| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
K1MAN
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. [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. [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?? 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 |
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? 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. But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas. 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! Steve, K4YZ |
Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here? The problem is that many amateur radio operators don't realize that there are rules that are outside Part 97 that effects amateur radio. Section 326 is one of them. 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. But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas. The FCC just cannot change the rules without a public notice, no matter if you like it or not it has always been up to the control operator to decied what is transmitted over his station, no some moron recieving station. if you think that then you are thinking of broadcast stations. 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! doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues (radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers). |
"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. The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules, Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page. W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show. etc. [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. [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. 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. Dan/W4NTI |
"N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues (radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers). Toad is the worlds first "stealth ham radio broadcaster" Dan/W4NTI |
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. 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. 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. [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. [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. 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 |
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. At least it has something to do with ham radio unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion 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 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 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 Steve, K4YZ |
N9OGL wrote:
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. 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. 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. [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. [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. 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 Glenn A. Baxter, P.E., K1MAM, (or as his parter and buddy Chris Murdoch, WA1HOD, calld him - K1MAN-kind) has a long long history with the FCC. For those of you just joining the debate, here is some information that might help explain why so many hams are eager to sign the Petition to Deny License Renewal to K1MAN at www.no2k1man.com K1MAN, by his own actions, has made himself a very public figure. As a public figure, he's been widely discussed by his fellow hams here, on QRZ, and elsewhere on the internet, on amateur radio, in court rooms, discussed by his employers, his neighbors, discussed by the FCC, at CBS, and by the Department of Justice. In reviewing the history of K1MAN and his qualifications to remain a Commission licensee, we can go back many years, to May of 1986, when he sued the advertising manager of QST and another employee of ARRL for conspiring to damage his business reputation. QST had received a complaint that showed that Baxter's Collins Repair and Alignment Service had significantly overcharged a customer beyond an amount they had previously agreed upon. The advertising manager at the time wrote Baxter on QST letterhead, saying, "When your service charges escalate from $75 to $225 and then to $275 we become very much concerned about the manner in which you are treating our members. You will recall that I discussed with you ... the highly suspect illegal spending of deposits which members were sending to you... unless you can convince me that your operation exists in the best interests of our members, we shall be unable to carry further advertising from you." This exchange and the subsequent lawsuit by Baxter (dismissed) may help to explain why Baxter has attacked the ARRL and its staff with such zeal over the years. He says he wants to make IARN an "Alternative to ARRL" but, discerning readers may recognize another agenda. Some old timers may recall Baxter's lawsuit against the FCC to maintain the old AM power output of 1,000 watts. That lawsuit was dismissed because Baxter failed to exhaust administrative remedies through the FCC before bringing suit. As the old adage goes, it appears there really is a drawback to acting as your own attorney. You may also recall Baxter's 10 million dollar lawsuit against the FCC? He claimed he was defamed by the alleged suggestion by Riley Hollingsworth that he was shut down by the FCC. Baxter reported at the time that he had merely taken a break to teach high school. This case was also dismissed because Baxter failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit. Baxter has threatened to sue Riley personally, as well as