[Sheepdancer]

Originally Posted by RadioRay

Incorrect.

,,,,,,,,,,,snipped for brevity Note the following statement (quote): "IMPORTATION AND MARKETING INTO/WITHIN {THE UNITED STATES} IS
ILLEGAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND SECTION2.803 OF THE RULES..


In view of the foregoing, the following "10-meter" transceivers are not acceptable for importation or marketing into/within the United States. Importation and marketing of these units is illegal pursuant to Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and Section 2.803 of the rules. Willful violations of the Rules and the Act may subject the violator to a monetary forfeiture of not more than $11,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation. The Commission continues to review this type of equipment, and additional makes and models may be added to this list in the future.

LIST OF TRANSCEIVERS

ILLEGAL TO IMPORT OR MARKET



NOTE FROM QTH.COM: This list was modified to include additional radios. Radios that were added are displayed with a hotlink to the documentation and/or reason for the addition
CONNEX - models: 3300, 3300 HP, 3300HP-ZX, 3300 PLUS, CX-3800, 4400, 4400 HP and 4800 DXL

GALAXY - models: DX33HML, DX44V, DX45MP, DX48T, DX55V, DX66V, DX73V, DX77HML, DX88HL, DX93T, DX95T, DX99V, DX2517, DX2527, Melaka, Saturn and Saturn Turbo

GENERAL - Grant, Stonewall Jackson, Lee, Washington

MAGNUM - models: 257, 357DX, Alpha force, Delta Force, Mini, S-3,

MIRAGE - models: 33HP, 44, 88, 99, 2950, 2950EX, 2970, 6600, 9900

NORTH STAR - models: NS-3000 and NS-9000

PRESIDENT - models: Grant, J.F.K., Jackson, Lincoln, HR-2510 and HR-2600

PRO STAR - model: 240

RANGER - models: AR-3500, RCI-2950, RCI-2950-DX (see below) and RCI-2970, RCI-6300, RCI-6300 Turbo, RCI-6900, RCI-6900 Turbo

RCI - model: RG-99

SUPERSTAR - model: 121, 3700, 3900, 3900 HP G, 3900 Gold, 4800, Grant

TEK - model: HR-3950

UNIDEN - models: HR-2510 and HR-2600

VIRAGE - model: 3300, 3300 HP, VX-38, VX-39,

For further information concerning the listed transceivers or similar models, contact Ray LaForge or Gary Hendrickson at the FCC Laboratory, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD 21046, (301) 362-3041 or (301) 362-3043 respectively, or E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]

Footnote: The Cobra 150 and 200 "export" radios, tho not on this version of the list, have been added along with certain "Stryker" models. IOW, if they have "bands" of 'channels', it indicates use on the CB band and likely is illegal to sell as well.[/i][/u]

Dealers such as Radioactive Radios, GI Joe's, David Pace, Pilot Travel Centers, Pro Class CB, Striker CB Shop, Hi Tech, Racoon's CB Shop, RP Communications, Ramko Distributors ($150,000 fine!) and a large list of OTHER dealers have been fined. Pilot settled their action for $90,000 and it was posted on the internet for all to see.

CBers have actually received HIGHER fines than the hams that 'operate allegedly illegally on 75 Meters. Like:

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) )

In the Matter of ) File Number: EB-05-HU-045

Marcus A. Roberts )

NAL/Acct. No.: 200732540001 Houston, Texas )

FRN: 0004307195 ) )

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Released: January 3, 2007 By the Resident Agent, Houston Office, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau: I.

INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Marcus A. Roberts apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), by operating an unlicensed radio transmitter. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, that Mr. Roberts is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). II. BACKGROUND 2. In response to a complaint of interference to household electronic equipment, on April 28, 2006, the Commission's Houston Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Houston Office") issued Mr. Roberts a warning letter advising him that operation of Citizens Band ("CB") radio equipment with greater power than authorized in the Commission's Rules ("Rules") voids the authority to operate the station and is therefore considered unlicensed operation. The letter further advised that unlicensed operation is a violation of Section 301 of the Act, and could subject the operator to penalties including monetary fines. 3. On September 28, 2006, in response to another complaint of interference, agents from the Houston Office inspected the CB station located at Mr. Roberts' residence. During testing of Mr. Roberts' equipment, the agents determined that his CB station was producing the maximum power authorized in the Rules for CB radio stations. The agents verbally warned Mr. Roberts that any operation of his CB radio station with more power than observed during this inspection would be a violation of the Rules. The agents then inspected a CB radio station installed in Mr. Roberts' vehicle. The CB radio station in the vehicle included a CB transmitter and two linear amplifiers. The linear amplifiers observed had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power level. Mr. Roberts admitted to operating the amplifiers and exceeding the authorized power limit; but claimed that he only used this equipment outside the neighborhood. The agents again verbally warned Mr. Roberts that the use of linear amplifiers or any device that creates a power greater than the authorized limit is strictly prohibited by the Rules and voids the authority to operate the CB station. 4. On November 8, 2006, an agent with the Houston Office located the source of a strong signal on a CB radio channel using direction finding methods to Mr. Roberts' residence. The agent recognized the voice of the transmissions to be that of Mr. Roberts. The complainant contacted the agent by telephone to report that Mr. Roberts' transmissions ...............................

snipped)

see www.fcc.gov/eb for details

OR

Mr Timothy Fullen.

WARNED to cease his illegal activities

Or................................................ .................................................. .

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 )
In the Matter of ) Donald Winton )
File Number: EB-07-HU-007 Licensee of Citizen Band Radio )
NAL/Acct. No.: 200732540003 Station ) FRN: 0016201386 Corpus Christi, Texas ) )
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Released: April 23, 2007 By the Resident Agent,
Houston Office, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Donald Winton, licensee of a Citizen Band ("CB") radio station, in Corpus Christi, Texas, apparently willfully violated Section 95.426(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") by failing to make his CB radio station available for inspection. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that Mr. Winton is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000). II. BACKGROUND 2. On February 21, 2007, in response to a complaint that a CB radio station in Corpus Christi, Texas was jamming communications on CB channel 19 by continually re-broadcasting the programming of a local AM broadcast station, an agent from the Commission's Houston Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Houston Office") monitored communications on CB channel 19 in the Corpus Christi area. The agent observed a radio signal on CB channel 19 re-broadcasting the programming of a local AM broadcast station; and using radio direction finding techniques determined that the signal originated from an antenna mounted on a house in Corpus Christi, Texas. 3. Still on February 21, 2007, while the agent was making measurements on the radio signal from the CB radio station, Donald Winton exited the house and walked down the driveway. The agent introduced himself as an FCC agent, and requested to inspect the CB radio station inside the house. Mr. Winton confirmed this location was his residence and that the CB station belonged to him, but refused to make the station available for inspection. The agent advised Mr. Winton that the Commission's Rules require the operator of a CB radio station to make the station available for inspection. Mr. Winton still refused to make the station available for inspection. The agent then requested that Mr. Winton go inside and take the station off the air because it was blocking communications on CB radio channel 19. Mr. Winton walked into the house and the station's transmissions ceased. Mr. Winton returned and continued to refuse to make the station available for inspection, so the agent left the area. III. DISCUSSION 4. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. 5. Section 95.426(a) requires that if an authorized FCC representative requests to inspect your CB station, you must make your station and records available for inspection. Mr. Winton admitted to an agent from the Houston Office that he had a CB radio station within his residence. In addition, Mr. Winton demonstrated he had access to and control of the station by entering his residence and turning the transmitter off, while the agent waited outside. On February 21, 2007, in response to several requests by agent to inspect his station, Mr. Winton refused to make his CB station available for inspection. 6. Based on the evidence before us, we find that Mr. Winton apparently willfully violated Sections 95.426(a) of the Rules by failing to make his CB radio station available for inspection. 7. 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 failing to permit inspection is $7,000. In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.
Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that Donald Winton is apparently liable for a $7,000 forfeiture. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Donald Winton is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for violations of Sections 95.426(a) of the Rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Donald Winton SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 10. Payment of the forfeiture must 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 Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. 11. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central Region, Houston Office, 9597 Jones Road, # 362, Houston, Texas, 77065 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. 12. 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 ("GAAP"); 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. 13. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under an installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.^8 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular mail, to Donald Winton at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


OR................................................ ...............................


June 1, 2006
Hugh H. Horne
1725 Holston Drive
Bristol, TN 37620


Subject: Warning Notice--Unlicensed Radio Operation
Dear Mr. Horne:

Information before the Commission indicates that you have been operating radio equipment without a license on 27.465, 27.555, 27.575, 27.585, 27.615 and 27.895 MHz. Those transmissions are causing interference to licensed stations in the 10-meter amateur band.

Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject you to fine or imprisonment, as well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.


You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

cc: FCC South Central Regional Director

Stephen P. Lee Resident Agent, Houston Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 C.F.R. S 95.426(a). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'willful', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991). 47 C.F.R. S 95.426(a) 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S1.80. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E). 47 U.S.C. S 503(b), 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 95.426(a). ^8 See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission 3 Federal Communications Commission

And the list goes on a LOT further. Lately, more actual FINES to CBers than hams.


Again, this thread was supposed to address ONE issue, not argue hams vs CBers. The use of 10 Meters by unlicensed operators is illegal and can result in fines. The use of warnings and citations is the first resort. Most of the time, this is sufficient as the intent is to simply get the unlicensed operators OFF the 10 meter band where they have NO business. It doesn't mean that you can simply IGNORE those warnings and think nothing else will happen. THAT is how some of those CBers above got popped for 10,000 bucks; they thought the feds wouldn't come after them again. They DID! :shock:

The objective is still to get truckers to stay OFF bands for which they have no license or authorization. Anyone is more than welcome to obtain the proper license and operate within the rules of amateur service. Once that is done, there is NO quarrel with anyone so long as you obey the rules. Operate your CB ON the CB band. THat's all!


RR

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Im not about to read all that gooblyboop. I really just dont care. Truck drivers are goingt to continue to use 10 meters and really there is nothing you can do about it. Sure some really bored fcc agent might catch one out of 250,000 every year. But so what? Hell, your posts have almost encouraged me to go out and buy one just to have some fun with people like you

[countryhorseman]

I guess the next time a Katrina or a Greensburg, KS occurs, just to name a couple of recent catastrophic events, then the Amatuer (HAM) Radio Operators that were the first link to the non-effected world will not be needed, because of all your technoligy, that is not worth a darn when there is no electricity.

The majority of HAM operators see this as more than a hobby. There are thousands of truck drivers that are licensed HAM operators, that have on more than one occasion used their radios to pass on emergency information to the authorities - such as the National Weather Service, FEMA, and other law enforcement entities.

The fact that many of you do not understand the ability of HAM radio, does not give you the right to criticize those of us that do. There have been instances where illegal use of the frequencies have hampered Emergency Communications, which have been life or death. There are also frequencies in the 10 meter band that are used for military communication, interfere with that and they will find the violator and who know what the penalties can be.

Amatuer Radio is by far dieing as someone stated, in fact licensed operators have increased greatly, just this year due to license testing requirement changes.

In the CB (11 meter) Band - there are 120 legal channels 40 on AM, and 80 in the upper and lower side bands which are not fully untilized. That said, I have never been able to completely understand why people insist on using frequencies that that they are not licesed to use.

Anyhow, those that can will, it is not a matter of if they will get caught and fined, it is a matter of when. And yes, I have and will continue to report violators, as it is part of my duty as a licensed Amatuer Radio Operator. I person that lives about 3 miles from me had his mobile equipment confiscated and fined $10,000 for refusing to heed the FCC's warning. And the license only requires a test and $25.00 - go figure, guess you cannot fix stupid. Too bad I was the one that did not report him, it was his neighbor that he was fouling up her satellite tv. hmm, guess there are other bad bad law abiding folks out there.

Later, Have fun slammin this post.

[greg3564]

I guess the next time a Katrina or a Greensburg, KS occurs, just to name a couple of recent catastrophic events, then the Amatuer (HAM) Radio Operators that were the first link to the non-effected world will not be needed, because of all your technoligy, that is not worth a darn when there is no electricity.

Um, HAM radios need electricity too. I suppose you can use your batteries just like most electronic communications equipment does.

The majority of HAM operators see this as more than a hobby. There are thousands of truck drivers that are licensed HAM operators, that have on more than one occasion used their radios to pass on emergency information to the authorities - such as the National Weather Service, FEMA, and other law enforcement entities.

While this is still used, it's not nearly as important now as it was 20 years ago. With the wide, and often redundant, coverage of cell towers, radio repeater and better land lines HAM isn't as important.

I've spent the better part of 8 years in public safety and another 4 years in EMS and I can't ever recall one incident of a HAM operator reporting emergencies(except tornados to NWS). Even now severe weather reports are more likely to be reported via phone. Plus, with the advances made to radar, tornados are much more likely to be caught and a warning issued.

