Hate to say I told you so -- but I will.

Best get an answer from the horse's mouth and ignore OPINIONS.

But then OPINIONS cost nothing and worth about as much

BINGO

--

"thomas" wrote in message
...
Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.


Representative Number : ????? (marked out)

==========================================
bingo
thomas

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:10:50 -0700, AMHAM73 wrote:

Hate to say I told you so -- but I will.

That was the answer knowlegeable folks here came up with from the
very beginning.

Best get an answer from the horse's mouth and ignore OPINIONS.

You would be surprised at the list of WRONG replies from the
Commission that has been assembled over the years, primarily caused
by the person who replied not understanding what the answer should
have been to a legal or technical question because s/he was neither
a lawyer nor an engineer.

And the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that in spite of what
oral or written advice one gets from a government office, if the
law is otherwise, the oral or written advice is of no value and
cannot be relied upon.

The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer
before you ask it.

But then OPINIONS cost nothing and worth about as much

I'll be glad to charge you for legal and technical opinions which
will hold up under all professsional scrutiny, then.

Others get it for free under the ARRL member assistance program.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
ARRL Volunteer Consulting Engineer

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may still need
to pay a license fee if I get caught. But I won't be fined $10000, given
that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.

We need common sense other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do. The legal and policy systems are based on common sense
eventually.

Thomas

And the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that in spite of what
oral or written advice one gets from a government office, if the
law is otherwise, the oral or written advice is of no value and
cannot be relied upon.

"thomas" wrote in
:

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may
still need to pay a license fee if I get caught. But I won't be fined
$10000, given that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.



I'm not sure that anyone, anywhere, had the $10000 fine assessed. Anyone
know of any cases?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

See URL:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

FCC Affirms $10,000 Fine in Amateur Pirate Case

May be some more at Google.com
Type in "fcc $10,000 fine"

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"thomas" wrote in
:

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may
still need to pay a license fee if I get caught. But I won't be fined
$10000, given that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.



I'm not sure that anyone, anywhere, had the $10000 fine assessed. Anyone
know of any cases?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

"AMHAM73" wrote in
news:RQ0Ma.85500$Pc5.60639@fed1read01:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

Well I assume you really meant:

"How about your man on the street who just uses a GMRS for ABNORMAL
UNLICENSED communication?"


Well a radio shack page sez "The penalty for GMRS unlicensed operation is a
fine of up to $8,000".

http://support.tandy.com/support_ele...oc31/31384.htm


Will they slap you with that much -- probably depends on the entire case and
severity thereof -- but I don't know.
But I sure wouldn't take a chance to find out.

GMRS licensed operators (like Hams) guard their spectrum jealously -- they
will and do turn in offenders.

Really want to know -- ask the FCC as they are the ones who levy the fine
!!!

Why flount the rules -- pay the $80 and don't worry about it.

You paid $___ for a driver license or did you.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"AMHAM73" wrote in
news:RQ0Ma.85500$Pc5.60639@fed1read01:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:58:08 -0400, thomas wrote:

And the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that in spite of what
oral or written advice one gets from a government office, if the
law is otherwise, the oral or written advice is of no value and
cannot be relied upon.

Go read the case of _Richmond v Office of Personnel Management_
where Charlie Richmond relied on a written statement from the Navy
Personnel Office about what he could earn and not forfeit his
disability retirement payments, but on audit the retirement system
found that the Navy office had quoted a wrong figure, and the
penalty that poor Charlie had to pay was no pension payments for 6
months as the law specified.

This was upheld by the Supremes on the grounds that no government
agency official has the power to change what The Congress has
enacted.

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

AFAIK IRS has been granted the power to waive the penalty in that case.
It's their decision, and good public relations, but they didn't have
to under the _Richmond_ decision unless The Congress ordered them to
do so.

Dieter ??

The FCC doesn't have to waive anything it doesn't want.

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may still need
to pay a license fee if I get caught.

That's locking the barn door after the horse has fled. You have to
pay it BEFORE you are caught to avoid the administrative or criminal
penalties for unlicensed operation. It doesn't take a graduate
degree in rocket science to figure that one out.

But I won't be fined $10000, given
that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.

If you are not in violation, no one will say anything. If you are
in violation, a "letter" won't help.

We need common sense other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do.

Common sense says that the world is flat. If you are dealing with
law or science, you need to listen to the professionals because they're
the ones who come up with, enforce, and interpret the law or the scientific
principles.

The legal and policy systems are based on common sense eventually.

Boy, are you naive! How long have you been dealing with FCC Rules
and policy? Or even plain ol' traffic laws?

If FCC policy would have been based on common sense there would no
longer be a CB, let alone FRS or MURS or non-licensed wireless
devices, and there wuld have been adequate enforcement from the very
beginning to ensure that that was the case.

But no, certain bureaucrats 25+ years ago (and I do know the names
and faces) were looking for ways to do less work, and we spectrum
users are all paying the penalty and into the forseeable future.

Don't get me started.

--
73 de K2ASP / KAE8605 - Phil Kane

On 30 Jun 2003 20:25:59 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

The maximum penalty can be issued, but in real life it may be
reduced. If there is no other problem, the initial NAL amount
(see below) can very well be in the low four figures.

In issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability to monetary forfeiture,
the issuing official is guided by a set table of penalties for
various infractions and violations, with upward and downward
factors specified. Then the subject has the right to reply, stating
why the penalty should be reduced or eliminated. Finally, the
issuing official is required to consider several factors in the
reply, including ability to pay, severity of the offense, ignoring
prior warnings, and culpability and cooperation of the individual,
in setting the amount specified in the Notice of Forfeiture.

Of course, if the subject merely fails to reply or even worse,
tells the Commission to "buzz off", then the whole enchilada is
levied. One of the most significant cases in punishing a radio
broadcast pirate started when the subject told the inspector "****
you" and the rest is history. We went all the way.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"thomas" wrote in message ...
i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================

if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

RIGHT ON!

I told you these idiots don't know what the hell they are talking about.

It ALWAYS feels so good to tell 'em; "I TOLD YOU SO"!

- Stewart (N0MHS)