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 =---