"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