhz). However, you are legal if you use standard hobby-grade 72Mhz systems. Here is the passage from the FCC Part 95 subpart C regs:

§ 95.213(b) You may use an R/C station to help you provide a service, and be paid for that service, as long as you are paid
only for the service and not for the actual use of the R/C station.

The FCC Part 95 rules are in the 47 CFR regs -- posted on the FCC web site. Every R/C'er should read the Radio Control (subpart C) section. It only takes about 30 minutes and there is some good stuff in there. For sure, the club safety officer should be familiar with it.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 10

Re: FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/12/2003 6:18:52 AM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1429
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibsonia
I started a thread a week or so ago, about "spy cams." This sparked lots of discussion around FCC compliance of the camera, transmitter, and receiver. I think those of us following these discussions are now much more aware at least of how many of the "cheap" camera units on the market don't satisfy FCC requirements if you don't have the appropriate FCC license to use them, if they're even legal at all.[/QUOTE]

Since all of the discussions about the spy cams, I have acquired one of these units with the non-integrated transmitter versions to test. It is rated to have a 800mW output power and be somewhere in the 1.2GHz frequency range. If the transmitter is shown not to be compliant with FCC frequencies, then at least the camera is separate and can be used with other setups. All in all a cheap experiment anyways. At first glance, we checked the power consumption of the unit to see how much power it is drawing. To our surprize, the unit pulls about 180mAH with a 9V battery attached. So, P=IV implies that the system pulls a lot at .180A X 9V = 1.6Watts! Quite the power consumption. More will be known tomorrow when we will check it over with RF test equipment. I'll report the carrier frequency and the actual RF output as tested.

Michael

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 11

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/12/2003 10:29:55 PM   
uncrichie


 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/4/2002
From: Southeast PA
Status: offline 		Hello MLuvara, I have just received the same 800mw unit. Apparently they are set up to use 8 volts. Ive noticed that a new 9v battery is approx. 9.5v. What I have noticed is my unit runs fairly warm/hot, I have heat sinked a piece of aluminum heat sink material to the side of the case. 180mills draw isn't too bad for 800mw output, 50%efficiency if you can believe the 800mw output. It was suggested to me from a US dealer of similar equipment that these are really 100mw units marked 800mw. If this is the case then efficiency is really poor. I don't currently have the equipment to measure output in watts or frequency. I'm really curious as to the exact frequency, ham bands or commercial? Can you do the measurements of wattage and frequency output??? That would really be helpful. As far as FCC compliance, if your a ham its no problem as you are still allowed to experiment, as long as your compliant with power and non-interferent to other users. Please let us know what you find out about this package. I was also interested in the 1.5 watt unit he also has for sale. That one works off 12 volts and has a much larger case for cooling. Also let me know if the case runs warm/hot on your unit. Uncrichie...

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 12

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/12/2003 10:36:20 PM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1429
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I'm in the process of getting my Ham license (a week or two away), but I'm visiting a friend who is a Ham and we are going to check the actual output power and fundamental frequency on it today. I too believe it's a "numbers" game on the output power and it obviously is very inefficent. I'll chime back in and post the results possibly later today.

Michael

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 13

FCC-Compliant wireless video - 1/12/2003 11:28:06 PM   
uncrichie


 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/4/2002
From: Southeast PA
Status: offline 		Thanks Mike, Kurt, K3KL...

(in reply to Gibsonia)
       Post #: 14