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