RadioBanter - View Single Post - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

May 10th 05, 09:03 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
The FCC owns the rights to the radio

spectrum in this country.

That is ludicrous. They do not. They merely are charged with
administrating such. The spectrum does not stop at the borders.

.No, but while inside the borders, you will pay

(Sometimes dearly) the FCC for the right to

play on the airwaves.

(So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..)

Illegally. Just as there are people who

trespass on private or otherwise posted land,

and never get caught either.

Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
can not. Once again, this is the difference between what constitutes a
criminal act vs a civil act. The penalties are not the same.

But it's still illegal.

(shrug),,,,which has -never- been contested by anyone here, yet, for
some curious reason unbeknownst to all but yourself, you have taken it
upon yourself to assume status and annoint yourself some sort of
imaginary right to confront others concerning their non-criminal act. I
would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
law breaker in the act and in person.
_
Ask any cell phone company

owner/administrator.

Your selection of cell phone admins does not
discount the countless freebanders, cbers or
hammies who play on it for free or on the
extreme cheap.

Illegally,

And legally.

or on bands where public access is

set aside.

Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned. I'll
reiterate what you already found in google on many
occasion,,,,,education is the key.

Much like a public park.

Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband. This
concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
because you so vehemently disagree with the law.

They are the ones authorized to sell spectrum

to people with a legitimate need. It's no

different than government owned land.

Again, it is very different for many reasons, several of which you were
already taught.

Yes, it is different in some ways, but the ways

that are similar are what I am talking about.

But,,,,,,it's not

It's a fact that the FCC sells off chunks of

spectrum to commercial interests, sometimes

for outrageous amounts. If the FCC was not in
the position to claim "ownership" of that

spectrum, how could they auction it off?

By virtue of administration. Auctions are held daily all over the place.
They do not own what they auction, but like the FCC, are merely charged
with the administering of such.

Semantics.

No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

Your car is yours as is your radio gear. But the
privilege to operate both is granted by the

government, and can be revoked for the

proper cause.

Wrong again. The government has absolutey zero authority how I operate
my vehicle on my own lan and can not revoke my privilege to do so.

Right! On you own land. But venture out on .

the public street, and they have all the

authority. Same goes for radio.

Again,,,,,(sigh),,the analogy of the car is invalid as it can result in
criminal charges, while operating on the freeband does not.

If you can somehow prevent your signal from

escaping the borders of your property (Which

is covered by FCC Part 15), you could do

what you want.

Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?

Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
audience than permitted.

Once those signals escape into the public

venue, they are under the control of the

federal government.

How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current
transmitters which radiate only a short

distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby

limiting range beyond the intended service

area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
.college campuses, travel, and road alert

systems.

Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.

As you know, RF degrades gradually and it is

impossible to "brick wall" stop a broadcast at

the limits of physical property. But unless you

are very close, you will likely not hear a carrier
current transmission.

Or on an unobstructed waterway with a visual on the proper/transmitter.

Another way to look at it, You own your car,

but not the roads you drive on.

Public means owned by the public,,,paid for by tax dollars.

And administered by the government.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves

you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

For all practical purposes, yes they do in this

country.

You do not have a "right" to transmit beyond

the confines of your own property.

That is what the cb does.

Yes, but the authorization to operate a CB is a
"privilege", not a "right".

You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the

government in the proxy of the FCC.

This "privilege" is availabe to anyone, so how can it be referred a
privilege?

=A0=A0Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and

not convicted of other FCC rule violations.
=A0

Ok,,proverbially "everyone".

_
=A0I know you elitist hammies believe this to be true about your ticket,
but it simply does not apply to cb, as practically any American citizen
is granted the "right" to broadcast, via a cb, simply by ownership of
one. This does not exactly equate to any "privilege".

Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
rules governing each service, and find out for

yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a

person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a

"right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the

FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,

even if a license is not required.

And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
in the fruit fields.

As a

condition of that privilege comes your

responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in

various FCC parts depending on which

service you are using.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they

should be, and freeload.... er, freebanders get

away with trespassing on other government

administered frequencies with little chance of

getting caught. But that doesn't mean that it's

legal or proper.

Again, not one person ever made such a claim in all my years of visiting
thse pages. Just who is it you are trying to convince?
-
They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby.

You mean those who project the highest

profile, or those who impact operators who

paid dearly for the right to use their part of the

spectrum.

Those who present a direct safety issue.
_
It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Well, that's true. I do wish the FCC had more

teeth.

They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj