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

I thought you might like to see just ONE of quite a few hits against CBers and their illegal radios! Note the power level of this one!


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

) In the Matter of ) File Number EB-07-TP-095

Richard Ross ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732700011
Titusville, FL ) FRN: 001-73713-29 ) ) )

NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Released: March 31, 2008

By the District Director,
Tampa Office, South Central Region,
Enforcement Bureau:

I. Introduction
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Richard Ross, apparently willfully and repeatedly 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. Ross is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

II. BACKGROUND
2. On June 4, 2007, in response to complaints of interference, agents from the Commission's Tampa Office of the Enforcement Bureau ("Tampa Office") inspected the Citizens Band ("CB") station located at Mr. Ross' residence. During testing of Mr. Ross' equipment, the agents determined that two of his CB radio transmitters were non-certificated transceivers, capable of transmitting on unauthorized frequencies. The agents also measured the output power for his transmitters and found them to be operating with seven and eight watts, respectively, output powers greater than authorized in the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The agents orally warned Mr. Ross that use of non-certificated or modified equipment capable of transmitting on unauthorized frequencies and with greater power than authorized is strictly prohibited by the Rules and voided his authority to operate the CB station. Mr. Ross voluntarily surrendered both devices to the agents.

3. On July 10, 2007, in response to additional complaints of interference, the Tampa office sent an official letter, certified and regular mail, to Mr. Ross, restricting his hours of operation for his CB station. Specifically, the letter instructed Mr. Ross not to operate his CB station from 6 AM EST to 11:59 PM EST. On July 11, 2007, the Tampa office received a response to the official letter in which Mr. Ross claimed he was now in compliance with the rules.

4. On August 16, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office inspected Mr. Ross' CB station to confirm that his CB station was in compliance with the Rules. The agents found that Mr. Ross' CB radio station included a CB transmitter and two linear amplifiers. The agents measured the power of the CB transmitter and found it had an average power output of 3.5 watts carrier power. They tested the amplifiers combined power output and found the devices had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power level. The agents orally warned Mr. Ross 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. Mr. Ross voluntarily surrendered both linear amplifiers to the agents.

5. On November 20, 2007, in response to additional complaints of interference, at approximately 10:15 A.M., agents from the Tampa Office located the source of a strong signal on a CB radio channel using direction finding methods to Mr. Ross' residence. An agent recognized the voice of the transmissions to be that of Mr. Ross.

6. Still on November 20, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office inspected Mr. Ross CB station. A wattmeter measurement indicated the power of Mr. Ross' transmitter during the inspection to be two watts, under the maximum authorized power under the Rules. The agents then traced the coaxial cable from the output of the transmitter and found it was connected to a linear amplifier. Measurements taken with the amplifier connected to the CB transmitter indicated the amplifier had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power.

7. Still on November 20, 2007, the agents observed an open notebook. The notebook showed log entries that indicated that Mr. Ross made several long distance calls using his CB radio during that morning. The entries coincided with the times the agents, using direction finding techniques, traced transmissions originating from Mr. Ross' residence. The agents orally warned Mr. Ross that the use and possession of the linear amplifier and operating out of the authorized hours prescribed on the official letter issued on July 10, 2007 violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate the CB station.

III. DISCUSSION
8. 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) of the Act has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or omissions are committed knowingly. The term "repeated" means the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.

9. 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. Section 95.404 of the Rules states that CB operators do not require an individual license to operate a CB station because they are authorized by this rule to operate in accordance with the rules in this subpart. Individuals operating, pursuant to this provision, however, must operate their CB stations in accordance with the rules in this subpart.

10. Section 95.409(a) of the Rules states that you must use an FCC certificated CB transmitter at your CB station and that the use of a transmitter, which is not FCC certificated voids your authority to operate the station.
Section 95.410 of the Rules states that your CB station transmitter power output must not exceed ... under any conditions: 4 watts (carrier power). Use of a transmitter which has carrier power in excess of that authorized voids your authority to operate the station.
On June 4, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office determined that Mr. Ross operated his CB station with two non-certificated transmitters that had a power output of seven and eight watts (carrier power), respectively. On June 4, 2007, Mr. Ross was warned that operation of his CB station with a non-certificated transmitter and with a power level greater than authorized violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate his CB station.

11. Section 95.411(a) of the Rules states that you may not attach external radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers to your certificated CB transmitter in any way. Section 95.411(b) of the Rules states that there are no exceptions to this rule and that use of a power amplifier voids your authority to operate the station. The Commission will presume that you have used a power amplifier if it is in your possession and if there is other evidence of overpower operation.
On August 16, 2007, and on November 20, 2007, agents from the Tampa Office observed that Mr. Ross had attached linear amplifiers to his CB station. Immediately prior to the inspection on November 20, 2007, the agents observed Mr. Ross' CB station in operation. On August 16, 2007 and November 20, 2007, the agents determined that the amplifiers attached to Mr. Ross' CB station had the capability to boost the power of the station to several hundred times the authorized power level. On August 16, 2007, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross was warned that attaching linear amplifiers to his CB station violated the Rules and voided his authority to operate his CB station.

12. Section 95.423(a) of the Rules states that if the FCC tells you that your CB station is causing interference for technical reasons you must follow all instructions in the official FCC notice. Section 95.423(b) of the Rules states that you must comply with any restricted hours of CB station operation which may be included in the official notice. On July 10, 2007, the Tampa Office sent an official letter, certified and regular mail, to Mr. Ross. In the official letter Mr. Ross was instructed not to operate his CB station from 6 AM EST to 11:59 PM EST.
On November 20, 2007, the agents observed Mr. Ross operating his CB station out of the authorized hours (approximately 10:15 AM) established in the July 10, 2007 official letter.

13. Because Mr. Ross violated several sections of Part 95, Subpart D of the Rules, Mr. Ross voided his authority to operate his CB station pursuant to Section 95.404 of the Rules. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we find that on June 4, August 16, and November 20, 2007, Mr. Ross willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating a radio transmitter, his CB station, without authorization from the Commission.

14. 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 operating 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 Mr. Ross is apparently liable for a $10,000 forfeiture.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

15. 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, Richard Ross, is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violation of Section 301 of the Act.

16. 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, Richard Ross, SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

17. 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/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment[s] by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:

Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations,
445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: [email protected] with any questions regarding payment procedures.

18. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central Region, Tampa Office, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1215, Tampa, Florida, 33607 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

19. 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.

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 Richard Ross at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ralph M. Barlow District Director Tampa Office South Central Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 301. 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). Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(2), which also applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'repeated', when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 C.F.R. S: 95.404. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.409(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.410. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.411(a). 47 C.F.R. S: 95.411(b). See 47 C.F.R. S: 95.410. 47 C.F.R. S: 95.423(a) 47 C.F.R. S: 95.423(b) 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. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission


There's more 'busts" for $10,000 of late than you think. Most of them ARE for dual use radios like the so-called "10 Meter" radios, amps, and operating on "them extree channels" that BELONG to other users. Well, the other users are getting tired of it and it has resulted in some $10,000 fines. Kinda funny when that old CB myth about "FCC don't care what CBers do turns around and bites 'em in the butt!! :lol: :lol:

RR

 

So posteth one of the "Big" radio natzies.

 

sounds like he likes losing money in radio equipment....

 

That and it sounds like this MR Ross had some ill tuned equipment that was interfering with the neighbors toys.

He could have been fine if his equipment was not interfering with the neighbors or others in the area.

It was not the extra power that was creating his problem it was more then likely the fact that he was bleeding over on everything due to improper tune causing him to bleed over many different frequencies.

Many times the FCC doesn't do much unless their are complaints about such things or unless some radio natzi turns the person in.

 

The single biggest problem, when dealing with the F.C.C., is to ignore their request. Makes no difference if the person is a ham, CBer, or a commercial operator. The F.C.C. is no different than any other law enforcement officer.

In times passed there were a lot of complaints to the F.C.C. from neighbors who had hams living nearby. The first thing the F.C.C. did was determine if there was a ham in the area. If one was found the F.C.C. would send that ham a letter requesting assistance in determining what was the cause of the interference.

The normal response, for the ham, was to contact local testing committee and get their assistance. Once the testing committee determined the cause the ham advised the F.C.C. of the testing committee results. If the testing committee determined the cause to be the ham's fault they worked with the ham to correct his/her equipment. If it was determined to be a problem with the neighbor's equipment they would normally contact the neighbor and advise him/her of their finding. In many cases the ham would supply and install the necessary filter ever though he/she is not required too.

The single biggest problem with the CBer is most do not have the technical ability nor do they have fellow CBer that can work as a testing committee to determine the cause. I might also add very few CBer know how to properly tune a CB. Over modulation is a common cause of equipment not being tuned correctly.

As in the case of the one posted by radioray he added to his own problem by NOT following the first F.C.C. order. Anyone with basic common sense would know any additional complaints would be reported to the F.C.C. It would appear this guy didn't care and thought he could do whatever he wanted. The end results he is out $10,000 unless he can prove he can't pay.

kc0iv

 

Well, they OUGHT to be turned in! It is quite interesting to note that the CB "hobbiests" actually cause more real problems with their radios than ALL the other radio users combined with one exception. The illegal broadcasters. That is the fault of a Congress that removed the FCC's funding in the 80's. That's when the outlaw CBers began showing up on the bands surrounding the international amateur allocations. They thought that, with coMputers, cellphones, and email, CB would just wilt and die (we couldn't BE so lucky :evil: ). Most of it DID dry up as the general public went for the cellphones and electronic wizardry. What was left, except for a small niche, was a cadre of unthinking outlaws that were
entrenched in the "CB culture" and couldn't be satisfied with CB as it was meant to be and, worse, they had to have everybody else's frequencies, too! :evil: Next thing you know, there's these stupid "10 Meter 'ham' (yeah, the h--ll they are) radios" with "bands" of.........guess WHAT! CHANNELS!!!!!!!!! OH GOODY, GOODY MAW, AH GOTS ALL THEM THAR EXTREE CHANNELS THAR! :evil: Of COURSE, everybody isn't a raging CB outlaw and most CB ops actually use theirs for what it was intended for. It's the ones that turn screws and snip and clip stuff, LOUD and "PROUD (so THEY think), and think they gots dem rah'ts to tawk on them thar "spay-shul channels thar---[u]THEY DESERVE TO GET NAILED FOR THE NEW FCC RATE SCHEDULE THAT JUST WENT TO EFFECT------$18,000 PER OCCURANCE!!!!!!!!!!!

Some may think there's "radio nazi", etc, but why do you think that IS?? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF FINDING PEOPLE ON
THEIR FREQUENCIES!!!!!!!! The CB ops need to stay WHERE they BELONG because, um yeah, the folks "them channels" belong to will be MORE than glad to drop a dime to the Feds in a skinny minute. :x Just ask:

DD & J Trucking
Quality Carriers
Superior Carriers
UPS
FedEx
Teeberry
Dowell Express
Con-Way
Grady Randolph
Sferra Metals
Smith Trucking
Carl Vincent
CLR
Cassidy's Express
Derek's Trucking
Eric Dollar Trucking
George Cairns
Auto Elite Transport
Shuford Lumber
STI Towing
Trip Wilson Trucking
R & L Transport
Jolly Roger
Mark Hansen (non truck)

That's just a few! And it was "them radio 'nazis" that went out and documented the people DOING it!!!! I'm sure they'd even help you write out your $18,000 check!!!!

RR

 

Well, they OUGHT to be turned in! It is quite interesting to note that the CB "hobbiests" actually cause more real problems with their radios than ALL the other radio users combined with one exception. The illegal broadcasters. That is the fault of a Congress that removed the FCC's funding in the 80's. That's when the outlaw CBers began showing up on the bands surrounding the international amateur allocations. They thought that, with computers, cellphones, and email, CB would just wilt and die (we couldn't BE so lucky :evil: ). Most of it DID dry up as the general public went for the cellphones and electronic wizardry. What was left, except for a small niche, was a cadre of unthinking outlaws that were
entrenched in the "CB culture" and couldn't be satisfied with CB as it was meant to be and, worse, they had to have everybody else's frequencies, too! :evil: Next thing you know, there's these stupid "10 Meter 'ham' (yeah, the h--ll they are) radios" with "bands" of.........guess WHAT! CHANNELS!!!!!!!!! OH GOODY, GOODY MAW, AH GOTS ALL THEM THAR EXTREE CHANNELS THAR! :evil: Of COURSE, everybody isn't a raging CB outlaw and most CB ops actually use theirs for what it was intended for. It's the ones that turn screws and snip and clip stuff, LOUD and "PROUD (so THEY think), and think they gots dem rah'ts to tawk on them thar "spay-shul channels thar---[u]THEY DESERVE TO GET NAILED FOR THE NEW FCC RATE SCHEDULE THAT JUST WENT TO EFFECT------$18,000 PER OCCURANCE!!!!!!!!!!!

Some may think there's "radio nazi", etc, but why do you think that IS?? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF FINDING PEOPLE ON
THEIR FREQUENCIES!!!!!!!! The CB ops need to stay WHERE they BELONG because, um yeah, the folks "them channels" belong to will be MORE than glad to drop a dime to the Feds in a skinny minute. :x Just ask:

DD & J Trucking
Quality Carriers
Superior Carriers
UPS
FedEx
Teeberry
Dowell Express
Con-Way
Grady Randolph
Sferra Metals
Smith Trucking
Carl Vincent
CLR
Cassidy's Express
Derek's Trucking
Eric Dollar Trucking
George Cairns
Auto Elite Transport
Shuford Lumber
STI Towing
Trip Wilson Trucking
R & L Transport
Jolly Roger
Mark Hansen (non truck)

That's just a few! And it was "them radio 'nazis" that went out and documented the people DOING it!!!! I'm sure they'd even help you write out your $18,000 check!!!!

RR

 

All I got is a stock Cobra 29 with a roger beep and talk back on it. I was listening to the radio the other day and there was a guy on there talking about 4 or 6 pill with 600 watts. I keyed on there and said "Who the hell needs 600 watts?, 125 watts is plenty if you want power and to get out!" Like I said mine is stock and gets out about 10-15 miles which is fine for me since I mostly just listen. If I was to put power to it I'd only run a 125 watt kicker.

 

But then we have to admit that there are Radio Natzis out there that browse around looking for a reason to try and get someone shut down even if they were not interfering with the Ham radio Natzi or anyone else.

I see alot of Hams that do these types of things just because they self appoint them as the "Radio Police" because they went and got a liscense to operate their high powered equipment and they don't like it when a BIG CB gets on the air even within the 1-40 channels.

But as far as discussing big power and over modulation etc. Funny stuff there. There are many quality radio shops out there that can create sceaming 11 band radios that are not over modulated and bleeding all over the place.

 

I think you will find most hams could care less what CBer do on 11 meters. In fact most don't even listen to 11 meters. I go so far as to say the majority of hams don't even own a radio that can tune in 11 meters and those that do don't turn-in on CB.

Where the problem comes is when ham hear CBer on 10 meters. Then many will find-out who these CBer are and turn them in. As I said the other day I could care less. I can operate right through the CBer and cause them problems than they cause me.

As to quality radio shops. Yes their a few. But I think you would admit the vast majority of radio shops are not. Most don't even own the equipment to properly tune a transmitter. And even fewer own a modulation meter to set the modulation level. It's the old whistle into the mike trick. I have yet been in a radio shop that even knew what a two tone test was. Let alone how to use it.

kc0iv