Todd Daugherty wrote:

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

What do you want to know about the micro-broadcasting movement???

I myself joined the movement in 1998 after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts have
told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers" So my opinion of
the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and are below pond scum.

Todd N9OGL





Dave K8MN





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

What do you want to know about the micro-broadcasting movement???

Is it made up of scofflaw types who have determined that the FCC has no
authority to regulate broadcasting? What is the legal standing of this
"movement". Why does the "movement" receive no play in the several
leading newsmagazines or on TV news shows? Is the objective of the
"movement" to take to the airwaves in defiance of the FCC?

Those questions will do for the moment.

I myself joined the movement in 1998 after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts have
told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers" So my opinion of
the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and are below pond scum.

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.

You might want to consider that amateur radio might not be for you,
Todd.
There seems to be some confusion in your mind as to its basis and
purpose.
It is not a broadcasting service.

If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the
content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

What do you want to know about the micro-broadcasting movement???

Is it made up of scofflaw types who have determined that the FCC has no
authority to regulate broadcasting? What is the legal standing of this
"movement". Why does the "movement" receive no play in the several
leading newsmagazines or on TV news shows? Is the objective of the
"movement" to take to the airwaves in defiance of the FCC?

Those questions will do for the moment.


The movemen began due to lack of community progams, consolidation of the
airwaves. As for news magazines an TV news shows there have a number of
article in the papers (Wall Street Journal, Reason Magazine as well as
other) as for news on television it has be talked about on both CNN and FOX.
I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.



I myself joined the movement in 1998 after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have
told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers" So my opinion
of
the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and are below pond scum.

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR 1.3 the FCC
may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In my waiver I was
going to provide a television service to a community that doesn't have a TV
service. Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.


I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.


No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application proves
that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.


You might want to consider that amateur radio might not be for you,
Todd.
There seems to be some confusion in your mind as to its basis and
purpose.
It is not a broadcasting service.

Not true, Amateurs may run Information Bulletins so, amateur's are not
completely banned from some for a Broadcasting. There is of course a
difference between Broadcasting and Information Bulletins. Broadcast are
programs directed either relayed to the general public. while information
bulletin are bulletins directed to the amateur community with information
dealing with amateur radio. A bulletin according to Webster is a piece of
information directed to the public or a group. So you see some form of
"Broadcasting" is allow. My progam which I run on 10 meter deals with issues
and information concerning Amateur Radio.

If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Dave K8MN





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that
purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Funny story: I used to use a Part 15 device on CB channel 14, 27125 kHz, to
practice CW with my niece. She lived approx. 15 linear miles away and we
were able to copy each other FB through some pretty "CBish" QRM.

BTW, the trick to remaining legal while "getting out" with a Part 15 device
is to get the device itself as high as humanly/safely possible. The power
and key cables were then brough down into the shack. A seperate high
performance rcvr rounded out the package. No coax loss because...no coax.
Just comply with the ERP restrictions and let your height be your might.
Fond memories indeed.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a
nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a
part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that
purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Funny story: I used to use a Part 15 device on CB channel 14, 27125 kHz,
to
practice CW with my niece. She lived approx. 15 linear miles away and we
were able to copy each other FB through some pretty "CBish" QRM.

Part 15 power range depends o the frequency and band for example on the AM
band it is 100 miliwatts while on the FM broadcast band it's 250 microvolt
per meter at 3 meters. on 13 MHz. the power is 10,000 microvolts per meter
at 30 meters.

BTW, the trick to remaining legal while "getting out" with a Part 15
device
is to get the device itself as high as humanly/safely possible. The power
and key cables were then brough down into the shack. A seperate high
performance rcvr rounded out the package. No coax loss because...no coax.
Just comply with the ERP restrictions and let your height be your might.
Fond memories indeed.

I would have no problem with Part 15 device except I think the one thing
holding part 15 device back is that some community tight restriction on
antenna heights.

Todd N9OGL

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:14:18 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The [ "microbroadcasting" ] movemen began due to lack of community progams,
consolidation of the airwaves.

Nah - the movement always existed - I chased pirate radio stations
before you were born, run by folks whose main raison d'etre was to
try to pull the FCC's chain, and the folks who trained me chased
pirate radio stations during WW-II.

I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

The FCC blinked first just to get her off the dime, so to speak.

I myself joined the movement in 1998

Todd Come Lately

after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers"

[ See above ]

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under
47 CFR 1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In
my waiver I was going to provide a television service to a community that
doesn't have a TV service.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.

Not in the more qualified opinions of your "elders and betters" of
the Commission.

Sorry, Buddy, that won't fly in the real world of broadcast regulation.

I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.

"Very" special attention. There's a special file for such.

No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application
proves that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Take your losses like a man and try again, this time getting
everything right. Then they'll get to the nitty-gritty about
whether you qualify to be permitted to operate a station or not.

With the attitudes which you have exhibited here, don't be surprised
if they decide that you are not.

I feel sorry for the Congressrep whom you are attempting to "advise"
on this matter of broadcast regulation.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:33:35 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

I would have no problem with Part 15 device except I think the one thing
holding part 15 device back is that some community tight restriction on
antenna heights.

What makes you think that those same restrictions would not apply to
a LPFM station or do you plan to operate this station without
complying with local zoning and use restriction ordinances?

Anyhow, one can always put a Part 15 device on top of an existing
structure - whether it's a building, a grain elevator, a lamp post,
whatever you can get the owner's permission for. Feed it with an
803.11(b) link (another Part 15 device) - no license needed for either.
Put up several around town.

Make technology work for you, rather than tilting at windmills.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane