FCC Enforcement

[gortex2]

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-396533A1.pdf

 

[Guest]

Looks like a good catch !!!

Thank you for sharing 

[WRQC527]

a. 47 CFR § 95.1761(a): “Each GMRS transmitter (a transmitter that operates or is
intended to operate in the GMRS) must be certified in accordance with this
subpart and part 2 of this chapter.” Johnathan A. Gutierrez operated a noncertified
GMRS radio on GMRS frequencies.

I found this to be quite interesting. While there are oodles (technical term for "a lot") of folks here who say the FCC doesn't care what equipment we use because they're not interested in fining someone using a UV-5R on GMRS, if it helps them to build a case against someone, then by golly they just might toss it in there.

[marcspaz]

This is local(ish) to me and i know some folks that are involved in this case. I would love to discuss this in detail, but it's not my story to tell. I will say that I do believe the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.

[Guest]

Those FCC agents must have read "Three Felonies A Day" !!!

@marcspaz yes, I enjoyed it 

[WRXB215]

@WRQC527 Yes, it seems that they do not go after anyone for just that specific offense but like you said, they will toss it in to the mix. Interference though is definitely something they are going after and I'm glad they are. Interference is such an unnecessary jerk thing to do and should be punished.

[Borage257]

@marcspaz Any word on what radio he was using?

And what indicators other than this story are you seeing the FCC is starting to swing back on/to enforcement on gmrs?

[marcspaz]

37 minutes ago, Borage257 said:

@marcspaz Any word on what radio he was using?

 

No firsthand information, but a very reliable source told me a UV5r.

 

37 minutes ago, Borage257 said:

And what indicators other than this story are you seeing the FCC is starting to swing back on/to enforcement on gmrs?

 

I really can't say... just some inside baseball.  As I mentioned, it's not my story to tell.  Even if it was, it's too early to tip my hand.

[nokones]

What I have found with the FCC in the past is if you do most of the preliminary work in identifying the violator and the where and so-forth so the FCC can run with the ball with minimum work involved they will be more than happy to take the case and enforce accordingly.

[Blaise]

My gosh!  He's in so much trouble he has to write an essay?!?!?

Apparently the FCC's enforcement arm used to be a high-school principal...

[WRXB215]

@Blaise I assume they are just giving the accused a chance to have their say before anything else happens.

[SteveShannon]

46 minutes ago, Blaise said:

My gosh!  He's in so much trouble he has to write an essay?!?!?

Apparently the FCC's enforcement arm used to be a high-school principal...

That’s how all of the letters from the FCC seem to work. FCC sends a letter, a notice of wrongdoing, asking the accused to explain why they’re innocent or how they’re going to avoid future transgressions. If they give a satisfactory answer that’s often the end of the matter. It’s as if the assumption is that most people don’t intentionally violate the regulations and with some remedial measures they will do better. 
Personally, I like that. Based strictly on observation I would agree that most people don’t understand the regulations.  Why not give folks a chance to do better instead of crushing them after one mistake. 

 

[WRUE951]

guy probably watched a video proclaiming 'some people' think the FCC will actually never do anything to enforce the rules.,.   LMAO..     But truly,  it's about time..  

[nokones]

In my opinion, Station Operators that intentionally jam a repeater and send tones or transmit music say inappropriate words, know they are doing something maliciously and don't deserve a second chance and should be slapped with a fine and/or jailed. They know the consequences when they start the harmful interference and they can't claim they didn't know that it was against the rules. It is every person's responsibility to know the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.

[OffRoaderX]

3 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

guy probably watched a video proclaiming 'some people' think the FCC will actually never do anything to enforce the rules.,

Up until 90 days ago, the fcc actually never did do anything to enforce the rules against simple violations by non-business users since 2012.

[WRXT271]

On 9/5/2023 at 3:23 PM, gortex2 said:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-396533A1.pdf

 

Thank you for the information.

RJ

[marcspaz]

1 hour ago, OffRoaderX said:

Up until 90 days ago, the fcc actually never did to anything to enforce the rules against simple violations by non-business users since 2012.

 

Not only is this statement factually true... but in my opinion, the decade of the absent enforcement has led to the ridiculous behavior of jammers.

[123]

I never understood why people get so gitty at FCC Enforcement letters. FCC sends you a letter, so what? You have a right not to say jack shit. Because everything that you respond with will for sure be used against you and only help their case. Unless you just want to toy with them and get into some good legal arguments.

FCC fines you. So what? Don't pay the fine. They refer the matter to the US Treasury after a while. Okay cool. Make sure you have no reason to get a tax refund (You shouldn't let the IRS keep your money anyway, but that is a whole other story) 

After their attempts to take your tax refunds, etc. they will just refer it to collections. Again, so? Collection attempts go away after 10 years of them sending you harassing letters and phone calls. Boo hoo.

