----------------------------------------------------------
N9OGL IS WORKING ON A FILING TO COMMENT ON K1MAN RENEWAL
----------------------------------------------------------
N9OGL is filing a comment to the Federal Communication Commission on
the renewal of K1MAN's license. N9OGL is filing the comment not for nor
against K1MAN but attends to raise some questions about the recent
petition for deny for NO2K1MAN and the recent NAL from the FCC to
K1MAN. The comments N9OGL is filing deals with Interference, pecuniary
Interest, and Broadcasting. Some of the questions N9OGL is asking the
FCC is "If K1MAN is interference is illegal (he begins in show on top
of on going Communications, then why hasn't W1AW ever been complained
about? It seems that amateur's are "picking on" his station, when in
fact there is documents that W1AW has done the same thing. N9OGL also
raises concerns over K1MAN pecuniary interest. Amateur Radio is a
non-commercial service, yet unlike other NON-COMMERCIAL services aren't
allowed to make any money, N9OGL want's to know the rational behind
that. noncommercial broadcast stations are allowed to make money to
sustain the station with contributions from listener, Public-Safety is
given funds from the State and the federal government through taxes,
which is used to by new radio's and other communications.
non-commercial often means in radio as a service that doesn't make a
profit but get aid to sustain the station. K1MAN may have been using
pecuniary interest "direct" but, at the same time W1AW which is owned
by the ARRL is doing it "indirectly" the FCC rules state a station
can't have any pecuniary interest direct or indirect. But when a
short-wave listener hears W1AW they will go to internet and look it up
and it will lead them to the ARRL website which sales all sort of good.
Finally N9OGL touches on K1MAN's information bulletin which amateur
believe is a broadcast because it is opinionated. N9OGL want's the FCC
to point out the rule that states an information bulletin cannot be
opinionated, and secondly how does that rule conform to Section 326 of
The Communication Act of 1934, and the MANY court cases that the
federal courts, and even the Supreme Court has stated that the FCC can
not have content-based rules. Because the vague rules and definitions
on information bulletins and broadcasting in the amateur bands can be,
and have been used by both amateurs, and The FCC to control the content
of amateur radio stations, in clear violation of section 326 and the
First Amendment.