"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on
there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.


Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.


Then why does Blapster make such a big deal about his "published schedule"
and uses that as his PRIMARY reason to claim he is being interfered with ?
Sorry, can't have it both ways. Face it...Blapster is a sham. He should
be standing in a circus tent hawking hair growth cream.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.


That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

Get ready to suck it up Toad.


[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That
is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

Why isn't he on 14.275 any longer ?????? I'll tell you why....he got his
arse whipped like a mangy dog thats why.



finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI


It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on
there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.


Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.


It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.


The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.


Then why does Blapster make such a big deal about his "published schedule"
and uses that as his PRIMARY reason to claim he is being interfered with ?
Sorry, can't have it both ways. Face it...Blapster is a sham. He should
be standing in a circus tent hawking hair growth cream.


the FCC has even told K1MAN that his published schedule didn't mean
squat, and that his published schedule was no excuse for interfernce.


W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.


That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it. Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is. The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

Get ready to suck it up Toad.


[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That
is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

Why isn't he on 14.275 any longer ?????? I'll tell you why....he got his
arse whipped like a mangy dog thats why.



finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI


It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau



Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little BITCHWHORES at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go **** yourself.





Todd N9OGL
Dan/W4NTI

N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates

Amussing you seem to be losing your ability to spel old boy

on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

BULL**** all reporting has an opinion component, only a fool woudl
claim otherwise. Forgive me I forgot who I was talking about Stevie


An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Nothing can be totaly objective everything is subjective


Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Are they? what they are doing is anything but clear, aside from the
fact that the whole thing results from a LONG history of interaction
between the ARRL The FCC and Baxter. It is also clear the we here in
RRAP lack a number of facts


The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No they have left various rules a vague state. It s a common state of
affairs in ALL govt regulation. It is done as I have heard, is tollow
the 'crats to act as they please (or if you prefer free to act as they
think best, it amounts to the same thing)

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not realy but no point in explaing to you you have made up your mind


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

But what is the content, in veiw of the FCC rules

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Oh yes one must always worship at the Holy Bar of Law

Amazing now and here you encourage laziness?


The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

More gratoitous vitriol


Steve, K4YZ

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry
about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it
the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said
on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on
there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.


Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW?
Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.


It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.


Like I said dipwad....file a complaint then.



The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.


Then why does Blapster make such a big deal about his "published
schedule"
and uses that as his PRIMARY reason to claim he is being interfered with
?
Sorry, can't have it both ways. Face it...Blapster is a sham. He
should
be standing in a circus tent hawking hair growth cream.


the FCC has even told K1MAN that his published schedule didn't mean
squat, and that his published schedule was no excuse for interfernce.


Oh NO !!!!! You just shot YOUR and MANs MAJOR excuse for being a boy
broadcaster
being all right and above board. Hardy har har.


W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.


That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it. Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is. The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.


It is NOT the "opinionated" part that is a problem Toad....Its his pure and
simple
attitude. If he would not be such a pain in everyones butt and act like a
normal
human being he would not have all these problems. But its too late now, he
has
so many folks ill at him, he ain't got a prayer of pulling out of the power
dive he is
in.

A bulletin is a short, to the point transmission of interest to the Amateur
community.
Not a 45 minute talk show of off the wall opinions from the Blapster, phone
calls
that he taped and is replaying (illegally I might add....where is the beep?)
And especially
not 18 year old re-runs of Wayne Green and talks from the Dayton Hamfest of
1986.

Lets not even mention his calling Riley Hollingsworth names and slandering
his fellow
Amateurs. Blapster is a total and complete piece of crap. And all this he
has brought
on his self.


[14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary
interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the
ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]


Wait a minute Toad, get your comments (BS) cooridinated. You say the ARRL
solicits
on its bulletins, now you say they don't. Again Toad you can't have it
both ways. The FACTS are the ARRL DOES NOT SOLICITE ANYTHING ON ITS
BULLETINS. THE ARRL ACTUALLY SENDS BULLETINS NOT SOLICITATIONS FOR CREDIT
CARDS ETC THAT YOUR BUDDY DOES. MAN has had it. Face it.

Get ready to suck it up Toad.


[16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does
it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up
to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear?
That
is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq
in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN.
He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.


I know I ridiculed you about that. I was just pulling your chain. But you
show me here that you know of what I speak. Good for you Todd.

Why isn't he on 14.275 any longer ?????? I'll tell you why....he got his
arse whipped like a mangy dog thats why.



finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a
NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you
do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI


It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated.
Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau



Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid
80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and
fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play
pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little BITCHWHORES at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go **** yourself.





