"Rambling Man" wrote in message .verio.net...
"Lancer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:55:49 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Lancer wrote in
ynews.com:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Lancer wrote in
asynews.com:


He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those
radios. HEHEHEHE..

really which ones??

Exit 470, I-20


This one??
Store No. 433
Address 8787 South Lancaster Road
Dallas, TX 75241
Interstate I-20, Exit 470
Phone (972) 228-2467
Fax (972) 228-4386



Don't know about the store number or phone number, but thats where its
located.

I "believe" the store in Bentleyville PA is as well - Just off I-70. I was
there a couple weeks ago and some of the radios I seen in the display
"appeared" to be some of the brands known to be not so legal. But that was a
couple weeks ago, they may have pulled them by now. But there is a Truck
Stop not far from there - a hole in the wall set up, with a CB shop that
sells those sorts of sets also. It's in Madison, PA also off I-70. I know
people who've bought or were informed when asked about - linears being on
stock. They make little attempt to hide that fact. Or the fact of beefing up
radios. I think if memory serves me correct, they display the illegal radios
right out in the open.

Rambling man

Rambling man whats the name and address of that CB shop in madison, is
is bobs CB shop? dont worry about them getting FCC fines twistedhed
says it is part of doing business they can asorb it lol

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is
deviation from the norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things as
tower height and lighting etc.

You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them in to
compliance with FCC regulations.

Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns", in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.

Nothing, 'cause the radios aren't being dumped.

I was referring to lost profits from removing the product line from their
travel centers.

Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year or two ago along the line that
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they are
doing something now. Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to
grind about the present situation?


In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say? I'm sure others would like to read the
comments for themselves and make their own determination. I know I would. I
have been to some Hamfests where he was a guest speaker, and I don't get the
impression that you got.

but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine) are often worse than
the offenders themselves. An incredible statement from the head
enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that? I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see his
point. If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so be it. I have yet to
see any government agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for some
citizen getting on their case about doing the job they are being paid to do.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
Large corporations pay fines opposed to having their folks go to jail.
The obvious exceptions were the Michael Milkens.

You forgot about the savings and loan scandals, the Enron executives going
to jail, Martha Stewart etc.

That's not how it works with franchises. Franchises are required to
carry certain items.

But not all items. How many time have you heard, but never really paid
attention to, the statement at the end of commercials etc. that states "At
participating stores"? Just because it is a franchise doesn't automatically
mean they carry everything a company own store does. In fact I've been in
many Pilot Travel centers and I specifically check the two-way radio section
out just for fun. Funny how some of them you don't see even one of those
import radios the FCC has fined Pilot over.

The fines are paid and its business as usual.
These companies usually don't fight these fines. In fact, there is no
large corporation has lodged such a court room battle (which you speak
of concerning radio gear, amps, etc) for the exact reason you
mention...it is much easier tand cheaper to pay the fine and
continue,,,,,business-as-usual.

After they remove the offending product. Look how skittish the TV stations
are after the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction". It was only a $550K fine
to the network. I'm sure it didn't dent their bank account very much. It
wasn't much bigger than the fine that Pilot got. The networks are running
scared about what they show on the air to the point where some local
stations wouldn't air the uncut movie "Saving Private Ryan" for veterans day
because they were afraid they would get slapped with another fine.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The ONLY way to change this is via legislation, and we all know the
angry hammie who is pre-occupied with such nonsense is merely reactive,
not proactive.

As silly as it is it just so happens that its the "angry hammie", a.k.a. the
ARRL, that is going to save the CBer's behind. What I'm talking about is the
direction the FCC is going in regards to the BPL issue. Whether you like it
or not BPL is going to affect everybody using HF, irregardless if they so
happen to be a Ham or CBer.

