On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!!
My car is NOT the DMV's, my radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....


The FCC owns the rights to the radio spectrum in this country. They
are the ones authorized to sell spectrum to people with a legitimate
need. It's no different than government owned land.

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.

Another way to look at it. You own your car, but not the roads you
drive on. You may own your radio, but not the airwaves you broadcast
on.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my
radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....
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.

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.

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.

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.

You may own your radio, but not the airwaves

you broadcast on.

Neither does the FCC like you mistakenly believe.

David Hall Jr.

."Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my
radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's....
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. Ask any cell phone company
owner/administrator.

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. 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?

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. 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. Once those
signals escape into the public venue, they are under the control of
the federal government.


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. You are granted a "privilege" to do so by the government in
the proxy of the FCC. 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.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:43:08 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:13 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
(The car, as is the radio spectrum, mine!!! My car is NOT the DMV's, my
radio spectrum is NOT the FCC's.... )

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..

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.

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. 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.

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. 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?


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?

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.


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? 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".


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. They rightly and deservedly go
after those they deem the most important and damaging to our hobby. It
is yourself that does not like the "way it is" nor agree with it.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

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. But it's still
illegal.


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, or on bands where public access is set aside. Much like a
public park.


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. 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.


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. 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?


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Dave:

I actually agree with much of what you are about--and you have demonstrated
a high understanding and ability to use logic effectively...

I diverge from your thought on "the radio spectrum"...

I am endowed to full use of the radio spectrum by my creator--however, in
the interest of public good and organization--I am willing to provide my
public servants with a necessary portion of this spectrum so they may carry
out business which is beneficial to the citizens of the United States....
and IS the BUSINESS of THE CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES...

I am also open to them providing a section of this spectrum to specialized
hobbies and for experimentation... however, the majority of it is mine--to
share with my other citizens, since it as much endowed to them by their
creator (whether they recognize him/her or not)... the public needs much
expanded education programs in the use and exercise of their radio
spectrum--that is where gov't should spend their efforts...

control and governing of the citizens flows from the people, to the
congress, and back to the people--it does not flow from an elite of group of
governing citizens to the people...

..... this simply needs to be straightened out...

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| 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. But it's still
| illegal.
|
|
| 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, or on bands where public access is set aside. Much like a
| public park.
|
|
| 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. 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.
|
|
| 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. 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?
|
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"
| http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

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

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