Thanks for the great site reference Ruido. After looking at the
letters I noticed a few things:

1 - all enforcement letters come in response to complaints made by
people who were affected by deliberate tampering and/or repeated
threats.

2 - The letters were in response to licensed operators, or those with a
license application pending.

3 - The FCC is a funny entity. I think for the first time ever, I
agree with Howard Stern. They offer $80 licenses for $20 products; no
training, no personalized frequency, no benefit included, except being
duped into paying a cleverly masked tax. If restricted use for these
frequencies is really an issue, the FCC should first approach the
manufactures of these products and ensure that proper visibility for
the license requirement is included on the packaging.

4 - I do not fall under any of the pretenses described on that page
that would qualify for enforcement by the FCC. My $20 handset will be
used on channels 8 - 13, which are approved for use without a license.
My intended use will clearly be within the 2 mile radius of the FRM
frequency.

Noise From Afar wrote:
Interesting FCC actions against unlicensed operators at URL:

http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement...2003/0823.html

After reading it, I wonder what YOUR answer would be now to the
Header=20
Question ??
=20
=20
--=20
ruido de ic=F3gnito