I'm going on the real freeband.

As soon as I build a transmitter and reciever for it.

The posts posted here are mistaken that the freeband is regulated.

It's not.

And they are mistaken that you need a license to operate on the
freeband.

The truth is you don't.

The people operating on 26, 27, and 28 mhz above and below the cb
frequencies are NOTon the freeband.

Those frequencies are assigned to other users.

Whether they're being used or not.

The real freeband is below 9 knz.

Which the FCC currently has no authority over,

And it's all completely legal.

wrote in message
...
I'm going on the real freeband.

As soon as I build a transmitter and reciever for it.

The posts posted here are mistaken that the freeband is regulated.

It's not.

And they are mistaken that you need a license to operate on the
freeband.

The truth is you don't.

The people operating on 26, 27, and 28 mhz above and below the cb
frequencies are NOTon the freeband.

Those frequencies are assigned to other users.

Whether they're being used or not.

The real freeband is below 9 knz.

Which the FCC currently has no authority over,

And it's all completely legal.






Give them time...they'll auction it so someone.

On Apr 16, 12:02*am, "Yo Mamma" wrote:
wrote in message

...





I'm going on the real freeband.

As soon as I build a transmitter and reciever for it.

The posts posted here are mistaken that the freeband is regulated.

It's not.

And they are mistaken that you need a license to operate on the
freeband.

The truth is you don't.

The people operating on 26, 27, and 28 mhz above and below the cb
frequencies are NOTon the freeband.

Those frequencies are assigned to other users.

Whether they're being used or not.

The real freeband is below 9 knz.

Which the FCC currently has no authority over,

And it's all completely legal.

Give them time...they'll auction it so someone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's true. From what I read, the FCC currently only has authority
over radio frequencies, and currently frequencies below 9 khz are not
legally considered
radio frequencies.

However, if the FCC doesn't eventually auction them off somehow by
getting control, Congress or other branches of the government probably
will somehow.

Isn't it supposed to be illegal for the government to sell or auction
off "public spectrum"?

I know they're doing it anyways, but that still doesn't make it legal,
just like the national 55 mph speed limit back in the 1970's.

From what I was taught back then about what the U.S. Constitution says
(and I believe was also on news reports back then), that was
definitely not legal.

With all the complaints about it being unconstitutinal, the government
than got around it by illegal bribery.

Their thinking was that although bribery is illegal, at least no one
will be able to accuse us of illegally violating the U.S. constitution
by doing so.

So all those legal-eagle type of hams who thought they were following
the law by defending the 1970's national speed limit on these
newsgroups (and claimed that they
never ever break the law) were breaking the law by advocating and
promoting the crime of illegal bribery.

Advocating and promoting a crime is also illegal.

So why do they still have their ham licenses?

After all, it was they theirselves who said that anyone who breaks
even the most minor of laws, even just one time, should have their ham
radio licenses taken away permanently.

The cb'ers disobeying the national speed limit were the ones defending
the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Although I don't like people speeding either, the thinking then was
the national speed limit is illegal. Which it was and is from the way
it was passed and the way
it was put into effect.

So the people not following it weren't breaking any legal laws as far
as they were concerned.

Unless they were going a hundred miles an hour or something.