N9OGL wrote:
So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
have to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

I doubt it. Seriously. About the time you got 30 seconds into
your liquid oxygen cooled storage capacitor idea, the other guy would
be spinning the dial......

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Notice that the current NAL action is against K1MAN and not the
ARRL.

Guess you're having a hard time connecting the dots, aren't
you..?!?

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

No grey areas.

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship...(SNIP TO...)

So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

You and Baxter are the one's who need galoshes, Todd.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.

So can that NAL.

But Baxter's pushed all the wrong buttons for too long.

Here's my take...He's going to file for his renewal. The FCC says
"sorry, you've got a pending NAL...".

After the first hearing, Baxter's going to realize that the FCC
isn't joking and that they have far greater resources to persue this in
court.

He'll make a deal with the FCC that if they renew his license,
he'll take a five year suspension...Either that or he'll take a limited
suspension in which he's forbidden to operate on HF or to make one-way
transmissions of any nature.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Sure it does.

But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.

I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.

I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your ###hole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

I know what the application is like, Todd. I took a look when I
read all this crap from you in the first place.

And despite how hard you try to convince everyone what a brilliant
communications lawyer YOU are, that lawyer you're NOT paying COULD push
all the right legal buttons and get you what you want.

Thank God (or the deity of your choice) that you're too stubborn.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ###HOLE!!

And you're member number 001.

Steve, K4YZ