On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 23:33:19 -0400, thomas wrote:

3. My original question was my first post in this group. Now I will opt to
leave this group for ever, based the number of ridiculous posts here. I
will find a more intelligent place with more **human** common sense.

Goodbye, Tom. Remember that if you ever need a communications
attorney to represent you in an FCC case, that's what I do for a
living, whether you "like" or "agree" with my interpretations or
not.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"thomas" wrote in message ...

3. My original question was my first post in this group. Now I will opt to
leave this group for ever, based the number of ridiculous posts here. I
will find a more intelligent place with more **human** common sense.


That is the sane decision... the only reason I'm responding on RRAP,
was because the original post was cross-posted to ARF too, and I
didn't these wacko interpretations to be given any credence in a
non-RRAP forum.

Happy Independence Day.

- Stewart

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:10:50 -0700, AMHAM73 wrote:
Hate to say I told you so -- but I will.

That was the answer knowlegeable folks here came up with from the
very beginning.

Best get an answer from the horse's mouth and ignore OPINIONS.

You would be surprised at the list of WRONG replies from the
Commission that has been assembled over the years, primarily caused
by the person who replied not understanding what the answer should
have been to a legal or technical question because s/he was neither
a lawyer nor an engineer.

And the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that in spite of what
oral or written advice one gets from a government office, if the
law is otherwise, the oral or written advice is of no value and
cannot be relied upon.

Actually, there are limits on this. If one has relied upon incorrect WRITTEN
advice from a federal agency which enforces the subject matter of the advice,
then that is sufficient to defeat civil penalties (at least it is in the
Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) - as such advice is
"substantial authority"). [Be careful of generalized statements....]

The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer
before you ask it.

Then why ask? :-)

But then OPINIONS cost nothing and worth about as much

I'll be glad to charge you for legal and technical opinions which
will hold up under all professsional scrutiny, then.

Others get it for free under the ARRL member assistance program.

Dumb looks are free also.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:20:56 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

Actually, there are limits on this. If one has relied upon incorrect
WRITTEN advice from a federal agency which enforces the subject matter
of the advice, then that is sufficient to defeat civil penalties (at
least it is in the Internal Revenue Code - 26 USC 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) -
as such advice is "substantial authority"). [Be careful of
generalized statements....]

IIRC the IRC gives the IRS specific authority to waive penalties for
reliance on incorrect IRS written responses. Charlie Richmond didn't
have that benefit, however, and neither do most other folks who deal
with the Federal government.

Read _Richmond v Office of Personnel Management_, one of my
favorite SCOTUS decisions of recent times. The only one who had
any sense of compasssion in that decision was Thurgood Marshall, J.,
who suggested in dicta that Charlie Richmond seek reclamation of the
withheld payments by means of a private bill in The Congress, which
he did and was successful.

The moral of the story: ask the right question and know the answer
before you ask it.

Then why ask? :-)

To get it on the record. Any lawyer worth his/her salt does not ask
a question without knowing what the answer will be.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"thomas" wrote in message ...
i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================

if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

RIGHT ON!

I told you these idiots don't know what the hell they are talking about.

It ALWAYS feels so good to tell 'em; "I TOLD YOU SO"!

- Stewart (N0MHS)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:31:42 -0400, "thomas"
wrote:

Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

Here's what I got from Cobra, first, my question:

Is a GMRS license required when FRS channels 8 - 14
are used on 22 channel radios?

And the Answer:

FCC license is not required for channels 1-7 only.

Mike

This is an interesting, additional question. Unfortunately the answer is
not from FCC. Could you ask FCC ) on this and post its
response?

thomas

"G. M. Alf" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:31:42 -0400, "thomas"
wrote:

Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be
required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.

Here's what I got from Cobra, first, my question:

Is a GMRS license required when FRS channels 8 - 14
are used on 22 channel radios?

And the Answer:

FCC license is not required for channels 1-7 only.

Mike

It would be helpful if you posted the email in its entirity including
the QUESTION to the FCC rep.

Also, why did you "mark out" the reps. number?

"thomas" wrote in message ...
Hi,

there have been a lot flames about the topic of the license issue of
FRS/GMRS. i don't want to be part of it. hence i opened a new thread.

i have just got a formal response from FCC. quote as follows, fyi ONLY!
==========================================


if you use only the FRS side of the radio, then you would not be required
to obtain a license. On the other hand, if you switch to the GMRS side of
the radio and transmit, you would at that point be in violation of FCC
rules.


Representative Number : ????? (marked out)

==========================================
bingo
thomas