That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio

I suggest you read Section 151 of the communication Act of 1934.


=A7 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in
communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as
possible, to all the people of the United States, without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio
communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,
for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective
execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted
by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with
respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio
communication, there is created a commission to be known as the
"Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as
hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the
provisions of this chapter.

As well as 152 of the communication act

=A7 152. Application of chapter

(a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and
foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign
transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received
within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United
States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio,
and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as
hereinafter provided; but it shall not apply to persons engaged in wire
or radio communication or transmission in the Canal Zone, or to wire or
radio communication or transmission wholly within the Canal Zone. The
provisions of this chapter shall apply with respect to cable service,
to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such
service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such
service, as provided in subchapter V-A.


or how about 153 of the communication act


=A7 153. Definitions

(22) Interstate communication
The term "interstate communication" or "interstate
transmission" means communication or transmission
(A) from any State, Territory, or possession of the United States
(other than the Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia, to any other
State, Territory, or possession of the United States (other than the
Canal Zone), or the District of Columbia,
(B) from or to the United States to or from the Canal Zone, insofar as
such communication or transmission takes place within the United
States, or
(C) between points within the United States but through a foreign
country; but shall not, with respect to the provisions of subchapter II
of this chapter (other than section 223 of this title), include wire or
radio communication between points in the same State, Territory, or
possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, through
any place outside thereof, if such communication is regulated by a
State commission.

do I need to go on.......

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you went from

"innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome. Your own archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.
This post dickhead had nothing to do with me...it had to do with the
behavior of the FCC and pirate radio operators and their "alleged
interference" with boadcast Stations. No where in that post did I state
anything about me, but Dumb asses like yourself read into stuff that
isn't there.


A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep acting

like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

Dave K8MN


Like I said Davy GO FOR IT!!!!! I DARE YOU.


Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:

They do.

And under our Constitution and laws, the FCC ensures, to the best
of it's ability, that this FINITE RESOURCE will be accessible to all.
Of course electronic anarchists like N9OGL who believe that anyone
should do anything they like would make it impossible for anyone to use

it at all.


The finite resourse no longer hold true anymore thanks to digital
radio.....The point of that was that the FCC has over the last 10/20
years, has bent over backworks for the "special interest" and some of
the"special interest" goals sometimes do not reflect the public
interest.

OK.

Let's remove the FCC from the picture for a second. You go ahead
and fire up your LPFM station on 107.9 (or whatever frequency you
choose).


I live next town over and I want to operate on 107.9...Or
worse yet, I just want to jam you becasue I think your "opinion" or
programming format suck. Who ya gonna call now?


State or local agencies? OK...So Illinois allows you to operate
here...but just across the state line in Podunk, Missouri, THEY
"license" me to operate on that frequency...at 1500 watts, because in
MO they define "low power" as anything below 10,000 watts.


I'd usually expect a rational person to see where this is going,
but hey...it's Todd...

Under the Communication Act of 1934 the FCC has juridiction over
interstate and foreign commerce via wire or radio, Intrastate
communications is the juridiction of the state.


3. Not only should a person have the right to listen to not only
the broadcast services but all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.


even the cellular band which is part of the radio spectrum and there

by

belong to the people.



Hey Todd...waddaya say I park a van outside your place and start
monitoring your cell and cordless phones. I further record them and
play them at local venues. Since everyone can listen to everything
under your "plan", nothing you say on "the phone" is protected.

No, the Electronoic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 was pushed by the
Cellphone companies because they didn't want to encrypt their phone
systems which they had the ability to do.


4. The people should have the right to choice his satellite
package. The person should have the right if he wants the Network

feeds

off the satellite and wants to pay for them be allowed to buy them
regardless if he recieve local broadcasting.



Gee, Todd...We have that here in Tennessee...What's up with you in
Ill-annoyed?

This post was written long before "Local channels" were placed on the
satellites. Before that (thanks to the National Association of
Broadcasters) if you lived in a alleged "contour" then you were not
allowed to get feeds off the satellite. The NAB pushed congress to pass
a law to protect "local services"



5. The FCC should eliminate any useless services on the
electromagnetic spectrum (There is still some first generation radio
services on the air) Any new service like Digital Cellular Phones

should

be phased into the old cell band instead of allocating them spectrum.




