On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:14:18 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The [ "microbroadcasting" ] movemen began due to lack of community progams,
consolidation of the airwaves.

Nah - the movement always existed - I chased pirate radio stations
before you were born, run by folks whose main raison d'etre was to
try to pull the FCC's chain, and the folks who trained me chased
pirate radio stations during WW-II.

I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

The FCC blinked first just to get her off the dime, so to speak.

I myself joined the movement in 1998

Todd Come Lately

after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers"

[ See above ]

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under
47 CFR 1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In
my waiver I was going to provide a television service to a community that
doesn't have a TV service.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.

Not in the more qualified opinions of your "elders and betters" of
the Commission.

Sorry, Buddy, that won't fly in the real world of broadcast regulation.

I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.

"Very" special attention. There's a special file for such.

No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application
proves that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Take your losses like a man and try again, this time getting
everything right. Then they'll get to the nitty-gritty about
whether you qualify to be permitted to operate a station or not.

With the attitudes which you have exhibited here, don't be surprised
if they decide that you are not.

I feel sorry for the Congressrep whom you are attempting to "advise"
on this matter of broadcast regulation.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane