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
|

On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

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!!!!

Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the
proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto
owner of this commodity.


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.

Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the
FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do.

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.

By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio
spectrum to use.


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!!!!!

To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between
legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the
citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services
(police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest
service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much
left.

That's why the FCC operates as it does.

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

Well, yeah, property is pretty scarce out there .5 Mhz to tens or hundreds
of Ghz... hardly a spare megahertz anywhere... and yeah, a quick tune
across just a 30 Mhz sw is proof this is all in use and quite congested...

....but, I don't think so... and the citizens do own the spectrum--even if a
dicatator claims it in a foreign land--he is mistaken--and even if a whole
gov't claims it--they are mistaken... even if the public servants of the
USA think it is theirs--they are mistaken...

Really, this truth is so obivious I can't even imagine anyone arguing it...
although some may hold "religious views" on it, or be willing to wage "holy
wars" over it to serve their self-serving reasons, beliefs...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
| On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:40:20 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote:
|
| 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!!!!
|
| Well then they are certainly operating as if they do. They collect the
| proceeds from spectrum auctions. That makes the government a de-facto
| owner of this commodity.
|
|
| 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.
|
| Evidently the "citizens",collectively, do not see the problem with the
| FCC administering the airwaves in the manner than they currently do.
|
| 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.
|
| By and large, the citizens are not screaming for mass chunks of radio
| spectrum to use.
|
|
| 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!!!!!
|
| To do what with? Besides, after you divide up the spectrum between
| legitimate commercial services (which are usually available to the
| citizens as in cell phone and wireless internet), public services
| (police, fire, EMS etc.) government entities (FBI, USGS, Forest
| service, military etc.) and hobby use (Ham and CB), there isn't much
| left.
|
| That's why the FCC operates as it does.
|
| Dave
| "Sandbagger"
| http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj