N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
Todd Daugherty
N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL
On February 8, 2002 the United States Court of Appeal ruled the Radio
Broadcast Preservation Act (RBPA-2000) was unconstitutional (Greg Ruggiero
vs. FCC 2002) then to a shock the court of appeals overturned it's own
decision ruling that the RBPA of 2000 was constitutional. (Greg Ruggiero Vs
FCC 2003). I'm writing this "paper" because I feel that there was something
that should have been said but wasn't and since I tell it as it is I will
say it. There is also a problem with the recent ruling (Greg Ruggiero Vs FCC
2003) which I've also added to this paper.
The first comes from that Bitch Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who stated in
the 2002 ruling
"By contrast, the License restriction here applies to the entire class of
those who as of the time of their license application have unlawfully
engaged in LPFM broadcasting. Further the restriction substantially furthers
the plain intent of the Congress which believed that "the operation of an
unlicensed station demonstrates a lack of commitment to follow the basic
rules and regulations which are essential to having a broadcast service that
serves the public, and those individuals or groups should not be permitted
to receive a licenses in the LPFM service." H.R. Rep. No. 506 at 8 (2000).
What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."
First, you must not have to be very intelligent to be a fucking judge of the
court of appeal.it seems if they can let this dumb ass bitch and her little
bitch whore buddies on the bench then anyone can..
"What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."
Did I fucking miss something here??? Listen bitch the FCC NEVER had any LPFM
rules prior to the passing of the LPFM rules in 1999. You and your fucking
whores in the Court of Appeal are the stupidest mother fuckers on the
planet. For years the FCC went around telling you that all a person had to
do was fill out an application and ask for a waiver..well guest what you
fucking sluts THE FCC FUCKING LIED TO YOU!!! The FCC has NEVER considered
application and waiver for LPFM ..and you stupid fucks believed them all
these years. That's why a lot of people went on the air..because the FCC
wouldn't consider applications and waivers for a low power service. Bitch my
group applied six times for a license with waiver and that is why we went
pirate.because the FCC wouldn't even consider are application or are waiver
for a community with no service..and by the way bitch.the two congressman
who wrote that bill and were the chief sponsor of the RBPA of 2000 are no
longer in congress because they were voted out by the people of their state
because of that shit.
And now.2003 for the king bitch whore Ginsburg.
"In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low-power
Radio rules and sought public comment upon whether it
should "create two classes of low power radio service, both of
which would operate in the existing FM radio band: a 1000-
watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary service." Id.
at p 1. The Commission also sought comment upon whether
it should establish "a third, 'microradio' class of low power
radio service that would operate in the range of 1 to 10
watts." Id. at p 1."
The commission proposed?? That's a bunch of shit the FCC didn't propose it
someone else did in a Petition for Rulemaking.that's a bunch of fucking shit
quit smoking your fucking crack.
"The Congress ultimately responded to the Commission's
decision by enacting the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of
2000 (RBPA), Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, s 632,"
The Congress responded not out of concern of what the FCC was doing but by
the huge load of cash they were getting from the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB). My dickhead congressman John Shitless (Shinkus)
Got paid $14,000 from the NAB for the RBPA but that's ok..I'm going make
sure that son of bitch mother fucker isn't elected again!
" We reject also Ruggiero's claim that the character qualification is
overinclusive because it prohibits all pirates, including those good pirates
who stopped broadcasting illegally when ordered to do so, and those "former
pirates [who] subsequently have become model citizens," from obtaining a
license. All unlicensed LPFM broadcasters violated the Communications Act.
Any unlicensed broadcasting demonstrates a willful disregard of the most
basic rule of federal broadcasting regulation."
Then perhaps " former pirates" like WBCQ shouldn't have a license..and tell
me you stupid fuck...when did the disregard to the legal process become
legal..You stupid fuck head has basically given the FCC the go ahead to
disregard not only the judiciary process but the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA). Your stupid thinking is regardless to what a federal judge or an
administrative judge says a pirate is a pirate regardless to what legal
challenge they may bring and regardless of any fact or findings. Your
fucking retarded thinking is that a pirate is guilty regardless of any
evidence.well fuck, why do we do that with murders..Hell, Bob Butt much
killed Joe Dickless but hey there's evidence he not guilty.fuck he's guilty
regardless of any evidence. That the same fucking shit you did with pirates
then it should apply to any other crime. Perhaps Mr. Ginsburg you should
stop kissing congress and the federal government ass.
And now a few words from my favorite dickhead.Judge Randolph.
"There is in short no chilling effect and Ruggiero therefore
cannot invoke the overbreadth doctrine."
This has to be one of the stupidest mother fucker on the planet...No
chilling effect??? How about the ability to allow an agency to disregard any
legal proceeding as prescribed under the APA not to mention your next stupid
fucks comment..
"No one has a First Amendment right to a
license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389
(1969), and it follows that no one has a First Amendment
right to apply for a license."
Then why apply??? If no one has a "right" as you put it to apply for a
license then why have a licensing system?? Just like the fuck stupid bastard
you are; you've created one of the biggest loopholes a pirate would love!
Because like you said no one has a right to apply for a license..thus, a
person really shouldn't have to apply since there is no right. Despite what
you and your little bitch whore buddies in the NAB may think as the
secretary of commerce Herbert Hoover once stated The First Amendment and
radio fall hand in hand..and it stupid fucks like you in the court of appeal
that are destroying not only free speech but destroying the legal process.
As for the U.S. Supreme Court..there just as fuck stupid as these fucking
idiots..you know at one time I had great respect for the U.S. Supreme Court.
But now..by allowing this stupid fucks to destroy the legal process and
basically misread Red Lion Broadcasting and bend it to their own fucking
will I think the U.S. Supreme Court has got to fuck hell and my respect is
now gone. Because they along with those stupid fuck in the U.S. Court of
Appeal has failed to grasp reality of what is really go on in the world.
Todd Daugherty
Taylorville, Illinois
December 2003
Someone
> ... fucking judge of the court of appeal.it seems if they can let this dumb ass bitch
and her little bitch whore...
Right here, I lost interest in you and anything you have to say and stopped reading.
BIAS COMMS
> The first comes from that Bitch Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who stated
> in the 2002 ruling
That's the point at which you lost your audience! It's right that you feel
aggrieved - you've been given a really bad deal, and the legislature are
obviously in the pockets of big business over there - but it would probably
have been better if you'd just stated your case publicly, without the
abuse. You could have demonstrated how the "Judges" simply don't understand
the situation, and have accepted the nonsense fed to them by the big
broadcasters (the NAB) and the FCC.
Without the offensive ranting, you would have gained a lot of support!
--
BIAS COMMS
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!
Rich Wood
<tod...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>
>N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
>
>Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL
I assume by the language that this "paper" isn't an academic or legal
presentation.
Both the courts and academic institutions tend to frown on calling
judges bitches and peppering the text with obscenities. Since it
appeared to be rambling nonsense I'll wait for the movie where I
expect such language.
Rich
Todd Daugherty
N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL
On February 8, 2002 the United States Court of Appeal ruled the Radio
Broadcast Preservation Act (RBPA-2000) was unconstitutional (Greg Ruggiero
vs. FCC 2002) then to a shock the court of appeals overturned it's own
decision ruling that the RBPA of 2000 was constitutional. (Greg Ruggiero Vs
FCC 2003). I'm writing this "paper" because I feel that there was something
that should have been said but wasn't and since I tell it as it is I will
say it. There is also a problem with the recent ruling (Greg Ruggiero Vs FCC
2003) which I've also added to this paper.
The first comes from Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who stated in the 2002
ruling
"By contrast, the License restriction here applies to the entire class of
those who as of the time of their license application have unlawfully
engaged in LPFM broadcasting. Further the restriction substantially furthers
the plain intent of the Congress which believed that "the operation of an
unlicensed station demonstrates a lack of commitment to follow the basic
rules and regulations which are essential to having a broadcast service that
serves the public, and those individuals or groups should not be permitted
to receive a licenses in the LPFM service." H.R. Rep. No. 506 at 8 (2000).
What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."
First, you must not have to be very intelligent to be a judge of the court
of appeal.it seems if they can let this dumb asses on the bench then anyone
can..
"What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."
Did I miss something here??? Listen, the FCC NEVER had any LPFM rules prior
to the passing of the LPFM rules in 1999. You and your buddies on the Court
of Appeal are the stupidest people on the planet. For years the FCC went
around telling you that all a person had to do was fill out an application
and ask for a waiver..well guest what THE FCC LIED TO YOU!!! The FCC has
NEVER considered application and waiver for LPFM ..and you stupid idiots
believed them all these years. That's why a lot of people went on the
air..because the FCC wouldn't consider applications and waivers for a low
power service. My group applied six times for a license with waiver and that
is why we went pirate.because the FCC wouldn't even consider are application
or are waiver for a community with no service..and by the way.the two
congressman who wrote that bill and were the chief sponsor of the RBPA of
2000 are no longer in congress because they were voted out by the people of
their state because of that crap.
And now.2003 for Ginsburg.
"In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low-power
Radio rules and sought public comment upon whether it
should "create two classes of low power radio service, both of
which would operate in the existing FM radio band: a 1000-
watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary service." Id.
at p 1. The Commission also sought comment upon whether
it should establish "a third, 'microradio' class of low power
radio service that would operate in the range of 1 to 10
watts." Id. at p 1."
The commission proposed?? That's a bunch of crap the FCC didn't propose it
someone else did in a Petition for Rulemaking.that's a bunch of crap quit
smoking your crack.
"The Congress ultimately responded to the Commission's
decision by enacting the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of
2000 (RBPA), Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, s 632,"
The Congress responded not out of concern of what the FCC was doing but by
the huge load of cash they were getting from the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB). My congressman John Shitless (Shinkus)
Got paid $14,000 from the NAB for the RBPA but that's ok..I'm going make
sure he isn't elected again!
" We reject also Ruggiero's claim that the character qualification is
overinclusive because it prohibits all pirates, including those good pirates
who stopped broadcasting illegally when ordered to do so, and those "former
pirates [who] subsequently have become model citizens," from obtaining a
license. All unlicensed LPFM broadcasters violated the Communications Act.
Any unlicensed broadcasting demonstrates a willful disregard of the most
basic rule of federal broadcasting regulation."
Then perhaps " former pirates" like WBCQ shouldn't have a license..and tell
me you idiots ...when did the disregard to the legal process become
legal..You morons has basically given the FCC the go ahead to disregard not
only the judiciary process but the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Your
stupid thinking is regardless to what a federal judge or an administrative
judge says a pirate is a pirate regardless to what legal challenge they may
bring and regardless of any fact or findings. Your retarded thinking is that
a pirate is guilty regardless of any evidence.well hell, why do we do that
with murders..Hell, Bob Butt much killed Joe Dickless but hey there's
evidence he not guilty.he's guilty regardless of any evidence. That the same
crap you did with pirates then it should apply to any other crime. Perhaps
Mr. Ginsburg you should stop kissing congress and the federal government
ass.
And now a few words from my favorite moron.Judge Randolph.
"There is in short no chilling effect and Ruggiero therefore
cannot invoke the overbreadth doctrine."
This has to be one of the stupidest persons on the planet...No chilling
effect??? How about the ability to allow an agency to disregard any legal
proceeding as prescribed under the APA not to mention your next stupid
comment..
"No one has a First Amendment right to a
license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389
(1969), and it follows that no one has a First Amendment
right to apply for a license."
Then why apply??? If no one has a "right" as you put it to apply for a
license then why have a licensing system?? Just like the stupid moron you
are; you've created one of the biggest loopholes a pirate would love!
Because like you said no one has a right to apply for a license..thus, a
person really shouldn't have to apply since there is no right. Despite what
you and your little buddies in the NAB may think as the secretary of
commerce Herbert Hoover once stated The First Amendment and radio fall hand
in hand..and it stupid morons like you in the court of appeal that are
destroying not only free speech but destroying the legal process.
As for the U.S. Supreme Court..there just as stupid as these idiots..you
know at one time I had great respect for the U.S. Supreme Court. But now..by
allowing this stupid retards to destroy the legal process and basically
misread Red Lion Broadcasting and bend it to their own will I think the U.S.
Supreme Court has gone to hell and my respect is now gone. Because they
along with those stupid idiots in the U.S. Court of Appeal has failed to
Bob Haberkost
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff03...@127.0.0.1...
> Ok...here's a CLEAN VERSION
>
> N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
>
> Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL
.....
> The Congress responded not out of concern of what the FCC was doing but by
> the huge load of cash they were getting from the National Association of
> Broadcasters (NAB). My congressman John Shitless (Shinkus)
And, at that, even though you've "cleaned up" the language, you still haven't
expunged the invective.
Pirates ignore everything which makes radio work, and it's thusly fair to deprive
them of any chance to do so with a licensed station, once convicted. As the
broadcasting industry, who as a whole can be, and have been, detrimentally affected
by a pirate operation, successfully lobbied Congress to make it law, you lose. Just
like felons who commit crimes with guns can't ever legally get another, why should
pirates, if they obtain a license, be given the tools to offend again (oh, it won't
hurt to boost output power to 10kW...there's no other station for miles around)?
Sorry (but not very).
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
Brenda Ann
"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:_e4Ib.2557$qS3....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> Pirates ignore everything which makes radio work, and it's thusly fair to
deprive
> them of any chance to do so with a licensed station, once convicted.
Ah, but there's the rub. The ruling includes everyone that ever had a
'pirate' station, including those that were barely outside Part 15
parameters. Also, they do not ever have had to have been convicted of
operating a pirate station in a court of law, only to have received a cease
and desist letter from the FCC. Such a rule (or law) should only be
applicable to those who have been CONVICTED of illegal operation in a court
of law. Otherwise, they have not been given their right to (attemp to)
disprove the accusations. Whereas there is no implicit right to broadcast
guaranteed by the Constitution, this right to one's day in court IS so
guaranteed.
> Just like felons who commit crimes with guns can't ever legally get
another,
This is not even the case 100% of the time. The law requires that anyone so
convicted before the changing of the laws to deny 2nd Amendment rights to
said convicted felon shall not have said 2nd Amendment rights terminated.
Furthermore, this is done on a state by state basis, based upon state
constitutions and statutes. There have been several recent cases wherein
convicted felons, because their state (nor the Federal government) did not
specify at the time of their arrest that thier 2nd Amendment rights would be
forfeit upon conviction, that said rights were not so forfeit. The majority
of these cases were as a result of so called "firearms enhancements" to new
charges made against the individuals. I can't cite the case law at the
moment, but it's there for all to read in the records of the US Supreme
Court.
> why should pirates, if they obtain a license, be given the tools to offend
again (oh, it won't
> hurt to boost output power to 10kW...there's no other station for miles
around)?
Conjecture. There is no reason to believe that someone who had been
operating at 1 watt (or even milliwatts, as is the case with most US
pirates), if given a legal license to operate at 10 watts or 100 watts,
would want to jeopardize their license by running more power. LPFM was
lobbied for by the free radio movement in order to make their efforts legal.
The resulting castrated law that left them completely out of LPFM (and gave
thousands of licenses to church groups and goverment entities) is a joke.
No, it's a slap in the face of all the people who worked hard to get LPFM in
order to make their efforts above board and legitimately serve their
communities. As it is, LPFM serves almost no one (I say almost because I'm
sure that at least the pastors at those thousands of small church stations
must have at least one person in their families that listens to them).
