1. In celebration of the launch of the new redesigned site, we just gave away a FREE antenna! Click Here to See Who Won!

Love's Travel Stops Fined $25,000!

Discussion in 'FCC Activity' started by C W Morse, Feb 14, 2006.

  1. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    After repeated warnings to stop the sale of uncertified transceivers, Love's Travel Stops has been fined $25,000!~
    This is likely the forfeiture phase of actions against retailers who previously received warnings but ignored them!

    Source: www.fcc.gov Click on "Enforcement"

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

    In the Matter of ) File No. EB-05-DL-181
    )
    Love's Travel Stops and Country ) NAL/Acct. No. 200632500001
    Stores, Inc. )
    ) FRN # 0010520286
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


    NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

    Released: February
    09, 2006

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

    I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
    (``NAL''), we find Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc.
    (``Loves'') apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
    twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and repeated
    violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended (``Act''),1 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the
    Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2 Specifically, we find Loves
    apparently liable for offering for sale radio frequency devices
    without the required Commission equipment authorization.

    II. BACKGROUND

    2. Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to
    make reasonable regulations, consistent with the public interest,
    governing the interference potential of equipment that emits
    radio frequency energy,3 and prohibits, inter alia, the offering
    for sale of radio frequency devices to the extent such activity
    does not comply with those regulations. The purpose of this
    section is to ensure that radio transmitters and other electronic
    devices meet certain standards to control interference before
    they reach the market.

    3. The Commission carries out its responsibilities under
    Section 302 in two ways. First, the Commission establishes
    technical regulations for transmitters and other equipment to
    minimize their potential for causing interference to radio
    services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment
    authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the
    market complies with the technical requirements.4 The equipment
    authorization program requires that equipment be tested either by
    the manufacturer or at a private test laboratory to ensure that
    it complies with the technical requirements. For a large number
    of devices, including Citizens Band (``CB'') radio transmitting
    equipment,5 equipment may not be marketed within the United
    States unless it has been tested and found to comply with
    Commission technical requirements, granted Commission
    Certification, and properly labeled.6 ``Marketing'' includes the
    sale or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for
    sale or lease), importing, shipping, and/or distribution for the
    purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease.7

    4. Unlike CB radio transmitting equipment, radio
    transmitting equipment that transmits solely on Amateur Radio
    Service (``ARS'') frequencies is not subject to equipment
    authorization requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.
    However, some radio transmitters that transmit in a portion of
    the 10-meter band of the ARS (28.000 to 29.700 MHz) are equipped
    with rotary, toggle, or pushbutton switches mounted externally on
    the unit, which allow operation in the CB bands after completion
    of minor and trivial internal modifications to the equipment. To
    address these radios, the Commission adopted changes to the CB
    type acceptance requirements by defining a ``CB Transmitter'' as
    ``a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate at a
    station authorized in the CB.''8

    5. Despite these changes to the definition of a CB
    transmitter, Commission enforcement agents continued to encounter
    non-certified CB transmitters marketed as ARS transmitters. On
    May 13, 1996, the Commission's Office of Engineering and
    Technology (``OET'') released a Public Notice ``to clarify the
    Commission's Rules regarding equipment that is intended to
    operate in various radio services in the high frequency radio
    spectrum, including `10-Meter' Amateur Radio Service (ARS)
    equipment.''9 The Notice stated that transmitters intended for
    operation on non-amateur frequencies must be approved prior to
    manufacture, importation or marketing. The Notice specifically
    included ARS transceivers designed ``such that they can easily be
    modified by the users to extend the operating frequency range
    into the frequency bands'' of the CB and other non-amateur radio
    services among those devices subject to equipment authorization
    procedures. The Notice also stated that the Commission considers
    these transceivers as intended to be operated on frequencies
    where the use of type accepted equipment is required ``because of
    the simplicity of modifying them to extend their operating
    frequency range.''10 The Commission's Office of General Counsel
    (``OGC'') later released a letter on the importation and
    marketing of ARS transmitters, which clarified that such
    transmitters that ``have a built-in capability to operate on CB
    frequencies and can easily be altered to activate that
    capability, such as by moving or removing a jumper plug or
    cutting a single wire'' fall within the definition of ``CB
    transmitter'' under Section 95.603(c) of the Rules and therefore
    require certification prior to marketing or importation.11

    6. On October 15, 2001, and November 13, 2002, Enforcement
    Bureau field agents visited two Loves retail outlets in
    Weatherford and Anna, Texas. At these locations, the stores
    displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB
    transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters, including Galaxy
    models DX33MHL and DX99V. OET specifically tested Galaxy models
    DX33HML and DX99V in 2000 and found both models to be non-
    certified CB transceivers. As a result of these inspections, the
    Dallas Office of the Enforcement Bureau (``Dallas Office'')
    issued two Citations directly to Loves' corporate headquarters in
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on November 26, 2001 and November 15,
    2002. The 2001 Citation specifically cited Loves for offering
    for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy models DX33HML and
    DX99V, while the 2002 Citation cited the Galaxy model DX99V as
    the non-Certified CB transmitter offered for sale by Loves.
    These Citations advised Loves of observed violations of the
    Commission's equipment authorization and marketing rules,
    specifically, marketing non-certified CB transceivers in
    violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of
    the Rules. The Citations warned Loves that future violations may
    subject Loves to substantial civil monetary forfeitures for each
    such violation or each day of a continuing violation,12 seizure
    of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal
    sanctions including fines and imprisonment.13

    7. In response to the 2001 and 2002 Citations, Loves'
    Director of Risk Management at Loves' corporate headquarters in
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma stated that the specific locations listed
    in the Citations would stop selling the named devices.14 In
    addition to the response from Loves' corporate headquarters, the
    Dallas Office received a letter on December 4, 2002 from Loves'
    attorney, which stated ``[w]e dispute all of the legal and
    factual contentions set forth in the citation and ask you to
    treat this letter as a formal response to the citation.''15

    8. On February 2, 2004 and January 28, 2005, the
    Commission received complaints that Loves was marketing non-
    certified CB transceivers. From March 2004 through January 2005,
    Enforcement Bureau field agents visited 10 Loves retail outlets
    at the following locations: Anna, Texas; Oklahoma City,
    Oklahoma; Calumet, Oklahoma; Ranger, Texas; Buckeye, Arizona;
    Casa Grande, Arizona; Gila Bend, Arizona; Quartzsite, Arizona;
    and Coachella, California. At these locations, the stores
    displayed and offered for sale various models of non-certified CB
    transceivers marketed as ARS transmitters, including Galaxy
    models DX33MHL and DX99V. OET specifically tested Galaxy models
    DX33HML and DX99V in 2000 and 2004 and found both models to be
    non-certified CB transceivers during all tests.

    9. On January 12, 2005, based on inspections conducted on
    January 5, 2005, the Los Angeles Office of the Enforcement Bureau
    (``Los Angeles Office'') issued five Citations directly to Loves'
    retail outlets in Buckeye, Arizona; Gila Bend, Arizona;
    Quartzsite, Arizona; Coachella, California; and Casa Grande,
    Arizona. All five of the 2005 Citations specifically cited Loves
    for offering for sale non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy
    models DX33HML and DX99V. Each of these Citations advised Loves
    of observed violations of the Commission's equipment
    authorization and marketing rules, specifically, marketing non-
    certified CB transceivers in violation of Section 302(b) of the
    Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules. The Citations warned
    Loves that future violations may subject Loves to substantial
    civil monetary forfeitures for each such violation or each day of
    a continuing violation,16 seizure of equipment through in rem
    forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including fines and
    imprisonment.17

    10. On February 3, 2005, the Los Angeles Office received a
    response to the five 2005 Citations from Love's Director of Risk
    Management dated January 26, 2005, which stated ``immediately
    upon my receipt of your letter, we immediately discontinued the
    sale of this merchandise at each of the respective locations.''18
    Additionally, the Los Angeles Office received a response from
    Loves' attorney also dated January 26, 2005, stating ``. . . all
    the radios in question are marketed as Amateur radios, a fact
    conceded in the citation. As sold, the radios operate only on
    the Amateur bands. As such, the radios are governed by Part 97
    of 47 C.F.R., not Part 95. Part 97 does not require type
    acceptance of Amateur radios.''19 On February 28, 2005, the Los
    Angeles Office responded to Loves' attorney informing him that
    his assertions were incorrect and that selling non-certified
    Amateur radios that can be easily modified to operate on CB
    frequencies violates the Rules.20

    11. On February 23 and 25, 2005, Enforcement Bureau field
    agents made two visits to Loves retail stores in Oklahoma where
    Loves offered for sale non-certified CB transceivers, Galaxy
    models DX33HML and DX99V.21 As noted above, OET had already
    tested these specific models and determined them all to be dual
    use Amateur Radio and CB transmitters. Each of the models could
    be modified to allow transmit capabilities on CB frequencies.

    III. DISCUSSION

    12. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that no person shall
    manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or
    home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail
    to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.
    Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that:

    (a) Except as provided elsewhere in this section,
    no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale
    or lease (including advertising for sale or
    lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
    purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale
    or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1)
    n the case of a device subject to
    certification, such device has been authorized by
    the Commission in accordance with the rules in
    this chapter and is properly identified and
    labeled as required by ยง 2.925 and other relevant
    sections in this chapter[.]

    13. Section 95.603(c) of the Rules requires that ``[e]ach
    CB transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is intended to
    operate at a station authorized in the CB) must be
    certificated.'' Section 95.655(a) of the Rules states that
    ``[n]o transmitter will be certificated for use in the CB service
    if it is equipped with a frequency capability not [authorized for
    CB in Part 95 of the Rules].'' This section also states that
    ``([CB t]ransmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur
    Radio Services ... will not be certificated.)'' Additionally,
    Section 95.655(c) of the Rules prohibits any internal or external
    add-on device that functions to extend the transmitting frequency
    capability of a CB transmitter beyond its original capability.

    14. From March 2004 to January 2005, Commission agents
    observed Loves offer for sale at ten different retail outlets
    various models of non-certified CB transmitters, including Galaxy
    models DX33HML and DX99V, which had all been tested and
    determined by OET to be non-certified CB transmitters. Although
    they were labeled as ``amateur radios,'' the specified models of
    Galaxy transmitters are CB transmitters, because each was
    designed to be easily modified by the end user to allow operation
    on CB frequencies. Commission Field Offices issued a total of
    seven Citations to Loves' corporate headquarters and its retail
    outlets warning Loves that future violations would subject Loves
    to penalties including civil monetary forfeitures. On February
    23 and 25, 2005, Loves offered for sale at two of its retail
    outlets non-certified CB transmitters, Galaxy models DX33HML and
    DX99V.

    15. Based on the evidence before us, we find that in three
    instances22 -- two on February 23, 2005, and one on February 25,
    2005 -- Loves offered for sale non-certified CB transmitters in
    apparent willful23 and repeated24 violation of Section 302(b) of
    the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.25

    16. Section 503(b) of the Act,26 authorizes the Commission
    to assess a forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of
    the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the
    Commission under the Act. In exercising such authority, we are
    to take into account ``the nature, circumstances, extent, and
    gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the
    degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to
    pay, and such other matters as justice may require.''27

    17. 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'')28 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,29 the base
    forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment is $7,000
    per violation. Thus, the total base forfeiture amount for all of
    Loves' violations is $21,000.

    18. We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent
    violations here. Our equipment authorization rules ensure that
    radio transmitters and other electronic equipment comply with
    Commission technical requirements. The proliferation of non-
    certified CB transmitters may result in interference to certified
    CB transmitters and other devices, thereby undermining the
    effectiveness of our technical rules. Furthermore, we have
    previously stated that ARS equipment that can be easily modified
    to extend the operating frequency range into CB frequency bands
    are CB transmitters subject to equipment authorization
    procedures.30

    19. We are particularly troubled that Loves continued to
    violate these rules despite receiving numerous warnings from the
    Commission. The Commission warned Loves by issuing Citations
    directly to Loves' corporate headquarters in 2001 and 2002, and
    the Commission issued five additional Citations to Loves' retail
    outlets in 2005 after Loves continued to market non-certified CB
    transmitters at ten of its retail outlets. These Citations put
    Loves on actual notice that marketing of this equipment is
    unlawful and that continued violations could make Loves liable
    for severe sanctions. Yet, subsequent to these seven Citations,
    Loves marketed the very same models of unlawful equipment at
    least three times which involved at least two of its retail
    outlets. Loves' continuing violations of the equipment
    authorization requirements evince a pattern of intentional non-
    compliance with and apparent disregard for these rules.
    Accordingly, we believe an upward adjustment of the base
    forfeiture amount is warranted.31 Applying the Forfeiture Policy
    Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent and gravity
    of the violation and the history of prior offenses)32 to the
    instant case, we conclude that it is appropriate to adjust upward
    the base forfeiture amount of $21,000 and propose a forfeiture of
    $25,000 for Loves' apparent violations. Therefore, we find Loves
    apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $25,000.

    IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

    20. 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,
    Love's Travel Stops and Country Store, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of
    this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-
    five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly
    violating Section 302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of
    the Rules.

    21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
    the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this NAL,
    Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
    amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
    statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeiture.

    22. Payment of the forfeiture may 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. Requests for payment of the full amount
    of this Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan
    should be sent to: Associate Managing Director, Financial
    Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C.
    20554.33

    23. The response if any must be mailed to Federal
    Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central
    Region, Dallas Office, 9330 LBJ Fwy, Suite 1170, Dallas, Texas
    75243 and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the
    caption.

    24. 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; 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.

    25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be
    sent by regular First Class Mail and by Certified Mail Return
    Receipt Requested to: Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores,
    Inc., P.O. Box 26210, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126.



    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





    James D. Wells
    District Director
    Dallas Office
    South Central Region
    Enforcement Bureau
    ATTACHMENT


    1. February 23, 2005, Loves center #213, Tomkawa,
    Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX33HML
    displayed and offered for sale.

    2. February 23, 2005, Loves center #213, Tomkawa,
    Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX99V
    displayed and offered for sale.

    3. February 25, 2005, Loves center #202, Pauls Valley,
    Oklahoma. Non-certified CB transceiver Galaxy models DX33HML
    displayed and offered for sale.
     
    #1
  2. sleepwalker

    sleepwalker Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    AND? :roll:
     
    #2
  3. Moleculo

    Moleculo Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    8,369
    Likes Received:
    548
    Love's Travel Stops has NOT been fined, as you claim in your subject header. This is a "Notice of Apparent Liability" only. Love's has the ability to file a response, as is clearly stated in this notice. "Apparent Liability" means that the commission believes that it has adequate cause to fine them, however no such fine is enforceable until heard by a jury in a court of law and therefore they are only "apparently" liable. Love's Travel Stops has the ability to either just pay the proposed fine, or file a response which may ultimately result in a court hearing. It looks to me like Love's has a corporate attorney that is willing to test the FCC's rules and own attorneys as is obvious by their response that they believe they have complied with the rules according to part 97. That seems to have irritated the FCC and they're asking for the fine to be increased. The problem the FCC has with this case is that they allow the sale of every amateur HF transceiver which only requires the removal of a diode or two to transmit on 11m. Every jury comprised of reasonable people will clearly see that there is a conflict in the law when those are allowed, but a radio that requires a jumper moved is not. There is no difference in the complexity involved in modding either of these types of radios to work on 11m. How else can you explain that Copper, H&Y, 1Stop, etc. all continue to sell these radios even after receiving the same notices? I got $20 to anyone willing to take the bet that says Love's never pays a dime and continues to sell these radios. It's so obvious: Over and over again we see that the government only gets the chumps that made it through law school, while the best attorneys are on the free market where they will get paid what they are worth. Free enterprise puts a smile on my face once more :)
     
    #3
  4. Sonwatcher

    Sonwatcher Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    13
    Mole,
    These radios mostly seem to require a jumper moved as you say. What I find interesting is that my Yaesu 757gx is easier than that ! It has a factory built in switch behind the face plate. "click" and bingo 11 meters is enabled ! Tell me that isn't 11 meter inherant design by the manufacturer.
     
    #4
  5. yama junk owna

    yama junk owna Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    196
    Likes Received:
    0
    This could get real interesting, if Love's lawyers bring up the vague wording in the fcc statements about why these radios are illegal. There is not a radio made that will meet what they say, most Yaesus, Kenwoods, Tentecs, Icoms, etc are easier to mod to 11 meters than most of the radios on the blacklist.


    The thing that has allways escaped me is why the manf.s of these Export radios don't go ahead and use a vfo to tune with, then the radios would be just like all the other ham rigs. If it don't have a channel switch it ain't a cb, right :LOL:
     
    #5
  6. todt061458

    todt061458 W9WDX Amateur Radio Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    Retarded truckers? what makes you say that? The average trucker now a days has a sense of business time mamagement,Math skills,map reading and route planing ability,Communication skills most of society lacks,etc.You sure are a one sided pea brain.
    Also now that CW has posted more of this anti trucker dribble it still means nothing as the T.A. pilots love's,and several trucking companies are all planning to take the FCC to federal court over their letters I wonder how much money the FCC is willing to spend on this nonsense.?
    So CW did you get off on that last posting? Just more cut and past nonsense now over to trucknet to see if he posted the same crap over their.
     
    #6
  7. C2

    C2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,306
    Likes Received:
    42
    it's not that truckers arent smart enough to figure out how to use a vfo, just that it would be difficult for others using channelized radios to sync with those with vfos, and vice-versa.

    twenty seven tripple five oh is the same as what channel?

    And then if they did go vfo...think there might be some retaliation resulting in required license verification for retail sales of all transmitting gear?
     
    #7
  8. todt061458

    todt061458 W9WDX Amateur Radio Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    I doubt it.
    It takes no lic to buy ham gear with a vfo. Just a lic to transmit with it.
    Hey chocolate what's your problem with truckers?
     
    #8
  9. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    I can tell you why. Because these "export" radios are SPECIFICALLY prohibited by NAME to be sold in the USA and it is codified in FCC's regulations. In fact, they stiffened up these regulations to preclude them from sale a couple of years ago. Therefore, there is nothing ambiguous in the regulations. These *&^%$ things are nothing more than ways to circumvent the law. Electronics-savvy people KNOW that "10 Meter" radios don't require "channel" markers and "band" switches to cover O N E band of frequencies. Just the opposite! :evil: The makers of these things KNOW that "bands" of 'extra' channels appeals to the unruly CBer, and all you gotta do is say, "it puts out 75 'bird' watts with them super-duper 'pills'!?" :x Ker-ching!$$ Where do you FIND "channels"? They are part and parcel of land mobile radio.
    CB radios are a CONSUMER product that requires NO particular skill, no knowledge to use just like a waffle iron or a VCR. When the wanna-be "hobbiests" start trying to find 'extra' channels and mo' powah, it creates trouble. That's why they don't WANT "export" radios on the market, and I would point out that if the users had not stuck their unwanted noses where they don't belong (without license), we wouldn't even be discussing this now. But Neeeeeeeee-uuuuoooooooooooooooo!
    They just had to have something that belongs to others with their extra this, mo' that.

