BANDS BEYOND the 40

I so dont understand why people find using out of band radios at all. Ever since the internet, all but channel 19 is dead. How hard can it be to find an open freq?? I also wish the import industry would quit saying these radios are 10M or Amateur Radios. No ham would EVER use these radios. Only reason they call it 10M is becouse its hard to sell radios boxed as "illiegal CB's". Its nothing to do with hams trying to prove a point, it has to do with basic ham needs like selectivity and a sensitive receiver. (also stable and cool temp circuits). We dont even use "channels!" These radios are just plain garbage. And for the price, we can get radios that can compair to these "import" radios like horse and buggy is compaired to a Ford GT. I will conside that they are great at what they are MADE FOR in the first place, and thats being kick butt CB's. Thats why you only find them in trucks! And for all of you that use them illigeally out of band, thanks for ruining it for licensed operators. I hear companies like Crete now are telling all there drivers no Ham Radios at ALL! Thats what pisses me off. They are not even HAM RADIOS!!!!

 

If it's not a HAM radio, then why does the FCC consider them Illegal?

Why do HAMS like you and GADFLY and others make such a big deal about these so called "HAM" radio's if there not "HAM" radio's?

I will guarantee you this, there are MORE HAMS listening and instigating on CB channels (1-40) than there are CB operators listening to the HAM frequencies and keying up.

 

You won't just find them in trucks. I have seen many in cars and pickup trucks. I live in a small county and all of the sherrif cars have Gallaxy 95T radios in them. Im not saying that its right but its not just trucks and I will admit that big trucks are the primary user of these radios. I ran a export for years and stayed on the legal 40 channels I don't have one anymore. I like to find and restore old radios.

 

I know 8 ham operators that use their ham rigs to talk on the the 11 meter band. Almost every night we drop down to channnel 12 and have a little round table bull session for about an hour. It doesn't bother me that they use their ham radios, were just having a good time talking to one another. I do understand how some hams feel about the 10 meter radios, the ones down here that I know, really don't care about the 10 meter band.

 

LOL!.....How can you prove it does not happen then? I have listened to the garbage on 2 meter...It sounds just like CB talk to me..except for the call signs...

Every ham forum I have ever visited always has the question in it...
How or where can I get the filter for AM so i can go to the CB channels...

and there will be 50 or so "HAMS" answer it..

The truth must hurt, huh Gadfly? I bet that took you all night to right that post, being you had to go to 15 or more sites to copy and paste it all down.

 

Then LIST those "ham" forums where I can go verify all these hams just a-dyin' to get an "AM filter" so they can get on CB". I visit exactly TWO such forums and the only one that has mentioned CB is always highly ridiculing and MOCKING CB radio---mostly where it concerns the illegal aspects of it. The vast majority of hams deeply resent the law-breakers, deeply resent the lack of enforcement (caused by Congress of 20 years ago), and view the outlaw crowd that thinks there's something admirable about their illegal activities with utmost CONTEMPT. Likewise, so-called "hams" that snub their noses at the laws (regulations) of the land get equal, or worse, contempt from the REST of us who DO proudly obey the law and are justly proud of the achievement of the license----which USED to be infinitely more difficult to obtain until political correctness and a general "dumbing down" of our society took hold. Those "hams" you claim operate on CB may do so WITH a legal CB radio just like anyone else. If they are using their amateur sets illegally, then they deserve to be turned into the authorities, and I guarantee you when other LEGITIMATE amateurs find it out, they WILL be ratted out just like they fully deserve to be. THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO, AND ARE NOT WORTHY TO BE AN FCC LICENSEE! "You can take a chicken bander OUT of the chicken band, but you can't take the chicken band OUT of the chicken bander." Some people, once they are a chicken bander, ALWAYS a chicken bander no matter WHAT label you put on them! And a "chicken bander" is simply one who takes the CB hobby far beyond Part 95's intent and refuses to obey the law.

Most CBers are just ordinary people who use the 11 Meter radio (legal) to talk to family and friends. I hear quite intelligent conversations many times where two or more fellows (or ladies) gathered on a quiet LEGAL channel discussing everything from fabrics to fishing, cars to boats. They were using CB radio the way it is supposed to be used. NO kick. It's FINE. The kick is with people who disrespect the law (and themselves) and everybody else with their outlaw mentality and their outright THEFT of something (frequencies and bands) that belongs to somebody else by way of license. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF HE HAS A LICENSE OR NOT! IT-IS-WRONG!!!!!!!!!! That is the basic thing that has become wrong in our society today; it's little things we as individuals don't see as "causing any harm". the I-am-more-important-than-YOU-so-I-should-be-able-to-infringe-on-others' rights mentality. It's the "that-law-doesn't-apply-to-ME; I'm SPECIAL" thing! But let that very one who's yapping "on them extree channels" get HIS privileges stepped on, and WOW!!!! He'll scream like a panther!.

I hope your friends and so-called "hams" get caught and FINED!


Gadfly

 

Well let's see I searched Ham Forums and the first 3 I went to all big name HAM Forums all have question's about doing mods to "HAM" radio's in order to get to CB Channels.

Then you need to search again...you know in the radio mods,tips section's. Of course you will find them making fun of CB's same happens on CB radio Forums.

Well, I wouldn't say the vast majority of hams. But there are a few that run completely legal.

I doubt this happens, it's just like with anything. You have your picks, of who gets ridiculed and who doesn't. The one's who don't get, but tell their story to (you) not meaning you personally, get a big kick out of the story. Then they get a adda boy for doing it. But not on the air where everybody else can hear it.

Yes, it is sad that this happened but then again this just means it is cleaning up the air waves on CB.

Like I said before you guy's (HAMS) have your picks.

LOL! Now that is funny right there. I guess I am a Chicken Bander then.

Yea, maybe in the 80's most CB operators now I know all run some kind of power.

This right here is the thing, the so called "hams" as you say will never get caught or fined, because you and all the other hams who frequent all these CB related cites won't allow it.

 

geeze... so much anger, i am not a ham, and dont plan on it cuz im a poor poor man, got outa college last year and well.... im a poor poor man.

CB can be alright, daytime CB is horrible..... its all f dis f dat i ant got no pannies spansish talking and stupid your mom insults, night time on the "big roads" is a different story, and i enjoy talking on cb channel 19 then.

im kinda in between on the whole thing, i do enjoy a good convo, i just rarely find one. untill you switch to the side band, thats when you get the relaxed "ham" types, talking about equipment for a lot of the part, not only though their are some great conversations. on side band we use our "call signs" and q codes and all but loosley, its a very relaxed version of the ham world, we get some hams who enjoy talking with us rather than all the numbers and forum, i think hams should be left alone cuz they took a test to be left alone, CBers its unlicensed, and i dont see a problem with a little extra power and even a modified radio, i have a modified radio with the power boosted on the board, but not pushing out much, i see no problem with using the illegal import or 10m radios. AS long as the user is using them where they should be using them. only reason i would get a 10m radio is for the extra power so i can speak further on SSB, but you know with a good skip, who cared, ive talked to alaska at my base

only reason i would ever go to ham is so i could speak further, cb radios dont they just dont speak as far as a ham, you have repeaters, and radios are ment to do that with what 2 watts talk world wide... a cb just doesnt, even with a very properly installed radio we can talk ...20 miles? on a good day.

just playin a little devils advocate,

oh by the way, side band im talkin channels 35 and up not the lowr around 19 thats all am channel 19 stuff with a switch on

 

This right here is the thing, the so called "hams" as you say will never get caught or fined, because you and all the other hams who frequent all these CB related cites won't allow it. (quote)
*******************************************************
Below is a SHORT list of HAMS who have either have been warned or FINED for various violations. (www,arrl.org). Ya know HOW they got in dutch with FCC? OTHER HAMS THAT WOULD NOT PUT UP WITH THEIR SHENANIGANS, THAT'S HOW!!!!!!! That's another difference with CB and amateur. The outlaw losers from the CB band that think that they are just sooooo "spay-shul" and that they are just the coolest thing since a refrigerator CELEBRATE lawlessness while the amateur bands are traditionally self-policing. Infractions ARE reported. There are Official Observers to help keep recalcitrant hams in line and the monkeyshines are simply NOT tolerated. Oh, sure, there's a few misfits, but sooner or later
they get put in their places. Kinda blows your theory out of the water, eh?

ONCE AGAIN, I ASK you to name the sites that are just chompin' at the bits to get "AM filters" to get on CB. MANY amateur sets already have sufficient filters for all modes as built and are superior to anything the "export" builders have ever thought of. Also, at least one site (and wc5b knows which one) has a thread that has gone on for about a week thoroughly MOCKIN" the he-- out of CB radio and its "experts"

AS to the "mods" section. You are assuming incorrectly that the "mods' sections found in the ham forums are for the purpose of "getting on CB" when, in fact, they are most assuredly are NOT! Amateurs are ALLOWED to modify their ham radios for several purposes: 1) to operate within the Military Afffiate Systems (MARS) which has its own guidelines, 2) to monitor or operate on the Civil Air Patrol frequencies, and 3) to access the recently allocated 60 Meter frequencies. Operations on MARS and CAP have their own specific guidelines, much of which is not even governed by FCC, but is controlled by the Chief, MARS, and/or by the USAF's Frequency Management Section under guidelines of the National Telecommunications & Information Agency (or Authority). These modifications are quite legal and subject to the rules under which they operate apart from any oversight from FCC. If someone is, indeed, modifying amateur equipment to operate ON the CB band, then the use of such mods is PATENTLY AGAINST THE LAW and will result in fines or even jail if one persists. The modifications themselves are NOT illegal, but the OPERATOR is responsible to see that mods do not result in operating equipment in violation of the law. They were NOT put there for the sole purpose of "operating on CB". I suggest that one needs to KNOW the rules of their OWN service become they start pontificating about what someone else is doing. For hams, it's Part 97. For CB, it's part 95. Have YOU ever read either section? I (and other hams) come here primarily as a result of the outlaws that we have found ON the ham bands. We don't CARE about what CBers do on their own "turf" so long as it doesn't interfere with US. Unfortunately they DO interfere with us more often than the other way around.

Most amateurs most assuredly operate completely within the law, contrary to your assertions. Why? Because there's too much to lose. Anyone that thinks that "most" hams would trade ONE ancient, outdated band of 40 CB channels that uses radio equipment that basically has not changed since 1958 for the THOUSANDS of frequencies they have, the most up-to-date, modernized multiband HF, VHF and UHF equipment, the repeater systems that allow a cellphone-sized radio to talk from Charlotte, NC to Sevierville, Tennessee, the DX from exotic places a CB will NEVER hear..............is just so out of touch, it's just almost pitiful!!!! But, yes, there's a FEW idiots that would rather DIE than turn loose of that 11 Meter "culture" that, yes, the MAJORITY of hams simply cannot understand! It defies logic, "Tan fer thar, ah knows whutcha mean thar, ah shore do, ah do, mercy me thar, how 'boucha thar bre'k, bre'k thar, shore thang thar, kick hit back and go'ord ahaid thar, ah garan-toldjee thar one time thar, bre'k broke thar!!!!!" What the h--- is the attraction to THAT?

There's no comparison! There are more PUBLISHED amateur enforcement actions than CB because their callsigns and addresses are PUBLIC information!!!!! The CB outlaws hide behind "handles" and fake "unit numbers" because they've GOT something to hide!!!!!!! And WE WANT it that way!!!!!!!!


Gadfly

______________________________________________________________
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) In the Matter of ) File Number: EB-06-PA-001 Ronald Mondgock ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732400002 Former Licensee of Station KA3OMZ ) FRN: 0010-87-6589 Honeybrook, Pennsylvania ) ) ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: March 4, 2008 Released: March 6, 2008 By the Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, Enforcement Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. In this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300) to Ronald Mondgock ("Mondgock"), the former licensee of Novice Class Amateur Radio Service station KA3OMZ in Honeybrook, Pennsylvania, for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), by operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. 2. On August 15, 2007, the Philadelphia Field Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") to Mondgock in the amount of $10,000 for operating radio transmitting equipment on the frequencies 439.850 MHz and 147.560 MHz without a license. In its response to the NAL, Mondgock does not dispute the findings, but requests a cancellation of the forfeiture based on his inability to pay. III. DISCUSSION 3. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"). In examining Mondgock's response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the Commission 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 other such matters as justice may require. 4. With regard to an individual's or entity's inability to pay, the Commission has determined that, in general, gross revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture. After examining the financial documentation submitted by Mondgock, we decline to cancel the forfeiture, but find that a reduction in the forfeiture to $4,300 is warranted based on Mondgock's demonstrated inability to pay the full forfeiture amount proposed in the NAL. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's Rules, Ronald Mondgock IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300) for violation of Section 301 of the Act. 6. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by First Class and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to Ronald Mondgock at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION G. Michael Mofffitt Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region Enforcement Bureau 47 U.S.C. S: 301. Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200732400002 (Enf. Bur., Philadelphia Office, rel. August 15, 2007). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b). 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80. 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E). See PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 (1992) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 2.02 percent of the violator's gross revenues); Local Long Distance, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.9 percent of the violator's gross revenues); Hoosier Broadcasting Corporation, 15 FCC Rcd 8640 (2002) (forfeiture not deemed excessive where it represented approximately 7.6 percent of the violator's gross revenues). 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4); 47 U.S.C. S: 301.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Enforcement Bureau Spectrum Enforcement Division 1270 Fairfield Road Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED February 22, 2008 Amanda F. Spenlinhauer 1801 Post Road Apt 204 Wells, ME 04090 Subject: Amateur Radio license KB1CQX: WARNING NOTICE Dear Ms. Spenlinhauer: The trustees of the N1KMA, N1VAR, KQ1L and the repeaters operating under the WA1ARN call sign have requested in writing that you refrain from use of the repeater. The requests were issued as a result of your failure to follow operational rules set forth by the licensee/control operators of the repeater system for its users and FCC rules. You were previously requested verbally to refrain from using the system, but have apparently ignored both verbal and written requests. The Commission requires that repeaters be under the supervision of a control operator and not only expects, but requires, such control operators and licensees to be responsible for the proper operation of the repeater system. Control operators may take whatever steps are appropriate to ensure compliance with the repeater rules, including limiting the repeater use to certain users, converting the repeater to a closed repeater or taking it off the air entirely. Please be advised that we expect you to abide by the request to stay off the above repeater systems and any other such request by a repeater licensee, control operator or trustee. If you use the repeaters again after receipt of this letter, we will initiate enforcement action against your license, which may include revocation, monetary forfeiture (fine) or a modification proceeding to restrict the frequencies on which you may operate KB1CQX. Fines normally range from $7,500 to $10,000. Additionally, we note that your license expiration date is April 7, 2008. Please be advised that your license will not be routinely renewed unless this matter is resolved. Sincerely, W. Riley Hollingsworth Special Counsel cc: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) In the Matter of ) WILLIAM F. CROWELL ) WT Docket No. 08-20 Application to Renew License for Amateur ) FCC File No. 0002928684 Radio Service Station W6WBJ ) ) HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER Adopted: February 12, 2008 Released: February 12, 2008 By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. introduction 1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the above-captioned application filed by William F. Crowell (Crowell) for renewal of his license for Amateur Radio Station W6WBJ should be granted. As discussed below, the record before us indicates that Crowell has apparently willfully and repeatedly engaged in and continues to engage in unlawful Commission-related activities, including, but not limited to, intentionally causing interference and/or interruption, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur frequencies. Based on the information before us, we believe that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of misconduct raises a substantial and material question of fact as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee. Accordingly, we hereby designate his application for hearing. II. Background 2. Crowell is the licensee of Amateur Radio Service Station W6WBJ. He filed the above-captioned application for renewal of license for Station W6WBJ on February 28, 2007. 3. On August 21, 2000, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau informed Crowell that monitoring information indicated that he had engaged in deliberate interference to radio communications in progress on the 75-meter band over the preceding several months in violation of Section 97.1 of the Commission's Rules. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Commission's Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), Crowell was directed to respond to the letter and specify what actions he had taken to avoid causing similar interference in the future. On August 31, 2000, Crowell responded. The Enforcement Bureau found Crowell's response to be irrelevant and frivolous and issued a Warning Notice on November 28, 2000, cautioning Crowell that "imaginary, make-believe or fictitious conversation with communications in process constitutes interference and degrades the services for legitimate users." 4. The Commission received additional complaints regarding Crowell between 2003 and 2006. These complaints alleged, among other things, that Crowell deliberately interfered with and/or interrupted ongoing radio communications. On May 15, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau directed Crowell to respond to the complaints. On June 10, 2006, Crowell submitted a lengthy response wherein he disputed the Commission's constitutional authority to regulate the content of amateur radio communications and specifically denied that the complained-of communications violated any Commission rules. Based on its review of Crowell's response, the Enforcement Bureau concluded that the issue of whether Crowell's license should be renewed for a full term should be designated for hearing before an ALJ. 5. The Commission continued to receive complaints alleging that Crowell was intentionally causing interference and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur radio frequencies. On April 3, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau informed Crowell that the issue of whether his renewal application should be granted had been "referred to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for review based upon continuing complaints of deliberate interference, including repeated interruptions of ongoing communications and other complaints regarding character qualifications," and that the complaints were being reviewed. III. discussion 6. Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Act, the Commission is required to designate an application for evidentiary hearing if a substantial and material question of fact is presented regarding whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The character of an applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers in determining whether the applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee. Violations of the Communications Act and/or the Commission's Rules are predictive of licensee behavior and directly relevant to the Commission's regulatory activities. The Character Policy Statement is applicable to amateur and other wireless radio licensees. 7. Section 333 of the Act and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules provide that no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of licensed stations. Section 97.113(a)(4) and (b) of the Commission's Rules specifically prohibits transmission of music, obscene or indecent words, and one-way communications on amateur frequencies. Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules and Section 1464 of the Criminal Code also prohibit transmission of obscene, indecent, or profane language. 8. Since 2000, Crowell has been warned to refrain from intentionally interfering with and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting one-way communications and music, and using indecent language on the air. Notwithstanding these warnings, the evidence before us indicates that Crowell has and continues to engage in such activities in flagrant and intentional disregard of the Act and the Commission's Rules. 9. We find that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of conduct raises questions as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. Crowell's history of FCC-related transgressions and apparent contempt for the Commission's regulatory authority are patently inconsistent with his responsibilities as a licensee and belie any suggestion that he can be relied upon to comply with the Commission's rules and policies in the future. Consequently, we will commence a hearing proceeding before an administrative law judge to provide Crowell with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his above-captioned application should be granted...............................................................
(continued at www.arrl.org/enforcement)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Enforcement Bureau Spectrum Enforcement Division 1270 Fairfield Road Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED January 29, 2008 Todd E. Daugherty 800 W Main Cross Taylorville, IL 62568 SUBJECT: Amateur Radio license N9OGL; WARNING NOTICE; Case #EB-07-SE-371 Dear Mr. Daugherty: Information before the Commission indicates that you have been operating an unlicensed radio station on, among other frequencies, 6.950 and 13.556 MHz. The information indicates that the signal strengths of these transmissions exceed the power limit of Part 15 of the Commission's rules for unlicensed transmitters. Your response to the Enforcement Bureau received on November 6, 2007 was insufficient and contradictory, and indicates a misunderstanding of the Part 15 power limits for unlicensed stations. For example, you stated that your power levels were in compliance with Part 15 of the Commission's rules, yet in statements made in 2006 and 2007 describing your shortwave station "Omega One" you stated that you were operating at 5 watts, then 10 watts and later 50 and 100 watts. Such unlicensed operation would be a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 18 U.S.C. S: 301, and would subject you to a monetary forfeiture (fine) or imprisonment, or both. Forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000. Furthermore, such operation would reflect adversely on your qualifications to retain an Amateur license. Sincerely, W. Riley Hollingsworth Special Counsel cc: FCC Northeastern Regional Director