"Landshark" wrote in message
om...


Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly
10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was
the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over
practically everything in the station, I'd believe it.

Most consumers electronics now days isn't sheilded as well as it used to be.
Now almost everything comes in a plastic box. Metal cabinets are
disappearing more and more. That cheap spray on aluminium crap, I've seen
used on the inside of those plastic boxes, I don't think works nearly as
well as a good metal cabinet IMHO. Maybe Frank would like to comment on
this. I should think he would have some experience along this line.

I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I
know
what they said.

But why $30K? That seems far above what you would expect. What did he do,
give the FCC a hard time?


Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules

http://tinyurl.com/6ec86

The quote below is from that section above.

-----------------------------------------------------------
(1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty
under the provisions of this paragraph,
the Commission will issue a notice
of opportunity for hearing. The
hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing
before an administrative law judge,
conducted under procedures set out in
subpart B of this part, including procedures
for appeal and review of initial
decisions. A final Commission order assessing
a forfeiture under the provisions
of this paragraph is subject to judicial
review under section 402(a) of the
Communications Act.
(2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed
and not appealed or after a court
enters final judgment in favor of the
Commission, the forfeiture is not paid,
the Commission will refer the matter
to the Department of Justice for collection.
In an action to recover the forfeiture,
the validity and appropriateness
of the order imposing the forfeiture
are not subject to review.
----------------------------------------------

While there are some conditions that the FCC says has to be fulfilled to
qualify, it's not the whole story. What you posted are the rules, sure, just
as the US Constitution are rules too. However as we know most court cases
cite "case law" where prior higher court decisions, which have interpreted
"the rules", are used to support the current legal argument. That's what
happened in the AT&T case. The AT&T case was a NAL for "phone slamming", and
the appeals court disagreed with the FCC's interpretation of it's own rules.
Unfortunately for the FCC the appeals court decision is what counts. A court
decision at this level can be cited in other court cases to the detriment of
the FCC.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft