Don’t know if anyone’s seen this but was just watching over on YT with one of the usual content creators,
Part of the title says 
Contravene regulations made under section 45 of the
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.
Between DATE REMOVED to DATE REMOVED at
LOCATION REMOVED contravened alternated the drone controller made under section 45
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 by allowing the drone to fly further distances
Contrary to section 46 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act
I need an aid to get me off to sleep later this evening… I’ll give it a watch. 
Could of done with that last night 
interesting, I read the act, well most of it, skimmed.
I then back tracked to to to establish what exemptions there are for requesting or requiring a broadcasting licence, given the act “basically” says if you (or an apparatus) you intend to operate, it needs a license UNLESS it’s given a specific exemption from ofcom. (section 8)
after I established that I went searching for the specific exemption devices, … given otherwise you would need a licence for every wireless device you own (mobile phone, WiFi routers, wireless thermostats, cordless phones etc etc… wireless light switches and plugs etc etc )
I came across this bit of guidance relating to exemptions and “radio controlled models”
I then delved down into the actual exemption guidance document and it seems that “models” are covered under
ir2030/23 relates to model control
scrolling down to pdf page 89 (page number 87) covers the transmission frequency and powers that are permitted for licence exemption for “model control”
I’m not seeing the 2.4ghz or 5ghz frequency range…!
which probably means that all devices that use those frequency ranges for “model control” should have or need a licence to permit their transmission
the exemption list is very specific you cannot mix and match applications… so saying you are using a WiFi frequency for model control is not acceptable under the ofcom exemptions…
this will be a very interesting one if ofcom really are going to TRY to prosecute someone as technically they should not be broadcasting on any frequency for model control other than those listed, never mind the FCC power bands…
I can’t see them winning. (given the devices should not have been offered for widespread sale and advertising in the UK)… but really only the lawyers get rich of these things
popcorn 
the outcome will probably be ofcom needing to update their model control frequency bands and adding the appropriate power ratings which are acceptable…
I did hear a rumour that ofcom were looking to expand the power ratings for WiFi devices to align with the FCC, given there were too many devices on the market
the following cover WiFi I believe… although it’s probably worth noting that the power bands are higher and they exclude airborne model use!
IR2030/8 Wireless Access Systems (WAS) Equipment, including Radio Local Area Networks, designed
for highspeed data communication.
IR2030/9 Short Range Indoor Data Links Equipment designed for data communication for indoor use.
a good lawyer will avoid any issues I suspect as it’s a bit unenforceable as the exemption list looks out of date
I found watching YT videos on Korean or Chinese factories mass producing everyday items a real sleeping pill, our lass says I fall asleep all the time during the day if I ever put them on
Click bait mate
I’m not going on there no more 
or at least not watching certain crap !
I wonder what they’d make of the power amplified ground station if I left the drone in CE mode 
The important question was never asked on this, the 2 people being charged had all their equipment and mobiles confiscated, so I presume the data was analysed, so are the charges based on incriminating data rather than captured data at the time of the offence. I hope I’m wrong, but if so, just my Airdata incriminates me.
I’m wondering if they were part of the horse racing live streaming setup.
Seems a bit excessive for the old bill to rock up at your gaff at 6am asking for your drones
I’m not finger pointing but I think there maybe, maybe more to it than meets the eye, I guess only time may or will tell.
I get the impression they were flying well beyond VLOS and that’s why they are looking at it in more detail
We’re only getting half the story eh?
Well, less than half.
Anyway, Celebrity is on, I’m outta here 
Shame that Nella sort didn’t go first
1/2 the story is about all anyone ever gets… just which 1/2 sells the papers and click bait is the one that is pushed
I wonder if they’ve flown the drones BVLOS, mentioning the FCC hack and uploaded the videos to YT ? Possibly dropped themselves right in it.
Anything’s possible I guess & time will tell
I’m not prepared to watch a YT upload from someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, so instead I’m relying on the comments in this thread.
I don’t believe that those that were charged were specifically targeted for using excessive power. The methods needed to ascertain the level of RF energy being employed in a live situation for evidential purposes are so complex that the end result does not justify the means. A case in point. The current amateur radio system is made up of three tiers, Foundation, Intermediate, and Advanced. Each of these tiers has a maximum permitted power level at the feedpoint of the antenna. For a Foundation license this is 10Watts, 50Watts for an Intermediate, and 400Watts for Advanced. However I can listen any day of the week and hear all three tier groups blatantly running more power than is permitted without fear of repercussions. Excessive power levels from all forms of RF sources is the norm and not the exception. As is, which is far more worrying, using equipment that transmits spuri and harmonics well above the permitted levels.
Anyway I digress. The most likely scenario that led to the charges of excessive RF power would be that the users were initially charged with a more mundane offence associated with the use of drones. Only after the equipment had been seized and inspected was it found that it had been modified, and the details passed onto OFCOM. A similar charge was made against a UAS hobbyist back in 2014, when he allegedly suffered a flyaway and his model turned up on the shores of BAE Systems in Cumbria. It wasn’t until well after the fact that it was found that his RC gear was an unlicensed UHF (433MHz) system that OFCOM got involved. Normally using such a system wouldn’t have garnered any attention, but due to the uniqueness of the case, and the need to make an example of the offender to the community, was it included in the list of offences.
