1 STOP CB Shop Fined $7,000

[Peddler]

And I'm sure, CWM, that you be the first one to run squealing like a pig stuck under a gate...Sheech...so much waste of time and hatred.

 

[undertaker]

Give em HELL Peddler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sonwatcher]

But the ham is off the hook simply because the rules don't apply to HIM in THAT way. While it may seem screwy that the dealer could get busted for selling it, if he sells it to a licensed ham, the ham is within the bounds of HIS rules and the radio still complies with Part 97! Yes, the dealer could get jacked up pretty high, while the ham that bought the "illegal" 10 METER radio won't be bothered---even if the FCC agent were right there in the store when he bought it!

This is where I have an ethical problem. Yes, Hams are allowed to use these radios in the Amateur bands . But with the Law the way it is written states

"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 in the case of a device subject to certification such device has been authorized by the Commission."

The dealer you illustrated in the above is committing a felony by selling the radio to the ham. The Ham knows this. He is getting a radio by illegal means and willing to let someone commit a crime to get what HE wants . He may raise his arms in victory when a retailer goes down but in the same breath he may be placing an order to Ranger for a 2970dx . Even though the Ham may be under a "legal" umbrella I find the means of his acquiring very much a double standard ethically . He knows he shouldn't be able to legally purchase one from a dealer yet still does so . Just my 2 cents.

 

[dudmuck]

...nor may he use ANY other sort of uncertified radio (such as an ICOM 706) on the CB band...

That whole "stinky list" of illegal transceivers looses its entire credibility because that icom 706 is not on the list. And btw that list is not from the FCC, it was made by a ham.

The intent of selling a 10 meter radio is not to fool anyone. The intent is to make it obvious to the buyer that this radio is for the amateur radio service, and that any other use is illegal.

Any lawyer worth a grain of salt knows that the interpretation of "easy to modify" is completely subjective, and undefined by 47 CFR to boot.

 

[Shioda]

That whole "stinky list" of illegal transceivers looses its entire credibility because that icom 706 is not on the list. And btw that list is not from the FCC, it was made by a ham.

The intent of selling a 10 meter radio is not to fool anyone. The intent is to make it obvious to the buyer that this radio is for the amateur radio service, and that any other use is illegal.

Any lawyer worth a grain of salt knows that the interpretation of "easy to modify" is completely subjective, and undefined by 47 CFR to boot.

The FCC's position is that easy to modify for transceivers has the same meaning as for scanning receivers as set forth in the regulations

 

[C2]

CWM,

A man to man challenge.

Show me an official list, either hosted on an official goverment website or printed on governemnt letterhead, or certified in some way by the government, that that is

listed BY NAME on FCC's stinky list

Otherwise, you're just spouting greasy kid stuff.

 

[C W Morse]

CWM,

A man to man challenge.

Show me an official list, either hosted on an official goverment website or printed on governemnt letterhead, or certified in some way by the government, that that is



Otherwise, you're just spouting greasy kid stuff.

********************************************************

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161 USA
Telephone: (703)605-6000 or (800) 553-6847

It ain't no skin off my nose, bud. Every time they send out of those warnings, they list the ones that the dealer is selling OR the user is using.
It makes no difference to ME! It doesn't hurt me one way or the other. I won't be caught using one of the radios in question. You can go look for the radios yourself on FCC's website. It isn't UP to me! I just READ the NALS and laugh (whether there's a "list" or not). They're still sending out fines and warnings. What does THAT have to do with me? Nothing. Just because YOU might want the "fake" 10 Meter radios to be legal doesn't mean they are--list or no.

CWM

 

[Moleculo]

********************************************************

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161 USA
Telephone: (703)605-6000 or (800) 553-6847

It ain't no skin off my nose, bud. Every time they send out of those warnings, they list the ones that the dealer is selling OR the user is using.
It makes no difference to ME! It doesn't hurt me one way or the other. I won't be caught using one of the radios in question. You can go look for the radios yourself on FCC's website. It isn't UP to me! I just READ the NALS and laugh (whether there's a "list" or not). They're still sending out fines and warnings. What does THAT have to do with me? Nothing. Just because YOU might want the "fake" 10 Meter radios to be legal doesn't mean they are--list or no.