    So, um, you're saying that Riley is a "chump"? I am sure he'd love to be called that in person. I'm glad I've got SOMEBODY that is willing to go to bat for the hams. I can assure you he is NO "chump".

    As to the previous dealers that continue to sell these blasted pieces of sh$$, just stay tuned. There is a path which FCC follows to the assessment of fines. They are not as stupid as *some* might think! There IS a method to it. And one of those "chumps" has assured me this crap is NOT OVER!~ There are more in store, trust me! :twisted: And I hope they win every one of them! Including against Cobra and *others* often represented on this forum. If it has "bands" of "channels", it-is-illegal, it is on a list of dis-approved tranceivers, and that is all there is to it. I have no doubt FCC will win if tested. There ARE people within the agency that ARE willing to stand up for what is right.

    And these trials are heard in an ADMINSTRATIVE LAW court, not in a CIVIL court. A civil "jury" has nothing to do with it.

    CWM
     
    #9
  10. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sometimes I think requiring proof of license is the way to go. I wouldn't mind it. Of course, that still wouldn't curb the sale of illegal equipment. Like Prohibition, they will find a way to get what they want. What about 'sunsetting' CB? Like setting a date about 5 years hence after which no more new CB sets would be permitted and no more use of 27 MHZ allowed.

    Naw. Won't work. Bad enough there's bandits on HF as is. That would just make it worse. They'd show up on 15 Meters. :evil:

    Now with the new DOT/FCC regulation that is in the works, THAT might have a chance at stopping the filching of ham frequencies. It is a simple and direct way of going after the 'export' radios.


    CWM
     
    #10
  11. snoope

    snoope Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHAT NEW D.O.T. RULE ??????

    Easy how we cast that big "Wish List"...this poor "horse" has been rode so hard and come back to life it is even starting to scare the "Undertakers" away ;) ;) :roll: :roll: :roll:

    With all the "New technology" out in "cyberspace" and beyond..do you really think the BIG F.C.C has time to deal with one on one truck inspections.......And as for D.O.T.,I wish they had enough enforcement out here just to get the "junk" running away with my profit off the road never mind the folks with CDL's in 7 different states......

    Searching for one "DAM lousy" export radio will not make a family member come back to life because of someone overworked,overbooked or even worse ....under qualified to drive period....runs them over............

    To all members ,I do apologize BUT THIS TRUCKER BASHING CRYBABY WANT MY AIRSPACE CRAP IS JUST THAT..........FLUSH IT LIKE THE REST OF THE SHI7 AND LETS MOVE ON....

    Cw,you should be more worried about getting injured in a Cheney hunting party,than if 100+ truckers have "extreeee" channels.....




    Snoope just pulled out the maxi brake....waiting for a Model T with a HAM Stick to drive by :p 8) ;)
     
    #11
  12. todt061458

    todt061458 W9WDX Amateur Radio Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think he is still mad about loosing 11 meters all those years ago.
    Lighten up CW your going to have a heart attack.
     
    #12
  13. cyclops1970

    cyclops1970 Gay Nazi Liberation Party

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I think they will have to pay the fine.

    A) They lied to the FCC: "We promise to stop selling these radios." Did they? Nope. Plus, in making the offer it is not only an admission of guilt, it's a recognition that the FCC is the controlling authority.

    B) They went with their own interpretation of FCC rules: "We think these are ham transceivers, not CB transceivers." Gee, that took a real smart attorney to tell his client to do exactly opposite of what the FCC says.

    Love's really needs to get better legal advice. There's no administrative law judge anywhere who's going to rule in favor of them. It's almost like Love's thinks that the FCC rules and determinations don't apply to them.
     
    #13
  14. todt061458

    todt061458 W9WDX Amateur Radio Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    So if they loose so what!
    It's nothing more than a business expense and a write off.
     
    #14
  15. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    OH! BTW. I don't have a Model T--will a Model A do? It has no
    antennas on it, tho! :p
     
    #15

Share This Page