Todd N9OGL
Dan/W4NTI


Poor Toad. When he don't get his way he starts with the cussing and
carrying on. Isnt this how you lost your LAST ISP TOAD? I got a jolt for
you me boy. I have no friends at the FCC. I am just right and they and
you know it.

You don't deserve a ham license let alone one for a broadcast station. We
have enough kooks on SW now. Just go bootleg, put it in a mobile for a
while, then a ship, then a surf board. Or just go to streaming on the
internet. Wake up and smell the roses Toad.

If you want to broadcast, then broadcast. But ham radio is NOT the place
to do it. I will guarantee you if I ever hear you doing it, and not
crossing your "t" and dotting your "i", I will be all over you like ....well
you know the rest of it. Your talking to one with a LOT of experience
taking out the idiots. And guess what? Your on the list.

Don't believe me? Ask David Tolassi ex KC1ZQ what happens when you cross
me on ham radio.

Be warned.

Dan/W4NTI


Dan/W4NTI

"K4YZ" wrote in message

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ


ROFLMAO Thats a good one Steve.

Dan/W4NTI

Oh NO !!!!! You just shot YOUR and MANs MAJOR excuse for being a boy
broadcaster being all right and above board. Hardy har har.

The fact is dan is that it's true, read some past warning letters, The
publishing of a schedule doesn't not give you an excuse to transmit
on-top of someone. I guess dan I can read it a little better because I
don't let my emotions get involved.

A bulletin is a short, to the point transmission of interest to the Amateur
community. Not a 45 minute talk show of off the wall opinions from the Blapster, phone
calls that he taped and is replaying (illegally I might add....where is the beep?)
And especially not 18 year old re-runs of Wayne Green and talks from the Dayton Hamfest of
1986. Lets not even mention his calling Riley Hollingsworth names and slandering
his fellow Amateurs. Blapster is a total and complete piece of crap. And all this he
has brought on his self.

Not true, A bulletin does not have to be short, the FCC has stated that
repeatedly that a bulletin doesn't have to be short. As a matter of
fact The FCC rules state after a certain amount of time a station can
be compensated (see Below)

97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

d) The control operator of a club station may accept compensation for
the periods of time when the station is transmitting telegraphy
practice or information bulletins, provided that the station transmits
such telegraphy practice and bulletins for at least 40 hours per week;
schedules operations on at least six amateur service MF and HF bands
using reasonable measures to maximize coverage; where the schedule of
normal operating times and frequencies is published at least 30 days in
advance of the actual transmissions; and where the control operator
does not accept any direct or indirect compensation for any other
service as a control operator.

So a club station running an information bulletin 40 hours a week
(that's 8 hours a day) can be compensated. So between that and he FCC
repeatly stating there is no time limit on information bulletins i
would say that Information bulletins aren't short. As for content the
content has to be amateur related and really the FCC can't really
control the content of the station transmitting it (see below)

Sec. 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or

signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or
condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall
interfere
with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, Sec. 326, 48 Stat. 1091; June 25,
1948, ch. 645, Sec. 21, 62 Stat. 862.)


Amendments

1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of
indecent language. See section 1464 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure.


Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1948, effective as of Sept. 1, 1948, see
section 20 of that act.


Wait a minute Toad, get your comments (BS) cooridinated. You say the ARRL
solicits on its bulletins, now you say they don't. Again Toad you can't have it
both ways. The FACTS are the ARRL DOES NOT SOLICITE ANYTHING ON ITS
BULLETINS. THE ARRL ACTUALLY SENDS BULLETINS NOT SOLICITATIONS FOR CREDIT
CARDS ETC THAT YOUR BUDDY DOES. MAN has had it. Face it.

I never said they didn't my main pea was that the rules state a station
can not make money direct or indirect, except for the rule That I
meantioned above, the point is to be allowed to get compensation as a
club station, what consitutes as a club station members, having a club
callsign? There is a lot of questions that need to be answered. the
rule of thumb has always been a club had to be a certain amount of
people, which I believe has to b more then three. The next thing is, Is
the FCC telling that club station how they are to be compensated? and
if so where in the FCC rules does it state the procdures of an amateur
station to be compensated.


Poor Toad. When he don't get his way he starts with the cussing and
carrying on. Isnt this how you lost your LAST ISP TOAD? I got a jolt for
you me boy. I have no friends at the FCC. I am just right and they and
you know it.

A person who uses their emotions in a debate always believe they are
right.

You don't deserve a ham license let alone one for a broadcast station. We
have enough kooks on SW now. Just go bootleg, put it in a mobile for a
while, then a ship, then a surf board. Or just go to streaming on the
internet. Wake up and smell the roses Toad.

