CB Trucks and the FCC
Kenneth
perhaps 2 million trucks 90 percent have non-standard(read illigal) rigs.
The other 10 percent will get one within a year.
Aparently truck drivers decided NOT to wait for the FCC to get of there
ass and allocate new channels and more power. Most truck stops have a cb
shop and I would pay money to see some dweeb walk in and tell them it's
against the law. Will the FCC ever do anything about it? No Never Not in a
million years.
Look at the bust's the FCC have made. Something like 8 busts over a 3
year period and half of them are Ham's. The rest are base stations that
ignored repeated warnings.
Truckers will continue to buy Galaxy's and Superstar's and linier's and
use them and people will sell them.
Voobner and his ilk will continue to annoy the fcc post msgs here while
worring that someone somewhere might transmit more then 4 watts and generaly
make an ass of himself. Frankly I fell sorry for him. If he has a liscense
it brings him zero enjoyment. Everyday I use my superstar as a tool and have
fun contacting people all over the US. Voobner meanwhile worries and scans
the internet for someone to point his finger at and say"your the bad guy"
Buy the way three truck stops I have seen sell full blown ICOM Ham rigs
and one even had a marine radio. Five guys I know wanted Ham rigs and just
went out and bought them and installed them and use them and they tell me
most Hams talk to them and only a few mention that the should get a
liscense.
Baba Boeey! WASSUPP Can you hear me now? Good!
Sincerely
Ken
Richard McCollum
"Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
While I am involved with a project that takes pictures and makes a digital
record of the driver, rig, and everything else needed to pin his ears
back, I do have a minor soft spot in my head for truckers and so far we
have merely jacked up the employer for it. I have long advocated a
trucker band, an idea I know goes back at least 30 years. That you have
taken matters in your own hands is reprehensible but understandable to a
degree.
There are several trucking companies that were warned about this from the
FCC including most of the major haulers and several states are thinking
about using the new Federal statute allowing frequency enforcement to
separate you from the contents of your wallet and some have expressed
interest in the gear we use to nail you. We know for sure that an old
book title, Never Trust a Naked Bus Driver, is fact. Your problem not
mine. This I am sure of from the reaction of the majors to getting a
picture.
When you cross the 28 line, it is not the FCC per se that should bother
you. Ten meters is a treaty band and when the Commission gets bitches
from the rest of the world, a few crucifixions will be performed which is
what undermanned enforcement operations tend to do, witness Seattle and
the LAPD. If you can't raise the ante with frequency of arrest, do it
with severity.
Next time someone mentions the hams that talk with him, ask how many
contacts just sort of come to an abrupt end. The reason I mention this is
that this is the proper procedure under Amateur rules when a 'slim' is
encountered; we cannot even suggest he get licensed. But some guys are
either unaware or hot for a 10-10 number and in the 28.3 - 28.5 segment
there are a lot of rookies.
I am assuming that the ham band in question is ten meters because a
screwdriver is just a bit big for a mirror. As the sunspot numbers
decline and they are dropping like a stone at the moment, the DX will go
away and for a few years you can have it to yourself.
As one who is old enough to have been on CB before it was CB, I am going
to take some heat from the forces of righteousness here for being
semi-nice. Please, if you are going to take the position that rules were
meant to be tactfully disregarded, remember the key word is tactfully.
And the way these truck stops rape you guys over radio gear shouldn't
happen to a stuffed goat.
And yes, the anti's around here remind me as well of the Anti-Saloon
League and WCTU:
In good oompah waltz time:
We never eat fruitcake 'cause fruitcake has rum,
And one tiny slice turns a man to a bum
Oh can you imagine the pitiful plight
Of a man eating fruitcake until he gets tight.
Away, Away with rum, by gum,
Rum by gum, rum by gum
Away, Away with rum, by gum
It's the song of the Temperance Union.
Dick NØBK
Jim Hampton
radios though. Anyone see any potential problems here?
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim
"Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
WG
scales and during the mass safety checks on places like the Trans-Canada
Highway. They go through your car, truck or van with a fine tooth comb while
Transport Canada does a safety inspection and the RCMP runs all of your
paper work. Also fish and game look for Poached wildlife and illegal fire
arms. I went through one in a taxi cab one time and was tied up for 1/2 hr
while everything was checked including the radio for extra mods. While I was
in there 2 truckers were busted for outlaw radios, issued fines and radios
seized. Boy you should of heard them scream.
"Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Hampton
to Canada and caught more fish than he should have. He hid the fish in the
boat. He got caught - they took the fish, the boat, and the truck. He
walked over the bridge to the US! What is going to cause problems is not
the FCC per se, it will be the screaming from other countries that will
force the FCC to do its' job.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim
"WG" <noj...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:QoMV8.27850$PN5.6...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Jerry Oxendine
> scales and during the mass safety checks on places like the Trans-Canada
> Highway. They go through your car, truck or van with a fine tooth comb
while
> Transport Canada does a safety inspection and the RCMP runs all of your
> paper work. Also fish and game look for Poached wildlife and illegal fire
> arms. I went through one in a taxi cab one time and was tied up for 1/2 hr
> while everything was checked including the radio for extra mods. While I
was
> in there 2 truckers were busted for outlaw radios, issued fines and radios
> seized. Boy you should of heard them scream.
THAT is what the truckers don't understand. Often, they are full of the "I
drive BIG,
so therefore I AM". The complaints are already coming in, there are MORE
than
the 8 busts/warnings Kenneth cited, and their illegal intrusions will NOT go
unpunished.
One of the ideas that OOIDA fought tooth and nail to prevent was the very
truck in-
spections that Transport Canada did in the above post. That very thing
*could* come
back to bite US truckers in the butt. If anyone thinks that truckers are
bigger, badder,
and more deserving of radio spectrum than others in this country, you are
simply dense.
They already have the same "extra channels" that every other user has: MURS
and
FRS. Radio usage is a P R I V I L E G E---not a right--granted by the
government.
Like the FCC or not, their duties and powers are granted by Congress, they
have been
challenged more than once, and without them, your covetous regard for
frequencies and bands would only work against you and everybody else.
Apparently, you only see
with tunnel vision in regard to the concept of Spectrum Management, and if
your dream of unfettered access to more and more frequencies were to come
true, you and
all your friends, not to mention all users, would be plagued by such
hopeless interfer-ence that no amount of "leenyars" would help except
maybe to fry the brains of those
who use them, thus abating to some degree their useless presence on the
airwaves.
>
> "Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
> news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > As a truck driver I can't help but laugh at the FCC wannabie agents. Out
> of
> > perhaps 2 million trucks 90 percent have non-standard(read illigal)
rigs.
> > The other 10 percent will get one within a year.
> > Aparently truck drivers decided NOT to wait for the FCC to get of
there
> > ass and allocate new channels and more power. Most truck stops have a cb
> > shop and I would pay money to see some dweeb walk in and tell them it's
> > against the law. Will the FCC ever do anything about it? No Never Not in
a
> > million years.
Do you really want to bet on that? I go to truck stops and verify sales of
illegal equip-
ment without ever saying a word. What's the point? I just locate, verify,
and report what I see. There are many more than 8 warnings/busts for this
very thing.
> > Look at the bust's the FCC have made. Something like 8 busts over a
3
> > year period and half of them are Ham's. The rest are base stations that
> > ignored repeated warnings.
> > Truckers will continue to buy Galaxy's and Superstar's and linier's
and
> > use them and people will sell them.
Buy 'em, use them on the 40 channels. You aren't likely to run into trouble
(yet).
Go up onto the ham bands, you're going to have trouble, guaranteed. What
you do
on the 40, I have nothing to do with. Go into my "pasture", and you're
likely to get
gored.
> > Voobner and his ilk will continue to annoy the fcc post msgs here
while
> > worring that someone somewhere might transmit more then 4 watts and
> generaly
> > make an ass of himself. Frankly I fell sorry for him. If he has a
liscense
> > it brings him zero enjoyment. Everyday I use my superstar as a tool and
> have
> > fun contacting people all over the US. Voobner meanwhile worries and
scans
> > the internet for someone to point his finger at and say"your the bad
guy"
> > Buy the way three truck stops I have seen sell full blown ICOM Ham
> rigs
> > and one even had a marine radio. Five guys I know wanted Ham rigs and
just
> > went out and bought them and installed them and use them and they tell
me
> > most Hams talk to them and only a few mention that the should get a
> > liscense.
> > Baba Boeey! WASSUPP Can you hear me now? Good
Yes, we hear you, and the Feds are hearing complaints from people, domestic
and
otherwise about interference caused by lawless and rogue operators that want
to
take theirs and others' as well. When they amend the "Local Enforcement"
law to
include inspections of trucks, are you going to scream and moan about how,
"Ah
di'n know they 'uz gonna do tha-ut". Ah got mah 'rahts'. Pity you DON'T
know that
the battle is just beginning. I happen to know that there are letters
circulating in Con-
gress and on the desks of members of the House Sub-Committee on
Communications
complaining about truckers, and others, that think that they are going to
take over.
I'm betting it WILL be dealt with.
Oh, BTW, there AREN'T anymore CB channels to allocate--most of that
"freeband"
area belongs to the military and US government and doesn't even fall under
FCC's
jurisdiction. THAT is why they haven't "made more of them thar CB channels,
thar".It doesn't matter if they NEVER use them, they still OWN them.
You might want to subscribe to the concept of NEVER SAY NEVER. Instead of
getting more this, more that, you could end up losing what you have. Not
imminent,
but it *COULD* be argued that 27 MHZ CB, in light of modern technology, has
outlived its usefulness, and also is creating more problems than it solves.
Would you
want to find yourself on a VHF or UHF, low power, non-skip band? That is
NOT
impossible. Go ahead and scoff. The fact now is, that among the powerful
and in-fluential, CB is considered an anachronism-associated with lower
strata of society.
Not nice, but true. To them, the picture of a 1950s trailer with a
ground-plane, a
ratty "Shiv-o-lay" pickup with a long whip personifies CB radio. So be
careful
what you brag about or hope for--the end result may be exactly the opposite
of what you want. Lawlessness and mob rule doesn't achieve the correct
result: rather, restrict-
ions and removal of the very thing you seem to enjoy so much.
J
> Sincerely
> > Ken
> >
> >
>
>
WG
modified ham gear on VHF and didn't realize that they were on the input to
the police repeter. I listened to them all day on my scanner and then they
had a very nice welcoming party when they got to port. 2 nice professional
fishing boats with all the gear became the property of the Canadian federal
government. The trick is that if they want to get the boats back they have
to take the government to court at their cost. That was problem the same
with your friend. If not the stuff goes up for auction and the government
gets the cash. I work as a shipper and have had trucks seized for the same
offences on the way to my warehouse. We do get the trailer and the load but
the truck gets locked up. They all could have BSed their way out of it if
they would of had a ham license but no too lazy. I have also heard about
privet cars and trucks getting seized at the road checks.
"Jim Hampton" <aa...@FrontierNet.net> wrote in message
news:uif5g16...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
New York Taxis learned the hard way not to encroach onto 10 Meters!
NEWS
Report No. CI 98-6 COMPLIANCE & INFORMATION ACTION April 27, 1998
FCC INSPECTION PROGRAM REDUCES NUMBER OF NEW YORK CITY TAXI
CABS FOUND OPERATING CB RADIOS ON ILLEGAL CHANNELS
The FCC Compliance and Information Bureau announced today that an inspection
program of New York City taxicabs has reduced the number of cab drivers
illegally using
CB radios on amateur radio band frequencies.
Following receipt of numerous complaints that New York City taxis were
interfering
with amateur "ham radio" bands, (10 Meter Radio Band), agents from the
Bureau's New
York field office began an investigation in early January, and verified that
cab drivers were
not using CB radios on designated CB channels, but were using amateur radio
frequencies.
In cooperation with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC)
which governs all taxi cabs, FCC investigators began to make periodic,
random inspections
of cab drivers' CB radios at the TLC taxi inspection facility in Woodside,
NY, where all
New York City taxi cabs undergo an inspection once every four months. At
first, FCC
investigators found that nearly every taxi CB radio inspected had been
modified to operate
out of the legal CB band and in the amateur radio band. Verbal warnings were
issued to all
those found to be in violation and a warning letter was sent to their homes.
After 2-3 months of random FCC inspections, evidence of CB frequency
violations
began decreasing dramatically. Current inspections indicate that only one
out of every 10
New York cabs operating CB radios are transmitting on improper channels. The
FCC
reported that amateur radio operators have stated that taxi cab operation
intrusions into the
amateur 10 meter radio band appear to have disappeared.
In addition to the FCC inspections, the TLC conducted a mailout campaign to
all taxi
owners advising them of FCC regulations related to CB operations. During the
inspections
the FCC agents explained to each cab driver why they were operating
illegally, how they
were interfering with amateur radio users, and what the proper frequency is
for legal CB
channel transmissions. Since the beginning of the inspection program, the CB
radios in
approximately 100 taxis were checked. TLC rules permit taxi drivers to have
CB radios in
their cabs as long as they meet FCC regulations.
- FCC -
Think inspections can't happen to trucks? Once taxis, then truckers who
bring it
on themselves
J
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
THE TWO WAY SHOP ) File No. EB-99-ST-439
220 Columbia Dr. E. )
Kennewick, Washington 99336 ) NAL/Acct. No. 915ST0007
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: April 6, 2000 Released: April 7, 2000
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) against the Two Way Shop ("Two
Way") for willful and repeated violations of Section 302 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 2.803 and 2.815
of the of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). These violations involve Two Way
's offer for sale of linear amplifiers capable of operation in the 26.965 to
27.405 MHz frequency band.
2. On July 14, 1999, the Commission's Seattle, Washington, Field Office,
issued the referenced Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL")
for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000)
to Two Way for the noted violations. Patrick Cleppe, owner and operator of
Two Way, filed a response to the NAL on July 26, 1999.
II. BACKGROUND
3. Two Way is a consumer electronics dealer in Kennewick, Washington. On
March 19, 1999, an FCC agent from the Commission's Seattle Field Office, who
was posing as a member of the general public, visited Two Way's place of
business at 220 Columbia Drive E., Kennewick, Washington. During that visit,
a salesman who the agent believes is named Gary Greenfield offered to sell
an external radio frequency power amplifier -- commonly known as a "linear
amplifier" -- to the agent. The linear amplifier offered to the agent was
capable of operation in the 26.965 to 27.405 MHz frequency band, which is
assigned to citizens band radio ("CB") operators. Such a linear amplifier is
used to increase the power of CB stations beyond the authorized level. On
May 15, 1999, two FCC agents from the Commission's Seattle Field Office, who
were posing as members of the general public, visited Two Way's place of
business. On this occasion, a salesman, who the agents believe to be Mr.
Cleppe, showed the agents Galaxy XL350 and Palomar 80 linear amplifiers and
told the agents that an additional model (Galaxy XL250) was expected to be
in stock later that day. The salesman offered to sell these linear
amplifiers, which were capable of operation in the 26.965 to 27.405 MHz
frequency band, to the agents. Section 302 of the Act, and Sections 2.803
and 2.815 of the Rules prohibit the sale or offer for sale of linear
amplifiers that are capable of operation in the 26.965 to 27.405 MHz
frequency band. On July 14, 1999, the District Director, Seattle Field
Office, issued an NAL to Two Way in the amount of $7,000 for willful and
repeated violations of Section 302 of the Act, which prohibits the sale or
offer for sale of transmitting equipment not in compliance with the FCC
rules, and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules, which prohibit the sale or
offer for sale of linear amplifiers that are capable of operation in the
26.965 to 27.405 MHz frequency band.
4. On July 26, 1999, the Commission received the response to the NAL, in
which Two Way requests the cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Two Way
asserts: that Gary Greenfield was not an employee of Two Way at any time
during March 1999; that Two Way is a proprietorship which has never had any
employees; that its business records indicate it never purchased any linear
amplifiers; and that Two Way collects sales taxes and charges $38.50 for
installation and tuning. In addition, Two Way states, if its response does
not close this matter, it is making a "motion for Discovery."
III. DISCUSSION
5. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was
assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the
Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC
Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (Released Dec. 28, 1999)
("Policy Statement"). In examining Two Way's response, Section 503(b) of the
Act requires that the Commission take into account the nature,
circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability
to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
6. The claims made in Two Way's attack upon the factual basis for the NAL
are either immaterial or are directly contradicted by the observations of
FCC agents. The agents who went to Two Way's place of business observed
linear amplifiers on the premises and received offers to sell linear
amplifiers from salespersons believed to be Mr. Greenfield and Mr. Cleppe.
This is sufficient to establish the violations alleged in the NAL and
contradicts the claim that Two Way did not possess any linear amplifiers. It
is not material whether the persons who made the offers to sell were
employees of Two Way or proprietors.
7. Discovery is available in Commission adjudication proceedings that have
been designated for hearing. Since this case has not been designated for
hearing, Two Way's discovery motion is inappropriate.
8. We have examined Two Way's response to the NAL pursuant to the statutory
factors above, and in conjunction with the Policy Statement as well. As a
result of our review, we conclude that Two Way has failed to justify
cancellation or reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount. Therefore, we
affirm the forfeiture of seven thousand dollars ($7,000).
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, the Two Way Shop, IS
LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand ($7,000)
for the repeated and willful violation of Section 302 of the Act, which
prohibits the sale or offer for sale of transmitting equipment not in
compliance with the FCC rules, and Sections 2.803 and 2.815 of the Rules,
which prohibit the sale or offer for sale of linear amplifiers that are
capable of operation in the 26.965 to 27.405 MHz frequency band.
10. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this
Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to
Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the
Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or by
mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the "Federal
Communications Commission," to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment should note the
NAL/Acct. No. 915ST0007. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt Management Center, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Patrick Cleppe, the Two Way
Shop, 220 Columbia Drive E., Kennewick, Washington 99336.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
CB enforcement actions you are so confident of:
BTW, he was operating on the 10 meter band.
RR
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. ) File No. EB-99-SF-646
a/k/a Marvin Eugene Barnes )
800 Weeks Street )
East Palo Alto, California 94301 ) NAL/Acct. No. 200132960002
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: July 3, 2001 Released: July 6, 2001
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) against Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a
Marvin Eugene Barnes for
violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 ("Act"), as amended.
Mr. Nakamura
operated an unlicensed amateur radio station.
2. On April 19, 2001, the District Director of the Enforcement Bureau's San
Francisco
Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") for Forfeiture in
the amount of ten
thousand dollars to Mr. Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura has not filed a response.
Based on the
information before us, we affirm this forfeiture.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
and
Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Joshie
Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a
Marvin Eugene Barnes IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of
$10,000 for violating Section 301 of the Act by operating an unlicensed
amateur radio station.
4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80
of the Commission's Rules, within 30 days of the release of this Order. If
the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of
Justice for collection
pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by mailing a
check or similar
instrument, payable to the order of the "Federal Communications Commission,"
to the
Federal Communications Commission
P.O. Box 73482
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482
NAL/Acct. No. 200132960002
The payment should note NAL/Acct. No. 200132960002 referenced above.
Requests for full
payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and
Receivables Operations
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by
Certified
Mail Return Receipt Requested to Joshie Yasin Nakamura, Sr. a/k/a Marvin
Eugene Barnes at 800
Weeks Street, East Palo Alto, California 94301.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Re: 10 meter radios
Posted by RR on 6/17/2002, 9:19 pm , in reply to "Re: 10 meter radios"
216.76.152.188
Play it again, Sam:
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
William L. Leavell ) File No. EB-99-ST-010
Seattle, Washington 98818 ) NAL/Acct. No. 915ST0003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 7, 2000 Released: August 8, 2000
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order"), we deny the Petition for
Reconsideration filed on March 8, 2000 by William L. Leavell. Mr. Leavell
seeks reconsideration of a Forfeiture Order, in which the Chief, Enforcement
Bureau, found Mr. Leavell liable for a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
$2,000 for willfully violating Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 95.426 of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"). The forfeiture had been assessed for Mr. Leavell's refusal to
allow Commission Field Office agents to inspect his Citizens Band radio
station. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the monetary forfeiture
in the amount of $2,000.
2. Mr. Leavell raised all of the facts and arguments in his Petition for
Reconsideration in his response to the underlying Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture. We reviewed all of those facts and arguments and
reduced the proposed forfeiture from $11,000 to $2,000. Thus, we find no
basis for modifying the Forfeiture Order.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,
William L. Leavell's Petition for Reconsideration IS DENIED.
4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
Section 1.80 of the Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this
Order. If the forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case
may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant to
Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment may be made by credit card through the
Commission's Credit and Debt Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or by
mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the "Federal
Communications Commission," to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O.
Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment should note the
NAL/Acct. No. 915ST0003. Requests for full payment under an installment plan
should be sent to: Chief, Credit and Debt Management Center, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall by sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to William L. Leavell, 7807 46th
Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98118.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
TRUCK-N-TRAVEL
32910 East Pearl Street
Coburg, Oregon 97408
RE: Cases EB-01-PO-188
Gentlemen:
This is an official Citation issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).
On July 23, 2001, agents from the Federal Communications Commission Portland
Resident Agent Office observed that the following uncertified Citizens Band
(CB) radios were displayed and offered for sale inside TRUCK-N-TRAVEL store
located at 32910 East Pearl Street, Coburg, Oregon 97408: 1)
Galaxy DX99V
$439.99
2)
Galaxy DX88
$399.95
3)
Galaxy DX66
$280.00
4)
Galaxy DX33HML
$239.80
5)
Delta Force
$200.00
The Commission's records show that the above CB radios have not been granted
an FCC equipment authorization. You are hereby warned that the marketing of
those CB radios, including advertising, is a violation of Sections 2.803,
and 15.101 of the Commission's Rules and may violate Sections 2.925 and
2.926 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. Sections 2.803, 2.925, 2.926 and
15.101. Violation of the Commission's Rules is punishable under Section
503(b)(2)(C) of the Act by a monetary forfeiture of up to $10,000 for each
violation per day, up to a maximum of $82,500.
Further investigation revealed that TRUCK-N-TRAVEL is registered with the
Oregon Corporations Division as Eugene Trucking Haven, Inc., 800 Willamette
Street, Suite 800, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
In accordance with Section 503(b)(5) of the Act, you are being given a
period of 14 days from the date you receive this Citation to submit any
statements you wish to make concerning the violation. In addition, you may
request an interview to discuss this matter in person at the nearest
Commission's office.
The Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93-579, December 31, 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3)
requires that we advise you that the Commission's staff will use all
relevant material information before it, including the information disclosed
in your reply or interview to determine what, if any, enforcement action is
required to ensure current and future rule compliance.
The knowing and willful making of any false statement in reply to this
notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment under Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1001.
Sincerely,
Binh Nguyen
Resident Agent, Portland (Oregon) CC:
John Anderson, President
Eugene Trucking Haven, Inc.
800 Willamette Street, Suite 800
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Editor's note: The FCC advises that some of the five models of CB
transceivers listed above were capable of operating on 10 meters.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Truckers getting warned!
August 10, 2001
Derek's Trucking
3102 Rockspring Church Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522-1964
SUBJECT: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio Operation
Dear Sir:
Monitoring information before the Commission shows that you have been
operating radio-transmitting equipment without a license on frequencies in
the Ten Meter Amateur Radio Service band. Your truck bearing license plate
ZB20189 was monitored transmitting on Ten Meter frequencies on July 19, 2001
at 10:30 a.m. on U.S. 1 near Cary, NC, at 2:50 p.m. on Kildaire Farm Road
and from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. from a landfill near the intersection of State
Road 55 and Sunset lake Road. Re-transmissions of Nextel two-way
communications were also sent from the truck on Ten Meter frequencies.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301,and will subject you to fine or imprisonment,
as well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting
equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for your
jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
June 15, 2001
Gary L. Gribble Trucking
4309 Kingwood Road
Rockwood, PA 15557
Subject: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio Operation
Dear Sir:
The Commission has received information that you have been operating
radio-transmitting equipment without a license on frequencies in the Ten
Meter Amateur bands. Your trucks were monitored transmitting on Ten Meter
frequencies while enroute to and parked at Howard and Lodge Streets in
Albany, NY.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301and may subject you to fine or imprisonment,
as well as an in rem seizure of radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation
with the United States Attorney for your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures
normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
CC: FCC New York
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Re: 10 meter radios
Posted by RR on 6/17/2002, 9:48 pm , in reply to "Re: 10 meter radios"
216.76.152.188
May 29, 2001
Mr. Trip Williams
P. O. Box 725
Travelers Rest, SC 29690
SUBJECT: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio Operation
Dear Mr. Williams:
The Commission has information that you have been operating
radio-transmitting equipment without a license on frequencies in the Two and
Ten Meter Amateur bands and have been using an Amateur call sign not
assigned to you..
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301and will subject you to fine or imprisonment,
as well as an in rem seizure of radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation
with the United States Attorney for your jurisdiction.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
Riley Hollingsworth
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Re: 10 meter radios
Posted by RR on 6/17/2002, 9:52 pm , in reply to "Re: 10 meter radios"
216.76.152.188
April 17, 2001
Mr. Michael Kinney
15143 Morrison Street
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Subject: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio Operation
Dear Mr. Kinney:
The Commission has received evidence that you have been operating
radio-transmitting without a license on frequencies in the Amateur band, and
operating overpower in the CB service.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and will subject you to fine or imprisonment, as well as an in rem
seizure of radio transmitting equipment..
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
Riley Hollingsworth
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Keep Laughin', keep laughin'!!
March 27, 2001
: Mr. Robert M. Carper
: 67 East Sunset Avenue
: Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
: Subject: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio
: Operation
: Dear Mr. Carper:
: The Commission has received evidence that you
: have been operating radio transmitting
: equipment without a license on frequencies
: in the two-meter Amateur band and that you
: have used an Amateur call sign in those
: transmissions.
: Please be advised that operation of radio
: transmitting equipment without a license
: is a violation of Section 301 of the
: Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
: C.F.R. Section 301, and will subject you
: to fine or imprisonment, as well as an in
: rem seizure of radio transmitting
: equipment.
: You are requested to contact me at
: 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
:
: Riley Hollingsworth
:
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Colonel Chim Chim
one point....Here in Oklahoma, many of the Okies pronounce it "Shivverlay",
sometimes "Shevverlay". I'll shut up, now. I just had to throw that in.
--
--Adam
Jerry Oxendine
accounts
of Mr. H. keeping his promise and going after those truckers and others that
insist on
operating where they have no business.
March 21, 2000
Mr. George D. Cairns
705 East Church Road
Waldron, Arkansas 72958
SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE
UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION
Dear Mr. Cairns:
The Commission has received evidence that you have been operating radio
transmitting without a license on frequencies in the Ten Meter Amateur band
and on frequencies near 30 MHz.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject you to fine or
imprisonment, as well as an in rem seizure of radio transmitting equipment.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
Riley Hollingsworth
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
February 26, 2001
Mr. Carl Vincent
2699 Quail Knoll
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE
UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION
Dear Mr. Vincent:
The Commission has evidence that you have been operating radio-transmitting
equipment on frequencies in the Ten Meter Amateur band and on frequencies
near 30 MHz.
Operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation
of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and will
subject you to fine or imprisonment, as well as an in rem seizure of radio
transmitting equipment in cooperation with the U.S. Attorney in your
jurisdiction..
You are requested to contact me immediately at 717-338-2502 to discuss this
matter.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Mr. Mark Hanson
217 N. 6th Avenue
Wausau, WI 54403
SUBJECT: Warning Notice--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION
Dear Mr. Hanson:
The Commission has information that you have been operating
radio-transmitting equipment without a license on frequencies in the Amateur
Radio Service bands.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301and will subject you to fine or imprisonment,
as well as an in rem seizure of radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation
with the United States Attorney for your jurisdiction. Fines for this
violation normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
:
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
'Doc
Richard,
I wasn't aware that you were employed by
the FCC. How long have you worked for them?
'Doc
Jerry Oxendine
doing anything.
Mfffffft--pfffftt---Hehe, mffft, Haha-giggle-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I just can't hold it in!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
April 3, 2002
L2N Design & Construction
6901 Emerald
Boise, ID 83704
SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION
Dear Sir:
Information before the Commission indicates that drivers for your business
have been operating radio-transmitting equipment without a license on the
Ten-Meter Amateur band.
Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject you to fine or
imprisonment, as well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio
transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to
$10,000.
You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of ) File No.: EB-01-DL-512
)
David Edwin Merrell ) NAL/Acct. No.
200132500002
)
Wichita Falls, Texas ) FRN 0005-0709-74
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: December 20, 2001 Released: December 26,
2001
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars
($10,000) against David Edwin Merrell (``Merrell'') for willful
violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934
(``Act''), as amended.1 The noted violation involves Merrell's
operation of a radio station on an amateur frequency without a
license.
2. On September 10, 2001, the Commission's Dallas, Texas,
Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in
the amount of $10,000 to Merrell.2 Merrell has not filed a
response. Based on the information before us, we affirm the
forfeiture.
3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of
the Commission's Rules,4 Merrell IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for violating Section 301 and
of the Act.
4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules5 within 30
days of the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a)
of the Act.6 Payment may be made by mailing a check or similar
instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal Communications
Commission,'' to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment should note
``NAL/Acct. No. 200132980001'' and ``FRN 0005-0709-74,''
referenced above. Requests for full payment under an installment
plan should be sent to: Revenue and Receivables Operations
Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.7
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
be sent by Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested -- to
David Edwin Merrell at 704 Ross Avenue, Wichita Falls, Texas
76306.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 303(n).
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No.
200132500002 (Enf. Bur., Dallas Office, released September 10,
2001).
3 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
4 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4).
5 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
6 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Mr. Jerry Smith ) File No. EB-00-PA-414
)
125 Commonwealth Ave. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200132400001
Claymont, Delaware )
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: April 18, 2001 Released: April 20, 2001
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of thirteen thousand five
hundred dollars ($13,500) to Jerry Smith for willful and
repeated violations of Sections 95.409(a), 95.410(a) and
95.411(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1 The
noted violations involve Mr. Smith's operation of a Citizens
Band (``CB'') Radio Station with a non-type-accepted
transmitter, with a transmitter output power greater than four
watts carrier power in the AM (A3) mode, and with an external
RF power amplifier.
2. On January 8, 2001, the Commission's Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of thirteen
thousand five hundred dollars ($13,500) to Mr. Smith for the
noted violations.2 Mr. Smith has not filed a response. Based
on the information before us, we affirm this forfeiture.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Act''),3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the
Rules,4 Jerry Smith IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the
amount of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,500) for operating a
CB Radio Station with a non-type-accepted transmitter, with a
transmitter output power greater than four watts carrier power
in the AM (A3) mode, and with an external RF power amplifier,
in willful and repeated violation of Sections 95.409(a),
95.410(a) and 95.411(a)(1) of the Rules.
4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules5 within 30 days of
the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section
504(a) of the Act.6 Payment shall be made by mailing a check
or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission, to the Federal Communications
Commission, Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment
should note the NAL/Acct. No. referenced above. Requests for
full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:
Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.7
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall
be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Jerry
Smith, 125 Commonwealth Avenue, Claymont, DE 19703.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.409(a), 95.410(a) and 95.411(a)(1).
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No.
200132400001 (Enf. Bur., Philadelphia Office, released January 8,
2001).
3 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
4 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
5 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
6 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiep0nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Landshark
on to police & fire freq. too, so it was only a matter
of time that "Budweiser" was going to get caught
Landshark
--
"BAD CITIZENS HAVE MORE FUN BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE FREE"
"Jerry Oxendine" <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1QOV8.64258$N8.69...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Landshark
Pretty close to spamming the newsgroup, you
fell for his troll.
Landshark
--
There are no stupid questions, just stupid
people.
Mr. Garrison
"Jerry Oxendine" <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:A4PV8.64279$N8.69...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Jerry Oxendine
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of )
)
James Leger ) File Number EB-01-MA-007
Lake Worth, Florida ) NAL/Acct. No. 20023260001
) FRN: 0006-9264-48
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: June 25, 2002 Released: June 28,
2002
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a monetary
forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to
James Leger (``Leger'') for willfully and repeatedly violating
Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Act'').1 The noted violation involves Leger's willful and
repeated operation of radio transmitting equipment without a
license in violation of Section 301 of the Act.
2. On April 19, 2002, the Commission's Miami, Florida Resident
Agent Office issued a $10,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Leger for the noted violation.2 Leger
has not filed a response to the NAL. Based on the information
before us, we affirm the forfeiture.
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b)
of the Act,3 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the
Commission's Rules (``Rules''),4 James Leger IS LIABLE FOR A
MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of $10,000 for operation of
radio transmitting equipment without a license in willful and
repeated violation of Section 301 of the Act.
4. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section
504(a) of the Act.5 Payment may be made by mailing a check or
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission, to the Federal Communications
Commission, Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,
P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The payment
should note ``NAL/Acct. No. 20023260001'' and ``FRN: 0006-
9264-48.'' Requests for full payment under an installment
plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables
Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554.6
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be
sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested to: James Leger, 131 South F Street, Lake Worth, FL
33463; 230 South Dixie Highway, Lake Worth, FL 33460; 333
Southern Blvd., Suite 305, West Palm Beach, FL 33405; 5750
South Ithaca Circle, Lantana, FL 33463.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
Jerry Oxendine
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of ) File No. EB-01-SJ-094
)
Javier Rodriguez. ) NAL/Acct. No.
200232680002
)
Boqueron, Puerto Rico ) FRN 0006-0437-80
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: March 26, 2002 Released: March 28, 2002
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of one thousand ($1,000) to
Javier Rodriguez (``Rodriguez''), Boqueron, Puerto Rico, for
willful violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (``Act''),1 The noted violation involves
Rodriguez's unauthorized operation of a CB radio on a
frequency for which a license or authorization is required
before operation.
2. On November 7, 2001, the Commission's San Juan, Puerto
Rico, Resident Agent Office (``San Juan Office'') issued a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to
Rodriguez for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000).2 Rodriguez filed a response3 to the NAL on
December 3, 2001.
II. BACKGROUND
3. On April 20, 1999, during an investigation of a
complaint about interference to home electronic entertainment
equipment, agents from the San Juan Office, using a mobile
direction finding vehicle, observed radio transmissions on
26.715 MHz and determined the origin of those signals to be an
antenna located in the backyard of a residence belonging to
Mr. Javier Rodriguez (located at Carr 307, Km 6.5 Interior,
Boqueron, Puerto Rico). After locating the source of the
transmissions, the agents inspected the station at that
address and observed that a modified CB radio (a Cobra 148 GTL
transceiver) was installed at the station and was connected to
a radio frequency power amplifier. During the inspection, the
agents determined that Rodriguez was the operator of the
station on 26.715 MHz. The frequency 26.715 MHz is in a band
allocated exclusively for use by the United States Government.
That frequency is not authorized for operation by CB stations
and Rodriguez had no authorization to operate on it.4 One of
the investigating agents verbally warned Rodriguez during the
inspection that unauthorized operation is prohibited by
Section 301 of the Act.
4. On October 24, 2001, during an investigation of another
complaint about interference to home electronic entertainment
equipment, agents from the San Juan Office, using a mobile
direction finding vehicle, observed radio transmissions on
26.705 MHz and determined the origin of those signals to again
be an antenna located in the backyard of Rodriguez's residence
at Carr 307, Km 6.5 Interior, Boqueron, Puerto Rico. After
locating the source of the transmissions, the agents inspected
the station located at that residence and observed that a
modified CB radio (a Cobra 148 GTL transceiver) was installed
at the station. During the inspection, the agents determined
that Rodriguez was the operator of the station on 26.705 MHz.
The frequency 26.705 MHz is in a band allocated exclusively
for use by the United States Government. That frequency is
not authorized for operation by CB stations and Rodriguez had
no authorization to operate on it.
5. On November 7, 2001, the San Juan Office issued a NAL
to Rodriguez in the amount of $10,000 for the unlicensed
operation observed on October 24, 2001. In his December 3,
2001, response to the NAL, Rodriguez argues that he is
financially unable to pay the proposed forfeiture. As
support, Rodriguez encloses copies of his Government of Puerto
Rico income tax returns for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and documents
indicating that he is unemployed. Rodriguez also argues that
his violations are mitigated by his remedial action and his
status as a first offender.
III. DISCUSSION
6. The forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in
accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,5 Section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules (``Rules''),6 and The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of
the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy
Statement''). Section 503(b) of the Act requires that, in
examining Rodriguez's response, the Commission take into
account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
and other such matters as justice may require.7
7. Section 301 of the Act prohibits radio operation
``except under and in accordance with this Act and with a
license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this
Act.''
8. Rodriguez does not deny the violations alleged in the
NAL. In view of the facts set forth above, we conclude that
Rodriguez operated without authorization on 26.705 MHZ on
October 24, 2001, in willful violation of Section 301 of the
Act.
9. Rodriguez's violation on October 24, 2001, occurred
despite a verbal warning from the Commission following his
previous unlicensed operation on April 20, 1999. Rodriguez
is, therefore, not a ``first offender,'' and is not entitled
to a reduction on that basis. Furthermore, remedial action
subsequent to notification of a violation will not nullify a
forfeiture penalty.8
10. On the basis of the documentation furnished by
Rodriguez, we find that a reduction of the forfeiture to
$1,000 is appropriate.
11. We have examined Rodriguez's response to the NAL in
light of the above statutory factors and the factors set
forth in the Policy Statement. Taking all of these factors
into account, we conclude that the proper forfeiture amount is
$1,000.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of
the Rules,9 Javier Rodriguez IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY
FORFEITURE in the amount of $1,000 for willful violation of
the provisions of Sections 301 of the Act.
13. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner
provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of
the release of this Order. If the forfeiture is not paid
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section
504(a) of the Act.10 Payment shall be made by mailing a check
or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission, to the Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The
payment should note the NAL/Acct. No. 200232680002, and the
FRN No. 0006-0437-80. Requests for full payment under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.11
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall
be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Javier
Rodriguez, P.O. Box 661, Boqueron, Puerto Rico 00622.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. § 301.
2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No.
200232680002 (Enf. Bur., San Juan Office, released November 7,
2001).
3 Although Rodriguez characterized his response as a Petition
for Reconsideration of the NAL filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
1.106, we will treat Rodriguez's filing as a response to the NAL
per 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3).
4 CB operation is permitted only on 40 channels located
between 26.965 and 27.405 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. § 95.407.
5 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
7 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
8 See KGVH, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).
9 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
10 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
11 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
Jerry Oxendine
numbers--not just the
token "8". Mr. Hollingsworth promised to do it, I was IN several of his
forums, talked
to him in person about the 10 meter intruders, and he assures hams that the
10 meter
line will be defended with the help of its rightful users.
J
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
James Lee Gaskey ) NAL/Acct. No. 915KC0002
5215 N. Pine Street )
Davenport, Iowa 52806 )
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted: December 29, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this order, we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $11,000
against James Lee Gaskey for willful violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 301. The
noted violation involves radio operation without a license.
2. On April 28, 1999, the Commission's Kansas City, Missouri Field Office,
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80
of the Commission's Rules ("the Rules"), 47 C.F.R. § 1.80, issued the
referenced Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") for a monetary forfeiture in
the amount of $11,000 to Mr. Gaskey for the noted violation. A response to
the NAL was filed on behalf of Mr. Gaskey by his attorney on June 1, 1999.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the $11,000 forfeiture amount.
BACKGROUND
3. On August 10, 1998, the Office of the Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") received a complaint concerning
interference to home electronic entertainment equipment, allegedly caused by
a Citizen's Band ("CB") radio station. The complainant specifically named
James Gaskey, of 5215 N. Pine Street, Davenport, Iowa, as the operator of
the CB radio station that was causing the interference. The complainant
stated that Mr. Gaskey had CB radio stations in both his home and his pickup
truck.
4. On September 14, 1998, in response to the complaint of interference, an
FCC agent from the Kansas City Field Office issued a letter to the radio
operator at 5215 N. Pine Street, Davenport, Iowa, via certified mail, return
receipt requested. The letter informed the operator of the regulations
against unlicensed operation of radio equipment and the use of external RF
amplifiers and non-type accepted radio equipment in the CB service. The
letter also notified him that the penalties for unlicensed operation could
include a fine of up to $11,000 and directed the operator to submit a
written response to the Kansas City Field Office within 10 days of the
receipt of the letter. According to the signed return receipt from the U.S.
Postal Service, dated September 16, 1998, Marge Gaskey was the recipient of
the warning letter. Although the Kansas City Field Office received the
return receipt card from the United States Post Office, the Kansas City
Field Office did not receive a written response to the warning letter.
5. On October 5, 1998, the Kansas City Field Office issued a Notice of
Violation ("NOV") to Mr. James Gaskey and/or Marge Gaskey for failure to
respond to the letter dated September 14, 1998. See 47 C.F.R. § 95.422. On
October 15, 1998, the Kansas City Field Office received a response from Mr.
Gaskey to the NOV. In his response, Mr. Gaskey denied having an amplifier
"in line" at his radio station, and stated that he would shut the base
station down until he had time to verify whether the interference problem
had ceased.
6. On April 8, 1999, FCC agents from the Kansas City Field Office used
direction finding techniques to locate the source of a very strong,
wide-banded signal operating on 26.835 MHz. Using an FCC direction finding
vehicle, the agents located the source of the transmissions on 26.835 MHz
and traced them to 5215 N. Pine Street, Davenport, Iowa. After locating the
source of the transmissions, the agents knocked on the door of the residence
and were greeted by Mr. Gaskey, who later identified himself with an Iowa
driver's license. Mr. Gaskey permitted the FCC agents to enter the
residence and inspect the station. During the inspection, Mr. Gaskey
admitted that he was operating the station without an authorization. The
unlicensed station consisted of a non-certified radio transmitter connected
to two external RF power amplifiers, a frequency counter, and an in-line
watt meter capable of registering up to 5000 watts. The FCC agents
determined that the station operating on 26.835 MHz had an output power of
200 watts.
7. Prior to knocking on the door of the residence, one of the FCC agents
had noticed several unusual boxes connected to coaxial cable attached to an
antenna in a 1996 Dodge pickup truck, Iowa License plate number 516 HER,
which was parked in the driveway of the residence. After permitting the
agents to inspect the radio station located inside the residence, Mr. Gaskey
allowed the agents to inspect his pickup truck in the driveway. The agents
discovered another radio station installed in Mr. Gaskey's truck. The agents
found a mobile radio station in the truck, which was capable of operation on
frequencies in the CB radio spectrum, and consisted of a non-type accepted
radio transmitter connected to an external RF power amplifier and
multimeter. Upon completion of the inspection, the agents issued Mr. Gaskey
a warning letter, which informed him of the violation of Section 301 of the
Act and ordered him to immediately discontinue the unlicensed operation. At
the request of the FCC agents, Mr. Gaskey signed for receipt of the letter.
8. On April 28, 1999, the Kansas City Field Office issued the subject NAL
to Mr. Gaskey for his continued unlicensed operation on 26.835 MHz from 5215
N. Pine Street, Davenport, Iowa, in violation of Section 301 of the Act.
9. On June 1, 1999, the FCC received Mr. Gaskey's response to the NAL.
The response consisted of an undated document, entitled "Statement of
Income, Expenses, Assets & Liabilities For: James Lee Gaskey," a copy of the
first page of Mr. Gaskey's 1995, 1996 and 1997 federal income tax returns,
and a copy of Mr. Gaskey's letter previously received by the Kansas City
Field Office on October 15, 1998. No other information was provided. The
response did not refute the violation, nor did it specifically request a
rescission or reduction of the monetary forfeiture amount.
DISCUSSION
10. As the NAL explicitly states, the forfeiture amount in this case was
assessed in accordance with Section 503 of the Act, Section 1.80 of the
Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC
Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, FCC 99-407, (rel. Dec. 28, 1999) ("Policy
Statement"). In examining Mr. Gaskey's response, Section 503(b) of the Act
requires that the Commission take into account the nature, circumstances,
extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
other such matters as justice may require. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
11. Section 301 of the Act explicitly prohibits entities from
transmitting energy, communications or signals by radio except under and in
accordance with the terms of the Act and of a license granted under the
provisions of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 301. In the instant case, Mr. Gaskey
admitted during the April 8, 1999 inspection, that he operated a
non-certified radio transmitter for his radio station on 26.835 MHz without
a valid license. Thus, the violation was willful.
12. Although Mr. Gaskey's response did not explicitly seek rescission or a
reduction of the forfeiture amount, we presume his submission of the first
page of his 1995, 1996 and 1997 tax returns and the "Statement of Income,
etc." were intended to demonstrate his inability to pay the forfeiture.
However, the purported statement of income submitted fails to specify the
year(s) for which the figures are applicable, and does not indicate how the
figures were prepared. Also, the figures in the statement are not supported
by any other documentation. With respect to the tax information provided,
Mr. Gaskey has supplied incomplete tax returns inasmuch as he has provided
only the first page of his tax returns for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Without the
entire tax returns, we are unable to assess the amount of income earned
during the relevant years. The NAL clearly states, at footnote two, that a
claim of inability to pay should be supported by tax returns or other
financial statements prepared under generally acceptable accounting
procedures for the most recent three-year period. Undocumented statements
of an individual's size and financial condition do not meet the requirement
of a particularized showing of financial hardship or inability to pay. See,
e.g., Barry A. Stevenson, 12 FCC Rcd 1976, 1977 (1997) (three years of
financial statements or other reliable and objective documentation
accurately reflecting petitioner's current financial status required to
demonstrate inability to pay); Timothy Harold Hoffman, 11 FCC Rcd 17463,
17464 (1996) (individuals have submitted information such as child support
payments, tax liens, and garnishments to corroborate debts or liabilities);
Macau Traders, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 228, 233 (1998) (no reduction of forfeiture
warranted due to undue financial hardship where violator provided no
documentary evidence upon which to evaluate its financial condition or
ability to pay). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3) ("Any showing as to why
the forfeiture should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement
and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent.").
13. We have examined Mr. Gaskey's response to the NAL pursuant to the
statutory factors above, and in conjunction with the Policy Statement as
well. As a result of our review, we conclude that Mr. Gaskey has failed to
provide a sufficient justification for reducing the forfeiture amount.
Therefore, we affirm the forfeiture amount of $11,000.
14. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Policy Statement,
James Lee Gaskey IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of
$11,000 for the willful violation of Section 301 of the Act.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80(f) of the Rules,
47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f), James Lee Gaskey shall, within thirty (30) days of the
release of this Forfeiture Order, pay the amount of $11,000 for violation of
Section 301 of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by check
or money order drawn on a U.S. financial institution payable to the Federal
Communications Commission. Payment may also be made by credit card with the
appropriate documentation. The remittance should be marked "NAL/Acct. No.
915KC0002" and mailed to the following address:
Federal Communications Commission
P.O. Box 73482
Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482
Petitions for reconsideration filed pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules,
47 C.F.R. § 1.106, or applications for review filed pursuant to Section
1.115 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, must be received by the Commission
within thirty (30) days of the release of this order at the following
address:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
ATTN: Technical & Public Safety Division
Enforcement Bureau
Forfeiture penalties not paid within thirty (30) days will be referred to
the U.S. Attorney for recovery in a civil suit. 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to James Lee Gaskey, 5215 N. Pine
Street, Davenport, Iowa 52806.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
Kenneth <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
Jerry Oxendine
Landshark <mailto:S3B...@SBCGlobal.Net> wrote in message
news:gpPV8.1562$Ai3.18...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> HOOK, line & sinker Jerry...................
> Pretty close to spamming the newsgroup, you
> fell for his troll.
>
> Landshark
Of course! A challenge that couldn't go unanswered. He said only 8 "busts"
in 3 years.
I posted 21(?) just to prove him wrong and illustrate that these kinds of
warnings and
citations are on the increase. More and more of the BIG leenyar, big signal
boys oper-
ating outside the CB band are going to find their wallets lighter if they
don't beware.
J
Jim Hampton
Jerry, everyone should note one thing you mentioned - 'spectrum management'.
Most of us want to watch television at some point - perhaps local or
satellite. Many of us have cell phones. Many also have cordless phones (be
they spread-spectrum or the old analog type). We listen to AM or FM radio.
This is all possible due to spectrum management. If there was no management
of the airwaves, who, in his or her right mind, would build a television
station - or radio station?
Bill Nelson
> Enforcement that you say isn't happening:
> Before the
> Federal Communications Commission
> Washington, D.C. 20554
> In the Matter of )
> )
> THE TWO WAY SHOP ) File No. EB-99-ST-439
> 220 Columbia Dr. E. )
> Kennewick, Washington 99336 ) NAL/Acct. No. 915ST0007
> FORFEITURE ORDER
> Adopted: April 6, 2000 Released: April 7, 2000
This is old news - over 2 years old.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
Bill Nelson
> Re: 10 meter radios
> Posted by RR on 6/17/2002, 9:19 pm , in reply to "Re: 10 meter radios"
> 216.76.152.188
Old news, once again.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> And the list goes on and on!!
Yep. And most of them you list are not being cited as CBers, but as
people illegally operating in the ham bands - some using fake call
signs.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Uh, oh--he was "freebanding". I gues it wasn't "free" after all.
It appears that only 3 of the long series of postings you made were
CBers. At least, they were the only ones that mentioned the CB service.
How about listing the many Hams in this time frame that were cited for
transmitting illegally on the CB band - usually for intentional jamming.
And why did you include the complete post to which you were responding
in ALL of your responses? I hope you are more polite on the ham bands.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Kenneth
"'Doc" <w5...@icok.net> wrote in message news:3D27BDEE...@icok.net...
Randy
Big friggin YAWN.
Jay in the Mojave
Jerry Oxendine wrote, and went into the open loop mode:
-snipped-
Jay said:
Gee Whiz, 1 Hr 45 Min ya got all wrapped around the axle there Jerry.
Hope ya feel all better now.
I don't think you should let these little things get to ya's so much.
Jay in the Great Mojave Desert, ..... just down the road ah ways from
the fillin station.
Credentials:
CB, Ham, Scanner, and Shortwave Radio Enthusiast
Owner of new 1977 Ford 4x4 F250, has God of the Cockpit incredibly loud
Motorola Public Address System, with 2 PA Horns, off old Fire Engine, U
bet ah!
On local TVI Committee, still insisting on Hotesy Tostie Secretary, and
large expense account, or would probably just settle for gas money 4 the
77 Ford Truck, and free shootin range time.
Use Net Therapist.
Richard McCollum
Don't now, never did. Just a funny collection of local rosin-heads having
a bit of fun.
ALLSTEEL77
busted a month and compare that to cber's.Jerry, you sound just like aaron.
JJ
Sounds like cbers to me. This is what they do best.
Jim Hampton
the way up, the FCC is still understaffed. Myself, I tend not to worry a
whole lot - until the amateur bands get affected (or is that INFECTED?).
What we need, now that the FCC has given the green light to local
regulation, is for the ARRL to start copying a lot of posts such as yours
and when someone gets a video of a trucker, have the ARRL file a six or
seven figure civil lawsuit against the company. Hurt a few lucky ones for
50 grand or so and bankrupt a couple of others. That might get some
attention. I notice that no one seems to want to get on 54 - 60 MHz. I
wonder why? Nervous?
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim
"Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
Jerry Oxendine
Jim Hampton <aa...@FrontierNet.net> wrote in message
news:uifko1i...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim,
Often, whether realized or not, the overwhelming view is often that *I* want
more and
more and more and more, *I* don't want to have to work for it, *I* don't
want any
restrictions on my behavior, and/or *I* don't want to have to obey any laws
or learn
how to keep my operations from bothering other users---all this without
thinking how
such a situation would impact THEM as well as those they displace. Some of
us know
that we WERE in such a situation in the early part of the last century until
the Congress
stepped in and attempted to make some sense of madness, order from chaos.
It is for
that very reason that the Communications Act of 1934 came into being.
Though not
perfect, the FCC has done a pretty good job considering. Now if only we
could make
Congress see the error of their way in removing the funds needed to do the
huge job they have and return enough funds to return to CB enforcement in
the way it is needed Oh yes, they are responding to complaints, but I hope
for the day when they are even more pro-active in removing pirate operators
from frequencies and bands they have no business on.
Jerry
Jerry Oxendine
years.
I was responding with cases that occurred within that time frame to
illustrate that
there are many more than 8. If you had read the entire thread (troll)
started by elpaso
gunslinger, you would've seen why I posted it. It was a challenge I
couldn't pass up.
Twenty or twenty one cases are quite more than 8, I think.
73
Jerry
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:ag8knl$eug$4...@quark.scn.rain.com...
Jerry Oxendine
you are most
certainly likely to get caught. Incidentally, there is more on the FCC
website on this
case, and along with what one of the regulars on here told me, he was a
CBer.
J
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:ag8kqo$eug$5...@quark.scn.rain.com...
Jerry Oxendine
> Jerry Oxendine <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Re: 10 meter radios
> > Posted by RR on 6/17/2002, 9:19 pm , in reply to "Re: 10 meter radios"
> > 216.76.152.188
>
> Old news, once again.
posted.
J
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
Jerry Oxendine
Kenneth says that
only 8 people have been cited or warned in the past 3 years. I proved him
wrong.
The presence, or absence of a license, or that of a CB is immaterial. Ken
thinks you
won't get nailed for operating on Amateur freqs. If most hams have their
way, an un-
licensed person, using a bootleg call or not, will get busted. And, yes, if
you dig a bit,
you will find that *most* of them are CBers. You know as well as I do that
anybody
that operates illegally in any radio service gets charged under the rules of
THAT service, not a service he may or may not have "come" from. The charges
only deal
with the rules broken in the affected service.
J
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:ag8l4b$eug$7...@quark.scn.rain.com...
Jerry Oxendine
ALLSTEEL77 <allst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020707091450...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Guess what! Be he CBer, Amateur, private citizen with a MURS radio, I H O P
E
he gets what's coming if he uses that radio illegally. The more illegal
operators Riley
hits, the less idiotic and useless junk legitimate operators have to put up
with. I don't
know how many times this has to be posted to get it thru the heads who try
to compare
the antics of illegal hams and illegal CBers. SO! Read slo o o o o o o w l
y! T H E
H A M S T H E M S E L V E S, F E D U P W I T H C R A P, N O I S E, Q R M-
E R S, A N D I N F A N T I L E O P E R A T O R S, A S K E D F O R F C C
TO R E T U R N T O E N F O R C E M E N T. N O W R E A D S L O O W-
LY: T H E O V E R W H E L M I N G M A J O R I T Y O F H A M S A R E
E L A T E D T O S E E A L L I L L E G A L O P E R A T O R S R E -
M O V E D F R O M T H E A I R. P E R I O D A N D E N D!!!!!!!!!!!
If you wished to embarrass hams by this frail, empty, and pointless fact, OR
to make
some attempt to elevate the CB service while somehow reducing Amateur Radio,
you
have failed. Mr.Hollingsworth is one of the most popular attendees at
hamfests these
days, receiving hearty thanks and congratulations from legitimate hams,
while those who
would mistake his quiet demeanor, and biting wit as a sign of weakness, had
better hide
their bootleg gear, clean up their act, or face discipline. Riley got
placed in his current
position because hams PLEADED with FCC to DO something about the insane
antics
of a few bird brains on 3898 and 14.313. There are a few "brave" souls
around still, but they are far, far fewer than before. They, along with the
intruders that think that 40
channels isn't enough and they will "take" what they want, are quite
mistaken.
And I read the RainReport faithfully every 2 weeks and listen for Riley's
audio account
of people getting what they richly deserve. Ham or not, I could not care
less.
Jerry
OZARK333
>Hurt a few lucky ones for
>50 grand or so and bankrupt a couple of >others. That might get some
attention.
bible. You are just a useless member of the Ham society of losers. You spout
crap about enforcement because you have nothing more to offer humankind. I
believe you are into self-gratification. So go beat off, your father should
have the night you were conceived. Just too bad for us, we have to tolerate you
now. Shove off goon!
"If it aint broke, don't fix it"
Landshark
> Tell me what the difference is, then? Illegal is illegal, is illegal.
> Kenneth says that
> only 8 people have been cited or warned in the past 3 years.
Jerry, Ken was trolling, he has said
so, a few post back. Chill out, have some
sipping whiskey and relax, this is not like you.
Landshark
--
"I believe it was Fredrick the Great:
he who defends everything defends
nothing."
vhfradiobuff
10 meter band aren't in use so what's the harm? Has ANYONE ever heard
a LEGIT station using an assigned frequency between "Channel 40" and
10 meters? Just curious. Enforcing this stuff is like enforcing
jaywalking or spitting on the street.
My personal opinion - if they venture into 10 meters, they deserve
what they get. If they keep it below, they should be left alone.
Richard McCollum
Admirable except that the Rain Report is an Amateur site reporting Amateur
enforcement. There is no place beyond the masochists who read enforcement
off the FCC site to even find out when the Flaming Pimple gets busted.
Richard McCollum
"vhfradiobuff" <vhfrad...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e5fccab.0207...@posting.google.com...
On a personal level, I tend to agree and do not get stirred by activity
below 28. But one of the reasons why we do not have allocations above
27.6 is that other countries do.
I refer you to http://www.vkham.com for a listing of 27 MHz Australian
(hence the VK) Marine freqs which one poster here suggested are fairly
popular in Oz. These are AM btw.
If it is a problem the Aussie authorities will bitch mightily to the FCC
who are treaty-bound to fix the interferers' clock. How likely this is is
your guess but I do not think I would like to be responsible for a marine
fatality while bellowing BlaBlaBlooie.
Dick NØBK
Twistedhed
Very cool setup, Jay. As much as folks tallk about being fixed or
repaired daily, they always seem to come back to Ford...after all,
riding in a Chevy then going to a Ford is like going from a......, well,
like a Chevy to A Ford. I have the PA but I also have the horns that
play the notes to the first line of "Dixie" at a whoppin' 118 decibels.
And my cb of course.
Twistedhed
>This should prove that they are going after violators in increasing
numbers--not just the
token "8". Mr. Hollingsworth promised to do it, I was IN several of his
forums, talked
to him in person about the 10 meter intruders, and he assures hams that
the 10 meter
line will be defended with the help of its rightful users. J<
That may very well be so, and more power to him regarding hammie
intruders. The single freeband example has nothing at all to with the
rest of the violators you listed.
e wasn't on 10 meter, and he IGNORED his first warning after the agency
received complaints concerning interference. Business as usual with the
freebanding cbers. Don't cause trouble and continue to operate
unfettered.
Twistedhed
Kenneth says that
only 8 people have been cited or warned in the past 3 years. I proved
him wrong. <
Frustrating, isn't it? I did the same thing with Muenzler and
Frankenvoob. I also concur with the "more more more" mentality, as Frank
has begged "gimme gimme gimme" for answers but never likes to give any
himself. Don't let it bother you too much. When you're right you're
right and everyone can plainly see so.
>The presence, or absence of a license, or that of a CB is immaterial. <
Finally......
>Ken thinks you
won't get nailed for operating on Amateur freqs. <
Oh, I think the possibility would be there, but I don;t think it would
be a probability. Sheer stupidity on anyone's behalf to operate on a
hammie freq when they are by and large giving away licenses today,
figuratively. But nothing stops one from botlegging, Jerry. An obscure
call, deceased, etc., could be adopted if one were so inclined and if a
low profile was kept, none would be the wiser.
>If most hams have their way, an un-
licensed person, using a bootleg call or not, will get busted. <
If they are unlicensed and on hammie channels, they should be popped.
>And, yes, if you dig a bit,
you will find that *most* of them are CBers. You know as well as I do
that anybody
that operates illegally in any radio service gets charged under the
rules of THAT service, not a service he may or may not have "come" from.
The charges only deal
with the rules broken in the affected service. <
The hammies getting popped outnumber the cbers by a staggering ratio
which brings us to certain hammies' circular argument: There is no
enforcement for cb. Well is there or isn't there? You guys can't even
agree on this. Well, lemme tell ya', the enforcement is right where it
belongs...on the ass of the hammies. Overall, hammies have more power
than cbers and have a greater potential to do harm due their frequency
coverage. And so they do. And so follow the feds. Really simple stuff...
even for the hammies that feel their ticket demands respect.
J<
Twistedhed
news:20020707091450...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Thats pretty funny .Go to the rain report and see how many hams are
getting busted a month and compare that to cber's.Jerry, you sound just
like aaron.
>Guess what! Be he CBer, Amateur, private citizen with a MURS radio, I H
O P E
he gets what's coming if he uses that radio illegally. The more illegal
operators Riley
hits, the less idiotic and useless junk legitimate operators have to put
up with. I don't
know how many times this has to be posted to get it thru the heads who
try to compare
the antics of illegal hams and illegal CBers. SO! Read slo o o o o o o w
l y! T H E
H A M S T H E M S E L V E S, F E D U P W I T H C R A P, N O I S E, Q R
M- E R S, A N D I N F A N T I L E O P E R A T O R S, A S K E D F O R F C
C TO R E T U R N T O E N F O R C E M E N T. N O W R E A D S L O O W- LY:
T H E O V E R W H E L M I N G M A J O R I T Y O F H A M S A R E E L A T
E D T O S E E A L L I L L E G A L O P E R A T O R S R E - M O V E D F R
O M T H E A I R. P E R I O D A N D E N D!!!!!!!!!!! <
Now, Jerry, you know darn good and well everything you mentioned above
is caused by............another hammie the majority of the time.
>If you wished to embarrass hams by this frail, empty, and pointless
fact, OR to make
some attempt to elevate the CB service while somehow reducing Amateur
Radio, you
have failed.<
Jerry, once again, take a long hard look at
just who is consistently bringing hammie radio
into this group......that's right,,,,,other hammies who feel their
ticket deserves them respect regardless of their antics. Nobody is
putting down hammie radio. If certain hammies didn;t have a hard-on for
the subject in this ng, it wouldn't be brought up. If it wasn't brought
up, it couldn't be "reduced" like some of the lowlife's have effectively
portrayed it.
> Mr.Hollingsworth is one of the most popular attendees at hamfests
these
days, receiving hearty thanks and congratulations from legitimate hams,
while those who
would mistake his quiet demeanor, and biting wit as a sign of weakness,
had better hide
their bootleg gear, clean up their act, or face discipline. Riley got
placed in his current
position because hams PLEADED with FCC to DO something about the insane
antics
of a few bird brains on 3898 and 14.313. <
Ask him how he achieved this position the next time you talk to him,
Jerry. Ask him who his sponsor was. Ask him how he was tapped.
Pure politics, nothing amazing of his appointment at all and it
certainly wasn't because of any tough-as-nails past reputation.
He WAS selected, but I'm not certain we agree on WHY.
>There are a few "brave" souls around still, but they are far, far fewer
than before. They, along with the intruders that think that 40
channels isn't enough and they will "take" what they want, are quite
mistaken. <
Surely you don;t mean the freeband, especially since the skip is
becoming friendlier to only the hard core DXers.
>And I read the RainReport faithfully every 2 weeks and listen for
Riley's audio account
of people getting what they richly deserve. Ham or not, I could not care
less. <
*
Jerry<
Twistedhed
Twistedhed
FCC who are treaty-bound to fix the interferers' clock. How likely this
is is your guess but I do not think I would like to be responsible for a
marine fatality while bellowing BlaBlaBlooie.
Dick NØBK<
Even the aussies are going higher tech. This may possibly have been
abandoned like many domestic frequencies. I believe if it was a problem,
the authorities woulda done pitched their bitch, but as I have so
clearly demonstrated, WTF do I know?
Bill Nelson
> Kenneth posted that only 8 CBers had been cited or warned in the last 3
> years.
> I was responding with cases that occurred within that time frame to
> illustrate that
> there are many more than 8. If you had read the entire thread (troll)
> started by elpaso
> gunslinger, you would've seen why I posted it. It was a challenge I
> couldn't pass up.
> Twenty or twenty one cases are quite more than 8, I think.
As I noted in another thread - of all those you listed, only two or
three were identified as CBers. All the rest were people using Ham
gear on Ham frequencies - with no mention of CB usage.
It looks like you have another 5 or 6 to go.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Tell me what the difference is, then? Illegal is illegal, is illegal.
I agree.
> Kenneth says that
> only 8 people have been cited or warned in the past 3 years. I proved him
> wrong.
If Kenneth made that claim, he is certainly wrong. There have been that
many Hams cited for illegally transmitting in the CB band (mostly jamming).
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Kenneth
> could make
> Congress see the error of their way in removing the funds needed to do the
> huge job they have and return enough funds to return to CB enforcement in
> the way it is needed Oh yes, they are responding to complaints, but I hope
> for the day when they are even more pro-active in removing pirate
operators
> from frequencies and bands they have no business on.
americans then we did at Pearl Harbor. The middle east is about to explode.
India and Pakistan are about to nuke each other. Iraq's first nuke is almost
finished. North and South Korea's naval forces defacto at war and you want
funding for WHAT!!!!!!!
Now that's funny:)
Jerry Oxendine
Maybe to you, but not to the MILITARY users of that so-called "freeband" you
are
so fond of. Sure, much of what they do is on digital, satellite, etc. but
certain of those
frequencies you say "nobody uses" ARE used for close-in stuff (It's called
"Tactical
Communications".) How do *I* know that? Because I USE several of those
frequencies that are assigned by USAF to their Auxiliary only to have to
listen to the
QRM on adjacent frequencies. And, yes, I am authorized to use them. So I
certainly
AM interested in seeing something done to remove the CBers from on and
around
such frequencies that WE use for certain missions that VHF is not suited
for--like in mountain valleys, for example. Around here, except for the
"skip", I can often listen to
the CB channels and hear nothing. The folks seem to congregate on channels
1, 3, 11
or 30. The rest go begging, so it's not like there's no elbow room. Oh,
incidentally, the
armed services DO use un-coded HF radios, and can be heard if you know where
to
look.
J
>
>
Jerry Oxendine
<<snipped>>
>
> As I noted in another thread - of all those you listed, only two or
> three were identified as CBers. All the rest were people using Ham
> gear on Ham frequencies - with no mention of CB usage.
>
> It looks like you have another 5 or 6 to go.
I don't give a damn WHO they are, or what kind of equipment they use, I want
the
damned sons of bitches off frequencies they don't belong on such as the
10/12 meter ham band AND the military frequencies I use trying to save lives
(not MARS). Again,
Kenneth is trying to imply that FCC is not, cannot, and will not do anything
about
the intruders. And because CB may or not be mentioned, you are not going to
tell
me that the truckers I cited aren't "CBers" who just happen to be using
those Galaxy
and Connex, or SuperStar so-called "10 meter" radios, or that "Rabbit Ears"
isn't a
CBer run amok. Now THAT was a gratifying picture--seeing him led away in
chains
and leg irons. I certainly showed that enforcement is accelerating compared
to the years prior to 1999. Hey, Riley hit a few hams for operating on
27.585 according the
Sunday's RainReport, and I say GREAT!! I don't cull 'em; a bad op is a bad
op is a bad op no matter WHAT you call him.
If a person wants access to frequencies, then he should show the
responsibility, the
maturity, and the courtesy to both the authorities and the people his
operations can
effect by fulfilling the requirements for that service. As far as Amateur
Radio is con-
cerned, it is available to anyone who wishes to use it if they simply take
the now extra-
simple test for the Tech license. If they operate with even the basic
courtesy due their
fellow man, and without the "cutesy" lingo (<<shudder>>), they will be
welcomed into
the hobby with open arms. Attempt to just take the privilege, you will be
met with
hostility, angry hams out DFing you, and, eventually, an "Evidence before
the Commis-
sion indicates that you have................... You are requested to
contact me at *** ***
**** to discuss this matter" Signed, Riley Hollingsworth".
Jerry Oxendine
> As a truck driver I can't help but laugh at the FCC wannabie agents. Out
of
> perhaps 2 million trucks 90 percent have non-standard(read illigal) rigs.
> The other 10 percent will get one within a year.
> Aparently truck drivers decided NOT to wait for the FCC to get of there
> ass and allocate new channels and more power. Most truck stops have a cb
> shop and I would pay money to see some dweeb walk in and tell them it's
> against the law.
They will never know it. The person walks in, buys a Coke and browses
around
the store looking at the CB radios and antennas. Then he might grab one of
the
cashier tickets that is normally taken to the cashier for purchase, and
write down
the description of the illegal "10 meter" radio> I've DONE it--I have one
of those
Magnum Delta Force tickets right in front of me right now! I found it in a
truck stop
in Columbia, SC. A copy went to the "right" place.
Will the FCC ever do anything about it? No Never Not in a
> million years.
> Look at the bust's the FCC have made. Something like 8 busts over a 3
> year period and half of them are Ham's. The rest are base stations that
> ignored repeated warnings.
Bill,
Here's where he said "8", and half of them are NOT hams; they are IN
ADDITION
to the 21 I cited.
> Truckers will continue to buy Galaxy's and Superstar's and linier's and
> use them and people will sell them.
Nope. If the folks could keep from wandering into other bands and
frequencies,
I'd agree with you. But by operating on the ham bands and causing
interference to
the rightful users, the truckers, maybe unknowingly, are opening up a can of
sour
worms that also BITE!!
> Voobner and his ilk will continue to annoy the fcc post msgs here while
> worring that someone somewhere might transmit more then 4 watts and
generaly
> make an ass of himself.
It does no good to bother people about operating on the CB band illegally.
But when they operate on the ham bands illegally, then it becomes another
story.
Frankly I fell sorry for him. If he has a liscense
> it brings him zero enjoyment. Everyday I use my superstar as a tool and
have
> fun contacting people all over the US. Voobner meanwhile worries and scans
> the internet for someone to point his finger at and say"your the bad guy"
>
Buy the way three truck stops I have seen sell full blown ICOM Ham rigs
and one even had a marine radio.
Would you like to PROVE your assertion that FCC WON'T do anything about
sales of illegal radios like the Magnum Delta Force? Then tell us WHERE you
saw
those ham rigs, which, BTW, are not in and of themselves illegal to sell,
but I'd bet you that if they are selling them, they are also selling the
unapproved ones, too. So
tell us where these truck stops are so I can send it to Riley, and we will
see if he does
anything.
J
Kevin Muenzler, WB5RUE
dollars over the past 35+ years.....welfare! We did just fine as a country
for 180 or so years before welfare. People didn't have kids because they
couldn't afford them. Now people are having kids because they can't afford
not to have them.
Kevin, WB5RUE
"Kenneth" <pwr...@intergrafix.net> wrote in message
news:uiis7m8...@corp.supernews.com...
JJ
Jerry Oxendine wrote:
>
>
> Maybe to you, but not to the MILITARY users of that so-called "freeband" you
> are
> so fond of. Sure, much of what they do is on digital, satellite, etc. but
> certain of those
> frequencies you say "nobody uses" ARE used for close-in stuff (It's called
> "Tactical
> Communications".)
According to cber logic, if you see something that obviously
someone isn't using, it must be OK to take it.
ALLSTEEL77
you mellow with age like a good wine.It's only a hobby.You must really get
excited when the boys keydown at the camp in NC.
'Doc
vhfradiobuff,
As a matter of fact, yes, I have heard legitimate
stations trying to use the frequencies between ch-40
and 28.000 Mhz. Did they accomplish what they were
trying to do? No, the 'freebander' wouldn't let them.
'Doc
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
> news:agb31c$hkl$3...@quark.scn.rain.com...
> <<snipped>>
>>
>> As I noted in another thread - of all those you listed, only two or
>> three were identified as CBers. All the rest were people using Ham
>> gear on Ham frequencies - with no mention of CB usage.
>>
>> It looks like you have another 5 or 6 to go.
> I don't give a damn WHO they are, or what kind of equipment they use, I want
> the
> damned sons of bitches off frequencies they don't belong on such as the
> 10/12 meter ham band AND the military frequencies I use trying to save lives
> (not MARS). Again,
I agree 100%. I think anyone operating in frequencies on which they are
not authorized should be busted.
But don't blame all the incursions into the Ham frequencies on "CBers".
... rest of rant deleted ...
I have no disagreement with what you wrote. I just am asking you to
place the blame where it is due - and not use the "wide brush" that
you have been using.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Dave Hall
>
> Jerry Oxendine <jox...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
> > news:agb31c$hkl$3...@quark.scn.rain.com...
> > <<snipped>>
> >>
> >> As I noted in another thread - of all those you listed, only two or
> >> three were identified as CBers. All the rest were people using Ham
> >> gear on Ham frequencies - with no mention of CB usage.
> >>
> >> It looks like you have another 5 or 6 to go.
>
> > I don't give a damn WHO they are, or what kind of equipment they use, I want
> > the
> > damned sons of bitches off frequencies they don't belong on such as the
> > 10/12 meter ham band AND the military frequencies I use trying to save lives
> > (not MARS). Again,
>
> I agree 100%. I think anyone operating in frequencies on which they are
> not authorized should be busted.
>
> But don't blame all the incursions into the Ham frequencies on "CBers".
You're basically arguing semantics. Technically anyone, who isn't
operating on the assigned 40 channels, is not a "CBer". Since there is
no license or certificate of authorization giving a "CBer" license to
operate, there is no real "claim" to that chunk of spectrum or operating
privileges. When you run on an unauthorized frequency, you are
technically just a "bootlegger".
This is where hams are at a disadvantage. If a "CBer" chooses to become
a "freebander", he is no longer considered a "CBer", and would be
prosecuted as a someone operating on an unauthorized frequency. If said
"CBer's" buddy, who also happens to be a ham, decides to join his freind
for a QSO on 27.555, he is now a ham operating out of band, and stands
to lose his license along with other fines.
A ham, who runs on the freeband, has more to lose than a regular
citizen, who has no license.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Twistedhed
a "freebander", he is no longer considered a "CBer", and would be
prosecuted as a someone operating on an unauthorized frequency. If said
"CBer's" buddy, who also happens to be a ham, decides to join his freind
for a QSO on 27.555, he is now a ham operating out of band, and stands
to lose his license along with other fines.
A ham, who runs on the freeband, has more to lose than a regular
citizen, who has no license.
Dave
"Sandbagger"<
And is the reason certain semi-new hammies have become so touchy and
anally retentive. Thye can no longer participate where they used to,
they can only listen in on the fun, for fear their voice may be
recognized. They miss the wide open true grit found on the freeband, the
sense of NOT knowing who you will contact next, as opposed to hammies at
least having a sense of who may be on the bands by virtue of frequency
and allowed allocation. But most of all, the angriest, appear to be the
dx-friendly hammies, who remain at the nocode level and are in the limbo
zone,,they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they don't
upgrade, they'd be better off letting their license expire.
Dave Riffel
punished however as a former cber I also think the fcc should open up some
more ffrqs for cb hobbiests contrary to popu;lar beliefe it is still a
hobby..i still tinker with cb now and then!!!!!!
"Dave Hall" <nojunk...@worldlynx.net> wrote in message
news:3D2AD1...@worldlynx.net...
Aaron H. Voobner
>Put down the CB mic and step away from the kicker...
>
>Those of you who run CB amplifiers, or "kickers," listen up:
>local cops can now bust you under a federal law enacted last week.
>
>The proposal for the law had been -- excuse me -- kicking
>around for a while. The FCC has had many complaints about
>steroidal CBs bleeding over into other broadcast signals,
>such as radio and TV, cordless phones and PA systems
>in buildings.
They have? That's not what TWISTEDHED says. He claims there are no
complaints made about illegal CB. I guess he'd better call up that
Open Road Trucker magazine and set them straight : )
-A
Oris
70's. The truckers strick in the early 1970's got CB radio its start.
Now as far as the FCC is concered why bother? They ain't going to do
shit if you follow a few operating standers. Here is a tip for all you
regular CB radio operators as well as the freebanders ( Megahertz
muchers is what they really are) Stay below 28.000 MHz. Best tip I can
give you. Stay far away from 24.990 MHz and you shouldn't have any
problems. The FCC in my opinion isn't going to do anything if you run
a clean station. Hey you truck drivers this goes for you. If you start
shutting peoples motors ( Computers in todays engins have RFI
problems)You will also have problems with the FCC and the local police
who can stop you if they beleive you are running illeagal radio
equipment and take it and give you a ticket. So clean it up. The best
thing that could happen to trukers and CB is that they seperate for
ever. Hey Trukers have you heard of the FRS. THe perfect spot for
trukers.
Jerry Oxendine
Dave Riffel <daver...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:crEW8.292124$R61.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> I agree as well that all those using freqs that are unauthorized should be
> punished however as a former cber I also think the fcc should open up some
> more ffrqs for cb hobbiests contrary to popu;lar beliefe it is still a
> hobby..i still tinker with cb now and then!!!!!!
They did--it's called MURS and FRS! Seriously, answer me this: How can they
"open up" frequencies they have no control of? That's the problem. Much of
that
spectrum on either side of 27 MHZ is governed by an agency called NTIA
(National Telecommunications and Information Agency)--an even more powerful
agency than FCC that controls US government use of radio. Without some
major
shuffling around, there simply ISN'T anywhere for 27 MHZ CB to go. Nobody
said CB hasn't become a hobby; it is just contrary to the intent and purpose
of CB,
that's all.
J
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>
>> But don't blame all the incursions into the Ham frequencies on "CBers".
> You're basically arguing semantics. Technically anyone, who isn't
> operating on the assigned 40 channels, is not a "CBer". Since there is
> no license or certificate of authorization giving a "CBer" license to
> operate, there is no real "claim" to that chunk of spectrum or operating
> privileges. When you run on an unauthorized frequency, you are
> technically just a "bootlegger".
Possibly. But I do not consider the bootlegger to be a CBer unless they
operate on the CB band at least part of the time.
Many of those that were busted were using Ham gear on Ham frequencies.
It is unlikely that they ever operated on CB frequencies.
I prefer to call anyone who operates out of band a bootlegger, and not
tack on Ham or CBer.
> This is where hams are at a disadvantage. If a "CBer" chooses to become
> a "freebander", he is no longer considered a "CBer", and would be
> prosecuted as a someone operating on an unauthorized frequency. If said
> "CBer's" buddy, who also happens to be a ham, decides to join his freind
> for a QSO on 27.555, he is now a ham operating out of band, and stands
> to lose his license along with other fines.
I would consider them both to be bootleggers - irregardless of whether
they were operating "up" from the CB band or "down" from 10 meters.
In the FCC enforcements, it appears that cites are often for "CBers
operating out of band" or "Amateur operating out of band". So if my
memory is correct, the FCC does not automatically "no longer consider
a person a CBer" when they operate out of band.
> A ham, who runs on the freeband, has more to lose than a regular
> citizen, who has no license.
Correct. To balance that inequity, the Ham has far more freedom to choose
bands of operation, frequencies within those bands, modes of operation,
legal power limits etc.
Why a licensed Ham would operate out of band - with so much to lose, is
something I cannot understand.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Dave Hall
>
> Dave Hall <nojunk...@worldlynx.net> wrote:
> > Bill Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >> But don't blame all the incursions into the Ham frequencies on "CBers".
>
> > You're basically arguing semantics. Technically anyone, who isn't
> > operating on the assigned 40 channels, is not a "CBer". Since there is
> > no license or certificate of authorization giving a "CBer" license to
> > operate, there is no real "claim" to that chunk of spectrum or operating
> > privileges. When you run on an unauthorized frequency, you are
> > technically just a "bootlegger".
>
> Possibly. But I do not consider the bootlegger to be a CBer unless they
> operate on the CB band at least part of the time.
I think that I could safely say that that's most of them. Though, I'm
sure that there might be a few cases of people who just buy ham or
commercial rigs and bootleg on unauthorized freqs from the get-go, most
at least got their start from CB and went from there.
> Many of those that were busted were using Ham gear on Ham frequencies.
> It is unlikely that they ever operated on CB frequencies.
Is it really that unlikely? Where did that bootlegger get his first
taste of radio? Since CB is legal, and cheap, it stands to reason that
this is the first stop for many person's radio careers, legal or
otherwise, especially in the last 25 years, when CB became a national
fad.
>
> I prefer to call anyone who operates out of band a bootlegger, and not
> tack on Ham or CBer.
I would agree, as this is more technically correct.
>
> > This is where hams are at a disadvantage. If a "CBer" chooses to become
> > a "freebander", he is no longer considered a "CBer", and would be
> > prosecuted as a someone operating on an unauthorized frequency. If said
> > "CBer's" buddy, who also happens to be a ham, decides to join his freind
> > for a QSO on 27.555, he is now a ham operating out of band, and stands
> > to lose his license along with other fines.
>
> I would consider them both to be bootleggers - irregardless of whether
> they were operating "up" from the CB band or "down" from 10 meters.
Yes, but the point that I was trying to make, is that there is no
legally binding agreement to operate a CB radio. You're just Joe
Citizen. If you stray off of the legal channels, you could plead
ignorance, and a host of other things, and you can't be held totally
responsible. A ham, on the other hand, has a license, that proves that
he passed a test on, among other things, a knowlege of rules and
operating practices, including assigned frequencies. A ham busted on
freeband, cannot use the excuse that he didn't know better. The presence
of the license proves otherwise.
> In the FCC enforcements, it appears that cites are often for "CBers
> operating out of band" or "Amateur operating out of band". So if my
> memory is correct, the FCC does not automatically "no longer consider
> a person a CBer" when they operate out of band.
In some of the memo's that I've read, when a bootlegger is busted, who
is also a ham, the fact that he was a ham operating on an unassigned
frequency is usually stated. When an assumed "CBer" is busted for
operating out of band, it usually does not mention CB at all. Rather it
is usually something like "operating an unlicensed station, on
unauthorized frequencies" or something similar.
What makes a person a CBer? Technically, operating a part 95 accepted
tranceiver on assigned channels. Once that is no longer true, they are
not really "CBers" anymore, just radio pirates.
> > A ham, who runs on the freeband, has more to lose than a regular
> > citizen, who has no license.
>
> Correct. To balance that inequity, the Ham has far more freedom to choose
> bands of operation, frequencies within those bands, modes of operation,
> legal power limits etc.
>
> Why a licensed Ham would operate out of band - with so much to lose, is
> something I cannot understand.
It's a little silly. But I can understand it. Many people start out on
CB, upgrade to ham radio, but still enjoy the friendships that they've
made on CB. While they may add ham radio to their hobby list, they still
enjoy CB, and many times will step over that fine line that
differentiates a CBer from a bootlegger. Many think that because they're
using a modified CB, and that their ham radios are on a table 5 feet
away, that they can be treated seperately in the eyes of the law. That's
just not the case. You can't "turn off" the ham license when you want to
be a CBer or freebander.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Twistedhed
complaints made about illegal CB. I guess he'd better call up that Open
Road Trucker magazine and set them straight : )
-A<
Now now, just because you're madder than you have been in quite
sometime, doesn't give you permission to speak for others. When you are
wanted, I'll let you know.
From: wb5...@yahoo.com (Kevin Muenzler, WB5RUE)
Looks like Twisty is the "coax police" too.
Jerry Oxendine
<snip>
> > Why a licensed Ham would operate out of band - with so much to lose, is
> > something I cannot understand.
>
> It's a little silly. But I can understand it. Many people start out on
> CB, upgrade to ham radio, but still enjoy the friendships that they've
> made on CB. While they may add ham radio to their hobby list, they still
> enjoy CB, and many times will step over that fine line that
> differentiates a CBer from a bootlegger. Many think that because they're
> using a modified CB, and that their ham radios are on a table 5 feet
> away, that they can be treated seperately in the eyes of the law. That's
> just not the case. You can't "turn off" the ham license when you want to
> be a CBer or freebander.
>
> Dave
> "Sandbagger"
And there were about 3 hams that got hit for operating on 27.585 on the last
RainReport/ARRL Enforcement column---in Indiana, I think. I really wonder
if they were using a CB transceiver, or just dialed it up on their modified
Icoms.
Your assessment makes a lot of sense, Dave. Perhaps, my view of it is
prejudiced,
but it seems just a "tad" unfair that they got hit, and, if they were
talking to domestic
CBers, those stations didn't get hit, too. Maybe "shooting skip" overseas?
How-ever, I believe they will eventually get around to the "freebanding"
thing, but it isn't
on their hot list right now.
73
Jerry
BobC
or uhf fm rig to communicate amongst each other on the road. What would it
take to make this happen?
How does one go about gaining popular acceptance of these radios?
Is it the radio shops themselves which are holding back? I can see their
point because it would not generate repeat sales for power mics, fancy
overpriced antennas etc etc. Repairs would most likely dwindle.
I doubt amplifier sales would suffer because there'd be a new niche market
to sell to.
Even if someone just threw a frs handheld radio in a cute chassis with an
outside antenna connector I bet it would sell if shops would push the idea.
I know this would be technically illegal but I'd be willing to bet the fcc
and hamsters would love it. No more tvi complaints from cb sets to deal
with. Much less probability of drivers resorting to out of band freqs just
to communicate a few miles.
Aaron H. Voobner
> >They have? That's not what TWISTEDHED says. He claims there are no
> complaints made about illegal CB. I guess he'd better call up that Open
> Road Trucker magazine and set them straight : )
> -A<
>
>
> Now now, just because you're madder than you have been in quite
> sometime, doesn't give you permission to speak for others. When you are
> wanted, I'll let you know.
The only one that's "mad" is you....mad as a hatter. Speaking of hats,
it must suck to have a line of merchandise being marketed that refers
to you as "N8's slave".
-A
Bill Nelson
> And there were about 3 hams that got hit for operating on 27.585 on the last
> RainReport/ARRL Enforcement column---in Indiana, I think. I really wonder
> if they were using a CB transceiver, or just dialed it up on their modified
> Icoms.
> Your assessment makes a lot of sense, Dave. Perhaps, my view of it is
> prejudiced,
> but it seems just a "tad" unfair that they got hit, and, if they were
> talking to domestic
> CBers, those stations didn't get hit, too. Maybe "shooting skip" overseas?
Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the regulations,
which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in legal operations.
To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer who
runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands.
In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
You would have a hard time convincing me that any Ham was unaware that
he/she was operating on illegal frequencies - or that the intentional
interference was not illegal.
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jerry Oxendine
So, Bill, you are saying that the information is NOT available to CBers to
let them
know that "freebanding", or amps, or unapproved radios are illegal? Or that
CBers
lack the intelligence or ability to read to find out how they are supposed
to operate?
I doubt that. Do you REALLY expect me to accept that CBers don't know that
"freebanding" is wrong and illegal?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse--same as if you speed and tell the cop
that you
didn't "know" the speed limit was 35. Illegal is illegal is illegal, it is
the responsibil-
ity of the user to know the rules governing his operations, and if there is
punishment
for one, then it should administered equally to all that violate the rules.
Yes, the ham should know better, but still, if he gets into trouble for
operating out of band,
then the CBer should be punished for doing the same thing.
73
Jerry
>
JJ
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the regulations,
> which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in legal operations.
So are cbers, they should be aware of the cb regulations just as
much as a ham should be aware of amateur regulations.
> To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer who
> runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands.
Why? Illegal is illegal no matter who is doing it.
>
> In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
> that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
> frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
Like the non-ham freebanders aren't?
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
>>
>> Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the regulations,
>> which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in legal
> operations.
>> To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer who
>> runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands.
>>
>> In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
>> that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
>> frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
>>
>> You would have a hard time convincing me that any Ham was unaware that
>> he/she was operating on illegal frequencies - or that the intentional
>> interference was not illegal.
>>
>> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
> So, Bill, you are saying that the information is NOT available to CBers to
> let them
> know that "freebanding", or amps, or unapproved radios are illegal? Or that
> CBers
> lack the intelligence or ability to read to find out how they are supposed
> to operate?
> I doubt that. Do you REALLY expect me to accept that CBers don't know that
> "freebanding" is wrong and illegal?
You should know better than to read things into what others wrote. I did
not imply any of the things you mention.
Yes, the information is available, if the CBer looks for it. Many don't
and many don't know that such things as expanded channels or increased
power are illegal.
The difference between the two services are that Hams are required to
take a test on the regulations - so supposedly they know them before
they can get their license. CBers do not have a test or license.
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse--same as if you speed and tell the cop
> that you
> didn't "know" the speed limit was 35. Illegal is illegal is illegal, it is
> the responsibil-
> ity of the user to know the rules governing his operations, and if there is
> punishment
> for one, then it should administered equally to all that violate the rules.
> Yes, the ham should know better, but still, if he gets into trouble for
> operating out of band,
> then the CBer should be punished for doing the same thing.
I agree that all should be punished - and have said as much in this
thread.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson wrote:
>> Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the regulations,
>> which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in legal operations.
> So are cbers, they should be aware of the cb regulations just as
> much as a ham should be aware of amateur regulations.
They should be, but how many just open the package and use the radio,
without reading what little coverage of regulations are there? Probably
most.
>> To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer who
>> runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands.
> Why? Illegal is illegal no matter who is doing it.
Yep. But Hams are required to study the regulations. They KNOW they are
breaking the regulations - many CBers have no idea that they are.
>> In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
>> that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
>> frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
> Like the non-ham freebanders aren't?
Some non-ham freebanders, and even CBers cause intentional interference.
That does not excuse the Hams, who definitely know better, when they do
so.
Yes, I have a higher standard for Hams than for CBers. That is because
Hams are supposedly better trained and more knowledgeable. This is why
Hams have greater operating privileges. With greater privileges comes
greater responsibilities.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Twistedhed
but it seems just a "tad" unfair that they got hit,<
Why is that? You have always claimed that freebanders get what they
deserve. Now by virtue of a ticket they deserve less? It's really
beginning to smell in here and it's coming from all the spoiled pork. A
bad one can contaminate the lots that never were a prime cut.
> and, if they were talking to domestic
CBers, those stations didn't get hit, too. Maybe "shooting skip"
overseas? How-ever, I believe they will eventually get around to the
"freebanding" thing, but it isn't
on their hot list right now.
73
Jerry<
And it never will be unless it's a safety issue or a repeated
nuisance/interference complaint. It's a nonissue in most cases.
Twistedhed
it must suck to have a line of merchandise being marketed that refers to
you as "N8's slave".
-A<
Actually, it's a great homage.
Most remember how his ego was crushed. Frank and Nad followed suit..you
demonstrate daily how not in control you are. It is quite natural for
the lower biological mysticals to begin fantasizing about role
reversals, and even the unfortunate Tourette sufferers are not immune.
What must suck, is being force fed crow by slaves. <G>. Your anger has
once again placed you in the position of poor communication and not
being able to focus on topic matters. You apparently have an obsession
and spend exhorbitant amounts of unproductive time fantasizing about
what each person on this ng must be like, whether you like them or
dislike them, are attracted to them or repulsed. It really is a
compulsion, ya' know,,a disorder. As someone recently directed to you,
your behavior is becoming rather bizarre, again. I am afraid you may be
placed back in the box with newspaper lining until you can begin getting
along with the rest of the world, for a while.
Twistedhed
vhf or uhf fm rig to communicate amongst each other on the road. What
would it take to make this happen? <
Won't happen, at least in this lifetime.
It would have to be a slow transition. Owner operators won't buy into
it as it's their own bucks and not many truckers or motorists are on
those bands. Companies that provide the trucks with radio equipment are
usually so damn cheap in the first place they would be loathe to buy
anything for the convenience of the driver. As long as newer trucks are
fitted with on-board satellite and tracking GPS systems and a cell
phone, the company doesn't give a damn. Besides, many truckers like the
DX when their ain't many to talk to on the big road. If there was an
immediate need for assistance, I think the driver would feel more comfy
with a cb than a vhf rig. Old habits die hard.
>How does one go about gaining popular acceptance of these radios?
Is it the radio shops themselves which are holding back? I can see their
point because it would not generate repeat sales for power mics, fancy
overpriced antennas etc etc. Repairs would most likely dwindle.
I doubt amplifier sales would suffer because there'd be a new niche
market to sell to.
Even if someone just threw a frs handheld radio in a cute chassis with
an outside antenna connector I bet it would sell if shops would push the
idea.
I know this would be technically illegal but I'd be willing to bet the
fcc and hamsters would love it.<
I've heard drivers on FRS before.
> No more tvi complaints from cb sets to deal with. Much less
probability of drivers resorting to out of band freqs just to
communicate a few miles.<
Truckers aren't largely responsible for the ones causing the
interference to TV's.
The idea would have to be grandfathered in anyway. Maybe if drivers
began with a VHF radio IN ADDITION to a cb, then something could
possibly take hold, otherwise, it just seems like another nonissue,
except to hammies.
Twistedhed
Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the
regulations, which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in
legal operations.
>So are cbers, they should be aware of the cb regulations just as much
as a ham should be aware of amateur regulations. <
Yup, they SHOULD. The difference is, the hammie is SIGNING a sworn
testimony, attesting that he in essence, is aware of the regs, and
agrees to abide by those regs.
One must admit, ignorance is a much greater probability with a cber not
knowing they are breaking the law, as opposed to a hammie. A new driver,
in a company truck, could damn sure have extra channels. Someone can
tell him to go "2 up" and he may find himself in the middle of 10
meters. VOILA...our green driver is suddenly illegal, without knowing.
SHOULD he know? Absoloutely...but he isn't MADE to know. The hammie
knows.
>>To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer
who runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands. <<
Why? Illegal is illegal no matter who is doing it.
In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
>Like the non-ham freebanders aren't? <
Some most definitely are. After being familarized with this group, one
can take away the very plausible deduction that most inteference to the
freeband and coming from the freeband may very well be from hammies that
think in this manner. They may be so angry at the FCC for doing
absolutely nothing, and feel that if THEY can't talk there, then by
rumsong, NOBODY will talk there. Based on the anger demonstrated in here
by a few hammies, this is a very probable scenario.
Jerry Oxendine
Yet, it is their responsibility to know it whether they do it or not. Heck,
they
probably don't even read the owner's manual, much less the regulations.
>
> The difference between the two services are that Hams are required to
> take a test on the regulations - so supposedly they know them before
> they can get their license. CBers do not have a test or license.
CB stations operate under a "blanket authorization". They are technically
"licensed"
and subject to the rules just as if they had a paper license in hand. Yes,
they, per-
haps, don't know the rules, but just as with the traffic cop, "B-b-b-b-but,
Mr. Agent, sir, I-I-I-I didn't know it was illegal to use a 'leenyar' or
tawk on that 'ere
freeband" won't hold water.
I am happy, however, to see that Mr. H. is stepping up enforcement of all
kinds.
73
Jerry
Jerry Oxendine
Twistedhed <twist...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21442-3D2...@storefull-2317.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>Perhaps, my view of it is prejudiced,
but it seems just a "tad" unfair that they got hit,<
Why is that? You have always claimed that freebanders get what they
deserve. Now by virtue of a ticket they deserve less? It's really
beginning to smell in here and it's coming from all the spoiled pork. A
bad one can contaminate the lots that never were a prime cut.
I didn't say that. I said that if the hams are doing it (freebanding) and
get popped
because it is illegal, then the CBers doing it should get the same
treatment. After all, one's first contact with FCC is likely to be a
warning letter, and if he quits, no
harm done. I am much in favor of hams who engage in wrongdoing getting
busted
because their activities reflect badly on the Service. Likewise, I am in
favor of others who do the same thing getting the same treatment. Illegal
is illegal is illegal,
and, therefore, wrong.
J
Aaron H. Voobner
>The difference is, the hammie is SIGNING a sworn
>testimony, attesting that he in essence, is aware of the regs, and
>agrees to abide by those regs.
RULE 4 - Licenses You do not need an individual license to operate a
CB station. You are authorized by this rule to operate your CB station
in accordance with the rules stated in this Subpart.
RULE 2 - Usage of Rules You must comply with these rules when you
operate a station in the CB Service.
...Sounds to me like CBers are held just as accountable for obeying
rules.
>One must admit, ignorance is a much greater probability with a cber
not
>knowing they are breaking the law, as opposed to a hammie. A new
driver,
>in a company truck, could damn sure have extra channels. Someone can
>tell him to go "2 up" and he may find himself in the middle of 10
>meters. VOILA...our green driver is suddenly illegal, without
knowing.
>SHOULD he know? Absoloutely...but he isn't MADE to know. The hammie
>knows.
What a crock of BS. But that's Twisty for ya.
-A
Kenneth
warehouses have a small "kicker" to make sure they can get through to the
truckdriver who is usually asleep and turned his squelch up since hambos who
hear it think" oh noo illegal commercial use is against fcc rule xxx and try
to annoy people.
Small meaning in the sub 200 watt range
"Twistedhed" <twist...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21442-3D2...@storefull-2317.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JJ
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> The difference between the two services are that Hams are required to
> take a test on the regulations - so supposedly they know them before
> they can get their license. CBers do not have a test or license.
>
No excuse, a cber should know the rules. It should be obvious to
the most simpleton that when you purchase a cb radio there are
going to be rules governing that service.
JJ
Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> JJ <radio...@mailcity.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> >> Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the regulations,
> >> which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in legal operations.
>
> > So are cbers, they should be aware of the cb regulations just as
> > much as a ham should be aware of amateur regulations.
>
> They should be, but how many just open the package and use the radio,
> without reading what little coverage of regulations are there? Probably
> most.
That is their problem, they should learn to read and read the
rules. It still does not excuse them from operating illegally.
>
> >> To me, they are as much (or more) deserving of being busted as a CBer who
> >> runs a modified CB radio in the Ham bands.
>
> > Why? Illegal is illegal no matter who is doing it.
>
> Yep. But Hams are required to study the regulations. They KNOW they are
> breaking the regulations - many CBers have no idea that they are.
Reply above applies here as well.
>
> >> In many of the reports about Hams who operate below 28 MHz, it is noted
> >> that they were causing intentional interference - either on the legal CB
> >> frequencies or in the 10/11 meter "freeband" area.
>
> > Like the non-ham freebanders aren't?
>
> Some non-ham freebanders, and even CBers cause intentional interference.
> That does not excuse the Hams, who definitely know better, when they do
> so.
I guess the cbers (freebanders) are just so stupid that they don't
know they can cause intentional by running excessive power to
moded rigs, overdriving amps and splattering over several Mhz, and
all this on frequencies they are not authorized to use.
> Yes, I have a higher standard for Hams than for CBers. That is because
> Hams are supposedly better trained and more knowledgeable. This is why
> Hams have greater operating privileges. With greater privileges comes
> greater responsibilities.
Still does not excuse a cber for operating illegally.
JJ
Twistedhed wrote:
>
> From: radio...@mailcity.net (JJ)
> Bill Nelson wrote:
> Unfair? Hardly. As Dave noted, Hams are supposed to know the
> regulations, which is one of the reasons that Hams have more freedom in
> legal operations.
>
> >So are cbers, they should be aware of the cb regulations just as much
> as a ham should be aware of amateur regulations. <
>
> Yup, they SHOULD. The difference is, the hammie is SIGNING a sworn
> testimony, attesting that he in essence, is aware of the regs, and
> agrees to abide by those regs.
The cber is also agreeing to abide by the rules governing the cb
service when he purchases and uses a cb radio. Just because he
hasn't taken a test and issued a license does not make it any less
illegal when he breaks the rules. It is the duty of the operator
to know the rules.
> One must admit, ignorance is a much greater probability with a cber not
> knowing they are breaking the law, as opposed to a hammie. A new driver,
> in a company truck, could damn sure have extra channels. Someone can
> tell him to go "2 up" and he may find himself in the middle of 10
> meters. VOILA...our green driver is suddenly illegal, without knowing.
> SHOULD he know? Absoloutely...but he isn't MADE to know. The hammie
> knows.
He should know that there are only 40 channels in the cb service,
if he doesn't then that is his own fault.