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1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of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