PDA

View Full Version : FCC enforcement


K7FE
03-26-2006, 04:30 AM
==>FAILURE TO RESPOND TO FCC COULD LEAD TO ENFORCEMENT ACTION

The FCC has held up the license renewal of a New Jersey Novice ticket holder
for failing to respond to a Commission field office Citation and a Warning
Notice, both dating back several years. FCC Special Counsel in the
Enforcement Bureau Riley Hollingsworth told Ronald A. Mondgock, KA3OMZ, of
Burlington, that if he did not submit a timely reply to his February 6,
2006, letter, the Commission would dismiss his renewal application and issue
a Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture.

In February 2002, Hollingsworth wrote Mondgock regarding allegations he'd
transmitted in the 75-meter phone band, which is unavailable to Novice class
licensees. In July 2004, the FCC's Philadelphia Field Office cited Mondgock
for allegedly failing to identify, making transmissions involving obscenity
and indecency and operating on a frequency not authorized under his license.

On February 7, Hollingsworth sent a Warning Notice to Frank J. Fatigate,
KB2YDO, of Hopewell Junction, New York, for allegedly failing to reply to a
complaint the FCC forwarded to him nearly a year earlier. The FCC cited US
Postal Service records indicating that Fatigate, a Technician licensee,
refused delivery of the Commission correspondence. Subsequent attempts to
reach Fatigate yielded no response. Noting that Fatigate had apparently
changed his address, the FCC gave him additional time to reply or face a
possible fine of up to $4000.

Hollingsworth said this week that he has yet to hear from either Mondgock or
Fatigate.


In another enforcement matter, the FCC wrote Technician licensee Brandon M.
Duke, KC0UWS (ex-KC0TKB), of Longmont, Colorado, January 9 advising him of a
complaint alleging "deliberate interference and other rule violations on
repeaters." Duke replied, pledging to change his ways.

In a January 26 e-mail, an apologetic Duke said he'd destroyed an audio CD
containing apparently objectionable material he'd been accused of airing. He
also said he'd "refrain from jamming, interfering, kerchunking and using any
repeaters."

Hollingsworth cautioned Duke that the FCC expected him to abide by requests
to steer clear of certain repeaters or face license revocation, a fine or
other sanctions. In his e-mail response, Duke said he would refrain from
using Boulder Amateur Radio Club repeaters, per the club's written request.

On January 24, Tracy Simmons of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
licensing operations in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, advised Duke that because
he was "involved in an enforcement action," the Commission had set aside its
earlier grant of a new sequential call sign, KC0VRS. Duke told Hollingsworth
that he'd also filed for a vanity call sign.

Hollingsworth cautioned Duke that no matter his call sign, he remains
obligated to stay off the repeaters as requested.

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

k4lem
03-26-2006, 12:35 PM
Sorta a sad commentary on the state of HR considering these sorts of activites go on all the time and only a small percentage have themselves identified.

Last night during WPX I was listening on 80-75 and heard some idiot jamming or attempting to jam a CN2 station by calling , " gay boy slurs". I mean such crap as this is so low minded and juvenile.

I think it speaks to a neurotic society with no respect or manners at all. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

WA2ZDY
03-26-2006, 02:08 PM
Good old Brandon. And we here can say we knew him when . . . a real shame, I liked that boy too, thought he had good potential as a ham.

LEM, you're right. Respect is a concept that's been lost in our society. I haven't a clue how to get it back either.

ai4ep
03-26-2006, 02:59 PM
...and I was told that the " amateur radio spectrum " was / is SELF - ENFORCING " of the FCC rules and regulations.

so who lets their neighbor get away with consistently breaking the rules ?

ai4ep
03-26-2006, 08:15 PM
...and also it is only the real dumb ones that get caught anyway....since the FCC spends so little time enforcing their own rules.

Imagine if the FCC really wanted to catch illegal amateur radio operators, with most every body and their dog getting a pink ticket....but the way it is now, you really have to be a lousy operator for a long, long time to get their attention, then be dumb enough not to know how to STOP breaking the rules to even get a pink slip.

Oh well..........

