On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:34:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

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.

You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
table for each and every hearing?

What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.

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.

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

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. .

Most probably the waiver was denied and the application was dismissed.
The net result was that you didn't get the license.

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.

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Don't feel too bad. Some of the waivers that I have applied for on
behalf of clients have been granted, some have been denied. It's a
crapshoot and a regular part of the regulatory game. Get used to it.

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"

Your thoughts and the Commission;s obligations are two different
things, it appears.

So where is the public interest? Others? what others?

Every other applicant who missed the filing window.

Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.

Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.

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.

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the applicatin as defective, which apparently they did. You were
free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chnace to get the decision reversed.

And you are misinterpreting the "public interest" requirement. The
Comm Act mandates the Commission to make a finding that the public
interest will be served before granting a license. It does not
mandate the Commission to show why a dismissal is in the public
interest, only that the dismissal must be according to the established
Rules and other applicable law.

Looks like you are unlettered in Federal Administrative Law as well.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:34:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

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.

You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
table for each and every hearing?

The pirate movement continued to grow long after dunifer.

What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.

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.

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

The judge stated that dunifer and his bunch was barred from operating any
broadcast equipment until they first obtain a license from the FCC.

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. .

Most probably the waiver was denied and the application was dismissed.
The net result was that you didn't get the license.

Which boils back to what all the pirates were say....why should I spend the
time and money to try to obtain a license which apparently the FCC doesn't
want to give me.

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.

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Sec. 1.3 Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended,
or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the
Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may
be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good
cause therefor is shown.

Cross Reference: See subpart C of this part for practice and
procedure involving rulemaking




Don't feel too bad. Some of the waivers that I have applied for on
behalf of clients have been granted, some have been denied. It's a
crapshoot and a regular part of the regulatory game. Get used to it.

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"

Your thoughts and the Commission;s obligations are two different
things, it appears.

So where is the public interest? Others? what others?

Every other applicant who missed the filing window.

Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.

Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.

No the cost and up keep of a station is something that not everyone can
afford. and again The majority of people in this community could careless
about broadcasting. they are more worried about other things.

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.

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the applicatin as defective, which apparently they did. You were
free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chnace to get the decision reversed.

The United States court have stated that "the FCC MUST consider waivers"
(WAIT RADIO v FCC 1969) "The FCC must take a serious and hard look at waiver
request" Turro v FCC (1989)
..
And you are misinterpreting the "public interest" requirement. The
Comm Act mandates the Commission to make a finding that the public
interest will be served before granting a license. It does not
mandate the Commission to show why a dismissal is in the public
interest, only that the dismissal must be according to the established
Rules and other applicable law.

Looks like you are unlettered in Federal Administrative Law as well.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
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 =---

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

The judge stated that dunifer and his bunch was barred from operating any
broadcast equipment until they first obtain a license from the FCC.

In your own words: " the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000
bars all pirates from getting a license."

What part of that do you not understand?

Which boils back to what all the pirates were say....why should I spend the
time and money to try to obtain a license which apparently the FCC doesn't
want to give me.

Want to be a criminal - be a criminal. "Don't do the crime if you
can't do the time"....

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Sec. 1.3 Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended,
or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the
Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may
be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good
cause therefor is shown.

What part of the word "MAY" do you not understand?

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the application as defective, which apparently they did.

The United States court have stated that "the FCC MUST consider waivers"
(WAIT RADIO v FCC 1969) "The FCC must take a serious and hard look at waiver
request" Turro v FCC (1989)

Denying your request does not mean that they did not take a "serious
and hard look at [your] waiver request". As I said before - sometimes
they grant it, sometumes they deny it. That's how the game is played.

I say again:

You were free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chance to get the decision reversed.

This is going nowhere. It is not applicable to ham radio, and I've
said my piece about it here. If you don't want to listen to what I
tell you, it's your loss.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Yes, we kind of went off subject here.

Todd N9OGL



"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

The judge stated that dunifer and his bunch was barred from operating any
broadcast equipment until they first obtain a license from the FCC.

In your own words: " the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000
bars all pirates from getting a license."

What part of that do you not understand?

Which boils back to what all the pirates were say....why should I spend
the
time and money to try to obtain a license which apparently the FCC
doesn't
want to give me.

Want to be a criminal - be a criminal. "Don't do the crime if you
can't do the time"....

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Sec. 1.3 Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended,
or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the
Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may
be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good
cause therefor is shown.

What part of the word "MAY" do you not understand?

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the application as defective, which apparently they did.

The United States court have stated that "the FCC MUST consider waivers"
(WAIT RADIO v FCC 1969) "The FCC must take a serious and hard look at
waiver
request" Turro v FCC (1989)

Denying your request does not mean that they did not take a "serious
and hard look at [your] waiver request". As I said before - sometimes
they grant it, sometumes they deny it. That's how the game is played.

I say again:

You were free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chance to get the decision reversed.

This is going nowhere. It is not applicable to ham radio, and I've
said my piece about it here. If you don't want to listen to what I
tell you, it's your loss.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued

growth

of pirate radio.



The pirate movement continued to grow long after dunifer.


Today with the Internet and web sites and streaming audio,
doing a pirate radio station seems kinda pointless. You
can get your message and music out, and save on FCC fines,
with the 'net. Or lease time on a starving AM station in
your city if you're dead set on using radio. Though the
'net would be more effective to distribute your message.

robert casey wrote:

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued


growth

of pirate radio.




The pirate movement continued to grow long after dunifer.


Today with the Internet and web sites and streaming audio,
doing a pirate radio station seems kinda pointless. You
can get your message and music out, and save on FCC fines,
with the 'net. Or lease time on a starving AM station in
your city if you're dead set on using radio. Though the
'net would be more effective to distribute your message.



All true, Robert. But then you wouldn't be a Pirate, would ya? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:




All true, Robert. But then you wouldn't be a Pirate, would ya? 8^)


Nah. Besides setting up a pirate radio station is roughly
equivalent to flushing cherry bombs (M80s) down the toilets
in junior high school. ****es off the authorities but
otherwise serves no real purpose.....

Well, this really isn't about pirate radio. Somehow it had gotten into the
debate.
Todd N9OGL
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued

growth

of pirate radio.



The pirate movement continued to grow long after dunifer.


Today with the Internet and web sites and streaming audio,
doing a pirate radio station seems kinda pointless. You
can get your message and music out, and save on FCC fines,
with the 'net. Or lease time on a starving AM station in
your city if you're dead set on using radio. Though the
'net would be more effective to distribute your message.

Todd Daugherty wrote:

Well, this really isn't about pirate radio. Somehow it had gotten into the
debate.

True, but broadcasting on the ham bands is also illegal.
And is probably just as ineffective for getting your
message across.

not true information bulletins which no matter how you look at it is a
"form" of broadcast is legal. As long as the programs or information is
amateur radio related.
Todd N9OGL


"robert casey" wrote in message
nk.net...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

Well, this really isn't about pirate radio. Somehow it had gotten into
the
debate.

True, but broadcasting on the ham bands is also illegal.
And is probably just as ineffective for getting your
message across.





----== 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 =---