CWM

It isn't a matter of "wanting the fake 10 meter radios to be legal". That is just more hyperbole that you're adding in to try make your point. Look...I don't agree with people intruding on frequencies that are allocated to another user. However C2's point actually is on point! The "list" isn't maintained by the FCC or the NTIS. (Just because you post the NTIS address in response doesn't mean squat.) The "list" is maintained and generated by a few engineers that work for the ARRL. The FCC has abdicated their responsibility to the strongest political action committee for Amateur Radio operator's rights. Hey, I applaud the ARRL for being able to pull that off....but I despise the FCC for shirking their responsibilities of doing their own homework. The bottom line is that 1Stop, Copper, and every other big export retailer continues to be able to beat these fines in court. That should tell you that something is wrong with either the way the FCC is going about this, or wrong with the whole definition of what is illegal.

 

[Shioda]

It isn't a matter of "wanting the fake 10 meter radios to be legal". That is just more hyperbole that you're adding in to try make your point. Look...I don't agree with people intruding on frequencies that are allocated to another user. However C2's point actually is on point! The "list" isn't maintained by the FCC or the NTIS. (Just because you post the NTIS address in response doesn't mean squat.) The "list" is maintained and generated by a few engineers that work for the ARRL. The FCC has abdicated their responsibility to the strongest political action committee for Amateur Radio operator's rights. Hey, I applaud the ARRL for being able to pull that off....but I despise the FCC for shirking their responsibilities of doing their own homework. The bottom line is that 1Stop, Copper, and every other big export retailer continues to be able to beat these fines in court. That should tell you that something is wrong with either the way the FCC is going about this, or wrong with the whole definition of what is illegal.

The list was not generated by the ARRL. It was written by several FCC employees as a cooperative effort, including Hendrickson who was the drafter of the Public Notice which created this entire mess. The fact of the matter is that the FCC loses in court because all radios are easy to modify if you know what you are doing and none are easy to modify if you don't know what you are doing.

You are right though that the FCC is not doing its job. Rather than fine those who are transmitting on frequencies they are not supposed to, the FCC decided to avoid doing their duty by calling the 10 meter radios CB. Let's face it, if the radios were used solely on CB nobody would complain. The extra power the 10 meter radios have is nothing in comparasion to the rigs out there with amplifiers so powerful that the signal bleeds over three channels.

The problem the FCC doesn't want to properly correct is twofold. First, it is non-licensed users on Amateur frequencies. Second, it is freebanders. What if the manufactures made "freeband" radios that could not be modified to work on CB without changing crystals? Right out of the box the radios worked all the way to the edge of the CB frequencies. No need for modification. They would probably sell like hotcakes. The FCC could not call them "uncertified CB transceivers." So how they going to deal with that problem.

The fact is, calling the transceivers a CB is a farce and a lie intended by the FCC to deal with freebanders the easy way without during their job.

 

[Shioda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mackmobile43
You're spouting alot of incredible claims and have yet failed to show any valid proof of said claims, you remind me of a guy in Texas who worked security for the gov.

Put up or shut up, as in show dated sales reciepts charged to government cards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shioda
If you read my first post, you would know that the FCC lost its lawsuit to enforce the fine. In any event, it is only the sale, not possession which is claimed to be a violation of the regulations. Government employees buy these radios for their own use, using government credit cards to buy them.
\
Still waiting for the evidence.

Here it is, redacted to remove confidential information.

 

[C2]

That look very authentic...

 

[Shioda]

That look very authentic...

We all know anyone can create any document on the computer. Just ask the Italian police who found billions in authentic looking but probably counterfeit bearer bonds on two Japanese men last week. However, the invoice is the real deal. Accept it or reject it. Doesn't matter to me. However, it is legitimate.

 

[Sonwatcher]

Here it is, redacted to remove confidential information.

Where is it ? Did you remove it with your edit ?

 

[Shioda]

Where is it ? Did you remove it with your edit ?

Yes, I removed it. No point in letting it take up space for my attachments when people who see it don't believe it. The top of the invoice was redacted by me to cover the identity of the retailer and the credit card information was also redacted since I didn't want someone stealing the government's identity and racking up porn charges on the government's credit card. The purchaser was the Coast Guard. The invoice is legitimate and I have more showing purchases by the Navy. If you want to see it, pm me with your email address and I can send it to you.

 

[mackmobile43]

Yes, I removed it. No point in letting it take up space for my attachments when people who see it don't believe it. The top of the invoice was redacted by me to cover the identity of the retailer and the credit card information was also redacted since I didn't want someone stealing the government's identity and racking up porn charges on the government's credit card. The purchaser was the Coast Guard. The invoice is legitimate and I have more showing purchases by the Navy. If you want to see it, pm me with your email address and I can send it to you.

You are so full of shit.