See URL:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

FCC Affirms $10,000 Fine in Amateur Pirate Case

May be some more at Google.com
Type in "fcc $10,000 fine"

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"thomas" wrote in
:

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may
still need to pay a license fee if I get caught. But I won't be fined
$10000, given that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.



I'm not sure that anyone, anywhere, had the $10000 fine assessed. Anyone
know of any cases?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

"AMHAM73" wrote in
news:RQ0Ma.85500$Pc5.60639@fed1read01:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

Well I assume you really meant:

"How about your man on the street who just uses a GMRS for ABNORMAL
UNLICENSED communication?"


Well a radio shack page sez "The penalty for GMRS unlicensed operation is a
fine of up to $8,000".

http://support.tandy.com/support_ele...oc31/31384.htm


Will they slap you with that much -- probably depends on the entire case and
severity thereof -- but I don't know.
But I sure wouldn't take a chance to find out.

GMRS licensed operators (like Hams) guard their spectrum jealously -- they
will and do turn in offenders.

Really want to know -- ask the FCC as they are the ones who levy the fine
!!!

Why flount the rules -- pay the $80 and don't worry about it.

You paid $___ for a driver license or did you.

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"AMHAM73" wrote in
news:RQ0Ma.85500$Pc5.60639@fed1read01:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

--
Scott
Reverse first field of address to reply

On 30 Jun 2003 20:25:59 GMT, Scott Seidman wrote:

http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stor.../01/18/3/?nc=1

This was for a guy was causing "intentional interference", and he seemed
real destructive "to get attention". How about your man on the street who
just uses a GMRS for normal communication?

The maximum penalty can be issued, but in real life it may be
reduced. If there is no other problem, the initial NAL amount
(see below) can very well be in the low four figures.

In issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability to monetary forfeiture,
the issuing official is guided by a set table of penalties for
various infractions and violations, with upward and downward
factors specified. Then the subject has the right to reply, stating
why the penalty should be reduced or eliminated. Finally, the
issuing official is required to consider several factors in the
reply, including ability to pay, severity of the offense, ignoring
prior warnings, and culpability and cooperation of the individual,
in setting the amount specified in the Notice of Forfeiture.

Of course, if the subject merely fails to reply or even worse,
tells the Commission to "buzz off", then the whole enchilada is
levied. One of the most significant cases in punishing a radio
broadcast pirate started when the subject told the inspector "****
you" and the rest is history. We went all the way.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane