Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

What do you want to know about the micro-broadcasting movement???

Is it made up of scofflaw types who have determined that the FCC has no
authority to regulate broadcasting? What is the legal standing of this
"movement". Why does the "movement" receive no play in the several
leading newsmagazines or on TV news shows? Is the objective of the
"movement" to take to the airwaves in defiance of the FCC?

Those questions will do for the moment.

I myself joined the movement in 1998 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" So my opinion of
the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and are below pond scum.

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?

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.

You might want to consider that amateur radio might not be for you,
Todd.
There seems to be some confusion in your mind as to its basis and
purpose.
It is not a broadcasting service.

If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Dave K8MN

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that
purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Funny story: I used to use a Part 15 device on CB channel 14, 27125 kHz, to
practice CW with my niece. She lived approx. 15 linear miles away and we
were able to copy each other FB through some pretty "CBish" QRM.

BTW, the trick to remaining legal while "getting out" with a Part 15 device
is to get the device itself as high as humanly/safely possible. The power
and key cables were then brough down into the shack. A seperate high
performance rcvr rounded out the package. No coax loss because...no coax.
Just comply with the ERP restrictions and let your height be your might.
Fond memories indeed.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:33:35 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

I would have no problem with Part 15 device except I think the one thing
holding part 15 device back is that some community tight restriction on
antenna heights.

What makes you think that those same restrictions would not apply to
a LPFM station or do you plan to operate this station without
complying with local zoning and use restriction ordinances?

Anyhow, one can always put a Part 15 device on top of an existing
structure - whether it's a building, a grain elevator, a lamp post,
whatever you can get the owner's permission for. Feed it with an
803.11(b) link (another Part 15 device) - no license needed for either.
Put up several around town.

Make technology work for you, rather than tilting at windmills.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Todd Daugherty wrote:

Phil,
There are some communities that will not allow you put Part 15 devices.

So just how do these communites disallow part 15 devices, since there
are tons of part 15 devices in use by people everywhere everyday?
Just where do these communities get their authority to regulate part 15
devices?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:34:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

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.

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued growth
of pirate radio.

You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
table for each and every hearing?

What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.

It's really shame to since Dunifer can apply for
license since the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 bars all pirates
from getting a license.

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

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....

There's a difference at a denial and a dismissal....and the courts have also
told the FCC that they must take a serious look at waivers. That includes
the reason while there is a denial of the waiver so that person can file a
appeal in the US court of Appeal. .

Most probably the waiver was denied and the application was dismissed.
The net result was that you didn't get the license.

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"?

yes but they must either grant and deny a license. and waiver may be
consider at anytime filing windows don't apply.

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Don't feel too bad. Some of the waivers that I have applied for on
behalf of clients have been granted, some have been denied. It's a
crapshoot and a regular part of the regulatory game. Get used to it.

I also think that by
dismissing my the commission has hurt this community by not consider the
waiver for a "community that has no local television service"

Your thoughts and the Commission;s obligations are two different
things, it appears.

So where is the public interest? Others? what others?

Every other applicant who missed the filing window.

Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.

Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.

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.

Again they have to grant or deny a application and show good cause why it's
in the public interest to deny the license and waiver.

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the applicatin as defective, which apparently they did. You were
free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chnace to get the decision reversed.

And you are misinterpreting the "public interest" requirement. The
Comm Act mandates the Commission to make a finding that the public
interest will be served before granting a license. It does not
mandate the Commission to show why a dismissal is in the public
interest, only that the dismissal must be according to the established
Rules and other applicable law.

Looks like you are unlettered in Federal Administrative Law as well.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:06:55 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

So just how do these communites disallow part 15 devices, since there
are tons of part 15 devices in use by people everywhere everyday?
Just where do these communities get their authority to regulate part 15
devices?

This community does and what we are talking about is location placement on
top of lamp poles ect, ect and what they ban by ordiniances they make those
who to do something like that pay and hefty fees.

Ah, now we're getting down to some nitty-gritty issues.

Did you think that you would be able to put something up on
non-private property without paying hefty fees?

What would stop you from putting the device on the roof of the
tallest building in town? The fees for the use permit?

If the city REALLY wanted the station, they have the power to waive
those fees. What does that tell you?

And if the FCC was to grant you the authorization for your LP
station, would that disappear the above problems like magic?
PRB-1 does not apply to anything but an amateur radio antenna
support structure.

How did we get back to ham radio ???

Welcome to the world of zoning and permits for communication
facilities.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

The judge stated that dunifer and his bunch was barred from operating any
broadcast equipment until they first obtain a license from the FCC.

In your own words: " the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000
bars all pirates from getting a license."

What part of that do you not understand?

Which boils back to what all the pirates were say....why should I spend the
time and money to try to obtain a license which apparently the FCC doesn't
want to give me.

Want to be a criminal - be a criminal. "Don't do the crime if you
can't do the time"....

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Sec. 1.3 Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended,
or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the
Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may
be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good
cause therefor is shown.

What part of the word "MAY" do you not understand?

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the application as defective, which apparently they did.

The United States court have stated that "the FCC MUST consider waivers"
(WAIT RADIO v FCC 1969) "The FCC must take a serious and hard look at waiver
request" Turro v FCC (1989)

Denying your request does not mean that they did not take a "serious
and hard look at [your] waiver request". As I said before - sometimes
they grant it, sometumes they deny it. That's how the game is played.

I say again:

You were free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chance to get the decision reversed.

This is going nowhere. It is not applicable to ham radio, and I've
said my piece about it here. If you don't want to listen to what I
tell you, it's your loss.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Todd Daugherty wrote:


This community does and what we are talking about is location placement on
top of lamp poles ect, ect and what they ban by ordiniances they make those
who to do something like that pay and hefty fees.

Todd N9OGL

I might comment on this if I had a clue about what you are attempting to
say. If you can't put forth your ideas any better than this, no wonder
the FCC denied your petition, they probably didn't know what you were
talking about either.

Phil Kane wrote:



Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.


Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.


And the FCC is big and mean just because he wants his station and they
won't let him have it. BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Big, bad, mean ole
FCC. They won't let Toddyboy have his license so that means they are liars.