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