ShareThis Page

North Huntingdon ham radio operator settles case with FCC

Megan Guza
| Tuesday, July 3, 2018, 4:24 p.m.

A well-known Westmoreland County ham radio operator has agreed to pay $7,000 to the federal government to settle allegations he intentionally interfered with other amateur radio operators on a particular frequency, officials said Tuesday.

The Federal Communications Commission originally levied a $11,500 fine against Brian Crow in July 2014, according to FCC records.

Crow, 58, of North Huntingdon, also failed to use his call sign as required by federal law.

When interviewed by FCC agents, Crow allegedly claimed he hadn't been home or using his radio at the time of the disruptions.

Tuesday's settlement, which closes the four-year case, also requires Crow to cease contact with the other radio operators involved in the interference and reduces his operating license to a lower level for six months, according to a release from U.S. Attorney Scott Brady.

Federal law says that licensed amateur radio operators can communicate only with other operators who agree to the communications, Brady noted.

“Allowing licensed amateur radio operators the freedom to converse with others in an orderly fashion and without unwanted disruption is one of the missions of the FCC,” Brady said. “This complaint identifies one such individual who intentionally interfered with other law-abiding amateur radio operators.”

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me