Thank good you don't work for the FCC or no one would get a license.
Coming from someone who has been in trouble with the FCC before I'll
take tht as a compliment. As for streaming, First there are too many
people steaming this causes a hugh diversity, to big of a diversity.
secondly until Internet 2 comes out to the commercial services, right
now the government and universities have it, and everyones on it
internet radio and television will be second rate. Finally until
Internet radio and Television is considered a broadcast some of the
content owners wouldn't even mess with you. I've tried, I tried to
start a Internet TV station and asked content owners permission to use
their content and their view is unless your a BROADCASTER they won't
mess with you. This is what slowing internet TV down.

If you want to broadcast, then broadcast. But ham radio is NOT the place
to do it. I will guarantee you if I ever hear you doing it, and not
crossing your "t" and dotting your "i", I will be all over you like ....well
you know the rest of it. Your talking to one with a LOT of experience
taking out the idiots. And guess what? Your on the list.

GO FOR IT DANNY!!!! I'm on 14.321.00 every Saturday and I'm in process
of putting an amp in line, so GO FOR IT!!!!

Don't believe me? Ask David Tolassi ex KC1ZQ what happens when you cross
me on ham radio.

Be warned.

Dan/W4NTI


Todd N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz
Saturday's @ 4.00pm CST

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or
condition
shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere
with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, Sec. 326, 48 Stat. 1091; June 25,
1948, ch. 645, Sec. 21, 62 Stat. 862.)


Amendments

1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of
indecent language. See section 1464 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure.


Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1948, effective as of Sept. 1, 1948, see
section 20 of that act.


So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.


You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.
Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your asshole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ASSHOLE!!

Todd N9OGL

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

Prehaps it was prehaps it wasn't, but that is HIS choice

"Prehaps" he might do something constructive with his energies, but
I doubt that tooo.

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.

It Does concern Ham radio unlike a lot of your trash

A lot more of my posts are directed at Amatuer Radio issues AND
other services.

Unlike your trash.

unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Really losing man losing it bad

Nope.

It really is up to YOU to "make something" of YOUR religion.

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Then why did YOU start a thread trying to make an issue of it?

I didn't.

I simply stated that you are a gay pagan. You've said so
yourself.

I said NOTHING of paganism itself.

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

Prehaps you are right you may never have had in the place

What what in what place, Mark?

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

BTW you need to look up Illieterate etc, since you don't use the word
correct. For example I am n NOT illeterate, I am Dysgrapgic

You're an idiot, actually.

You have a problem that everyone who's ever engaged you in a
public discussion has asked you to please do something about, but you
insist on foisting your problems on everyone else.

Spell checking programs are a dime a dozen. If nothing else, you
could cut-and-paste your responses from any of the "Word" programs then
paste them to the relative thread.

I just think you LIKE looking like an idiot.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

If the pair of sentences does not make sense to you then you are
illerate

BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

See...This is why I thik you and the Toadster would make such a
complimentary couple!

Todd likes to call people names that he can't spell correctly too!

finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

Indeed you are since you are Sadistic, but can't admit it

Why would I admit to being something I am not, Mark?

Now I WOULD admit to being a bit Masochistic, if for no other
reason than (a) participating in this forum with known liars and
deceivers like you, Todd, Brian Burke and Lennie Anderson and (b)
trying to glean coherent content from your "writings".

I don't know which is worse...the headache from trying to read
your "dreck", or the sore throat from laughing so hard!

Steve, K4YZ

N9OGL wrote:
So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
have to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

I doubt it. Seriously. About the time you got 30 seconds into
your liquid oxygen cooled storage capacitor idea, the other guy would
be spinning the dial......

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Notice that the current NAL action is against K1MAN and not the
ARRL.

Guess you're having a hard time connecting the dots, aren't
you..?!?

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

No grey areas.

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship...(SNIP TO...)

So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

You and Baxter are the one's who need galoshes, Todd.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.

So can that NAL.

But Baxter's pushed all the wrong buttons for too long.

Here's my take...He's going to file for his renewal. The FCC says
"sorry, you've got a pending NAL...".

After the first hearing, Baxter's going to realize that the FCC
isn't joking and that they have far greater resources to persue this in
court.

He'll make a deal with the FCC that if they renew his license,
he'll take a five year suspension...Either that or he'll take a limited
suspension in which he's forbidden to operate on HF or to make one-way
transmissions of any nature.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Sure it does.

But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.

I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.

I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your ###hole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

I know what the application is like, Todd. I took a look when I
read all this crap from you in the first place.

And despite how hard you try to convince everyone what a brilliant
communications lawyer YOU are, that lawyer you're NOT paying COULD push
all the right legal buttons and get you what you want.

Thank God (or the deity of your choice) that you're too stubborn.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ###HOLE!!

And you're member number 001.

Steve, K4YZ