Sidebar Sidebar
  • You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.

fcc Bullys little old lady


I'll tell you why they issued a citation rather than a letter first which is customary, because the fcc is more concerned with it's ego and it's ability to milk the American public out of it's hard earned cash rather than investigate this incident further.:headbang
 
mackmobile43 said:
I'll tell you why they issued a citation rather than a letter first which is customary, because the fcc is more concerned with it's ego and it's ability to milk the American public out of it's hard earned cash rather than investigate this incident further.:headbang
Click to expand...

Or go after the company that mfg this device. This woman -no doubt- bought this antenna amp w/o any or little radio knowledge workings.

IF the FCC ever does get its act together and begins to do what they are supposed -with the exception of harassing little old ladies- it will be a whirlwind of major court actions. Maybe this was meant as a warning to us all. But if that is the case - it only proves that they are acting incorrectly as they have been in the past.

One would have logically gone to the mfr of this item and see if other products like it has similar problems. Shame on the FCC for doing what they did. But more important, is the 'why' in their motivation is fatally flawed!
 
Last edited:
Chicken shit to give a citation, since now she can be fined in the future should she buy another one and that one breaks causing interference. Something she probably would not even know about.
 
The FCC Clearly over stepped themselves..
I am sure the women still is wondering what happened to her and why..

There was Absolutely no call to hassle her...
She clearly bought an antenna that to her was perfectly fine and legal....and not her fault it was not operating as so allowed by the FCC..

That is a case of BIG BROTHER gone WRONG ! !
 
I dont know what to say or how to respond to this its CRAZY!! Im sure the courts will relook this and seee it in a logical way.

Well the FCC is a government agency and we all have been watching what the governments been doing in alot of different things so I guess this shouldnt be a shock :w00t::eek:
 
His is an example of what has normally been FCC practice in these situations. -

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257950A1.html

It's confusing as to why they skipped this step.
 
Sonwatcher said:
His is an example of what has normally been FCC practice in these situations. -

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-257950A1.html

It's confusing as to why they skipped this step.
Click to expand...

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.
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.


      Top Bottom
      Back