fcc Bullys little old lady  | | 
09-06-2009, 01:49 AM
|  | Bigstrapper | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: REPUBLIC de COLOMBIA
Posts: 203
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLR  Yet another reason why the FCC should be disbanded. | If the FCC was disbanded, CW MORSE would have no reason to exist !! |
09-06-2009, 05:46 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,901
| | 
His is an example of what has normally been FCC practice in these situations. - Quote:
4. On March 16, 2005, the FCC's Portland Office
received a complaint of interference to amateur radio
frequency 447.325 MHz. On March 18, 2005, an agent
from the Portland Office investigated the allegation
and located the interfering signal emanating from a
motor home owned by Mr. Burnham. Further investigation
revealed that the source of the interfering signal was
a Winegard amplified television antenna, installed on
the roof of the referenced motor home owned by Mr.
Burnham.
5. These Winegard antenna amplifiers have been the
source of radio frequency interference in a number of
cases. As a result of this interference, Winegard has
agreed to replace the defective units at no charge (see
Winegard Internet site HDTV Antenna, Satellite, Internet, Mobile, Digital, UHF, VHF, RV, HD, Television Manufacturer - Winegard ). Mr. Burnham
will need to contact Winegard at (319) 754-0600 or 800-
856-4350 in Burlington, Iowa to make arrangements for
them to replace the defective unit. Due to the
continuing radio communications interference caused by
the Winegard amplified television antennas, we request
that Mr. Burnham return the defective Winegard antenna
to the FCC at the address indicated below for testing
after it is replaced. | http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-257950A1.html
It's confusing as to why they skipped this step. |
09-06-2009, 07:11 AM
|  | ...{}/_\{}... | | Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,507
| |
Put that citation on QRZ and the hams will tell you why she deserved it. 
__________________ That's how I roll!!  |
09-06-2009, 10:23 AM
|  | Prestigious Member | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: too close to mexico
Posts: 1,867
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy_Hamer Put that citation on QRZ and the hams will tell you why she deserved it. | Yes the fascists advocate the creation of a single party state. Fascist forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the FCC and the fascist movement.
__________________
I  U 212 |
09-06-2009, 12:04 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 89
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonwatcher | We don't know if they skipped it or not, but I don't believe they can issue a citation without first requesting that she get the problem fixed and she failed to do so. Then again, most likely the people in the LA office are just too ignorant to know that the provision of Part 15 under which she was cited require she be given the opportunity to fix the problem before being cited. |
09-06-2009, 12:25 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,032
| |
I also feel that part of this story or a previous chapter is missing.
__________________
""""was not thinking of a cber sat with his makita screwdriver winding round the presets untill his meter said s9+60db from a guy on a handheld 15 miles away"""" |
09-06-2009, 12:50 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Silicon Valley CA, Storm Lake IA
Posts: 1,070
| |
Regardless if they gave her time to comply - how is it her fault? She bought the product in good faith believing that it was plug n' play.
If one buys a crystal-controlled toaster - and it threw off spurious emissions; how is that the fault of the purchaser? There is no 'malice of forethought' in that act; no intention to harm. Or break any law.
The FCC should have contacted the mfr of the offending product and had words with them. The mfg should have a recall of the product; or offer to replace the defective item at their cost. Not balancing the burden of responsibility on the customer. The end user neither knows any better and could probably care less. Or - even know what is going on - for the most part. Or - unlikely to know what to do about it. Or - any of the implications of the situation.
What it is - is poor judgment on the part of the FCC.
Very poor judgement...
__________________
What gear do I use?
BASE: Icom IC-718 & GAP Titan DX, Yaesu FT-8800R & Diamond X50A, Magnum OmegaForce S45 & IMAX 2000 w/Astatic D104/TUP9.
MOBILE: Galaxy DX99V & Wilson 1000 w/Astatic D104-M2, Yaesu FT-8800R & Diamond NR-770.
"...The 444 in San Jose CA; the Central Gold Coast..."
Last edited by Rob KI6USW; 09-06-2009 at 11:07 PM.
|
09-06-2009, 01:48 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,901
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shioda We don't know if they skipped it or not, but I don't believe they can issue a citation without first requesting that she get the problem fixed and she failed to do so. Then again, most likely the people in the LA office are just too ignorant to know that the provision of Part 15 under which she was cited require she be given the opportunity to fix the problem before being cited. | Let's look at the citation itself- Quote:
On August 13, 2009, agents from the Los Angeles Office
investigated the allegation and located the interfering signal
emanating from Ms. Frausto's residence. Further investigation revealed
that the source of the interfering signal was a Philips amplified
television antenna, model Mant300, installed on top of a television
set in the residence.
| The above date was when they found where the interference was coming from. Now look at the date of the citation- Quote:
CITATION
Released: August 20, 2009
By the District Director, Los Angeles Office, Western Region, Enforcement
Bureau:
| The citation was written 7 days after they found the source of the interference. It sure doesn't appear they gave her the chance to rectify the problem. |
09-06-2009, 02:20 PM
| | Prestigious Member | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: too close to mexico
Posts: 1,867
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonwatcher Let's look at the citation itself-
The above date was when they found where the interference was coming from. Now look at the date of the citation-
The citation was written 7 days after they found the source of the interference. It sure doesn't appear they gave her the chance to rectify the problem. | Yes, don't they generally give a customary 20 days for the accused to respond to the charge?
__________________
I U 212 |
09-06-2009, 08:09 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 89
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonwatcher Let's look at the citation itself-
The above date was when they found where the interference was coming from. Now look at the date of the citation-
The citation was written 7 days after they found the source of the interference. It sure doesn't appear they gave her the chance to rectify the problem. | As I said, we don't know what happened. To discover the cause of the interference, she had to let them into the house to inspect the equipment. If they told her to shut it down and stop using it and she said no, or said yes but kept using it then they would issue a citation immediately. I am sure that Verizon is paying big licensing fees and so its complaints garner more attention than your every day citizen. On the other hand, the LA office of the FCC is one of the worst in the country. Dallas is a close second. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 PM.
|
