Total posts : 45366
“But I emphasize that I still read it clear that RFBs statement was predominately and specifically about uneven law enforcement, and not at all a question of what’s considered to be a compliant, or non compliant Part 15 installations.”
Exactly. How is anyone to know that the enforcement of law is being done justly given missing pieces of information?
Not long ago, those NOUO’s AND NAL’s included specifics like the field strengths. They do a great job of pointing out the limits, but have not disclosed what was measured to be in violation, only declaring that the violator operated outside of those specified limits.
Now let’s look at AR’s prospective.
“If you break the rules knowingly and are unwilling to change your operation to comply with said rules when the FCC or your country’s authority points that out, then you deserve whatever you get. That applies to both unlicensed operators such as the one referenced in the original post, as well as any licensed operators.
100 percent fully agree. Your describing an evenly and fairly applied enforcement of law and justice. Isn’t that what is supposed to happen? Is that happening, or did happen in this case?
Now Rich’s prospective.
“Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?”
Sure..if said NOUO provided the evidence that proves a violation. All that is there is “hear say”. Hear say is no less or more credible from one source or another, be it from a liar or some FCC field agent. Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the statement of exceeding field strength limits if said measurements of the field strength were actually disclosed instead? Are there field strength measurements given in this case, and quite a few others over the last several months?
I do not believe so. So..isn’t it probable that most reasonable people would be expecting some evidence in the documentation to help prove that the law was violated?
Or do we just accept someone’s word that a person committed a violation when the evidence that proves the accusation of the violation is no where to be found? Is a suspected murderer declared guilty when no proof said suspect even did it, or do we just take the word of whomever said so?
That Rich is not a Democratic Republic justice system. That is a dictatorship/communist socialist justice system.
Are you aware, or anyone..that in the years of Stalin, he murdered hundreds of millions of his citizens all based on “say so” with absolutely no factual basis for those judgments of death sentence? Mussolini did the same thing, Hitler, the recently passed on N. Korea leader Kim Jong-il, Mao of China and tons more.
Ok so were not talking about law violations of murder. However is the practice of justice to be different between murderers and field strength violators? The evidence pours in with murderers, to great detail these days with modern investigative techniques. With today’s touted 15+ grand Potomac FIM’s, shouldn’t the evidence also be as detailed and outlined in the accusation too?
Back to another of End80’s points.
“I’m reasonably sure that everyone who participates or knowledgeably browses this forum agree that the information provided in the NOUOs which have been issued to Part15ers’ is sufficient proof that those installations were non-compliant.”
I would agree to those NOUO’s and NAL’s that disclose what was measured, and accept that operator as a busted Part 15 operator if that measured field strength was a couple of hundred uV over 250 at 3 meters, or their AM TX had 400mW final input feeding a 10 foot rod and the operator made the statement that they were attempting their best to operate under Part 15. The measurements and photos of the physical setups would suggest that operator was far different from a pirate operator, thus saying it was a Part 15’er could be applicable..though not necessarily. However I have never seen a pirate operator be satisfied with 400mW on a 10 foot rod or 300uV at 3 meters. Much MUCH more than either of those.
Now back to another perspective from Rich.
My response was based on RFB’s statement about “those who spend so much effort in reminding Part 15’ers to adhere to the rules as if they are blatantly violating those rules with absolutely no proof that any Part 15 operators are”…The FCC has provided such proof for the operators receiving an NOUO for non-compliance with Part 15”
Where? Point out the proof in this ham’s NAL please. What proof are you referring to? Let’s go a bit beyond this case and back several months worth. Noted by a member before, the NOUO’s and NAL’s do not include evidence of signals going beyond the limits.
Oh I should also point out, that this case, and the others, are NOT anything related or has anything to do with any Part 15 operator or setup at all. I mean if someone is throwing some watts or feeding a long wire or dipole with hundreds of watts, are those to be considered Part 15 operators and as such tagged as a Part 15 operator and put into the category of Part 15 because they got busted?
“The Kansas Ham who was fined for his FM operation is not a member of part15.us and did not claim to be operating under the part 15 rules. Therefore the incident, while interesting to all part 15 members, does not reflect on us whatsoever. This question has a prosecutorial tone…”Wouldn’t most, reasonable people accept the field strength measurements of the FCC given in their publicly-released Part 15 NOUOs issued to unlicensed AM/FM band operators as sufficient proof that such installations were non-compliant with Part 15?” It refers to “Part 15 NOUOs” which have not been entered into evidence anywhere in this discussion. “Reasonable people” prefer their subject doesn’t get distorted into false avenues of fault finding.”
THANK YOU CARL!!!
Putting all the eggs in one basket are we Rich? Is that even and fair justice to any of us who DO adhere to the Part 15 rules? Does that not prove the point I have made time and time again that Part 15 operators are given a bad rep by that token of throwing us into the same basket with the PIRATE operators???
“Uneven” law enforcement is another matter”
WHAT? Another matter? What are we talking about here…chicken soup recipes? Or is this one of those Gray scale line dividing confuse the issue perspective? In what manner is this discussion a different matter from uneven and unfair law enforcement?
Is leaving out facts to a case which will prove or not prove guilt anything even or fair to law enforcement?
Is it fair or even law enforcement to be pulled over and declared you were speeding when the other driver who whisked by you 4 times the speed you were going fair or even law enforcement and you get the ticket and fine? Would you just accept that and pay the fine and accept the negative point on your record without proof that the cop actually caught your speed measurement on his radar or laser and didn’t even show it to you or record it to prove you violated the law?
Is it really any different from that vs this case of no evidence to prove this ham operator was actually violating field strength limits?
If I remember correctly, mere statements in court is not evidence, only supplemental to support given evidence.
So..where is the evidence? How do we know that this ham operator was not running a Decade or C Crane FM transmitter? How do we know what he was running?
From the information within the NAL..is there anything there that proves what he was operating or at what level of field strength?
If I missed it please show me and I will shut up.
Ok…so here we are, in one had a very light weight piece of document with no supportive proof, and on the other a plethora of very heavy and over-flowing cup of supportive proof..an unlicensed and licensed..both obviously in the eyes of the FCC as to violating something..correct? (other reference is Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, but not the only one).
But do we see the even and fair level of enforcement in both?
For all we know or anyone knows, even the ham operator, the complaints could have come from other hams who have something against his little FM jobber, which very well could have been nothing more than a certified Decade or C Crane unit…eh???!!!
But how is anyone to know what was used..what the FS was?
Eh?!!!
Do any of you know, or are aware, that the Patriot Act of 2003 and it’s boosting and expanding in 2009 gives authority the right to bust down your door, put you in handcuffs, haul you off to wherever, and does not have to allow you to access to legal representation, nor requires them to have a warrant or proof of reason for your arrest?
Doesn’t that sound awfully a lot like this ham operator’s case?
Hmm. And uneven and unfair and unjust enforcement of the law is a different matter?
Left went right and up went down and forward means backwards.
Quite ironic..and quite disgusting, not to mention devastating to truth, justice and fairness…ie democracy.
Let me add one more thing in Rich’s corner. Yes it would be true to say that those operating a system that exceeds the Part 15 limitations is in fact operating illegally and beyond those Part 15 limits. But it in no way links or defines anyone who operates within the Part 15 limits as being of the same cloth.
Why would a licensed ham operator risk that license to operate ham radio with an illegal broadcast FM operation???
There is a lot here that simply does not add up..including the NAL..it is missing some important numbers to equal up the total.
RFB