other hams, including this writer. A threat that has yet to materialize. On January 23, 2003, Walter Cronkite's attorney wrote to Baxter asking him to stop using Walter's voice ID over K1MAN's bulletin. "Mr. Cronkite previously requested that you refrain from any further use of the audiotape, or from any suggestion that he endorses your station, Association, or other operations." He (Ronald S. Konecky) went on to call Baxter's actions "a violation of Mr. Cronkite's rights, totally improper, and a cause of serious damage to his name and reputation." Baxter's actions, have not endeared him to CBS, The Maine Department of Justice, Walter Cronkite, the FCC, or the countless hams who have complained about Baxter's relentless interference to their ongoing communications. When Baxter began to send out his self-styled notices of Felony Affidavit Complaints to those he perceived as interfering with his bulletin service, it really hit the fan. On January 5th, 1995, Jay McCloskey, the U.S. Attorney at the Maine Department of Justice wrote to Baxter, telling him, "It is against the law to write and mail this type of threatening communication, especially when it has no basis in fact. If you continue sending this type of letter, you may be subject to Federal criminal charges for misrepresentation and for using the mails to make threats. You may also jeopardize your amateur radio license; the FCC can use evidence of this type of conduct to demonstrate that you no longer meet the character requirements for a license." Baxter responded to this letter on January 9, 1995 by writing to the Assistant US Attorney, stating, "Your blatant and malicious abuse of the power vested in you by the citizens of the United States is despicable, unethical, criminal and unprofessional." Baxter went on to demand a retraction, which, of course, he never received. Baxter has hardly endeared himself politically to the members of the Maine Department of Justice, but the lack of political goodwill doesn't stop there. On January 23, 1995, FCC Counsel John Greenspan wrote to Baxter regarding an insulting letter he wrote to the Assistant US Attorney, "Your reply suggests to me that you may very well lack the character qualifications to be an FCC licensee. You certainly lack the maturity, but that is, unfortunately, not grounds for revocation. If it is ultimately determined that you have made improper threats, that determination could result in a hearing to examine your fitness to remain an FCC license and/or criminal prosecution." John Greenspan went on to add, "Although you have not used lawyers in the past, I suggest that you consult with an attorney knowledgeable in FCC procedures about your alleged conduct. To provide some incentive for you to do this, let me say that if you wish to speak with me for any reason, it must be through an attorney. I will not accept any calls or letters from you personally." Not exactly a love letter is it? Over the past 5 years Baxter has been contacted by the FCC on numerous occasions and his station has been inspected by the FCC. Baxter says he has received FOUR (4) NAL's to date. The FCC has writtent to him about allegations of broadcasting, deliberate interference, failure to identify, poor signal quality, erratic starting and stopping times, recording conversations without permission, and the list goes on... Even Baxter's neighbors are not immune from his tendency toward trying to use the courts to settle what some might consider silly disputes that would be better handled by a personal phone call. More often than not, Baxter has lost in the courts due to procedural defects in his lawsuits. He is not, contrary to a popular myth, fabulously wealthy, or a lawyer. According to staff at the IRS, his IARN charity did not even make enough money to require that he file taxes last year. An underfunded organization like IARN that engages in irresponsible activities like calling for jump teams to visit disaster areas who don't even request assistance, does not seem to me, to be an alternative to the ARRL, except perhaps in the mind of Mr. Baxter. On May 4, 1983, Baxter sued a neighbor of his, Camp Runoia, a camp for little girls, because they stacked cordwood on the side of the road. The case was dismissed. The camp had removed the wood prior to the case being heard. Baxter's other neighbors have apparently also had reason for concern regarding his allegedly threatening behavior. According to reports gleaned from court records in December of 2003, Baxter was dismissed from his job (fired) as station engineer for FM 95.3 in Augusta, Maine. When he applied for unemployment compensation, the attorney for the station advised his clients not to attend the unemployment hearing. "Because Mr. Baxter has demonstrated offensive behavior similar to that which prompted his termination, I have advised the Bouchards not to attend Monday's hearing. I indicated to you in our conversation that the Bouchards' fear for their safety as a result of Mr. Baxter's threatening behavior. Mr. Bouchard terminated Mr. Baxter from employment when Mr. Baxter repeatedly acted in a threatening manner to his supervisor and to other employess at the job site.Mr. Baxter demonstrated his inability to act responsibly and to exert self-contol at the last hearing." The attorney (Robert J. Stolt of Lipman, Katz & McKee) goes on to say, "Payments of benefits to Mr. Baxter is a lesser evil than someone being harmed by him." Baxter sued regarding these comments, but the court held that the comments made by the attorney were completely privileged in nature and were therefore protected by law. Ironically, Baxter's objections have ensured that they will reside in the annals of the Maine courts in perpetuity, for anyone with the desire to read them. For all of these reasons, and the reasons in the present NAL, I will sign the petition to deny license renewal to K1MAN. I don't believe K1MAN is capable of engaging in good Amatuer practice, as we are all compelled by law to do. Although I hold no malice toward Mr. Baxter personally, and I believe him when he says he suffers from mental illness, I believe that Mr. Baxter has already amply proven that he does not deserve to remain a Commision licensee. K1MAN has pending enforcement issues. K1MAN has already been warned by the FCC that he may be referred to the ALJ due to ongoing enforcement issues. K1MAN's renewal anniversary is on October 17th of this year. Here is an excerpt from an FCC letter to K1MAN dated January 29, 2002. "The rules of the Amateur Service are straightforward and easy to understand. To the extent that you do not comply with Commission rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, then to that extent enforcement action will be taken against your licenses. That enforcement action may include revocation of your station license, suspension of your operator license, a modification proceeding to restrict your operating privileges, or monetary forfeiture. It is also important for you to understand that if these matters are not resolved, your operator/primary station licenses will not be routinely renewed; but instead will be designated for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. In such a proceeding, you would have the burden of proof to show that your licenses should be renewed." It's time for Baxter and all of his associates to stand before a Judge. |
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. At least it has something to do with ham radio...(SNIP) No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting. unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark... Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion. 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. YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for his illiteracy. 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. 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"...?!?!? BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
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 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
"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 |
Stebie said:
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. No dickhead, that was it according to the FCC I didn't file during the filing window proven that the FCC are a bunch of liars, like yourself. but hey that's ok, I've got the amateur bands and I'll use them. Todd N9OGL |
N9OGL wrote: K4YZ said: 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. No ####head, that was it according to the FCC I didn't file during the filing window proven that the FCC are a bunch of liars....(SNIP) No... What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions. Yet another good reason why you shou;dn't be allowed to have a broadcast license. (UNSNIP)...like yourself. Wrong again. but hey that's ok, I've got the amateur bands and I'll use them. For now. But you're already well on your way to screwing that up too, so I look forward to a day when we see an NAL with your name and callsign on it, Todd. Steve, K4YZ |
What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions.
What do you mean?? Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like yourself. Todd N9OGL |
SORRY, NEED TO FIX IT!! What do you mean?? Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed at anytime....the point is the FCC is a bunch of lying scumbags just like yourself. Todd N9OGL |
N9OGL wrote: What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions. What do you mean?? What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n ' t a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like yourself. No one's lied to you, Todd. You just haven't got what it takes to step up to the plate and take responsibility for your own actions or failings. Steve, K4YZ |
Some Moron said
What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n 't a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. No steve what you don't understand is the FCC area bunch of scumbags who go to the federal courts claiming that all a person has to do is apply for a license and a waiver, and when some one does it (and by the way I'm NOT the only one that has done it) the FCC wouldn't time the ****ing time to even look at the application or waiver. The FCC DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTREST, the only interest the FCC serves is the BIG companies. That's all I really have to say because in my opinion your nothing but a waste of space, a sadist control freak, with a god complex. Todd N9OGL |
"N9OGL" wrote 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. The station cannot be compensated, but the club can compensate an operator for their work. Otherwise ARRL could not pay the operator at W1AW. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
K4YZ wrote: N9OGL wrote: What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions. What do you mean?? What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n ' t a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like yourself. No one's lied to you, Todd. and you are lieng about Todds point or at best you missed it although I don't can ahrdly see howthat is possible You just haven't got what it takes to step up to the plate and take responsibility for your own actions or failings. Even if true it is a failing you personaly should be able to understand since you suffer from it Steve, K4YZ |
