|
Pilot Travel Centers Fined $125,000!
Before the
Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. Knoxville, Tennessee ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-DL-099 NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001 FRN # 0006096010 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004 By the Commission: I. Introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment authorization. II. background Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits, inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market. The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB") radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing. However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB." Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require certification prior to marketing or importation. From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002, Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford, Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations, the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB transceivers. As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2, 1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and imprisonment. On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters. Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful. Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies. On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively) from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found that they were all non-certified CB transmitters. III. Discussion Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) [i]n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter[.] Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that "[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability. Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters. Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies. Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's." Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization procedures. We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000 for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000. IV. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary ATTACHMENT December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. 11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. 12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. 13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. |
"Jerry" wrote in message ...[i]
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. Knoxville, Tennessee ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-DL-099 NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001 FRN # 0006096010 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004 By the Commission: I. Introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment authorization. II. background Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits, inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market. The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB") radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing. However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB." Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require certification prior to marketing or importation. From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002, Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford, Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations, the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB transceivers. As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2, 1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and imprisonment. On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters. Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful. Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies. On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively) from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found that they were all non-certified CB transmitters. III. Discussion Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter[.] Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that "[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability. Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters. Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies. Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's." Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization procedures. We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000 for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000. IV. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary ATTACHMENT December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. 11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. 12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. 13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it! |
As long as folks like Oxendine continue to accept this as enforcement,
nothing will change. Corporations get popped and pay fines all the time. It's accepted and often standard business practice in the USA and a specialty of the right wing. The fine is listed as an expense at tax time. The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Meanwhile, the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense of superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying, "Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning process. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and that sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more than the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Meanwhile, the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense of superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying, "Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning process. |
|
"Psychiatrist to keyclowns" wrote in message om...[i] "Jerry" wrote in message ... Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. Knoxville, Tennessee ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-DL-099 NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001 FRN # 0006096010 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004 By the Commission: I. Introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment authorization. II. background Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits, inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market. The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB") radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing. However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB." Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require certification prior to marketing or importation. From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002, Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford, Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations, the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB transceivers. As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2, 1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and imprisonment. On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters. Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful. Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies. On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively) from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found that they were all non-certified CB transmitters. III. Discussion Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter[.] Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that "[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability. Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters. Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies. Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's." Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization procedures. We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000 for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000. IV. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary ATTACHMENT December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. 11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. 12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. 13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it! Betcha slapped your little dinky while reading it too. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: No twisted ****ehad this is another step in ridding the truckers and others of export radios. amp makers will be next, rome wasnt built in one day Can ya pry them from cold dead fingers too? :D |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and that sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more than the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch. I think you can bankrupt on that one. |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:16:20 GMT, "U Know Who"
wrote: [i] "Psychiatrist to keyclowns" wrote in message . com... "Jerry" wrote in message ... Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. Knoxville, Tennessee ) ) ) ) ) File No. EB-03-DL-099 NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001 FRN # 0006096010 NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: November 18, 2004 Released: November 22, 2004 By the Commission: I. Introduction In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. ("Pilot") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). Specifically, we find Pilot apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices without the required Commission equipment authorization. II. background Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy, and prohibits, inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards to control interference before they reach the market. The Commission carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two ways. First, the Commission establishes technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market complies with the technical requirements. The equipment authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that it complies with the technical requirements. For a large number of devices, including Citizens Band ("CB") radio transmitting equipment, equipment may not be marketed within the United States unless it has been tested and found to comply with Commission technical requirements, granted Commission Certification, and properly labeled. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service ("ARS") frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing. However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment. To address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB type acceptance requirements by defining a "CB Transmitter" as "a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB." Despite these changes to the definition of a CB transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") released a Public Notice "to clarify the Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio spectrum, including '10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS) equipment." The Notice stated that transmitters intended for operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically included ARS transceivers designed "such that they can easily be modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range into the frequency bands" of the CB and other non-amateur radio services among those devices subject to equipment authorization procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission considers these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies where the use of type accepted equipment is required "because of the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating frequency range." The Commission's Office of General Counsel ("OGC") later released a letter on the importation and marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such transmitters that "have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire" fall within the definition of "CB transmitter" under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore require certification prior to marketing or importation. From December 9, 2001 through May 6, 2003, the Commission received four complaints specifically naming Pilot Travel Centers as marketing non-certified CB transceivers. From August 2001 through September 2002, Enforcement Bureau field agents visited eleven Pilot retail outlets at the following locations: Sulphur Springs, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Weatherford, Texas; Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. At these locations, the stores displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters. Prior to the field visits, OET had tested all of these models and found each of them to be non-certified CB transceivers. As a result of agent inspections of Pilot retail stores from December 2, 1999 to September 6, 2002, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued nine Citations to Pilot. The Bureau issued one Citation to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and eight Citations to different Pilot retail outlets in Brooks, Oregon; Casa Grande, California; Quartzsite, California; North Palm Springs, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Barstow, California; Boron, California; and Hesperia, California. Each of these Citations advised Pilot of observed violations of the Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned Pilot that future violations may subject Pilot to civil monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and imprisonment. On December 7, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau's Dallas Field Office ("Dallas Office") received from Pilot a response dated December 6, 2001 to the Citation issued to Pilot's corporate headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. The response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary stated that "[a]ll of the radios in question are marketed as amateur radios and, as sold, operate on the 10-meter amateur band. Part 97 of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95, governs these transceivers. Part 97 does not require type acceptance of amateur radios." On January 28, 2002, the Dallas Office mailed a letter to Pilot's corporate headquarters addressing Pilot's response to the Citation. The letter advised Pilot that the devices referred to in the Citation are intended for use on CB as well as ARS frequencies, because they have built-in design features which facilitate their operation on CB frequencies by the exercise of simple, end-user accessible, modifications to the devices. The letter further advised that such devices are considered CB transmitters pursuant to Section 95.603(c) of the Rules, irrespective of any labeling purporting the devices to be "Amateur Radio Transceivers." The Dallas Office received no further response from Pilot. In addition, Enforcement Bureau Field Offices received five other responses from Citations issued to Pilot, one response from Pilot's Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary and four other responses from a Pilot Paralegal. All five responses similarly disputed the Commission's statements in the Citations that Pilot illegally marketed non-certified CB transmitters. Enforcement Bureau Field Offices issued follow-up responses to each of these letters advising Pilot that the devices in question are considered CB transmitters and that marketing of the non-certified devices was not lawful. Subsequent to issuance of the above-mentioned Citations and follow-up letters, from December 11, 2003 to July 3, 2004, Enforcement Bureau field agents made seven visits to Pilot retail stores nationwide where Pilot offered for sale non-certified models of Galaxy brand CB transceivers. As noted above, OET had already tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the models could be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies. On December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, Enforcement Bureau field agents purchased three Galaxy transceivers (models DX33HML, DX99V and DX66V, respectively) from three different Pilot retail stores and had them tested by the laboratory of OET. On April 1, 2004, the laboratory of OET issued an evaluation report for each of the three purchased transceivers and found that they were all non-certified CB transmitters. III. Discussion Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter[.] Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that "[e]ach CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be certificated." Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that "[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for CB in Part 95 of the Rules]." This section also states that "([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services . will not be certificated.)" Additionally, Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability. Prior to October 2002, Pilot offered for sale various non-certified CB transmitters at eleven of its retail outlets. Commission Field Offices issued a total of nine Citations to Pilot's corporate headquarters and its retail outlets warning Pilot that future violations would subject Pilot to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. Subsequently, in forty-seven separate instances from October 8, 2002 to July 3, 2004, Pilot offered for sale various models of non-certified Galaxy brand CB transmitters, which had all been tested and determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters. Although they were labeled as "amateur radios," the specified models of Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation on CB frequencies. Additionally, in at least eleven of the forty-seven instances of marketing by Pilot, Pilot employees referred to the devices as "CB's." Based on the evidence before us, we find that in thirteen instances -- six on December 11, 2003, one each on December 16, 17, and 18, 2003, three on March 25, 2004, and one on July 3, 2004 -- Pilot offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. Section 503(b) of the Act, authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require." Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of Pilot's violations is $91,000. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with Commission technical requirements. The proliferation of non-certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization procedures. We are particularly troubled that Pilot continues to violate these rules despite receiving nine Citations for marketing non-certified CB transmitters. These Citations put Pilot on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is unlawful, yet Pilot intentionally continued to market the unlawful equipment. Pilot's continuing violations of the equipment authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules. Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses) to the instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to propose a forfeiture of $125,000 for Pilot's apparent violations. Therefore, we find Pilot apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $125,000. IV. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL, Pilot Travel Centers, L.L.C. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture amount or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The response if any must be mailed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: South Central Region Headquarters and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 200532500001. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to: Pilot Travel Centers L.L.C., 5508 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37909. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary ATTACHMENT December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #320, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. December 11, 2003, Pilot center #433, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceivers Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. December 16, 2003, Pilot center #95, Wildwood, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 8. December 17, 2003, Pilot center #94, Punta, Florida. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 9. December 18, 2003, Pilot center #328, Dallas, Texas. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed, offered for sale, and sold. 10. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX33HML displayed and offered for sale. 11. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. 12. March 25, 2004, Pilot center #460, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX99V displayed and offered for sale. 13. July 3, 2004, Pilot center #35, South Bend, Indiana. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy model DX66V displayed and offered for sale. HEHEHEHE...more keyclowns gonna cry now. Doncha love it! Betcha slapped your little dinky while reading it too. He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in news.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 |
Lancer wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in news.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 Exit 4/20 too. |
On 24 Nov 2004 01:30:45 GMT, Steveo
wrote: Lancer wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in news.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 Exit 4/20 too. Is that in Ohio? 470 is just south of Dallas. |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:44:39 GMT, Lancer wrote:
On 24 Nov 2004 01:30:45 GMT, Steveo wrote: Lancer wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in news.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 Exit 4/20 too. Is that in Ohio? 470 is just south of Dallas. Didn't look close enough at your post, 20 doesn't run though Ohio.. |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message | | | Betcha slapped your little dinky while reading it too. | | more homo sexual innuendos | hmmm...masterbating is now gay?????????..i know i think of females when i do it......or does it jus bring gay thoughts to you when someone mentions wanking? glad pilot centers arnt taking this to serious...:) their prices arnt too bad when you figure u dont have to pay shipping thats over inflated...nice catalog too, in color no less...:) thx akc for more pretty pictures to look at..:) harv |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... | "Leland C. Scott" wrote: | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | ... | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated | violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers | may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they | get busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and | that sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much | more than the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight | up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch. | | I think you can bankrupt on that one. when you check out what the fine is for a gas spill from the EPA , the fine thats being paid for the radios isnt even pocket change...they wont sweat it and they are all company operated centers, none are franchised... harv |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... | | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | ... | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated | violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers may | be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get | busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and that | sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more than | the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the legal | ladder. This would be the case to watch. | -- | Leland C. Scott | KC8LDO | i think a company whose one branch makes over 5 billion a yr will just shrug this off.... harv |
"harvey" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... | "Leland C. Scott" wrote: | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | ... | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for | repeated violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot | Travel centers may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to | pay the fine if they get busted. The real fine is having to go to | court to fight the FCC, and that sounds like what may happen. When it | does it could cost them much more than the $125K fine depending on | how far they want to take the fight | up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch. | | I think you can bankrupt on that one. when you check out what the fine is for a gas spill from the EPA , the fine thats being paid for the radios isnt even pocket change...they wont sweat it and they are all company operated centers, none are franchised... harv Tell me about it..Pesticide trucks draw more attention for spill clean-up and on-site license. I pride myself in compliance with that, mostly for the applicator exposure. The LD-50 on most of the pesticides we use are at least 3000 or higher, so you'd have to eat/drink massive amounts to kill you. Long term effect is bad typing. |
Lancer wrote:
Didn't look close enough at your post, 20 doesn't run though Ohio.. Dunno about thru, but 20 is a major vain in my part of Ohio. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... | "harvey" wrote: | "Steveo" wrote in message | ... | | "Leland C. Scott" wrote: | | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | | ... | | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for | | repeated violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot | | Travel centers may be wholly own franchises where the owner has to | | pay the fine if they get busted. The real fine is having to go to | | court to fight the FCC, and that sounds like what may happen. When it | | does it could cost them much more than the $125K fine depending on | | how far they want to take the | fight | | up the legal ladder. This would be the case to watch. | | | | I think you can bankrupt on that one. | | when you check out what the fine is for a gas spill from the EPA , the | fine thats being paid for the radios isnt even pocket change...they wont | sweat it and they are all company operated centers, none are | franchised... harv | | Tell me about it..Pesticide trucks draw more attention for spill clean-up | and on-site license. I pride myself in compliance with that, mostly for the | applicator exposure. The LD-50 on most of the pesticides we use are at | least 3000 or higher, so you'd have to eat/drink massive amounts to kill | you. | | Long term effect is bad typing. i know as i get older its harder to hit seperate keys and its also according to my thc levels.....hehe buit then again the exposure to all the junk i used in the service i know doesnt help matters..any one ever use green death or red lead? does wonders for your health harv |
"harvey" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message | Long term effect is bad typing. i know as i get older its harder to hit seperate keys and its also according to my thc levels.....hehe I wuz talking about my typing. |
"harvey" wrote in message .. . "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... | | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | ... | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated | violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers may | be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get | busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and that | sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more than | the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the legal | ladder. This would be the case to watch. | -- | Leland C. Scott | KC8LDO | i think a company whose one branch makes over 5 billion a yr will just shrug this off.... harv For a large company yeah you're right. But then again if one of the executives ends up in jail, which they can, then taking the radios off the shelf would have looked like the smart thing to do and then just shrug it off. Lately the government likes throwing white collar company executives in jail for wrong doing. After all just how much money are they going to realistically loose anyway from dumping the questionable radios from their sales line up? Not much is my guess. If the FCC chooses to play hard-ball I expect they will just do what the FCC told them to do, and not waste any more time or money on something that won't materially affect their bottom line. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... | | "harvey" wrote in message | .. . | | "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message | ... | | | | "Twistedhed" wrote in message | | ... | | The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the | | feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). | | | | Except when the "go to jail" part of the penalty comes up for repeated | | violations. Also don't overlook that some of those Pilot Travel centers | may | | be wholly own franchises where the owner has to pay the fine if they get | | busted. The real fine is having to go to court to fight the FCC, and | that | | sounds like what may happen. When it does it could cost them much more | than | | the $125K fine depending on how far they want to take the fight up the | legal | | ladder. This would be the case to watch. | | -- | | Leland C. Scott | | KC8LDO | | | i think a company whose one branch makes over 5 billion a yr will just | shrug | this off.... | harv | | For a large company yeah you're right. But then again if one of the | executives ends up in jail, which they can, then taking the radios off the | shelf would have looked like the smart thing to do and then just shrug it | off. Lately the government likes throwing white collar company executives in | jail for wrong doing. After all just how much money are they going to | realistically loose anyway from dumping the questionable radios from their | sales line up? Not much is my guess. If the FCC chooses to play hard-ball I | expect they will just do what the FCC told them to do, and not waste any | more time or money on something that won't materially affect their bottom | line. | | | -- | Leland C. Scott | KC8LDO | | Wireless Network | Mobile computing | on the go brought | to you by Micro$oft | |i'll have to agree with ya on that leland-wouldnt ya like to be the fly on the wall and hear the conversation that happens when they pull in the guy or gal who decided to add them to their line-up on the selves...lol....fingers may be pointing all over the place..lol harv |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... | "harvey" wrote: | "Steveo" wrote in message | | Long term effect is bad typing. | | i know as i get older its harder to hit seperate keys and its also | according to my thc levels.....hehe | | I wuz talking about my typing. i know and i was kinda giving an excuse fer mine..:D |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:55:49 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Lancer wrote in news.com: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in synews.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 This one?? Store No. 433 Address 8787 South Lancaster Road Dallas, TX 75241 Interstate I-20, Exit 470 Phone (972) 228-2467 Fax (972) 228-4386 Don't know about the store number or phone number, but thats where its located. |
"Lancer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:55:49 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in ynews.com: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in asynews.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 This one?? Store No. 433 Address 8787 South Lancaster Road Dallas, TX 75241 Interstate I-20, Exit 470 Phone (972) 228-2467 Fax (972) 228-4386 Don't know about the store number or phone number, but thats where its located. I "believe" the store in Bentleyville PA is as well - Just off I-70. I was there a couple weeks ago and some of the radios I seen in the display "appeared" to be some of the brands known to be not so legal. But that was a couple weeks ago, they may have pulled them by now. But there is a Truck Stop not far from there - a hole in the wall set up, with a CB shop that sells those sorts of sets also. It's in Madison, PA also off I-70. I know people who've bought or were informed when asked about - linears being on stock. They make little attempt to hide that fact. Or the fact of beefing up radios. I think if memory serves me correct, they display the illegal radios right out in the open. Rambling man |
|
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27344-41A35AD8-570 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: As long as folks like Oxendine continue to accept this as enforcement, nothing will change. Corporations get popped and pay fines all the time. It's accepted and often standard business practice in the USA and a specialty of the right wing. The fine is listed as an expense at tax time. The large corporations continue to do business as usual while the feds pacify insignificants with smoke and mirrors (fines). Meanwhile, the Oxendines of the land are easily fooled. Armed with a false sense of superiority, Oxendine, in all actuality, is saying, "Thank-you-sir-my-I-have-another?", when he is unable to grasp exactly what it is he just received. Cut him some slack. He's in a learning process. No twisted ****ehad Oh,,I didn't mean to anger your impotent self. Try and get that admitted communication deficit under control and stop permitting your emotions to dictate your behavior. this is another step in ridding the truckers and others of export radios. amp makers will be next, rome wasnt built in one day Correct, it was brought down in one day. Rome burned while Nero fiddled. I'm your dj. Enjoy the music, as the song remains the same and has since the seventies. You aren't permitted near the turntable, so do the only thing you can,,,,,go back to your corner and bitch about the tunes and blame me for your misery. |
|
|
"Rambling Man" wrote in message .verio.net...
"Lancer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:55:49 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in ynews.com: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:56:08 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Lancer wrote in asynews.com: He might slap it more if he knew that Pilots were still selling those radios. HEHEHEHE.. really which ones?? Exit 470, I-20 This one?? Store No. 433 Address 8787 South Lancaster Road Dallas, TX 75241 Interstate I-20, Exit 470 Phone (972) 228-2467 Fax (972) 228-4386 Don't know about the store number or phone number, but thats where its located. I "believe" the store in Bentleyville PA is as well - Just off I-70. I was there a couple weeks ago and some of the radios I seen in the display "appeared" to be some of the brands known to be not so legal. But that was a couple weeks ago, they may have pulled them by now. But there is a Truck Stop not far from there - a hole in the wall set up, with a CB shop that sells those sorts of sets also. It's in Madison, PA also off I-70. I know people who've bought or were informed when asked about - linears being on stock. They make little attempt to hide that fact. Or the fact of beefing up radios. I think if memory serves me correct, they display the illegal radios right out in the open. Rambling man Rambling man whats the name and address of that CB shop in madison, is is bobs CB shop? dont worry about them getting FCC fines twistedhed says it is part of doing business they can asorb it lol |
"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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Large corporations pay fines opposed to having their folks go to jail. The obvious exceptions were the Michael Milkens. You forgot about the savings and loan scandals, the Enron executives going to jail, Martha Stewart etc. That's not how it works with franchises. Franchises are required to carry certain items. But not all items. How many time have you heard, but never really paid attention to, the statement at the end of commercials etc. that states "At participating stores"? Just because it is a franchise doesn't automatically mean they carry everything a company own store does. In fact I've been in many Pilot Travel centers and I specifically check the two-way radio section out just for fun. Funny how some of them you don't see even one of those import radios the FCC has fined Pilot over. The fines are paid and its business as usual. These companies usually don't fight these fines. In fact, there is no large corporation has lodged such a court room battle (which you speak of concerning radio gear, amps, etc) for the exact reason you mention...it is much easier tand cheaper to pay the fine and continue,,,,,business-as-usual. After they remove the offending product. Look how skittish the TV stations are after the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction". It was only a $550K fine to the network. I'm sure it didn't dent their bank account very much. It wasn't much bigger than the fine that Pilot got. The networks are running scared about what they show on the air to the point where some local stations wouldn't air the uncut movie "Saving Private Ryan" for veterans day because they were afraid they would get slapped with another fine. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... The ONLY way to change this is via legislation, and we all know the angry hammie who is pre-occupied with such nonsense is merely reactive, not proactive. As silly as it is it just so happens that its the "angry hammie", a.k.a. the ARRL, that is going to save the CBer's behind. What I'm talking about is the direction the FCC is going in regards to the BPL issue. Whether you like it or not BPL is going to affect everybody using HF, irregardless if they so happen to be a Ham or CBer. It would be much more productive if the bandwidth on this news group wasn't wasted debating the same old issues, but instead joining together in a united front to fight the FCC, and the deep pocket corporations, wanting to pollute the airwaves with RF trash from the digital signals on the power lines using BPL.The CBers really need some kind of national origination to represent their interests. Right now they're getting a free ride, so to speak, courtesy of the ARRL. Anything that benefits the Ham community in regards to stopping BPL also benefits CBers as well since your band, 11m, is right there next to the 10m Ham band. Both bands would be heavily affect by BPL noise. Just something for you to think about while you're ready to pound away at your keyboard in response. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Again, if ANYTHING changed since the seventies regarding enforcement, it is that now is the best time as any to buy a radio and begin freebanding. Enforcement is practically non-existent unless you draw major attention to yourself with splatter and bleed. Business as usual, and with the cooler weather comes the skip,,,,,27.555 is kicking up major contacts again and no one on the freq is remotely concerned with a single hammie's angry, jealous, errant, and reactive behavior. Happy holidays. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
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 =--- |
"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. 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. If you read the enforcement logs you'll see where they say you have to supply them with a copy of your tax return if you claim you can't pay the fine. The FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional shakedown tour in the vice district. Agreed. 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, 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. 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. and make up their own rules as they go; The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47. 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. 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 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? If it isn't there then there is no constitutional right to challenge. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may even agree with him on some points. 8-)) 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. 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. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "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. 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. If you read the enforcement logs you'll see where they say you have to supply them with a copy of your tax return if you claim you can't pay the fine. The FCC could do far more to enforce the regulations than their occasional shakedown tour in the vice district. Agreed. 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, 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. 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. and make up their own rules as they go; The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47. 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. 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 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? If it isn't there then there is no constitutional right to challenge. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may even agree with him on some points. 8-)) 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. 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. Yes, you and your sock puppies are not happy. Create a few more, and just maybe something will go your way. Hello Legeo. |
"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. 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. Very well said Frank. Landshark -- Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments. |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... | || There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. this isnrt towards anyone ..jus a musing on my part.... ""750K licensed Hams in the USA."" and thats how hams keep the fcc reminded there are individuals out here using radios. if it wernt for that reminder , where do ya'll think the freqs would be? a no-mans land used by every industrial use imaginable controlled by who ever was highest bidder for the spectrum. i wonder how many cb'ers are out there? we'll never know how to count them with out things such as licensing...:) oops,guess they took care of that huh? harv |
"harvey" wrote in message ... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... | || There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. this isnrt towards anyone ..jus a musing on my part.... ""750K licensed Hams in the USA."" and thats how hams keep the fcc reminded there are individuals out here using radios. if it wernt for that reminder , where do ya'll think the freqs would be? a no-mans land used by every industrial use imaginable controlled by who ever was highest bidder for the spectrum. i wonder how many cb'ers are out there? we'll never know how to count them with out things such as licensing...:) oops,guess they took care of that huh? harv Yeah. No argument there. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com