You are incompetent to hold broadcast licensure, and only hold
Amateur licensure by the grace of God...Why would they consider your
"ideas" for wireless telephone technology?

No dickhead, there is still first generation services on the
electromagnetic spectrum, and secondly instead of allocation new
frequencies for digital phones have the cell service phase out analog
phones and put digital phones in that same band, instead of giving them
new spectrum. The point is instead of allocation spectrum for a newer
version of a old service have that service group install in the new
service on the old and phase out the old...again this was write a long
time ago



Oh, heck yeah! Let's let anyone who get's it in thier head to do so

to have a license! And since we're loading the bands up with all these

citizen-broadcasters, let's screw the technical standards which help to

maximize the already dwindling spectrum! What's a little intermod or
bleed-over among broadcasters! Live out on the fringes of overlapping
stations? Too bad

No, I want the FCC to do is their JOB, the FCC is authorized to grant
licenses, and consider waivers, The Federal Courts has gone farther
stating the FCC MUST consider waiver, the bottom line is the FCC has
not once done that. As for "dwindling spectrum" again digtal radio/
television has pretty well put an end to that. A Digital TV station can
run more then one station on the same frequency, the same with digital
radio. But hey you licnesed CB operators are still using that old
"analog" system and basical don't know **** outside your own backyard


8. The FCC should stop believing in this "burden on the commission"
because there is always going to be a burden regardless. instead the
FCC should try to get things done.



But Todd! You'd just throw them aside!

Besides, Todd...And I know this will be painful for you to accept,
but it's ill-informed, narrowminided, functioanlly illiterate IDIOTS
like you that create the burden in the first place

First off you ****ing COCK SUCKER, what I was refering to was the FCC
pushing the burden of proof onto people in the courts, The old saying
you innocent into proven guilty is not true to the FCC is more like
your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, In some instance the FCC
has already made their decision before all the facts are gathered.


9. The FCC should work more closer to the people then the big
companies and organizations. The FCC believes they serve the public's


intrest but in reality the FAA serves the public's intrest better

then

the FCC because the FAA listens to the people.



And what was the last NPRM from the FAA YOU responded to,
Todd?

What "issues" has the FAA addressed that the FCC has failed to do
so, Toddie?


No dumb ass, the point is the FCC should serve the public's interest a
lot better then they do, instead the serve the special interest more
The special interest is only there to serve one person...themselves.
The point was the FAA serves the public interest BETTER then the FCC
does, Just look at the new sports license they recently passed.


10. The Question of what's Interstate and what's Interstate should
be answered.



The point of 10 was, and although it's screwed up i'll explain. The
question of Interstate Communications is not defined, simple for this
reason. the courts and congress believe that ALL RADIO transmissions,
despite their power, antenna height, and frequency is interstate by
nature. This stems from a federal court case dealing with a radio
station from the 1930's and later to CB cases in the late 50's on to
present time.


Sure there has been a few cases with
interferning with
the aircraft band as a pilot myself I wouldn't want that to happen.
However there has been a lot of low power services out there that
didn't
cause interfernce which out weights the cases that do.



And which case that DOES cause interference to the avaition
allocations is OK, Todd? How many episodes of interference are OK to
the safety of flight?

Do YOU want to be on the flight that winds up two miles short of
the runway because some idiot LIKE YOU was exercising his "free speech"

on an ILS frequency? Do you want to be the guy who kept an FAA
facility from hearing a distress call or warning of a hijacking just so

you could transmit your "bulletins" on "pirate TV"...?!?!


The problem with interference of the aircraft band is although there
has been cases of interference there is really no "proof" that it
happened. TV is a different matter because it is higher up on the
spectrum and the olds of interference is lower, compare to a "pirate
radio station" I will point out though that Unlicensed Broadcast has
interfere with airports and so has Licensed Broadcast.


I am against
thre
LOW POWER RADIO PETITION because to me it is a quick fixs the FCC
should
allow that service now with waivers (which their rules allow) but

they

will not. I did apply for a license twice and both times it was
returned
so my view is to HELL with them.



I am sure your whole life has been full of people realizing what
an idiot you are and did their best to keep you from making a fool out
of yourself or harming others with your "me first" attitudes.

We can only hope the FCC will keep it up.


No dickhead, the point was the LPFM service was a quick fix, the FCC
had the power before creating that service, but the Mass Media Bureau
didn't and would not act upon it. (ie. they wouldn't consider
applications and waiver for stations less then 100 watts, although the
Federal Courts told them they MUST consider waivers.)

(I am kinda hoping K2ASP might "drop a dime" on some old friends
in Gettysburg to start the mill moving on Toddie now!)

GO FO IT!!! I DARE YOU!!! but you better know what your getting
youself into....


Oh one more thing this "chaos" which
accured back in the 20's wasn't by Low power operators but by greedy


Commercial operators and the Navy.



Sure it was by "low power" operators! There were "broadcast
stations" popping up on every hotel and newspaper building across the
country!

I would really suggest you go back and read the history of radio,
including the early years. because that's where that statement is
coming from.


Right, but there is a lot of broadcast services that don't cross the
line. for example my 8 watt Low power television transmitter which

runs

on UHF will not cross the state line because 1. i'm in the middle of


the
state. 2. the power of 8 watts and the antenna height of 60 ft 3.

the

terrain. fact is my station doesnot cross the state line and there

by

the FCC doesn't have the juridiction over my signal.



So...it's OK if you're "in the middle of the state"...But what
about folks who live close to state lines? Or people who live at
higher elevations and even low power carries far? Or how about folks
who live in realtively small states ie: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc?

They're just squat out of luck?


Face it, Todd...Not everyone can be or even SHOULD be a
"broadcaster".


L E A S T of all a racist, incompetent, functionally illiterate
idiot like you! But there is an "up" side...You do have a future as a
stand up comic...You've had us in stitches for days!

again this has to do with intrastate vs Interstate
communications.....at lease I'm not some dickhead ham radio operator
who gets on a newsgroup and plays HAM COP.


Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

Todd
Please learn how to reply and quote, it gets hard to read, the only way
to tell your post was because of all the misspelling and profanity!
I think you are watching too much Deadwood on HBO.

N9OGL wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

(Attributions inserted for sanity)

That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio

I suggest you read Section 151 of the communication Act of 1934.

§ 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created

As well as 152 of the communication act

§ 152. Application of chapter

or how about 153 of the communication act

§ 153. Definitions

do I need to go on.......

You didn't need to insert them to begin with. I've read 'em. You've
read and misinterpreted them.

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you went from "innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome. Your own archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.

This post dickhead had nothing to do with me...

Sure it does, Todd Not-Very-Swift. It is all about you.

it had to do with the
behavior of the FCC and pirate radio operators and their "alleged
interference" with boadcast Stations. No where in that post did I state
anything about me, but Dumb asses like yourself read into stuff that
isn't there.

Wise up, Todd. I posted a number of your archived posts in two parts.
In a number of them, you admit to operating pirate radio and TV stations
which operate on self-assigned frequencies in excess of Part 15 power
levels (by a bunch). You confess to operating without a license in some
places and in others you profess that you'll go back to operating
without a license. You've admitted, publicly to being a scofflaw. I
didn't read anything which wasn't plainly stated by you.

A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep acting

like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

Like I said Davy GO FOR IT!!!!! I DARE YOU.

Actually, you said, "Go Fo It". What is it that I'd be letting myself
in for, Toddkins?

Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

Awwww! You've used that fictitious name again. Now you won't have to
ask "what ficticious name?". It is the one thing you've really
invented.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Even if your reply had included attributions, Todd, it would still be
difficult to read.

Under the Communication Act of 1934 the FCC has juridiction over
interstate and foreign commerce via wire or radio, Intrastate
communications is the juridiction of the state.

That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio.

First off you F--king C--K S--KER, what I was refering to was the
FCC
pushing the burden of proof onto people in the courts, The old
saying
you innocent into proven guilty is not true to the FCC...

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you went
from
"innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome. Your own
archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.
...is more like
your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, In some instance the
FCC
has already made their decision before all the facts are gathered.

Doesn't look that happened with regard to issuing you a broadcast
license.


No dumb ass, the point is the FCC should serve the public's
interest a
lot better then they do, instead the serve the special interest
more
The special interest is only there to serve one
person...themselves.

Wow! That's quite enlightening. The special interests are in
reality
just one person?

The point of 10 was, and although it's screwed up i'll explain. The
question of Interstate Communications is not defined, simple for
this
reason. the courts and congress believe that ALL RADIO
transmissions,
despite their power, antenna height, and frequency is interstate by
nature. This stems from a federal court case dealing with a radio
station from the 1930's and later to CB cases in the late 50's on
to
present time.