"N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... 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. What trouble is that Toad? Specify. 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!!!! All I ever hear is Spanish Splatter from 322. Good choice Toad. Dan/W4NTI |
N9OGL wrote: Some Moron said What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n 't a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. No steve what you don't understand is the FCC area bunch of scumbags who go to the federal courts claiming that all a person has to do is apply for a license and a waiver, and when some one does it (and by the way I'm NOT the only one that has done it) the FCC wouldn't time the ####ing time to even look at the application or waiver. "...wouldn't time the ####ing time..." Angry, aren't you? The FCC DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTREST...(SNIP) That's your opinion. However they did, in their best judgement, keep YOU off the public airwaves, and as far as I am concerned that was worth almost all the other grief they could possibly promulgate for any radio service. (UNSNIP)...the only interest the FCC serves is the BIG companies. Gee, Todd...there's a couple of LPFM stations near me, and none of them seem to have any problems with "big companies" OR the FCC. That's all I really have to say because in my opinion your nothing but a waste of space, a sadist control freak, with a god complex. Let's see...why am I NOT impressed...?!?! You're a foul-mouthed bigot... You're a radio scofflaw... You're borderline functionally illiterate... You're a deadbeat parasite, almost 40 and still mooching off mumsie and popsie... I could go on, but anything else would just be icing on the cake... Steve, K4YZ |
an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: N9OGL wrote: What it proves is that you aren't able to follow instructions. What do you mean?? What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n ' t a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. Waivers don't have filing window, waivers can filed at anytime....the point are a bunch of lying scumbags just like yourself. No one's lied to you, Todd. and you are lieng about Todds point or at best you missed it although I don't can ahrdly see howthat is possible I didn't miss anything. Todd's the one missing the point. He didn't meet licensing requirements. The FCC said NO. Todd thinks that "just because" he filed a "waiver" he has a right to an LPFM license. He doesn't. You just haven't got what it takes to step up to the plate and take responsibility for your own actions or failings. Even if true it is a failing you personaly should be able to understand since you suffer from it Wrong again, Mark. There have been occassions in this forum where I have made an error, and when shown that error, acknowledged it and issued an apolgy where due. Ask Cecil, Hans, Kim, etc... Steve, K4YZ |
He didn't meet licensing requirements. The FCC said NO. Todd
thinks that "just because" he filed a "waiver" he has a right to an LPFM license. He doesn't. Hey moron, it was LOW POWER TV not LOW POWER FM dumbass |
He didn't meet licensing requirements. The FCC said NO. Todd
thinks that "just because" he filed a "waiver" he has a right to an LPFM license. He doesn't. No dickhead, the FCC didn't even consider my waiver, if they deny my waiver then I can appeal to the US court of appeal, they did even do that, Before you open your mouth steve you better know what the hell you are talking about. |
The FCC DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTREST...(SNIP)
That's your opinion. it's my opinion steve along with a LOT of other people that feel that way. However they did, in their best judgement, keep YOU off the public airwaves, and as far as I am concerned that was worth almost all the other grief they could possibly promulgate for any radio service. Steve you don't know what the hell your talking about Gee, Todd...there's a couple of LPFM stations near me, and none of them seem to have any problems with "big companies" OR the FCC. Yeah steve and there would be more LPFM stations on the air if the Big radio stations lobby group the NAB wouldn't of lied to congress about LPFM interfering. Like I said steve you don't know what the hell you are talking about. |
Let's see...why am I NOT impressed...?!?! You're a foul-mouthed bigot... You're a radio scofflaw... You're borderline functionally illiterate... You're a deadbeat parasite, almost 40 and still mooching off mumsie and popsie... I could go on, but anything else would just be icing on the cake... And your a Crybaby little bitchwhore who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...and FYI I don't mooch of my parents I've done pretty well for myself in the stock market. |
