"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
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.
True, "pirate radio" has been around since the advent of regulations. but
what became the modern grassroot movement didn't begin until the mid 80's.

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.

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued growth
of pirate radio. the FCC would shut down two pirate stations and three more
would come on the air. It's really shame to since Dunifer can apply for
license since the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 bars all pirates
from getting a license.

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....
There's a difference at a denial and a dismissal....and the courts have also
told the FCC that they must take a serious look at waivers. That includes
the reason while there is a denial of the waiver so that person can file a
appeal in the US court of Appeal. .

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"?

yes but they must either grant and deny a license. and waiver may be
consider at anytime filing windows don't apply. I also think that by
dismissing my the commission has hurt this community by not consider the
waiver for a "community that has no local television service" So where is
the public interest? Others? what others? Not that many people in this
community can afford to apply for a license or could care less to apply for
a license.

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.

Again they have to grant or deny a application and show good cause why it's
in the public interest to deny the license and waiver.

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








----== 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 =---