"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.