Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() N2EY wrote: In article , "Phil Kane" writes: On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:18:15 GMT, D. Stussy wrote: Why not petition to change the rules to allow such retransmission? Because I believe that [simultaneous and automatic] retransmission is ALREADY PROVIDED FOR in the existing rules and should not be considered a violation. At most, the existing problem is one FCC employee's view - and thus a bad ruling. What is there to actually change? Then submit a request for a Declaratory Ruling. That will settle the issue one way or the other. The results you get may not be one that you like, however (the Bill Cross effect....) and then the only avenue open is to request a rule change which would be unlikely because "they" will have already dealt with the issue IOW, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it. Remember the Eye Bank Net? What on earth is/was the "Eye bank net"? Sounds like an interesting story. I did a google on the subject, and got one relevant hit, that oddly enough was on some porn site in Estonia! So I'd rather get the info somwhere else, eh? - Mike KB3EIA - |