BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:

"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 Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:12:08 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"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.


Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.


snip
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.


I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.


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.


Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.


and make up
their own rules as they go;

The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47.


What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, and because their rules
are written and enforced in a manner that prevents any constitutional
challenges, they are effectively a rogue agency.


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.


Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road -- everyone slows
down. Spokane is a classic example of what happens when there are too
few cops to enforce the law. Driving in this town is nothing short of
treacherous. You can drive all day and not see a cop. I've been hit 16
times in as many years, three times while my car/truck was parked on
the street in front of my house, and just recently my GARAGE was hit.
I was even rear-ended once by an ambulance! Why? Because there aren't
enough police to enforce the law so people ignore them and drive any
way they want.

On the other side of the coin, I went to Bellingham a couple years ago
and WOW what a difference! Cops were highly visible, almost everybody
drove -under- the speed limit, and I didn't see anybody driving like
they were drunk (common in Spokane).

Police presence DOES make a difference.


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


That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.


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?


The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.


If it isn't there then there is no constitutional
right to challenge.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.


-- 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.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.


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.


And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the
Supreme Court. Everyone has a price.


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.


You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich.


snip
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.


750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped
enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant
backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those
people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use
those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that
there would be hell to pay.


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.


Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization):

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html

Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you
describe as the role of the chairman?


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.


If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".


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.


That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many,
many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse:
wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if
it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring
their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions
by the FCC.


snip
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-))


You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.


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.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.


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.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.







----== 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
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.

Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops
everywere I went.



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

They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was
so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a
long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the
air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without
extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then
becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding
edvidence.



That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.


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?


The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

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.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.



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.


And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the
Supreme Court. Everyone has a price.

The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.



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.


You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich.

I have to agree with you here.



snip
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.


750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped
enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant
backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those
people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use
those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that
there would be hell to pay.


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.


Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization):

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html

Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you
describe as the role of the chairman?

See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


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.


If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.



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.


That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many,
many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse:
wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if
it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring
their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions
by the FCC.

I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).



snip
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-))


You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.

I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))

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

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


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.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have
even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

Was that after only one NAL? or after multiple NAL's and multiple times
that you paid the fine they imposed?
Heard? I've never heard that. On the other hand, it could happen, but only
after many NAL's & many hearings with the FCC before you would go to
a Federal Court.


What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner
associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue,
you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of
such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So
as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.


Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's?
I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing
law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's
why they are called rules, not laws.

Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked
55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work
assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of
the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of
cops
everywere I went.

Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over
the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on
all big rigs.



The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines
before you can begin to contest their ruling. How many times can you
afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf?


If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and
there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

See above.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

Ah, Frank's right.

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.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that
prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.



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.


And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the
Supreme Court. Everyone has a price.

The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.



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.


You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich.

I have to agree with you here.



snip
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.


750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped
enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant
backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those
people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use
those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that
there would be hell to pay.


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.


Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization):

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html

Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you
describe as the role of the chairman?

See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


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.


If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should
know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.



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.


That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many,
many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse:
wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if
it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring
their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions
by the FCC.

I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the
802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).



snip
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-))


You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason
why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.

I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))

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

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


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.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going
to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get
better.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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


Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:38 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))


Touche'.


I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area.


So would I since it's only my opinion. But what -isn't- my opinion is
the 4th Amendment, which is very specific about searches and seizures.


You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.


I will. Got a link?


What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.


For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511.
This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law
includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law
enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to
intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has
written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to
intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable
cause.

As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you
that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently
before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well
as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read
because the bill is so large. One such law that almost snuck through
in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against
drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product
was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through
congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips
their own bills through, too.

So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is
that they don't. The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists
hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress is too busy with
their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws.
That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate.


Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55
MPH zones, cops or not.


Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've
only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had
only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now.


Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops
everywere I went.


Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios......


snip
I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape

They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was
so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a
long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the
air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without
extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then
becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding
edvidence.


Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC
requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is
admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to
determine the weight of that evidence.


That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.
snip
The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.


You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found
guilty without a trial. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC,
so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to
pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department
for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an
issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted-
in the debt.


If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.


The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. The only way
you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil
suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The
problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do
not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how
the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.


Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing,
as I said before.


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.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company.


It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision
by the company. So far it has worked well.


There is nothing that prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.


But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated.


snip
The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.


That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the
table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different?


snip
See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman.
And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you
stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try
reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm


snip
If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.


The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman,
maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news.


snip
I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).


Even government corruption has it's limits.


snip
You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.


Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should
have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane
Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency
situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM.
And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was
done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can
say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those
types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to
be the communications backbone when landlines fail.


I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))


Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed
myself as one.


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

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


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.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better.


Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although
sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as
a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except
that it will come.





----== 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 =---

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:01:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in
:

snip
The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.


That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the
table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different?


I should rephrase this: The Supreme Court only selects cases that are
presented to it. Unless the outcome can be 'assured', the FCC prevents
potentially hazardous cases from going that far up the ladder either
by offering settlements (and/or kickbacks) that are too good to pass
up, or by simply dropping the case. Those tactics are underhanded
attempts to avoid an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court. Such a
ruling could very possibly collapse the legal foundation of the FCC's
operation.







----== 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 =---

(Twistedhed) wrote in message ...
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(Twistedhed) wrote in news:27344-41A35AD8-570
@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
As long as folks like Oxendine continue to accept this as enforcement,
nothing will change. Corporations get popped and pay fines all the time.
It's accepted and often standard business practice in the USA and a
specialty of the right wing. The fine is listed as an expense at tax
time. The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the
feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Meanwhile,
the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense of
superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying,
"Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly
what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning
process.

No twisted ****ehad


Oh,,I didn't mean to anger your impotent self. Try and get that admitted
communication deficit under control and stop permitting your emotions
to dictate your behavior.


this is another step in ridding the truckers and
others of export radios. amp makers will be

next, rome wasnt built in one day




Correct, it was brought down in one day. Rome burned while Nero fiddled.
I'm your dj. Enjoy the music, as the song remains the same and has since
the seventies. You aren't permitted near the turntable, so do the only
thing you can,,,,,go back to your corner and bitch about the tunes and
blame me for your misery.

Who cares? The idea is the AKC makes dents in keyclownism, and
twithead will always run his weenie holders trying to minimize the
situation. That is what twithead does. Obedience to his program is
etched on a piece of silicon embedded in his maggot infested excuse
for a brain, and the "stupid asswipe co-processor" is also installed
in order to have him more completely reveal his true self.

Who cares what a weenie washing idiot who only copy/pastes his
political arguements from other web posts and sites and can't in any
way refute a logical arguement says? Really, who gives a crap? Let him
yammer, you cant buy entertainment that good for any price. It comes
from his heart.

Skyler King wrote in message ...
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:

"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

--


Well, BPL is good for something I guess...anything that makes a
keyclown miserable is a good thing.

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court
in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have
even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

Was that after only one NAL?

Yeah, why not? You don't need to get more than one speeding ticket to get
your day in court do you?


Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's?

So where did the huge volume of laws on the books come from when all this
country started with are a handful of articles under the US Constitution?

I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing
law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's
why they are called rules, not laws.

Its call "Adminastrive Law". Ask an attorney. He'll tell you the same thing.


Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked
55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work
assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of
the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of
cops
everywere I went.

Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over
the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on
all big rigs.



The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines
before you can begin to contest their ruling.

No.

How many times can you
afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf?

Have you paid any FCC fines?



If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and
there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

See above.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

Ah, Frank's right.

You guys need to read this before going any further.

Sample court motion below.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf

Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work.

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve

This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have
even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.


I will. Got a link?

Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail.

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve



What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't
keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner
associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue,
you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of
such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So
as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.


For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511.
This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law
includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law
enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to
intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has
written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to
intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable
cause.

You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search
warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have
audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find
the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good
without violation the so called privacy of the communication.


As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you
that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently
before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well
as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read
because the bill is so large.

Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power.

One such law that almost snuck through
in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against
drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product
was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through
congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips
their own bills through, too.

So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is
that they don't.

Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time
Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal
Agency.

The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists
hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress
their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws.
That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate.

I agree there.



Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked
55
MPH zones, cops or not.


Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've
only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had
only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now.

I've seen some that can use a few more.



Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work
assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of
the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of
cops
everywere I went.


Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios......

When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with
his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder.



snip
I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape

They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it
was
so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a
long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over
the
air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without
extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then
becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding
edvidence.


Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC
requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is
admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to
determine the weight of that evidence.

See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC.



That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.
snip
The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.


You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found
guilty without a trial.

You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too.

You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC,
so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to
pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department
for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an
issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted-
in the debt.

Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the
legal process.



If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and
there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.


The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court.

No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf

Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3.

I'll quote it here.
__________________________________
Apart from this and other limited

exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders

is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a)

of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding

4

to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the

Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the

manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. §

402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of

Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside,

suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of .

.. . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made

reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1).

__________________________________________________ ___________


This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently
filed in District Court.

The only way
you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil
suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The
problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do
not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how
the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'.

Read it from the horse's month in the above quote.



EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.


Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing,
as I said before.


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.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company.


It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision
by the company. So far it has worked well.

And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that
several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham
ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done
as a mater of principle.



There is nothing that prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.


But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated.

Yes, but still some go ahead anyway.



snip
The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.


That's naive.

No. Its very well documented. The Supreme Court gets cases filed by the
truck load. They pick and choose which ones they wish to hear if they feel
it will make a substantial difference in the existing laws. Row vs. Wade,
the abortion case, is one case in point. Otherwise they decline to hear the
case.

Every other agency of the government operates under the
table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different?

What do they do "under the table"? Wear knee pads?



snip
See this link


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2....access.gpo.go
v/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman.
And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you
stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try
reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman:

I did. What you forget is that only specifies the minimum requirements for
the job. No were does it say that is the limit of his duties.



http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm


snip
If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should
know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.


The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman,
maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news.


snip
I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported
case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable
to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the
802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).


Even government corruption has it's limits.

So does tolerating the digital trash generated by BPL. Enough people
complained about it that is why it got canned.



snip
You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason
why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.


Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should
have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane
Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency
situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM.
And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was
done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can
say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those
types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to
be the communications backbone when landlines fail.

Tell that to the Police and Fire officials during 9/11. You can also ask
Keith on this group what he thinks. He is a Ham and has done plenty of
emergency comms in his job.


I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))


Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed
myself as one.

Suit yourself.


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

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


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.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going
to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get
better.


Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although
sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as
a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except
that it will come.

Were is that dang time machine they keep sying is "just around the corner"?
8-))


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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