Go RIGHT ahead. Like I said, You can't regulate STOOPID! You think you are special. YOU won't get caught! But you will!

You want "respect" for your so-called "profession", Yet you think nothing of violating the law "just to piss somebody off". Then at the same time, if someone walks into your house. violates YOU in some way, wrecks YOUR vehicle, you are right THERE screaming for the law to come protect YOUR rights! Yet you feel perfectly fine with "Ah'm gonna git me one uv them thar 10 meter reddios thar and tawk on them hammie channels jist because I (think I) kin thar." " "Hit's awrite fer me to be a criminal cuz ah'm jist so spay-shul and ah got's them thar spay-shul rah'ts". Radio bandits who steal privileges EARNED by honest people are common THIEVES no less than the bandit that robs banks! So, THERE'S your answer!!! It is why those truckers who do these things diminish the trucking profession, and are held in contempt by both the public and decent truckers and justly earn the name "CHICKEN BANDER."

 

when or if we talk on the ten meter band, is the general public listening to us and thinking bad of us? i do not think so. just a bunch of of goofy basturds sitin in their mothers basment talking on their radios to another no like goofy basturd sittin in his mothers basment. man, i sure hope thoses guys don't look down on me...that would really bruise my ego.

 

No you won't Jackrabbit. Your chances of getting caught are less than getting hit by lightning. :roll:

LOL! OK, now THAT'S funny! LOL! :lol: :lol: :lol:

The more I read these posts, the more I'm convinced that if you wear a pocket protector, you should be just fine. :roll:

You still don't get it, do you Ray? :roll: You come on here, preaching from your radio pulpit on a trucker's forum, condemning the world and you really expect people to listen to you? They listen, all right. They listen, laugh at you, and then are that much more likely to go out and do exactly what you preach against, just to whiz off sanctimonious people like you. You have accomplished nothing except to cast your "hobby" in a negative light. Over the last few years, I've fielded several PM's from licensed hams on this board stating just that and that you and your crackpot lunatic fringe does NOT speak for the rest of the ham community. But hey...as long as you've got a thick skin, then have at it. There's an inherent entertainment quality to your posts and who am I to deprive a bunch of DECENT truckers of their fun.

 

Preach it brother Flyer!!!

The threads do resemble the CB Ninja fights at any given truck stop!!!

I'm not so sure about getting hit by lightning after the few close calls I've had in the recent past.

The FCC Radio Police are few and far between but it would be fun to watch a full scale "Gangbusters Raid" at a truck stop!!!

Chinese Fire Drill?????

 

I guess, I shouldnt of said it. I was just being goofy. :lol:

Sorry, Ray. Didnt mean for you to take it so seriously. Didnt mean to start a rucuss. :lol:

Well, I know some guys who drive for another LTL company that have radios that can get out for miles! I dont know what the chances are of getting pulled over for their big radio, but I do know that this is Tornado Alley, and we get lots of thunderstorms every spring. Even in the dead of winter, when the weather changes from warm, to cold. In other words, I see lots of lightning around here. :P :lol:

 

Ray really needs to relax just a little bit.

 

[quote="Twilight Flyer"]No you won't Jackrabbit. Your chances of getting caught are less than getting hit by lightning. :roll:

************************************************** ***********

It only takes ONCE!



FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Enforcement Bureau Spectrum Enforcement Division
1270 Fairfield Road Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
17325-7245

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

August 7, 2007

Smith Trucking, Inc.
2719 Morgantown Road Smithfield, PA 15478
ATTN: Theodore Smith

SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE - UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION

Case #EB-07-SE-3061

Dear Mr. Smith:

Information before the Commission indicates that your drivers have been operating radio equipment without a license on the frequency 28.535 MHz and causing interference to licensed stations in the Ten Meter Amateur Band. The drivers were observed operating unlicensed in April and May 2007 on Route 19 between the Fairmont, West Virginia area and the Haywood power plant near Shinnston, WV.

Please advise your drivers 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 them 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.

Sincerely,

W. Riley Hollingsworth
Special Counsel

cc: FCC Northeastern Regional Director - 2 -

 

ray, does your mommy bring your dinner to the basement for you as you scan the FCC website looking for postings to cut and paste onto this website. i damn near find that funnier than the whole i am bette than you cause i got a license to talk on the radio bit you do. i got a license to drive a really big truck, does that make me better than you? no, but if i hit you wth my really big truck it will hurt worse than if you hit me with your big "ham" radio.

 

Not only did they get a "nice" warning, they went back and continued to operate illegally and out of band as well. They got EXACTLY what they deserved!

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

In the Matter of ) File Number EB-07-SF-051]

Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos )

NAL/Acct. No. 200832980001
San Jose, California )

FRN: 0017083221 ) )

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Released: October 31, 2007

By the District Director, San Francisco Office,
Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos, owners and operators of a Citizens Band ("CB") radio station in San Jose, California apparently willfully violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, by operating a modified CB radio station on a frequency not authorized for CB use. We conclude, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), that the Campos are apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

II. BACKGROUND

2. On April 7, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau's San Francisco Office received a complaint alleging intentional interference to CB radio communications on 27.055 MHz. The complaints alleged that the source of the interference was located at the residence of CB radio operators, Martha and Miguel Campos, in San Jose, California.

3. On August 24, 2006, after subsequent complaints, the San Francisco Field Office issued a Warning Letter to Miguel G. Campos ("August Warning Letter"). The Warning Letter informed Mr. Campos that, pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Rules (CB Rule 7), he must operate his CB station only on the 40 channels allocated to the CB service and he must not modify his CB radio to operate on any other frequency other than allocated to the service. The August Warning Letter also warned Mr. Campos that pursuant to Section 95.409 of the Rules (CB Rule 9), he must not make, or have made, any internal modification to a FCC certificated CB transmitter. Further, Mr. Campos was warned that if the transmissions continue, he would be investigated during ongoing FCC enforcement efforts and if such an investigation indicates that he had violated the Communications Act or any FCC Rules, he could be subject to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary forfeitures.

4. On August 31, 2006, Mr. Campos replied to the letter acknowledging that he was a CB operator and detailing the CB equipment that he used.

5. On September 29, 2006, in response to continued complaints, the San Francisco Office issued a Warning Letter to Martha S. Campos ("September Warning Letter"). The September Warning Letter informed Mrs. Campos that, pursuant to Section 95.407 of the Rules (CB Rule 7), she must operate her CB station only on the 40 channels allocated to the CB service and she must not modify her CB radio to operate on any other frequency other than allocated to the service. The September Warning Letter also warned Ms. Campos that pursuant to Section 95.409 of the Rules (CB Rule 9), she must not make, or have made, any internal modification to a FCC certificated CB transmitter. Further, Ms. Campos was warned that if the transmissions continue, she would be investigated during ongoing FCC enforcement efforts and if such an investigation indicates that he had violated the Communications Act or any FCC Rules, she could be subject to severe penalties, including, but not limited to, substantial monetary forfeitures.

6. On October 27, 2006, Martha and Miguel Campos came to the San Francisco Office to discuss the warning letters they had received. A San Francisco agent clarified some of the CB Rules to them and again warned them about the consequences of not following the CB Rules.

7. During the period of November 2, 2006, to February 2, 2007, the San Francisco Office continued to receive complaints alleging interference by the Campos.

8. On March 16, 2007, San Francisco agents, using mobile direction finding techniques, located the source of the alleged interfering signal on 27.675 MHz to the Campos' residence in San Jose, California. The San Francisco agents monitored the transmission of one-way communications on 27.675 MHz. The agents also conducted an inspection of the Campos' CB station and found two CB transmitters that were set up and connected to outdoor antennas at Campos's residence. By conducting on/off tests, the agents confirmed that one of the transmitters had been modified to operate on frequency 27.675 MHz, a frequency that is not authorized for use by CB stations. The agents further determined that the transmitter set up in the Campos' residence was capable of operating in excess of the four-watt power limitations.

9. From April 10, 2007, to September 10, 2007, the San Francisco Office continued to receive complaints alleging interference by the Campos.

III. DISCUSSION

10. 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.

11. Section 301 of the Act requires that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States except under and in accordance with the Act and with a license. Individual licenses are not required to operate CB radio stations. Section 95.404 of the Rules provides a blanket authorization to all CB users, provided that their stations are operated in accordance with the Rules.

12. Section 95.425(c) of the Rules states that "you must not operate a CB transmitter which has been modified by anyone in any way, including modification to operate on unauthorized frequencies . . . ." Section 95.409(b) of the Rules states that "[y]ou must not make, or have made, any internal modification to a certificated CB transmitter. . . . Any internal modification to a certificated CB transmitter cancels the certification, and use of such a transmitter voids your authority to operate the station." Section 95.407(a) of the Rules limits CB operators to operation on 40 specific channels. Frequency 27.675 MHz is not listed among those channels. On August 24, 2006, September 29, 2006, and October 10, 2006, the Campos' were warned by the San Francisco Office that subsequent violation of the Commission's Rules could result in monetary forfeitures. On March 16, 2007, an investigation by San Francisco agents revealed that the Campos had modified their CB transmitter to operate on 27.675 MHz, a frequency not authorized for CB use, and observed the Campos operating on 27.675 MHz. We find that the Campos' operated their CB radio station in violation of the Rules, consequently, pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules, the Campos' were not authorized to operate under Section 301 of the Act. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the Campos' willfully violated Section 301 of the Act.

13. 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 operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000. 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 of the Rules, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that the Campos' are apparently liable for a $10,000 forfeiture.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

14. 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, Martha and Miguel Campos are hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of Section 301 of the Act.

15. 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, Martha S.and Miguel G. Campos SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

16. 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.

17. The response, if any, must be mailed to:

Federal Communications Commission,
Enforcement Bureau, Western Region,
San Francisco Office,
5653 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 105,
Pleasanton, CA, 94588-8543

and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

18. 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.

19. 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,
Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.

20. 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:

Martha S. and Miguel G. Campos at their address of record.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas N. Van Stavern
District Director San Francisco Office
Western Region Enforcement Bureau

47 U.S.C. S: 301. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.407. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.407. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409. 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 U.S.C. S: 301. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.404. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.425(c). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.407(a). The authorized frequencies for CB operation range from 26.965 MHz (CB Channel 1) to 27.405 MHz (CB Channel 40). 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S:1.80. 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). 47 U.S.C. S:S: 301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914. (...continued from previous page) (continued....)

Federal Communications Commission


(Plenty MORE where that came from from FCC's website)

RR

 

ha, ha, ha. just as i suspected. what did mommy make for dinner? do ou have a space heater down there? what about a bathroom? haev you ever been with a woman?