Interstate communications regulation was defined long ago. Your lack
of
understanding doesn't mean that there is no definition.


The problem with interference of the aircraft band is although
there
has been cases of interference there is really no "proof" that it
happened.

Really? And you know this how?

K4YZ: "(I am kinda hoping K2ASP might "drop a dime" on some old
friends
in Gettysburg to start the mill moving on Toddie now!)"

GO FO IT!!! I DARE YOU!!! but you better know what your getting
youself into....

A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep
acting
like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

Dave K8MN

Well like I said Davy, GO FOR IT!!!!!! I DARE YOU!!!!!! :)

N9OGL wrote:

Todd...Why do you insist on "replying" to posts without
attributing the quotes?

Are you REALLY the idiot I've been claiming you to be? Is it THAT
difficulet to do?

They do.

"They do" what? Who does what?

Had you quoted the item you were replying to, an adequate response
could be made. Instead you just wind up looking like the idiot I have
claimed you to be.

And under our Constitution and laws, the FCC ensures, to the
best
of it's ability, that this FINITE RESOURCE will be accessible to
all.
Of course electronic anarchists like N9OGL who believe that anyone
should do anything they like would make it impossible for anyone to
use
it at all.

The finite resourse no longer hold true anymore thanks to digital
radio.....

Absolutely one of the most assinine and ignorant things you've
posted, Todd.

The FCC and the NTIA both are getting to the point where they've
gone from 50kHz spacing down to 25, then 12.5, now down to 6.25kHz
spacing.

Aeronautical users are pared down to 8.33kHz channels.

This DESPITE the proliferation of "digital" radio.

NTIA, the agency which regulates and licenses federal and military
users of the electromagnetic specrum is squeezing everyone into 6.25kHz
channels for years.

The point of that was that the FCC has over the last 10/20
years, has bent over backworks for the "special interest" and some of
the"special interest" goals sometimes do not reflect the public
interest.

What? Are you drunk? What are you talking about?

OK.

"OK" what?

Let's remove the FCC from the picture for a second. You go
ahead
and fire up your LPFM station on 107.9 (or whatever frequency you
choose).

I live next town over and I want to operate on 107.9...Or
worse yet, I just want to jam you becasue I think your "opinion" or
programming format suck. Who ya gonna call now?

State or local agencies? OK...So Illinois allows you to
operate
here...but just across the state line in Podunk, Missouri, THEY
"license" me to operate on that frequency...at 1500 watts, because
in
MO they define "low power" as anything below 10,000 watts.

I'd usually expect a rational person to see where this is going,
but hey...it's Todd...

Under the Communication Act of 1934 the FCC has juridiction over
interstate and foreign commerce via wire or radio, Intrastate
communications is the juridiction of the state.

And since any radio may be used in any state at any time, unless
it's bolted the floor of the building in which it's being used, all
radios are controlled by one agency.

Furthermore, propagation that conducts RF outside state lines
exists all the way up to the microwave regions, Toddie!

I am in middle Tennessee, and our paramedic base station at the
hospital I work at routinely hears traffic from KY, MS, AL and GA. We
are occassionally able to check into Memphis MedcComm's AM radio roll
call on 155.34mHz.

On occassion, I can hear the MOBILE side of EMS, fire, police and
even GMRS users at my home QTH from all those locations, and that's
with a simple discone and scanner. The antenna is only at 20ft and fed
with RG-8. Nothing special. Imagine what I could do with some
hardline, a tower and a band-resonant antenna...?!?! Even better if I
was on the mountain!

3. Not only should a person have the right to listen to not only
the broadcast services but all parts of the electromagnetic
spectrum.
even the cellular band which is part of the radio spectrum and
there
by belong to the people.

Hey Todd...waddaya say I park a van outside your place and start
monitoring your cell and cordless phones. I further record them and
play them at local venues. Since everyone can listen to everything
under your "plan", nothing you say on "the phone" is protected.

No, the Electronoic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 was pushed by
the
Cellphone companies because they didn't want to encrypt their phone
systems which they had the ability to do.

And if they did your .99 cent cellphone at .20 cents per minute (or
less) would still be a very expensive item operating at a dollar a
minute or more for service.

