Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: intentional intereference?  (Read 21900 times)
N1FM
Member

Posts: 178




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2016, 08:55:37 AM »


47 U.S. Code ยง 504 (c) Use of notice of apparent liability

In any case where the Commission issues a notice of apparent liability looking toward the imposition of a forfeiture under this chapter, that fact shall not be used, in any other proceeding before the Commission, to the prejudice of the person to whom such notice was issued, unless (i) the forfeiture has been paid, or (ii) a court of competent jurisdiction has ordered payment of such forfeiture, and such order has become final.

===

In other words, anyone with a forfeiture is allowed a trial to determine the merits of the FCCs forfeiture order. The person is allowed to operate until a federal judge issues a final order in the case, following all administrative and judicial appeals. The FCC may 'set aside' or put the renewal application in 'pending' status, but it has zero effect on the person's ability to operate his station. Trial and appeal usually take about 10 years. If some payment is eventually ordered by the court, the person can set up a payment plan. They could conceivably hold a non-renewal hearing, after the trial(s), but in the case of the W6 with the $25,000 NAL, his non-renewal hearing has been stalled since 2008 (8 years) and under 47 U.S.C. 504(c), the FCC can't continue that non-renewal hearing until a final order of the court in the NAL case.
Logged
W0XX
Member

Posts: 1426




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2016, 10:08:26 AM »

Wow, quite the "process"!    Thanks Tom for that inciteful bit of info.  Did not know that.  Was curious as I know the time is approaching from a post elsewhere.  Glad to see a post with actual facts and data to absorb for a change!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 10:10:27 AM by NA9R » Logged
N1FM
Member

Posts: 178




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: February 17, 2016, 02:15:54 PM »

My pleasure Chris. Another item while we're at it: The process involves a trial de novo (new trial) and an appeal, which is not a collection action. It's an action to determine the merits of the Agency's case against a party, which may or may not result in a collection. The FCC issues press releases that often seem to paint parties as guilty before trial and the League in Connecticut parrots that action all the way down the line. That's a complete disservice to the public and to the alleged violator. In fact, no one is responsible, and no one needs to pay a penalty of any kind, until due process has run its course, which takes about 10 years. If responsible parties were honest about the process and the length of time it takes, more amateurs would have a realistic idea of the meaning of the words "enforcement action."
Logged
W0XX
Member

Posts: 1426




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2016, 02:22:50 PM »

Sounds like the Feds cart is well ahead of the horse chasing it. Will have to watch for updates and see.  Sounds a bit abstract to me but whatever.
Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 568




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: February 17, 2016, 06:31:02 PM »

ND6M,

It is not the first time the FCC has misinterpreted the international Radio Regulations - to which they blithely signed up to as an international treaty, theoretically binding the United States to implement them and then ignored them - and I don't suppose it will be the last. Your problem, not mine.

not my problem at all,.... the FCC isn't "ignoring" anything, the FCC can legally make any regulation they agree with MORE restrictive for FCC licensees.
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 8140




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2016, 05:02:54 AM »

But in fact, the FCC is LESS restrictive than the Radio Regulations on 'unwanted emissions in the spurious domain'.
Logged
N1FM
Member

Posts: 178




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2016, 08:33:54 AM »

@HR2510 "With the recent NAL of $25,000 against [the W6 station]... the FCC has virtually guaranteed that he will continue to operate legally for years.  It takes that long for a case to proceed through the courts."

This is very true. The W6 station was issued a Warning Notice on November 28, 2000. Following warning, his renewal application was designated for hearing in 2008. Assuming the NAL case will conclude in 2025 or 2026 and given the W6 station will be 80 years old at that time, he may be on the air for the rest of his life. The same holds true for the K8 station with the 22,000 question.

http://tinyurl.com/jv3hfwx
http://tinyurl.com/zexwfqc
http://tinyurl.com/zb2ntyy
Logged
KC1BMD
Member

Posts: 610




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2016, 03:04:18 PM »

I wish the FCC would listen to 7.200 MHz almost any evening and zero in on the clowns there. It is just a really sad display of bad behavior by seriously defective personalities.
Logged
N1FM
Member

Posts: 178




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2016, 08:19:20 AM »

It's not profitable to discipline drunks, druggies, and the mentally ill.
And we can't fine Canadians at any rate.
Where the FCC's concerned, apparently the Fox is watching the hen house....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2016/03/02/how-the-fcc-betrayed-americas-faith-in-the-rule-of-law/

http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 08:26:49 AM by N1FM » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!