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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When did the FCC Loosen their Enforcement Standards?  (Read 4705 times)
ARCSPARK
Member

Posts: 38




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2017, 11:22:01 AM »

The FCC works only on complaints. You can never know if they will act, further LIDS and No codes think they own exclusive rights to a channel. They have no idea, if they are hearing something, then surely, a station they claim is interfering with them must also. Sorry HF doesn't work that way.
You can, if you have the stomach for it, look up Obscene language and failure to ID proven on 7200 by the CB channel master, K9RSY. Just see recordings of RSY that have been posted on Utube.

The issue today, FCC has other things going on and most of the people on the bands have no understanding of what a Rule violation is. They just knee Jerk react if somebody is on a frequency they thought they owned. (Nets..) etc. Smiley
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 5, 2017
Mr. Gary E. Davis
215 Applebark Lane
Inman, South Carolina
Re: WARNING NOTICE
Amateur Radio License K1LEM
EB-FIELDNER-17-00023290
Dear Mr. Davis:
On October 21, 25 and 26 and December 10, 2016, you were heard by staff at the
Commission’s High Frequency Direction Finding Center (HFDF), using long range direction
finding techniques, playing music in order to deliberately interfere with the ongoing QSOs of
other amateurs while operating on the frequency of 7200 kHz.
The Commission employee used direction finding equipment and confirmed the
transmissions were coming from your location. The employee recorded the offending
transmissions and provided undersigned counsel with recordings of the incident in question.
Should you desire a copy of the recording, one will be made available to you.
Your operation as described above is contrary to the basis and purpose of the amateur
radio service as set out in Section 97.1 and is a violation of Section 97.101(d) of the
Commission’s rules.1 Section 97.101(d) states that
Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1250




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2017, 12:49:04 PM »

^^^^Yessir, one of those inconvenient truth episodes.^^^^

Funny how the most boorish have the most skeletons to hide.  What a putz.
Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1250




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2017, 03:17:38 AM »

A beauty from K1LEM in the Misc Forum.....
"I think by reading these forums you can see what limited minds these very old men have. Or do they just wish to be contrary. There is nothing wrong with a contrarian, but these old boys have limited eye sight and apparently intelligence left.
The post for HR is hilly  billy never went to school CBers with nocode and old men who are humorless and quite frankly over the hill.
 Just laugh it off I guess !"

Apparently, the FCC didn't "just laugh it off" OM.    
Logged
KC9NRN
Member

Posts: 66




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2017, 12:00:18 PM »

The FCC works only on complaints. You can never know if they will act, further LIDS and No codes think they own exclusive rights to a channel. They have no idea, if they are hearing something, then surely, a station they claim is interfering with them must also. Sorry HF doesn't work that way.
You can, if you have the stomach for it, look up Obscene language and failure to ID proven on 7200 by the CB channel master, K9RSY. Just see recordings of RSY that have been posted on Utube.

The issue today, FCC has other things going on and most of the people on the bands have no understanding of what a Rule violation is. They just knee Jerk react if somebody is on a frequency they thought they owned. (Nets..) etc. Smiley

Incredible assumptions made by an actual LID, I'm a no code Tech, who would never claim interference unless it could be proven, I would never play music to interfere with others. The only people who claim to own a frequency are K1MAN, VE7KFM and a few other loons who are Extra's from before nocode times. I think you assume a lot about what others know or don't know, but it sure is clear you have some issues understanding rules yourself. Maybe before casting aspersions you get over yourself first. 
Logged

FlexRadio 6300 Maestro Combo
Yaesu MP1000 Mark V
Icom 746Pro
SDRPlay
W9ZIM
Member

Posts: 155




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2017, 12:14:16 PM »

The "renegade repeater" in Los Angeles has been flagrantly violating FCC rules for decades, and to this day the FCC has been unable to stop them.  www.BroadCastify.com/listen/feed/14747/web

I don't know if the FCC can't stop them so much as they don't want to stop them.  I've read the theory that by giving the miscreants there own place to hang out, it makes it less likely they'll cause trouble elsewhere, and it seems to be working for the most part since the on-air insanity in Los Angeles is largely restricted to that one repeater.  Can you imagine how these individuals might retaliate if the FCC took their clubhouse away?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 12:19:49 PM by W9ZIM » Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 421




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2017, 01:06:41 PM »

[quote author=KC9NRN link=topic=115595.msg1009633#msg1009633 ...edit...
Incredible assumptions made... would never claim interference unless it could be proven,... it sure is clear you have some issues understanding rules yourself.... 
[/quote]

Well, (this is not an assumption), it is clear that you really don't understand Part 97.
 
there is no regulation against "interference",.... interference happens, and  in and of itself is not illegal.

 you do need to prove intention, both deliberate AND malicious .
Logged
KC9NRN
Member

Posts: 66




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: Yesterday at 11:12:37 AM »

[quote author=KC9NRN link=topic=115595.msg1009633#msg1009633 ...edit...
Incredible assumptions made... would never claim interference unless it could be proven,... it sure is clear you have some issues understanding rules yourself....  
Quote

Well, (this is not an assumption), it is clear that you really don't understand Part 97.
 
there is no regulation against "interference",.... interference happens, and  in and of itself is not illegal.

 you do need to prove intention, both deliberate AND malicious .

Excellent point, I stand corrected.
Logged

FlexRadio 6300 Maestro Combo
Yaesu MP1000 Mark V
Icom 746Pro
SDRPlay
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   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!