It would be much more productive if the bandwidth on this news group wasn't
wasted debating the same old issues, but instead joining together in a
united front to fight the FCC, and the deep pocket corporations, wanting to
pollute the airwaves with RF trash from the digital signals on the power
lines using BPL.The CBers really need some kind of national origination to
represent their interests. Right now they're getting a free ride, so to
speak, courtesy of the ARRL. Anything that benefits the Ham community in
regards to stopping BPL also benefits CBers as well since your band, 11m, is
right there next to the 10m Ham band. Both bands would be heavily affect by
BPL noise. Just something for you to think about while you're ready to pound
away at your keyboard in response.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft


Again, if ANYTHING changed since the seventies regarding enforcement,
it is that now is the best time as any to buy a radio and begin
freebanding. Enforcement is practically non-existent unless you draw
major attention to yourself with splatter and bleed.
Business as usual, and with the cooler weather comes the skip,,,,,27.555
is kicking up major contacts again and no one on the freq is remotely
concerned with a single hammie's angry, jealous, errant, and reactive
behavior.
Happy holidays.

--
Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

Wireless Network

Mobile computing

on the go brought

to you by Micro$oft

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:15:29 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is
deviation from the norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things as
tower height and lighting etc.


Enforcement is but a shadow of what it once was. Back in the early
'60s the FCC would yank your CB license and/or slap you with a fine
just for violating the time-out rule, and they popped hoardes of CBers
for that and many other minor violations.

Looking at the enforcement efforts of the FCC for the past several
years there are two trends that become apparent: the number of FCC
enforcement actions have been steadily declining, and the fines have
been steadily increasing. You might also notice that lately the FCC
rarely fines any person or company an amount that's beyond their means
to pay. It should be glaringly obvious that the primary focus of the
FCC is on the money, not on the enforcement. I wouldn't be suprised if
the FCC performs financial background checks before issuing NALs. The
FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional
shakedown tour in the vice district.


You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them in to
compliance with FCC regulations.


Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches
without a warrant, impose penalties without due process, and make up
their own rules as they go; yet the violations continue unabated. And
the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept.


Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns", in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.


They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to
their rules and the FCC would probably lose -- at the very least it
would be a costly trial. That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts, or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.


Nothing, 'cause the radios aren't being dumped.

I was referring to lost profits from removing the product line from their
travel centers.

Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year or two ago along the line that
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.


Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.
It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.
Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.


In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say? I'm sure others would like to read the
comments for themselves and make their own determination. I know I would. I
have been to some Hamfests where he was a guest speaker, and I don't get the
impression that you got.

but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine) are often worse than
the offenders themselves. An incredible statement from the head
enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that? I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see his
point. If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so be it. I have yet to
see any government agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for some
citizen getting on their case about doing the job they are being paid to do.


Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective. I -am- a CBer, and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:15:29 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is
deviation from the norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things
as
tower height and lighting etc.


Enforcement is but a shadow of what it once was. Back in the early
'60s the FCC would yank your CB license and/or slap you with a fine
just for violating the time-out rule, and they popped hoardes of CBers
for that and many other minor violations.

Looking at the enforcement efforts of the FCC for the past several
years there are two trends that become apparent: the number of FCC
enforcement actions have been steadily declining, and the fines have
been steadily increasing.

That I have heard mentioned before with the addtional comment being that
this is the case due to lack of funds. That could explaine why the fines
have been going up I suppose.

You might also notice that lately the FCC
rarely fines any person or company an amount that's beyond their means
to pay. It should be glaringly obvious that the primary focus of the
FCC is on the money, not on the enforcement. I wouldn't be suprised if
the FCC performs financial background checks before issuing NALs.

If you read the enforcement logs you'll see where they say you have to
supply them with a copy of your tax return if you claim you can't pay the
fine.

The
FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional
shakedown tour in the vice district.

Agreed.




You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them in
to
compliance with FCC regulations.


Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches
without a warrant,

Big deal. If you read the terms of the license grant from the FCC the
licensee agrees to station inspections, i.e. without a warrant, so the
licensee doesn't have a bone to pick. They knew the rules of the game before
hand.

impose penalties without due process,

Oh, there is due process. If you don't like the fine then you can go to
court. Not much different when you get popped for speeding. Don't like the
ticket then talk to the judge.

and make up
their own rules as they go;

The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47.

yet the violations continue unabated. And
the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept.

The problems don't seem to be limited to just the FCC regulations. For
example look at your speedometer the next time you're out driving, the
posted speed limits, and the other drivers on the road. Seems like more cops
on the road doesn't deter many from doing 80+ MPH on the expressways.



Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns",
in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.


They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to
their rules and the FCC would probably lose

I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape with signal strenght
readings, frequency counter readings, spectrum analyzer screen shots etc,
when they go to court they're cooked. Besides, were in the constitution does
it say that a citizen has the right to use a radio transmitter, much less in
any maner they choose? If it isn't there then there is no constitutional
right to challenge.

-- at the very least it
would be a costly trial.

For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private
person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the
Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you
their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine.

That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts,

It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to court
just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main
consideration for them.

or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.

And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many
people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to stand
up for their rights in court? Too many.



Nothing, 'cause the radios aren't being dumped.

I was referring to lost profits from removing the product line from their
travel centers.

Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year or two ago along the line
that
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they
are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.

There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only a
fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well
just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing so
would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those
complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it is
currently.



Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of
the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax
to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.

The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take
their cue from him.

It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.

Yeah, the chairmen, like I said.

Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.

It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems to
be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum and
that dang BPL crap.



In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say? I'm sure others would like to read the
comments for themselves and make their own determination. I know I would.
I
have been to some Hamfests where he was a guest speaker, and I don't get
the
impression that you got.

but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine) are often worse than
the offenders themselves. An incredible statement from the head
enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that? I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see
his
point. If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so be it. I have yet to
see any government agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for some
citizen getting on their case about doing the job they are being paid to
do.


Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective.

Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may
even agree with him on some points. 8-))

I -am- a CBer, and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep.

It happens.

It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.

Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to
suit some people, but some progress is being made.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
news

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:15:29 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is
deviation from the norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things
as
tower height and lighting etc.


Enforcement is but a shadow of what it once was. Back in the early
'60s the FCC would yank your CB license and/or slap you with a fine
just for violating the time-out rule, and they popped hoardes of CBers
for that and many other minor violations.

Looking at the enforcement efforts of the FCC for the past several
years there are two trends that become apparent: the number of FCC
enforcement actions have been steadily declining, and the fines have
been steadily increasing.

That I have heard mentioned before with the addtional comment being that
this is the case due to lack of funds. That could explaine why the fines
have been going up I suppose.

You might also notice that lately the FCC
rarely fines any person or company an amount that's beyond their means
to pay. It should be glaringly obvious that the primary focus of the
FCC is on the money, not on the enforcement. I wouldn't be suprised if
the FCC performs financial background checks before issuing NALs.

If you read the enforcement logs you'll see where they say you have to
supply them with a copy of your tax return if you claim you can't pay the
fine.

The
FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional
shakedown tour in the vice district.

Agreed.




You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the
monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of
why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them
in
to
compliance with FCC regulations.


Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches
without a warrant,

Big deal. If you read the terms of the license grant from the FCC the
licensee agrees to station inspections, i.e. without a warrant, so the
licensee doesn't have a bone to pick. They knew the rules of the game
before
hand.

impose penalties without due process,

Oh, there is due process. If you don't like the fine then you can go to
court. Not much different when you get popped for speeding. Don't like the
ticket then talk to the judge.

and make up
their own rules as they go;

The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47.

yet the violations continue unabated. And
the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept.

The problems don't seem to be limited to just the FCC regulations. For
example look at your speedometer the next time you're out driving, the
posted speed limits, and the other drivers on the road. Seems like more
cops
on the road doesn't deter many from doing 80+ MPH on the expressways.



Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in
jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As
they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future
returns",
in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.


They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to
their rules and the FCC would probably lose

I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape with signal strenght
readings, frequency counter readings, spectrum analyzer screen shots etc,
when they go to court they're cooked. Besides, were in the constitution
does
it say that a citizen has the right to use a radio transmitter, much less
in
any maner they choose? If it isn't there then there is no constitutional
right to challenge.

-- at the very least it
would be a costly trial.

For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private
person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the
Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you
their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine.

That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts,

It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to court
just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main
consideration for them.

or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.

And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many
people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to stand
up for their rights in court? Too many.



Nothing, 'cause the radios aren't being dumped.

I was referring to lost profits from removing the product line from
their
travel centers.

Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year or two ago along the line
that
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they
are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.

There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only
a
fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well
just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing
so
would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those
complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it
is
currently.



Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of
the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax
to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.

The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take
their cue from him.

It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.

Yeah, the chairmen, like I said.

Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.

It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems to
be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum
and
that dang BPL crap.



In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say? I'm sure others would like to read the
comments for themselves and make their own determination. I know I
would.
I
have been to some Hamfests where he was a guest speaker, and I don't get
the
impression that you got.

but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine) are often worse than
the offenders themselves. An incredible statement from the head
enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that? I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see
his
point. If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so be it. I have yet
to
see any government agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for some
citizen getting on their case about doing the job they are being paid to
do.


Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective.

Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you
may
even agree with him on some points. 8-))

I -am- a CBer, and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep.

It happens.

It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.

Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough
to
suit some people, but some progress is being made.

Yes, you and your sock puppies are not happy. Create a few more, and just
maybe something will go your way. Hello Legeo.

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:15:29 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is
deviation from the norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things
as
tower height and lighting etc.


Enforcement is but a shadow of what it once was. Back in the early
'60s the FCC would yank your CB license and/or slap you with a fine
just for violating the time-out rule, and they popped hoardes of CBers
for that and many other minor violations.

Looking at the enforcement efforts of the FCC for the past several
years there are two trends that become apparent: the number of FCC
enforcement actions have been steadily declining, and the fines have
been steadily increasing. You might also notice that lately the FCC
rarely fines any person or company an amount that's beyond their means
to pay. It should be glaringly obvious that the primary focus of the
FCC is on the money, not on the enforcement. I wouldn't be suprised if
the FCC performs financial background checks before issuing NALs. The
FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional
shakedown tour in the vice district.


You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them in
to
compliance with FCC regulations.


Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches
without a warrant, impose penalties without due process, and make up
their own rules as they go; yet the violations continue unabated. And
the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept.


Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns",
in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.


They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to
their rules and the FCC would probably lose -- at the very least it
would be a costly trial. That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts, or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.


Nothing, 'cause the radios aren't being dumped.

I was referring to lost profits from removing the product line from their
travel centers.

Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year or two ago along the line that
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they
are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.


Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of
the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax
to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.
It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.
Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.


In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say? I'm sure others would like to read the
comments for themselves and make their own determination. I know I would.
I
have been to some Hamfests where he was a guest speaker, and I don't get
the
impression that you got.

but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine) are often worse than
the offenders themselves. An incredible statement from the head
enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that? I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see his
point. If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so be it. I have yet to
see any government agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for some
citizen getting on their case about doing the job they are being paid to
do.


Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective. I -am- a CBer, and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.


Very well said Frank.

Landshark


--
Real heroes are men who fall and fail
and are flawed, but win out in the end
because they've stayed true to their
ideals and beliefs and commitments.

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
news |
|| There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA.

this isnrt towards anyone ..jus a musing on my part....
""750K licensed Hams in the USA.""
and thats how hams keep the fcc reminded there are individuals out here
using radios. if it wernt for that reminder , where do ya'll think the freqs
would be? a no-mans land used by every industrial use imaginable controlled
by who ever was highest bidder for the spectrum.
i wonder how many cb'ers are out there?
we'll never know how to count them with out things such as licensing...
oops,guess they took care of that huh?
harv

"harvey" wrote in message
...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
news |
|| There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA.

this isnrt towards anyone ..jus a musing on my part....
""750K licensed Hams in the USA.""
and thats how hams keep the fcc reminded there are individuals out here
using radios. if it wernt for that reminder , where do ya'll think the
freqs
would be? a no-mans land used by every industrial use imaginable
controlled
by who ever was highest bidder for the spectrum.
i wonder how many cb'ers are out there?
we'll never know how to count them with out things such as licensing...
oops,guess they took care of that huh?
harv

Yeah. No argument there.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft