Ok. I see now. But still not a comforting thing to see hang on a
company title. At least for me. Looks like they are making a
hedge on legal proceedings before they even do business. LOL

Maybe goes along with never reaching a real person on the phone. :-)

Thanks for raking some of the muck off the new business jargon.
I can feel a little less exposed now.



"Bill" wrote in message
...
Mr Fed UP wrote:
Other weasel words I have seen on many company names these days.
Are LLC instead of INC or CO .... I found it to be the acronym for
Limited Liability Company. Anyone know what this means for them
to weasel out of being liable? Seems like most companies are going
to similar labels. I don't want to be liable for nothing either, but
Sheezzzz!!! Do we all expect to get shafted from every place we
do business now? Any enlightenment appreciated.
Any lawyers out there? Can they really do business and not be
responsible for the services and products they sell?

You're confusing liability for damages with liability between partners of
a corporation. Same word, different context.

Here's a brief explanation taken from the web.


Liability Issues of a Limited Liability Company

In a limited liability company, a member's legal liability is limited to
his or her investment in the business. Generally, a member's personal
assets are not at risk, but a member's personal assets may be at risk if
any of the following occurs:

*
A member personally guarantees a business debt.
*
The form of business is found to be a sham (not properly formed or
maintained).
*
A member becomes personally liable as a result of his or her own
acts or conduct.


-Bill

Mr Fed UP wrote:


Thanks for raking some of the muck off the new business jargon.
I can feel a little less exposed now.

Well, I suspect your instincts may be somewhat correct regardless. Many
LLCs exist because the owners want to protect themselves against each other.

-Bill

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Earl
KD5XB

--
Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA

Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Earl Needham wrote:

What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.


Good point. And the MOST tragic part of it is that after they took the
bandwidth, they decided not to use it.
--scott


Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

-Chuck

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

--

Clif Holland KA5IPF
www.avvid.com

Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.

This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.

Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.


This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Being easier doesn't make it more effective. Would you boycott
Chevrolet because someone robbed your favorite bank and used a Chevy
as a get-away car?

UPS thought they needed some spectrum, and they asked for it. FCC
didn't see significant usage of the 220 band, and offered it up.
FCC could just as easily have offered up a small chunk of some
microwave band.

All votes are equal in value, but not all voters. Some just
vote what the newspapers, and the parties say they should, others
write letters, make phone calls, create blogs, ... They get more
political power than the usual voter. If you want to get the spectrum
back, start lobbying for it. Come up with a reason why hams should
have it back... We probably won't get it back, on account of ham
radio being among the "walking-dead". (and yes, I am a ham, so I
get to make observations like that.)

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.


Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.

They don't violate part 15! They are perfectly in complience. The
violation comes when the user doesn't prevent his device from interferring
with any service. It was idiotic of the Congress, and the FCC to allow
that wording, but they did...and we didn't hold them to task for it.

-Chuck

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:11:33 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:


What I don't understand is why ANY ham would ever use UPS after what
they did to the 220 MHz band a few years ago.

"They"? UPS never applied for any 220 MHz license nor do they
operate on 220 MHz, then or now.

The culprit was a certain "also-ran" equipment manufacturer who had
a bright idea (and whose CEO had "juice" with the FCC from whence he
came) but never could produce equipment that worked on that band.
They approached UPS to get them interested, but UPS got tired of
waiting for working equipment and looked elsewhere (800 MHz).

Gotta keep the urban legends straight!! ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:26:51 GMT, Clif Holland wrote:

The FCC is Reactive not Proactive. The latter would require thought.

The latter requires commitment on the part of very high level
management, all political appointees who do not understand what
the agency does in the field nor why resources (personnel and
equipment) should be expended on it.

I say that as a long-retired FCC field enforcement manager who is
not charmed by what the agency has become lately.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon