FCC's response to my inquiry on license of FRS/GMRS
 

Hate to say I told you so -- but I will.

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

But then OPINIONS cost nothing and worth about as much

BINGO

--

"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

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.

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

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
ARRL Volunteer Consulting Engineer

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

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.

We need common sense other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do. The legal and policy systems are based on common sense
eventually.

Thomas

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.

"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

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 Mon, 30 Jun 2003 15:58:08 -0400, thomas wrote:

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.

Go read the case of _Richmond v Office of Personnel Management_
where Charlie Richmond relied on a written statement from the Navy
Personnel Office about what he could earn and not forfeit his
disability retirement payments, but on audit the retirement system
found that the Navy office had quoted a wrong figure, and the
penalty that poor Charlie had to pay was no pension payments for 6
months as the law specified.

This was upheld by the Supremes on the grounds that no government
agency official has the power to change what The Congress has
enacted.

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

AFAIK IRS has been granted the power to waive the penalty in that case.
It's their decision, and good public relations, but they didn't have
to under the _Richmond_ decision unless The Congress ordered them to
do so.

Dieter ??

The FCC doesn't have to waive anything it doesn't want.

Applying the same principle here, you **may** be right that I may still need
to pay a license fee if I get caught.

That's locking the barn door after the horse has fled. You have to
pay it BEFORE you are caught to avoid the administrative or criminal
penalties for unlicensed operation. It doesn't take a graduate
degree in rocket science to figure that one out.

But I won't be fined $10000, given
that I have the print-out of the official FCC email.

If you are not in violation, no one will say anything. If you are
in violation, a "letter" won't help.

We need common sense other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do.

Common sense says that the world is flat. If you are dealing with
law or science, you need to listen to the professionals because they're
the ones who come up with, enforce, and interpret the law or the scientific
principles.

The legal and policy systems are based on common sense eventually.

Boy, are you naive! How long have you been dealing with FCC Rules
and policy? Or even plain ol' traffic laws?

If FCC policy would have been based on common sense there would no
longer be a CB, let alone FRS or MURS or non-licensed wireless
devices, and there wuld have been adequate enforcement from the very
beginning to ensure that that was the case.

But no, certain bureaucrats 25+ years ago (and I do know the names
and faces) were looking for ways to do less work, and we spectrum
users are all paying the penalty and into the forseeable future.

Don't get me started.

--
73 de K2ASP / KAE8605 - Phil Kane

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

"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)

"thomas" writes:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it clearly on one
IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly based on a response from an IRS
agent, you will not be charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the
right amount later.

The Internal Revenue Code Section 6404(f) gives the IRS the authority to
abate any portion of a penalty or addition to tax caused by erroneous advice
"furnished to you in writing by an officer or employee of the IRS... ."
See Form 843 at
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id%3D10626,00.html
where it says in part:
````begin quote``````
The IRS will abate the penalty or addition to tax only if:

1. You reasonably relied on the written advice,
2. The written advice was in response to a specific written request you
made for advice, and
3. The penalty or addition to tax did not result from your failure to
provide the IRS with adequate or accurate information.
`````end quote```````

Reasonable reliance and provision of adequate or accurate information for
the answer are points the IRS is not willing to concede in all
circumstances.


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 think you are correct that you won't be fined the max. Having a print out
of the email _may_ not get you off the hook, though. I don't do FCC work,
so I don't know their procedures for fines. Applying the principles of
abatement of penalties under the IRS to excusing payment of fines under the
FCC is a bad thing.


We need common sense

There is no common sense.

other than "certificates or professionals" on what is
good and bad to do. The legal and policy systems are based on common sense
eventually.

Not in my experience.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

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

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.

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

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
:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it
clearly on one IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly
based on a response from an IRS agent, you will not be
charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the right
amount later.


Which publication? A letter ruling covers you. Nothing
else from the IRS will provide protection. The publications
can be wrong. If it is not a regulation, section of the code,
or some solid legal point based on a case in YOUR circuit,
then you have nothing solid.


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.

Yes, you would be fined. A google search to unearth this
thread would not help your case, either. :)

Bill

Ridiculous.

Why are you guys so confident with your interpretation of the law? You are
so confident that you even think I have already bought your theory?!

Did I EVER post in this newsgroup that I agreed with any of you many
'experts' here?

Did I ever post in this newsgroup that I believe the FCC's response is wrong
and you guys are right?

Did I ever post in this newsgroup that I will take your words instead of
FCC's?

Come on, you guys weigh yourselves too much.

Since some people here are really so **stupid**, I would like to reinstate
my position on this whole license issue:

1. I don't believe the interpretations, responses from every single person
who thinks I need a license. I don't believe them from the very beginning.
I have never believed them.

2. I take the official words from FCC as 100% correct. I never doubt them.
And I will follow them. It's funny to see someone simply can't understand
one of my arguments based on an imaginary scenario in order to disprove my
opposite opinion.

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.

4. Although I don't believe the responses from many anonymous, and/or
unauthorized, and/or unofficial, and/or over-confident people here, I really
appreciate your helps. Thank you. Thanks a million.

Tom



"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...
"thomas" wrote in
:

This is not true in the case of the federal tax. I saw it
clearly on one IRS pub, that if you filed tax incorrectly
based on a response from an IRS agent, you will not be
charged the penalty, even if you have to pay the right
amount later.


Which publication? A letter ruling covers you. Nothing
else from the IRS will provide protection. The publications
can be wrong. If it is not a regulation, section of the code,
or some solid legal point based on a case in YOUR circuit,
then you have nothing solid.


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.

Yes, you would be fined. A google search to unearth this
thread would not help your case, either. :)

Bill

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

Cant argue with a door, Or someone who wants to argue.
Let him go

Phil Kane wrote:
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