-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
$30,000 Fine for Unlicensed GMRS Operation
- Thread starter Dantian
- Start date
- Status
Curious as to what law there is regarding possession of a radio?
Last edited:
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
An NAL is not a fine. It is a threat - "Prove to us that you have stopped violating the Rules or we will charge you this much money for your past and continuing violations."
Practically nobody pays the NAL amount if they comply with the rest of the Notice.
Practically nobody pays the NAL amount if they comply with the rest of the Notice.
Not exactly right. Regulations require the Forfeiture process to be in two steps. If a licensee of the Commission, a NAL is produced. If not, a Citation is issued. There were specific instructions including where to send the payment, so it definitely was meant to be a final judgement, even though an FO must be formally issued.
That is sometimes the case. Rarely, though, for anything else besides a hardship claim. In this case, the Commission made it very clear in the footnoting that ThermoScientific is well-healed, so it expects them to just pay the proposed amount.
Having followed quite a few FO's, I only know of one that was somewhat successfully challenged and it was by Glenn Baxter, K1MAN. The Federal District Court did lower the amount, since the Commission's evidence was not all it claimed to be. And, last I heard, the Justice Department is moving toward a seizure to fulfill the judgement.
Perhaps, if this one ends up in Court,(unlikely, since probably a lot more in attorney fees than the fine) it would be interesting to hear if they compare their situation to the Indianapolis PD. But, probably not cost effective to go that far, but sure wish they would.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The two steps, NAL followed by FO after allowing for a response, is required under Due Process. That is why it's a Notice of Apparent Liability. The FCC has been known to waive the forfeiture for prompt and complete compliance. I thought it was a more common practice.
- Status