There have been instances where illegal use of the frequencies have hampered Emergency Communications, which have been life or death.

Can you provide an verifiable incident?

Anyhow, those that can will, it is not a matter of if they will get caught and fined, it is a matter of when.

Now that's funny. Our law enforcement can't even keep drugs off the street, illegals from crossing the border or catch common street criminals. But they'll catch that illegal radio operator? :lol:

[/quote]

[countryhorseman]

Originally Posted by greg3564

Um, HAM radios need electricity too. I suppose you can use your batteries just like most electronic communications equipment does.

While this is still used, it's not nearly as important now as it was 20 years ago. With the wide, and often redundant, coverage of cell towers, radio repeater and better land lines HAM isn't as important.

I've spent the better part of 8 years in public safety and another 4 years in EMS and I can't ever recall one incident of a HAM operator reporting emergencies(except tornados to NWS). Even now severe weather reports are more likely to be reported via phone. Plus, with the advances made to radar, tornados are much more likely to be caught and a warning issued.

Can you provide an verifiable incident?

Now that's funny. Our law enforcement can't even keep drugs off the street, illegals from crossing the border or catch common street criminals. But they'll catch that illegal radio operator? :lol:

[/quote]

Greg, you would argue with a concrete wall! Being that you live in Leander, I can see how you would not have had an incident situation where a HAM would have been of use.

Nearly all of my equipment is portable and operates off of battery or vehicle power. As for your redundant cell systems, where were they in New Orleans after 12 hours, were were they in Greensburg when the towers were laying on there sides.

Crap, I do not even why I am justifying your shit with an answer.

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by countryhorseman

Greg, you would argue with a concrete wall! Being that you live in Leander, I can see how you would not have had an incident situation where a HAM would have been of use.

Nearly all of my equipment is portable and operates off of battery or vehicle power. As for your redundant cell systems, where were they in New Orleans after 12 hours, were were they in Greensburg when the towers were laying on there sides.

Crap, I do not even why I am justifying your $&!+ with an answer.[/quote]

Well I've only been in Leander for a little of a year. My experience was all in Las Vegas, NV. So I know a little something about communications during major events and times of crisis. I'm hold multiple FEMA ICS certifications. It's funny, FEMA doesn't have HAM ops ANYWHERE in the Incident Command System. Why? Untrained hobbyists who usually have no formal training. I was trained that we were to disregard HAM ops as the information was rarely accurate and disorganized. HAM ops during a major crisis just isn't what it used to be. And that is because of the advances in communications technology.

So what were the HAM ops doing in New Orleans? Sitting in a flooded house calling for help? Public safety can have mobile repeater systems up in no time. Not all the repeater towers were "blown over." Most urban repeaters are actually mounted atop buildings and they were still intact and operating under generator power after Katrina.

I didn't want a pissing match.

My point is, while HAM still has some benefit, it is hardly is the tool it once was. The other thing is how guys like you and radio ray get all up in arms when your hobby is interrupted by heathens with no license. For crying out loud all a HAM radio is, is a glorified CB.

[Fredog]

Originally Posted by greg3564

Greg, you would argue with a concrete wall! Being that you live in Leander, I can see how you would not have had an incident situation where a HAM would have been of use.

Nearly all of my equipment is portable and operates off of battery or vehicle power. As for your redundant cell systems, where were they in New Orleans after 12 hours, were were they in Greensburg when the towers were laying on there sides.

Crap, I do not even why I am justifying your $&!+ with an answer.

Well I've only been in Leander for a little of a year. My experience was all in Las Vegas, NV. So I know a little something about communications during major events and times of crisis. I'm hold multiple FEMA ICS certifications. It's funny, FEMA doesn't have HAM ops ANYWHERE in the Incident Command System. Why? Untrained hobbyists who usually have no formal training. I was trained that we were to disregard HAM ops as the information was rarely accurate and disorganized. HAM ops during a major crisis just isn't what it used to be. And that is because of the advances in communications technology.

So what were the HAM ops doing in New Orleans? Sitting in a flooded house calling for help? Public safety can have mobile repeater systems up in no time. Not all the repeater towers were "blown over." Most urban repeaters are actually mounted atop buildings and they were still intact and operating under generator power after Katrina.

I didn't want a pissing match.

