"jim" wrote in message
...



thats a lot of ifs jerry. doesn't it sound bizarre when one talks about
'agents' monitoring? 1984 anyone???
seperately, this whole talk of trying to dictate 11 meter usage is fine
but unenforceable. listen to the nickel. does anyone really think u.s.
laws will make a difference? in the current climate where most of the
planet says stuff it to the u.s. 11 meters is the least of anyones
worries...

All I was trying to do was to get a correct interpretation of the US
regulations regarding spectrum management within its own territory.
Naturally, we cannot tell other
nations what to do, BUT *certain* issues can be negotiated thru treaties.
Essentially, it is 'you scratch
my back and I'll scratch your'n'. For example, some
little-known country wants grain from the US and that
country is jamming broadcast signals with a powerful
transmitter which messes up domestic stations. Whatcha
gonna do? You negotiate.

Agents monitor everyday--we just don't know it. It's been going on since the
FCC was created. One of the
radio services that has given them the most trouble has
been 11 Meter CB. What happens on "the nickel" can't
be regulated internationally by US law; common sense
would tell us that. But US law DOES apply to US citizens within Conus. If
our laws pertaining to radio, or
anything else for that matter, are unenforceable, then we
are in far more trouble than we know. What people don't
realize is that radio HAS to be regulated, and people have to have *some*
training in its use for it to be effective. All one has to do is look at 11
meters within the USA, not what happens outside, to see what a mess
it is. Regulation, licensing, and enforcement should never
have been done away with. Many of those who think the
regulations can't, wouldn't , shouldn't apply are the ones who truly can't
see the harm that can come to their OWN
use of radio, and, indeed, think we should just do away with any rules and
just talk anywhere we want to. Again
that is because they simply don't know. That is the same
atmosphere that existed in the early days before the Communications Act of
1934; i.e., it's been in that mess before.

Now back to the the rules we were discussing. The regulation we were
studying was the one about whether
one can be cited for having alleged illegal equipment in one's home in
conjunction with a CB-particularly ampli-
fiers. It says that (paraphrased) "if such equipment is found on one's
possession or on the premises, then it will
be presumed to have been used provided that OTHER evidence is found." To
me, that means that the "OTHER" evidence is prior monitoring, spectral
analysis, or other means of inspection) is grounds for warning, citation, or
fine as the case may be.

While "to you", Jim, 11 meters is of no concern, it has
caused some problems to other services. However, *some* operators are more
and more bringing attention to themselves by not respecting the boundaries,
rules, or
"fences" and operating where they will. Suffice it to say that, inspite of
those who scoff and say otherwise, there
are initiatives being considered--some Congressional,
some within FCC itself, some ARRL-sponsored, and some encouraged by
individuals--to curb the abuses brought on by the "unimportant" 11 Meter
issue. And
some of the people complaining are those OUTSIDE the
USA who are being interfered with. Eleven Meters is
not important because of its own constituency that WANTS it to remain
unimportant lest action be taken to
place sanctions upon it.

The rules ARE enforceable within the USA and I can tell
you that, thanks to the issue of 10 Meter intruders, there
are things I know of even as I write this. But let's not get
into a flame war and character asassinations. It is an emotional issue and
only time will tell what comes about.


Jerry