Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|