WA9SVD
03-27-2006, 06:46 AM
The Amateur Service is supposed to be self-policing. And that works, only as far as people are willing to be self policed. Unfortunately, it's another case of "responsibility without authority;" we have no legal authority to enforce rules ourselves. Unfortunately, the FCC acts too little, too late in terms of enforcement. It's enforcement should be swift and harsh.

wv6z
03-27-2006, 07:22 AM
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ Mar. 26 2006,00:46)]The Amateur Service is supposed to be self-policing. #And that works, only as far as people are willing to be self policed. #Unfortunately, it's another case of "responsibility without authority;" we have no legal authority to enforce rules #ourselves. #Unfortunately, the FCC acts too little, too late in terms of enforcement. #It's enforcement should be swift and harsh.
Gee whiz, you're right, let's send in our special strike force NOW!!!
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/TheModerator2.jpg

ai4ep
03-27-2006, 01:50 PM
Well, we need to actually DO something about the rule violators besides sit here and tap on a keyboard.

Aint none in MY neighborhood...how about yours ?

WA9SVD
03-27-2006, 08:09 PM
Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Mar. 27 2006,00:22)][quote=wa9svd,Mar. 26 2006,00:46]The Amateur Service is supposed to be self-policing.
Gee whiz, you're right, let's send in our special strike force NOW!!!
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d148/ku4my/TheModerator2.jpg
It's pretty ridiculous when the FCC threatens a station about violations, the regs say that station must reply within 30 days, and the FCC is still waiting for that reply four years later. If the reply isn't received in 30 days, they SHOULD issue a NAL, and THEN let the "alleged" violator explain why they didn't even reply. But give them FOUR YEARS???

SAme: an operator moved, and FCC correspondence about violations was returned to the FCC. THAT is a clear violation of FCC rules (§97.23) that says an address change must be filed with the FCC in a "timely' manner, although that is a vague, and unspecific time frame; but the rules also say that if correspondence from the FCC is returned as undeliverable, then revocation or suspension can result. Since the USPS normally forwards mail for up to one year, there's no excuse. Either get some response from the person, (both regarding the original complaint and not submitting a timely address change) or just suspend the license until they make a reply. Don't just wait "a couple of years."

By swift and harsh, I mean apply the rules as they are stated, not bend over backwards ten times over to allow violators to continue in their ways. Unfortunately, for some, warnings and "slaps on the wrist" don't work.

(Perhaps an analogy: If you get a parking ticket, you may grumble, but admit you were at fault, and pay it, or at least agrue it in court. But SOME people will ignore the notice and summons, and become repeat offenders. Sooner or later, their car may get "booted." And they CAN'T drive their vehicle until they reconcile all the violations, either by paying the fines, or arguing in court. But the court follows a set timetable for the fines, they don't send out multiple "reminders" about an outstanding ticket/warrant for a few years, asking "PLEASE , PRETTY PLEASE" pay your fine... No, eventually, and fairly quickly, they go beyond the request phase, to demanding immediate payment, and then take further action as necessary. If only the FCC could do the same.)

That's not really calling in the "strike force." It's just enforcing the rules.

WA2ZDY
03-27-2006, 11:30 PM
I'm with SVD on this one. IF guys KNEW they were gonna get hammered, they'd act a little better on the air, a plus for all of the rest of us.

ai4ep
03-28-2006, 12:44 AM
...so why be afraid of a " paper tiger " ?

w7lpn
03-28-2006, 05:16 PM
I'm glad to hear of enforcement. Maybe it will diswade future "Radio Rambo's" or Jammers/trash-talkers from pursuing that course of action. Good one for "Uncle Charlie". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

w7lpn
03-28-2006, 05:18 PM
Maybe the Drunks on 75 meters will get the message

NO8M
03-28-2006, 09:29 PM
So true...lot of juvenile behavior on the air. For instance, I was in California with my family and we were driving from San Diego up to L.A. to go see my YL's aunts and uncles. I was scanning the airwaves with my VX-6 and somewhere around Oceanside, I picked up 3 guys talking. They were using every explitive in the American Standard Sailor Phrase Book (I can make that joke since I'm in the Navy) and I think I might have heard 1 call sign thrown in over a 20 min period. It was unreal. I guess that's why we're all urged as hams to develop our DF skills. Even if you get it down to a block, and get some recorded audio, that ought to be enough for the FCC to slam some heads.

Here's another radical idea......actually having to present/fax/whatever your license in order to purchase equipment. I'm willing to bet that all the trash talkers aren't even Techs, just people with some extra cash.

There are no laws if there is no law enforcement.