My point is, while HAM still has some benefit, it is hardly is the tool it once was. The other thing is how guys like you and radio ray get all up in arms when your hobby is interrupted by heathens with no license. For crying out loud all a HAM radio is, is a glorified CB.[/quote]

if a couple of truck drivers talking on their 10 meters keep all of the hams
from communicating, then they either have soem really big radios or the hams have really rinky dinky ones.

[century451]

Its not just truck drivers that interfere. Its a growing problem all around the world on every freg. That includes government and police and fire. I dont know about the rest of the states but here in Missouri Most of the local government emergency equiupment is donated by and is maintained by hams.

Volunteers operate the equipment in time of need and usually are first responders with severe weather and reporting. Thats a lot of free labor for your city and county governments that you dont have to pay higher taxes to pay for. This is nothing more than a pissing match.

Ray thinks he is doing a service to you folks and instead of ignoring the thread or reading and going on....you got to stir the pot. Same for Ray....He thinks you dont understand what he is trying to tell you so the pot stirring has 2 big spoons in it.

If you think CBers using allocated spectrum set aside by the government for Ham radio is ok....then thats your oppinion. Thats because it doesnt affect any of you in the least because your not a Ham.

I dont drive truck anymore so all that freight you wont haul because you think its too cheap....the folks from accross that border have no problems hauling that freight. So dont cry the blues, the only difference between illegal CB use on the Ham bands and the Mexican drivers hauling your freight is the CBer is doing something in the eyes of the FCC is inappropriate.

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by RadioRay

And the list goes on a LOT further. Lately, more actual FINES to CBers than hams.

most of post deleted.
RR

RR,

You still have failed to show ONE example where a illegal CBer "10-meter" transceivers was fined.

Which BTW is the topic being discussed.

If you want to discuss unlicensed radio transmission we can. But I suggest create a new thread.

kc0iv

[kc0iv]

Originally Posted by century451

Its not just truck drivers that interfere. Its a growing problem all around the world on every freg. That includes government and police and fire. I dont know about the rest of the states but here in Missouri Most of the local government emergency equiupment is donated by and is maintained by hams.

Volunteers operate the equipment in time of need and usually are first responders with severe weather and reporting. Thats a lot of free labor for your city and county governments that you dont have to pay higher taxes to pay for. This is nothing more than a pissing match.

Ray thinks he is doing a service to you folks and instead of ignoring the thread or reading and going on....you got to stir the pot. Same for Ray....He thinks you dont understand what he is trying to tell you so the pot stirring has 2 big spoons in it.

If you think CBers using allocated spectrum set aside by the government for Ham radio is ok....then thats your oppinion. Thats because it doesnt affect any of you in the least because your not a Ham.

I dont drive truck anymore so all that freight you wont haul because you think its too cheap....the folks from accross that border have no problems hauling that freight. So dont cry the blues, the only difference between illegal CB use on the Ham bands and the Mexican drivers hauling your freight is the CBer is doing something in the eyes of the FCC is inappropriate.

It has been my experience most equipment received by local government are surplus equipment. Most coming from Federal agencies. Most hams are not licensed to maintain this type of equipment.

In the old days of ham radio hams did indeed perform a service. But with the advances in modern equipment and the lack of knowledge of many of the newer hams those services has decreased.

Areas where ham radio still provide some what of a service is during major disasters in remote parts of the world.


As to RR he post here for what appears to be for only one reason. Get people off of 10 meters. I can't recall a single post he has made for any other purpose. I can't recall him ever attemping to help a driver other than to tell them to stay off 10 meters. That my friend turns people off.

While I don't condone these illegal operations he make it appear it is a major problem which it is not. That's face it hams don't use the portion of 10 meters where these illegal operations take place. While I missed the lost of 11 meters by one year we lost 11 meters because of lack of use. The same thing can happen if the hams continue to not use that portion of 10 meters.


As to your statement:

If you think CBers using allocated spectrum set aside by the government for Ham radio is ok....then thats your oppinion. Thats because it doesnt affect any of you in the least because your not a Ham.

Well I am a ham and have been since 1959. And to be frank there are many other aspects of ham radio I see as needing corrected than the few illegal operations on 10 meters.

kc0iv

[century451]

Well I am from a small town and the radios, antenna and tower was donated by Hams and is maintained by the local club. I am not talking about county emergency police and fire comunications. I am talking about emergency prepardness.