[WRQC527]

4 hours ago, 123 said:

I never understood why people get so gitty at FCC Enforcement letters. FCC sends you a letter, so what? You have a right not to say jack shit. Because everything that you respond with will for sure be used against you and only help their case. Unless you just want to toy with them and get into some good legal arguments.

FCC fines you. So what? Don't pay the fine. They refer the matter to the US Treasury after a while. Okay cool. Make sure you have no reason to get a tax refund (You shouldn't let the IRS keep your money anyway, but that is a whole other story) 

After their attempts to take your tax refunds, etc. they will just refer it to collections. Again, so? Collection attempts go away after 10 years of them sending you harassing letters and phone calls. Boo hoo.

You should probably say something like this as a preface to your post.

"The information contained in this post is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this post without seeking legal or other professional advice."

[SteveShannon]

14 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

You should probably say something like this as a preface to your post.

"The information contained in this post is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in this post without seeking legal or other professional advice."

Actually it should say “This post is one person’s opinion. If you take legal advice from some random internet expert you’re on your own.”

[123]

6 hours ago, Sshannon said:

Actually it should say “This post is one person’s opinion. If you take legal advice from some random internet expert you’re on your own.”

Go do your research. Don't take my word for it.  After all, forums are all just opinions and viewpoints. Even if possible facts are presented it is up to each person to fact-check for themselves. No disclaimer should be needed after each post.

I will correct myself on one point. The collection time frame depends on the jurisdiction. My comment was on my local collection jurisdiction.

[123]

 

From the FCC:

Enforcement Fines: The Collection Process | Federal Communications Commission (fcc.gov)

 

More clarification on how current enforcement works in this article. 

Legislation introduced to strengthen FCC enforcement | TransNexus

 

A current summary of the process: FCC fines you, you don't pay, FCC sends the case to DOJ for POSSIBLE Civil court litigation, if DOJ refuses to take court action, the case is sent to US Treasury Offset program (TOP) where there is a federal withholding (such as IRS refund interception) to pay your debt, if no collection is successful by US Treasury, US Treasury sends it to private collections.

 

All are still civil, if your case happens to get to the federal civil court level by DOJ (less likely not), you have had plenty of time to move assets to a trust before service of process and the final judgment still has no teeth. But sure, go pay that federal lawyer a $10,000+ retainer (not your local court lawyer) to educate you on your rights and how to defend yourself from civil action.

 

 

[SteveShannon]

3 hours ago, 123 said:

 

From the FCC:

Enforcement Fines: The Collection Process | Federal Communications Commission (fcc.gov)

 

More clarification on how current enforcement works in this article. 

Legislation introduced to strengthen FCC enforcement | TransNexus

 

A current summary of the process: FCC fines you, you don't pay, FCC sends the case to DOJ for POSSIBLE Civil court litigation, if DOJ refuses to take court action, the case is sent to US Treasury Offset program (TOP) where there is a federal withholding (such as IRS refund interception) to pay your debt, if no collection is successful by US Treasury, US Treasury sends it to private collections.

 

All are still civil, if your case happens to get to the federal civil court level by DOJ (less likely not), you have had plenty of time to move assets to a trust before service of process and the final judgment still has no teeth. But sure, go pay that federal lawyer a $10,000+ retainer (not your local court lawyer) to educate you on your rights and how to defend yourself from civil action.

 

 

Here’s a newer description of the enforcement process than the 2015 enforcement fines article you linked:

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/public_enforcement_overview.pdf

And it is possible that doing nothing, including not responding to an FCC letter, might work, depending on your circumstances. It’s also possible that could result in what the FCC calls “an upward adjustment.”

I agree that a person should do their own research.  Your original post just came across as bravado and bluster and dismissive of ongoing discussion about the process. 

 

[WRQC527]

Honestly, you need to do something really stupid and against FCC rules and you need to do it approximately a buttload of times to even get the attention of the FCC in the first place, which is why when we do see enforcement action, it's such a novelty. Statistically, the vast majority of holders of any FCC license will never hear a peep from the FCC even if they do screw up. But feel free to carry on quoting page after page of Federal enforcement verbiage. I'm sure you'll work it out.

[WRUE951]

i'm just wondering if the FCC rule breaker claims stupidity and say's he did his falsehoods because he watched youtube videos claiming he would never get busted..  Or worse yet, (in today's society) he tries to sue the YouTuber people saying they taught him bad habits..     Just saying,,  anything goes in this current world..