K4YZ wrote: N9OGL wrote: Some Moron said What I mean is: "I t p r o v e s t h a t y o u a r e n 't a b l e t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s. No steve what you don't understand is the FCC area bunch of scumbags who go to the federal courts claiming that all a person has to do is apply for a license and a waiver, and when some one does it (and by the way I'm NOT the only one that has done it) the FCC wouldn't time the ####ing time to even look at the application or waiver. "...wouldn't time the ####ing time..." Angry, aren't you? Perhaps he is so what, Now people need your premission to get angery? The FCC DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTREST...(SNIP) That's your opinion. However they did, in their best judgement, keep YOU off the public airwaves, and as far as I am concerned that was worth almost all the other grief they could possibly promulgate for any radio service. Well they did not keep him off the public airwaves, they kept him off Comercail ones, but he on the public airwaves, as are you. (UNSNIP)...the only interest the FCC serves is the BIG companies. Gee, Todd...there's a couple of LPFM stations near me, and none of them seem to have any problems with "big companies" OR the FCC. That's all I really have to say because in my opinion your nothing but a waste of space, a sadist control freak, with a god complex. Let's see...why am I NOT impressed...?!?! Most likely becuase you are an unsuccesfull control freak .... You're a foul-mouthed bigot... And You Steve are Bigot. You're a radio scofflaw... You are a stalker You're borderline functionally illiterate... you are a Hatemonger You're a deadbeat parasite, almost 40 and still mooching off mumsie and popsie... A Lazy bum that wants others to do HIS work I could go on, but anything else would just be icing on the cake... As Could I but you put it well Steve, K4YZ |
Dave Heil wrote:
N9OGL wrote: ...and FYI I don't mooch of my parents I've done pretty well for myself in the stock market. I'll bet that living in their home past your mid-thirties has allowed you to set aside a tidy sum for investing in the market, eh Todd? Dave K8MN One would think that if he has done so well in the stock market as he claims, he could buy a place of his own or at least get an appartment, move out and stop sponging off mommy and daddy. 30+ and still being supported by his parents...pretty pathetic. |
N9OGL wrote:
Hey, interfernce is interfernce... Simply classic. [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 doesn't do that. [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?? Apparently it isn't up the "the station" to "deiced". You didn't understand it before. You don't understand it now. 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 Your fans? You have fans? Dave K8MN |
Apparently it isn't up the "the station" to "deiced". You didn't
understand it before. You don't understand it now. I suggest Dave that you go to the FCC site and read for yourself http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ama...nications.html Todd N9OGL THE N9OGL SHOW |
Apparently it isn't up the "the station" to "deiced". You didn't
understand it before. You don't understand it now. Here's a a part of the webpage at the FCC website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ama...nications.html About Amateur Communications & Operations The following are answers to frequently asked questions about communications appropriate for the amateur service. See Part 97 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, ("rules") for the complete regulations. One-Way Transmissions Q. What types of one-way communications are amateur stations authorized to transmit? A. Section 97.111(b) provides for one-way communications. In summary, auxiliary, beacon, space and stations in distress are specifically authorized to make certain one-way transmissions. Additionally, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications: 1. Brief transmissions necessary to make adjustments to the station; 2. Brief transmissions necessary for establishing two-way communications with other stations; 3. Telecommand; 4. Transmissions necessary to providing emergency communications; 5. Transmissions necessary to assisting persons learning, or improving proficiency in, the international Morse code; 6. Transmissions necessary to disseminate an information bulletin; and 7. Telemetry. Q. What is an "information bulletin"? A. The term is defined in Section 97.3. It is a message directed only to amateur operators and consists solely of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service. The control operator of the station transmitting an information bulletin is responsible for determining that the subject matter is of direct interest to the amateur service. Q. Does an amateur station transmitting information bulletins have to share the channel? A. Yes. Section 97.101 provides that each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. A specific transmitting channel is not assigned for the exclusive use of any amateur station. Section 97.101 also provides that no amateur operator shall cause interference to any radio communication or signal. There is no exemption for amateur stations transmitting for information bulletins. Q. Is broadcasting prohibited? A. Yes. Section 97.113 prohibits amateur stations from engaging in any form of broadcasting or in any activity related to program production or news gathering for broadcasting purposes. Q. Is there an exception to this prohibition? A. Yes, there is one exception: Communications directly related to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the public where no other means of communication is reasonably available before or at the time of the event. Q. What is "broadcasting"? A. Section 97.3 defines the term "broadcasting," in the context of the amateur service, as a transmission intended for reception by the general public, either direct or delayed. Todd N9OGL |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com