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. You might also notice that lately the FCC
rarely fines any person or company an amount that's beyond their means
to pay. It should be glaringly obvious that the primary focus of the
FCC is on the money, not on the enforcement. I wouldn't be suprised if
the FCC performs financial background checks before issuing NALs. The
FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional
shakedown tour in the vice district.


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.


Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches
without a warrant, impose penalties without due process, and make up
their own rules as they go; yet the violations continue unabated. And
the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept.


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 -- at the very least it
would be a costly trial. That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts, or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.


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.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.


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.
It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.
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.


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.


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. 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
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.







----== 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 =---