Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic, encrypted traffic by definition would not be examinable by the FCC for determining whether to assign fines.
They don't have to know what you are sending to know you are sending in a way you shouldn't. It's not even about the content of the encrypted traffic at that point. They just see broadcasts (which...good luck hiding them from the FCC) and if they see the bandwidth being used but aren't receiving a usable audio/data stream from it, it's really easy to tell if the rules are being followed.
Is the band you are transmitting over restricted in any way? If they say no encryption, it doesn't matter what you are encrypting. If you are caught broadcasting in that no encryption band, and they see broadcasts in that band that don't correspond with signals they can pick up, it's a red flag that it's encrypted traffic.
Think of it this way - hypothetically if I'm on an English only band, and it's illegal to speak Spanish because English speakers can't understand Spanish, and I get caught transmitting anything other than English it doesn't matter what the content is.
Encryption doesn't magically make the RF you are using invisible. It makes it unreadable. It's still broadcasting and can be picked up by sniffers that flag it as data it can't interpret. It is NOT a no-risk choice.
My original comment was made with regard to someone being incredulous that illegality would prevent someone from starting a business using encrypted ham bands. I said that the FCC fines are quite steep, implying that the risk of FCC fines for running an illegal encrypted broadcast would explain why someone would not like to be involved with such a business.
Obviously if the FCC opens up ham for encryption, it would be legal and totally fine. Currently it is not (the whole point of our conversation), and starting a business like that would be risky. You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic, and I argued that they'll still see the broadcasts and be able to tell they are encrypted.
So this is kind of a strange question for you to ask now lol
Your original reply to me saying the FCC gives out big fines:
>Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic, encrypted traffic by definition would not be examinable by the FCC for determining whether to assign fines.
If they can only fine unencrypted traffic, as you say in this comment, you posit that it is because they can't examine the contents of the encrypted transmission to know who to fine.
If you intended a different message, feel free to revise what you began our conversation with.
You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic. You positively asserted that by definition, encrypted traffic could not be decoded to assign fines. By the logic of your comment, the FCC must decode the encrypted broadcasts to assign fines, which is false. They don't care what the broadcast contained. It violated RF restrictions. It gets fined if detected.
If you believe your comment implies anything else, you're going to have to explain your argument in more words than "it clearly does not imply that" because if it clearly implied what you claim, we wouldn't be arguing about what it "actually" means.
> You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic.
No? The FCC can implement a blanket fine on all encrypted traffic on ham radio bands, if authorized by congress, without doing any 'determining' at all.
It seems as if your reading your own opinions and thoughts into my comments.