4. The people should have the right to choice his satellite
package. The person should have the right if he wants the Network
feeds
off the satellite and wants to pay for them be allowed to buy them
regardless if he recieve local broadcasting.


Gee, Todd...We have that here in Tennessee...What's up with you
in
Ill-annoyed?

This post was written long before "Local channels" were placed on the
satellites. Before that (thanks to the National Association of
Broadcasters) if you lived in a alleged "contour" then you were not
allowed to get feeds off the satellite. The NAB pushed congress to
pass
a law to protect "local services"

I've had "local channels" since at least 98. That was before the
post (August 99).

The question remains open...What up with you in Ill-annoyed?

5. The FCC should eliminate any useless services on the
electromagnetic spectrum (There is still some first generation
radio
services on the air) Any new service like Digital Cellular Phones
should
be phased into the old cell band instead of allocating them
spectrum.

You are incompetent to hold broadcast licensure, and only hold
Amateur licensure by the grace of God...Why would they consider your
"ideas" for wireless telephone technology?

No ####head, there is still first generation services on the
electromagnetic spectrum, and secondly instead of allocation new
frequencies for digital phones have the cell service phase out analog
phones and put digital phones in that same band, instead of giving
them
new spectrum. The point is instead of allocation spectrum for a newer
version of a old service have that service group install in the new
service on the old and phase out the old...again this was write a
long
time ago

Gee, Todd....They are re-configuring things here...Don't know
what's up with your folk in Ill-annoyed. And they call Tennsseeans
'backwards'...Sheesh!

Oh, heck yeah! Let's let anyone who get's it in thier head to do
so
to have a license! And since we're loading the bands up with all
these
citizen-broadcasters, let's screw the technical standards which help
to
maximize the already dwindling spectrum! What's a little intermod
or
bleed-over among broadcasters! Live out on the fringes of
overlapping
stations? Too bad

No, I want the FCC to do is their JOB, the FCC is authorized to grant
licenses, and consider waivers, The Federal Courts has gone farther
stating the FCC MUST consider waiver, the bottom line is the FCC has
not once done that.

Todd, have you ever learned how to properly use a "period"...???

The FCC IS doing their jobs, Todd.

They have prevented an incompetent, unqualified, profane little
punk from trashing up the airwaves in Illinois, so I'd say they did
what they had to.

YOU may not like the results, but that's too bad.

Just becasue the FCC is the license issuing authority does NOT
mean they HAVE to grant you a license!

As for "dwindling spectrum" again digtal radio/
television has pretty well put an end to that. A Digital TV station
can
run more then one station on the same frequency, the same with
digital
radio. But hey you licnesed CB operators are still using that old
"analog" system and basical don't know #### outside your own
backyard.

And again you don't know what you are talking about, Todd.

8. The FCC should stop believing in this "burden on the
commission"
because there is always going to be a burden regardless. instead
the
FCC should try to get things done.

But Todd! You'd just throw them aside!

Besides, Todd...And I know this will be painful for you to
accept,
but it's ill-informed, narrowminided, functionally illiterate IDIOTS
like you that create the burden in the first place

First off you ####ing %%%%SUCKER,...(SNIP)

I love it! Thanks for proving my assertion in the very first
sentence of the reply, Todd!

(UNSNIP)....what I was refering to was the FCC
pushing the burden of proof onto people in the courts, The old saying
you innocent into proven guilty is not true to the FCC is more like
your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, In some instance the
FCC
has already made their decision before all the facts are gathered.

And in YOUR case the "facts" are (1) your frequent and liberal use
of profanity (including your assertion that you've 'called them worse
to thier face'), (2) your failure to properly file documents in the
required time frame, (3) the failure to file them correctly, and (4)
your failure to adequately document your financial standing to justify
"non-profit" status have prevented you from getting the license you
seek!

In other words, you're the incompetent idiot that they have been
insinuating you are and that I am point-blank calling you!

9. The FCC should work more closer to the people then the big
companies and organizations. The FCC believes they serve the
public's
intrest but in reality the FAA serves the public's intrest better
then the FCC because the FAA listens to the people.

And what was the last NPRM from the FAA YOU responded to,
Todd?

What "issues" has the FAA addressed that the FCC has failed to
do
so, Toddie?

No dumb @@@, the point is the FCC should serve the public's interest
a
lot better then they do, instead the serve the special interest more
The special interest is only there to serve one person...themselves.
The point was the FAA serves the public interest BETTER then the FCC
does, Just look at the new sports license they recently passed.

They are doing their job very nicely, I'd say. You are still
without a broadcast license, and that IS serving the public
interest!

And the "Sport Pilot" license has been a work-in-progress for 20
years or more, Todd. It wasn't something they just popped up and said,
"Oh gee, let's do this...". It started with the introduction of Part
103...The part that authorized ultralights and hang gliders.

If you need a bit more history, go to http:///www.eaa.org. Those
are the folks who have rode herd on that project.

10. The Question of what's Interstate and what's Interstate should
be answered.

The point of 10 was, and although it's screwed up i'll explain. The
question of Interstate Communications is not defined, simple for this
reason. the courts and congress believe that ALL RADIO transmissions,
despite their power, antenna height, and frequency is interstate by
nature. This stems from a federal court case dealing with a radio
station from the 1930's and later to CB cases in the late 50's on to
present time.

What you were TRYING to seperate was "INTERstate" and
"INTRAstate".

The reason you screwed it up was that you were too impatient to
try and impress us with your opinion that you didn't take the time to
look in a dictionary to get the right definitions.

Sure there has been a few cases with
interferning with
the aircraft band as a pilot myself I wouldn't want that to
happen.
However there has been a lot of low power services out there that
didn't
cause interfernce which out weights the cases that do.

And which case that DOES cause interference to the avaition
allocations is OK, Todd? How many episodes of interference are OK
to
the safety of flight?

Do YOU want to be on the flight that winds up two miles short of
the runway because some idiot LIKE YOU was exercising his "free
speech"
on an ILS frequency? Do you want to be the guy who kept an FAA
facility from hearing a distress call or warning of a hijacking just
so
you could transmit your "bulletins" on "pirate TV"...?!?!

The problem with interference of the aircraft band is although there
has been cases of interference there is really no "proof" that it
happened. TV is a different matter because it is higher up on the
spectrum and the olds of interference is lower, compare to a "pirate
radio station" I will point out though that Unlicensed Broadcast has
interfere with airports and so has Licensed Broadcast.

Uhhhhh...actually there have been quite a few cases of interference
to aeronautical frequencies, Toddie! That's why it's still "an issue".

I am against thre
LOW POWER RADIO PETITION because to me it is a quick fixs the FCC
should
allow that service now with waivers (which their rules allow) but
they
will not. I did apply for a license twice and both times it was
returned
so my view is to HELL with them.

I am sure your whole life has been full of people realizing
what
an idiot you are and did their best to keep you from making a fool
out
of yourself or harming others with your "me first" attitudes.

No ####head, the point was the LPFM service was a quick fix, the FCC
had the power before creating that service, but the Mass Media Bureau
didn't and would not act upon it. (ie. they wouldn't consider
applications and waiver for stations less then 100 watts, although
the
Federal Courts told them they MUST consider waivers.)

The LPFM service was NO "quick fix". The issue was debated for
YEARS before the FCC finally decided to go with it.

(I am kinda hoping K2ASP might "drop a dime" on some old friends
in Gettysburg to start the mill moving on Toddie now!)

GO FO IT!!! I DARE YOU!!! but you better know what your getting
youself into....

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! !

I already KNOW what "I am getting (my)self into", Todd!

Todd...all of these exchanges are occuring because YOU keep making
an IDIOT out of yourself! You're profane, poorly informed, short
tempered and just out-and-out FOOLISH!

There is NOTHING that YOU can do that even remotely intimidates or
impresses me, Todd!

Oh one more thing this "chaos" which
accured back in the 20's wasn't by Low power operators but by
greedy

Commercial operators and the Navy.

Sure it was by "low power" operators! There were "broadcast
stations" popping up on every hotel and newspaper building across
the
country!

I would really suggest you go back and read the history of radio,
including the early years. because that's where that statement is
coming from.

What statement? You never attribute anything, Todd, so who know's
WHAT you're saying about anything?

Right, but there is a lot of broadcast services that don't cross
the
line. for example my 8 watt Low power television transmitter
which
runs
on UHF will not cross the state line because 1. i'm in the middle
of

the
state. 2. the power of 8 watts and the antenna height of 60 ft 3.
the
terrain. fact is my station doesnot cross the state line and
there
by
the FCC doesn't have the juridiction over my signal.


So...it's OK if you're "in the middle of the state"...But what
about folks who live close to state lines? Or people who live at
higher elevations and even low power carries far? Or how about
folks
who live in realtively small states ie: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc?

They're just squat out of luck?

Face it, Todd...Not everyone can be or even SHOULD be a
"broadcaster".

L E A S T of all a racist, incompetent, functionally illiterate
idiot like you! But there is an "up" side...You do have a future as
a
stand up comic...You've had us in stitches for days!

again this has to do with intrastate vs Interstate
communications.....at lease I'm not some ####head ham radio operator
who gets on a newsgroup and plays HAM COP.

Who's playing "ham cop", Todd?

And as for the "inter" vs "intra" state, that's already been
decided in the Supreme Court.

No amount of pontification, swearing, demanding, foot stomping or
otherwise childish behaviour by a developmentally delayed adult is
going to make them revist the issue.

Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

ESPECIALLY one with an identity crisis.

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Even if your reply had included attributions, Todd, it would still be
difficult to read.

Under the Communication Act of 1934 the FCC has juridiction over
interstate and foreign commerce via wire or radio, Intrastate
communications is the juridiction of the state.

That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio.

First off you F--king C--K S--KER, what I was refering to was the
FCC
pushing the burden of proof onto people in the courts, The old
saying
you innocent into proven guilty is not true to the FCC...

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you went
from
"innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome. Your own
archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.

I think he's more reknowned for breaking a few law of nature,
Dave!

...is more like
your guilty until you prove yourself innocent, In some instance the
FCC
has already made their decision before all the facts are gathered.

Doesn't look that happened with regard to issuing you a broadcast
license.


No dumb ass, the point is the FCC should serve the public's
interest a
lot better then they do, instead the serve the special interest
more
The special interest is only there to serve one
person...themselves.

Wow! That's quite enlightening. The special interests are in
reality
just one person?

The point of 10 was, and although it's screwed up i'll explain. The
question of Interstate Communications is not defined, simple for
this
reason. the courts and congress believe that ALL RADIO
transmissions,
despite their power, antenna height, and frequency is interstate by
nature. This stems from a federal court case dealing with a radio
station from the 1930's and later to CB cases in the late 50's on
to
present time.

Interstate communications regulation was defined long ago. Your lack
of
understanding doesn't mean that there is no definition.


The problem with interference of the aircraft band is although
there
has been cases of interference there is really no "proof" that it
happened.

Really? And you know this how?

K4YZ: "(I am kinda hoping K2ASP might "drop a dime" on some old
friends
in Gettysburg to start the mill moving on Toddie now!)"

GO FO IT!!! I DARE YOU!!! but you better know what your getting
youself into....

A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep
acting
like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

The frequent "name changes", threats, admissions of wrongdoing as
they pertain to clandestine radio operation...

I'd say he's digging himself in pretty well.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

(Attributions inserted for sanity)

That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio

I suggest you read Section 151 of the communication Act of 1934.

=A7 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission
created

As well as 152 of the communication act

=A7 152. Application of chapter

or how about 153 of the communication act

=A7 153. Definitions

do I need to go on.......

You didn't need to insert them to begin with. I've read 'em. You've
read and misinterpreted them.

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you
went from "innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome. Your
own archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.

This post dickhead had nothing to do with me...

Sure it does, Todd Not-Very-Swift. It is all about you.

it had to do with the
behavior of the FCC and pirate radio operators and their "alleged
interference" with boadcast Stations. No where in that post did I
state
anything about me, but Dumb asses like yourself read into stuff
that
isn't there.

Wise up, Todd. I posted a number of your archived posts in two
parts.
In a number of them, you admit to operating pirate radio and TV
stations
which operate on self-assigned frequencies in excess of Part 15 power
levels (by a bunch). You confess to operating without a license in
some
places and in others you profess that you'll go back to operating
without a license. You've admitted, publicly to being a scofflaw. I
didn't read anything which wasn't plainly stated by you.

WELL YOU ****ING BITCH IF THEY WOULD OF CONSIDER MY APPLICATION AND
WAIVER LIKE THEIR SUPPOSE TOO THEN I WOULDN'T OF DID WHAT I DID, WHY
SHOULD I CONTINUE TO SPEND THE TIME AND MONEY YOU ****ING ASSHOLE ON
APPLYING FOR A LICENSE???



A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't
seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or
Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds
and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep
acting

like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

Like I said Davy GO FOR IT!!!!! I DARE YOU.

Actually, you said, "Go Fo It". What is it that I'd be letting
myself
in for, Toddkins?

Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

Awwww! You've used that fictitious name again. Now you won't have
to
ask "what ficticious name?". It is the one thing you've really
invented.
IT'S NOT FICTICIOUS YOU ****ING SLUT



Dave K8MN

N9OGL wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

(Attributions inserted for sanity)

That's simply wrong if you're discussing radio

I suggest you read Section 151 of the communication Act of 1934.

=A7 151. Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission
created

As well as 152 of the communication act

=A7 152. Application of chapter

or how about 153 of the communication act

=A7 153. Definitions

do I need to go on.......

You didn't need to insert them to begin with. I've read 'em.
You've
read and misinterpreted them.

Your archived posts pretty well do you in. It looks like you
went from "innocent into proven guilty" all by your lonesome.
Your
own archived
words show you to be guilty of breaking any number of FCC regs.

This post dickhead had nothing to do with me...

Sure it does, Todd Not-Very-Swift. It is all about you.

it had to do with the
behavior of the FCC and pirate radio operators and their "alleged
interference" with boadcast Stations. No where in that post did I
state
anything about me, but Dumb asses like yourself read into stuff
that
isn't there.

Wise up, Todd. I posted a number of your archived posts in two
parts.
In a number of them, you admit to operating pirate radio and TV
stations
which operate on self-assigned frequencies in excess of Part 15
power
levels (by a bunch). You confess to operating without a license in
some
places and in others you profess that you'll go back to operating
without a license. You've admitted, publicly to being a scofflaw.
I
didn't read anything which wasn't plainly stated by you.

WELL YOU ####ING ##### IF THEY WOULD OF CONSIDER MY APPLICATION AND
WAIVER LIKE THEIR SUPPOSE TOO THEN I WOULDN'T OF DID WHAT I DID, WHY
SHOULD I CONTINUE TO SPEND THE TIME AND MONEY YOU ####ING ###HOLE ON
APPLYING FOR A LICENSE???

The point is you SHOULDN'T, Toddie!

You're not adequately qualified to be a broadcast licensee.

Period.

A debate with a mental midget? A lawsuit from a guy who doesn't
seem
to
have enough loot to pay an attorney's retainer? What would he or
Phil
be
getting into, Todd? All that's needed for proof of your misdeeds
and
lack of character is copies of your archived posts and perhaps
some
copies of letters you've written to public figures. If you keep
acting

like a mad man, you could end up getting your amateur radio
license
yanked. If it happens, you can blame yourself.

Like I said Davy GO FOR IT!!!!! I DARE YOU.

Actually, you said, "Go Fo It". What is it that I'd be letting
myself
in for, Toddkins?

Todd O'Dochartaigh N9OGL

Awwww! You've used that fictitious name again. Now you won't have
to
ask "what ficticious name?". It is the one thing you've really
invented.

IT'S NOT FICTICIOUS YOU ####ING ####.

Sure it is. Either that, or you've lied on your FCC license.

One or the other is wrong. Now which is it?

Steve, K4YZ

The point is you SHOULDN'T, Toddie!
You're not adequately qualified to be a broadcast licensee.
Period.

Prove it you freaking moron.


Sure it is. Either that, or you've lied on your FCC license.
One or the other is wrong. Now which is it?


NO it isn't you dumbass, O'Dochartaigh and Daugherty are the same
thing...so **** YOU!!!!!

N9OGL wrote:

Without attributes again... very inconsiderate, Todd.

The point is you SHOULDN'T, Toddie!
You're not adequately qualified to be a broadcast licensee.
Period.

Prove it you freaking moron.

I don't have to, Todd.

YOU prove it EVERY time you post...EVERY time.

Sure it is. Either that, or you've lied on your FCC license.
One or the other is wrong. Now which is it?


NO it isn't you dumbass, O'Dochartaigh and Daugherty are the same
thing...so #### YOU!!!!!

No, they are NOT the same thing.

Your legal name is either O'Dochartaigh or it's Daugherty.

Steve, K4YZ