Dave:

You said, "So, while the FCC might not directly
"own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does."

This is grossly mis-leading!!! The gov't owns NOTHING!!!! They are a group
of indivduals who are elected, appointed, and hired to do the citizens
business. They have a job to do--if they either cannot or will not do it
without becomming self-serving employees--they simply need fired.

These public servants, from the president on down, need to be worried about
what the citizens of this country need and want--and what the citizens of
this country are telling them to do.

Just like if I hired an employee to help me in a private business--they are
directly answerable to their employers...

What the gov't needs to do is set aside a bit of the radio spectrum for use
in conducing the citizens business--some for commercial use--some for
hobby-expermental use... and the rest IS THE CITIZENS!!!!!

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
| AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
|
| (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.
|
| There are criminal provisions in the communications act of 1934. But
| the point is that nothing will happen if you are never caught. But the
| fact that you are not likely to get caught does not diminish the
| illegality and societal irresponsibility of engaging in the acts.
|
| 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.
|
| The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as civil penalties should they
| choose to apply them, if the case warrants it.
|
|
| I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
| law breaker in the act and in person.
|
| I certainly would if the opportunity presented itself.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Hams and legal CB'ers perhaps. But not freebanders.
|
|
| or on bands where public access is
| set aside.
|
|
| Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned.
|
| Abandoned does not mean "open". There are many abandoned buildings
| around. But you are still not allowed to trespass there.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly criminal penalties
| associated with them. Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the criminal
| penalties associated with pirate radio.
|
|
| This
| concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
| because you so vehemently disagree with the law.
|
| Your whole justification revolves around your perception that unless a
| law has serious, visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our respect,
| and we are justified in ignoring it. That is anti-social behavior.
|
|
|
| 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".
|
| You want to talk about facts? The facts are that the FCC can and does
| auction off chunks of spectrum to commercial entities to use. They
| also regulate those chunks. They also set aside some spectrum for
| "public use". Yes, they administer it, as an arm and representative
| proxy of the U.S. government. So, while the FCC might not directly
| "own" the airwaves, the U.S. government does.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Yes it can.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Well, look into any "low power" pirate broadcaster. Some have tried to
| claim that their power is legal (even if their antennas are not).
|
|
| 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.
|
| The reality is that even a carrier current system needs to be
| authorized by the FCC. So a radio system capable of covering a 2500
| acre church camp would need FCC permission to operate.
|
| 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?
|
| Not true. You have to be a U.S. citizen, and
| not convicted of other FCC rule violations.
|
| Ok,,proverbially "everyone".
|
| But it's not "everyone". Even though the CB radio service is
| authorized by rule, there are still restrictions (albeit small) on its
| use. It's not a "right", it's a "privilege".
|
|
| I 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.
|
| This is true, the FCC isn't checking the immigration status of every
| CB operator, and it won't come up unless the person is cited for other
| rule violations. It's sort of like the seatbelt law in many states.
| You can't get stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for another
| violation, they can cite you for failing to wear a seatbelt at the
| same time.
|
| Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules based on the
| unlikelihood of being cited.
|
|
| 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?
|
| But you guys who are operating illegally are using all sort of excuses
| to justify or downplay this illegality. The fact that the FCC isn't
| actively pursuing freebanders, is not a justification or a silent nod
| allowing you to operate there.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Very few people fall into this category.
|
| 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.
|
| It's much easier for them to enforce. They don't have to track down
| anyone. They can administer from their offices.
|
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"
| http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj
|