> Sorry (but not very).
You don't sound like it.
Bob Haberkost
news:bsqioi$i1r$1...@news1.kornet.net...
>
> "Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:_e4Ib.2557$qS3....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
>
> sure that at least the pastors at those thousands of small church stations
> must have at least one person in their families that listens to them).
Exactly! LPFM, with its predicted service area of a little under 4km.and no
protection from everything from Class As to Class Ds, will do just that...serve no
one except the small group who wants to play radio, religious or otherwise. Better
that you get a community group together, do an engineering study, and get a *real*
radio station...or maybe volunteer for the one already in your community. LPFM, in
any form, gutted or otherwise, is an abomination foisted on broadcasters by the White
House Telecommunications Office....an bunch of governmental no-nothings if there were
only those few. They probably give lessons.
By the way....the very act of operating a non-Type-Approved transmitting device in
any of the broadcast bands is a violation (and any operation of a "Part 15" device to
the degree that it's "barely outside" Part 15 parameters is exactly that...you can't
add antennas, amplifiers or other enhancers to a Part 15 device without it becoming
non-Type-Accepted). Accepting a cease-and-desist is a guilty plea, and even at that,
those accused of operation in violation can have their day in court, if they're
stupid enough to demand it.
> > Sorry (but not very).
> You don't sound like it.
You must be the perceptive one in your group, aren't you?
BIAS COMMS
> Accepting a cease-and-desist is a guilty plea, and
> even at that, those accused of operation in violation can have their day
> in court, if they're stupid enough to demand it.
Really? If a "served notice" is equivalent to a guilty plea in your
country, you'd better move abroad quickly, as you're living in the worst
possible kind of police state.
OK - we think that at some time you have operated a radio transmitter
outside the terms of your licence. Perhaps we should request that the FCC
send you a "cease and desist" notice. After all, you are guilty, aren't
you? Your N9OGL licence should therefore be revoked, and you should never
be allowed to re-apply for it!
Ketch Hupp
That doesn't say much for you. Right there is where I saw someone angry enough about the
government and knew that I was going to read some real truth for once, not some fairy tale
patriotic propaganda bullshit for once.
Ketch Hupp
> You missed one....
Just like an English teacher. Instead of concentrating on the statements being made,
can only focus attention on grammar, spelling and punctuation.
> And, at that, even though you've "cleaned up" the language, you still haven't
> expunged the invective.
Have no fear, some of us got what the man said without all the religious moral hang-ups.
David Eduardo
"Ketch Hupp" <kh...@bordnon.com> wrote in message
news:3FF251E1...@bordnon.com...
We did, however, get who you are. You are a nasty person whose vocabulary
and education are so lacking that you fall easy prey to the temptation to
cuss and offend.
Both of these, of course, are time honored techniques of distraction or
obfuscation. But they make the person who swears and insults appear as vile
and small.
Rich Wood
wrote:
>Just like an English teacher. Instead of concentrating on the statements being made,
>can only focus attention on grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Isn't that what we pay them for? I was an English major and usually
found that literature was much much more compelling when the grammar
and spelling were correct and the punctuation was where it should be
to control how I read what the author intended.
>Have no fear, some of us got what the man said without all the religious moral hang-ups.
Some of us feel that he could have communicated his thoughts better by
using the language more competently. I see no moral or religious
hangups in the critques he received. I see people tired of seeing
perfectly good obscenities used as punctuation.
Rich
Todd Daugherty
Todd Daugherty
Receive a warning letter or a cease and desist notice. The court of Appeals
with their wisdom (a I use the word loosely) has pretty much told the FCC
that alright although John Pirate was never found guilty in front of a court
or in front of an Administrative Law Judge he's is a pirate and a pirate is
a pirate regardless of any legal challenges he may bring (had applied for a
license with waiver, or any other reason). That no longer matter because a
pirate is a
pirate regardless to any fact or findings All the FCC really needs is a
"Good Faith Belief" that you were broadcasting without a license.
This crap, about a pirate getting a license then up their power is that
crap! I think Brenda Ann put it just right. No person who was a pirate would
jeopardize loosing a license. I do that there are Legal Broadcasters that
have and are doing that so it runs both ways.
The Problem with congress and the RBPA of 2000 is that the lobbying done
by the NAB was a one side battle with the NAB with the money to win....and
congress by the way did pass that law.....it was snuck into a budget bill
because it wouldn't of passed congress.
You missed one....
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff03...@127.0.0.1...
> Ok...here's a CLEAN VERSION
>
> N9OGL ON GREG RUGGIERO VS FCC
>
> Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL
.....
> The Congress responded not out of concern of what the FCC was doing but by
> the huge load of cash they were getting from the National Association of
> Broadcasters (NAB). My congressman John Shitless (Shinkus)
And, at that, even though you've "cleaned up" the language, you still
haven't
expunged the invective.
Pirates ignore everything which makes radio work, and it's thusly fair to
deprive
them of any chance to do so with a licensed station, once convicted. As the
broadcasting industry, who as a whole can be, and have been, detrimentally
affected
by a pirate operation, successfully lobbied Congress to make it law, you
lose. Just
like felons who commit crimes with guns can't ever legally get another, why
should
pirates, if they obtain a license, be given the tools to offend again (oh,
it won't
hurt to boost output power to 10kW...there's no other station for miles
around)?
Sorry (but not very).
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff03...@127.0.0.1...
Dr. Daffodil Swain
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff39...@127.0.0.1...
Todd Daugherty
going to let this shit go...Those scumbag at the FCC and the court of
appeals isn't going to hear the last of me for a long time. I was never
found guilty of a freaking crime and I fucking barred from getting a
license. that's the true justice of fucking america. Although you not
guilty....your guilty......and your guilty unless you prove yourselves
otherwise. well I have my application (all six) and a little piss ant note
from some sandmonkey in the FCC say they couldn't consider my application or
my fucking waiver...I applied long before I went pirate and their are other
"pirates" out there that I know that also applied long before going pirate.
So I'm going to continue to bitch and whine til somethings done about this
injustice.
Todd Daugherty N9OGL
Langely Park Telecommunication
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" <wa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:92OIb.3434$6B....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
David Eduardo
> ummmm....NO! I'm going to bitch and whine till I blue in the face. I'm not
> going to let this shit go...Those scumbag at the FCC and the court of
> appeals isn't going to hear the last of me for a long time. I was never
> found guilty of a freaking crime and I fucking barred from getting a
> license. that's the true justice of fucking america.
Move to Zimbabwe, Myanmar or Oman. You will find how nicely they treat
repeat offenders there.
We won't leave the light on for you.
Bob Haberkost
operating, then? Be prepared to get that cease-and-desist, and you may just want to
prepare for a forfeiture, seeing as your violation is so willful. Willful in the
minds of the FCC oftens instigates a prosecution, while ignorance by a violator is
when the "plea bargain", simply accepting the cease-and-desist, is acceptable. The
only goal here is to maintain order on the broadcast bands, and you're a declared
anarchist....or a twit. It can easily be demonstrated that you're aware of your
offense, but continue anyway. I'll be sure to be watching FCC procedings, so I can
give them copies of this thread.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff3b...@127.0.0.1...
> [...] the FCC say they couldn't consider my application or
> my fucking waiver...I applied long before I went pirate
> Todd Daugherty N9OGL
Rich Wood
<tod...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>ummmm....NO! I'm going to bitch and whine till I blue in the face. I'm not
>going to let this shit go...Those scumbag at the FCC and the court of
>appeals isn't going to hear the last of me for a long time. I was never
>found guilty of a freaking crime and I fucking barred from getting a
>license. that's the true justice of fucking america. Although you not
>guilty....your guilty......and your guilty unless you prove yourselves
>otherwise. well I have my application (all six) and a little piss ant note
>from some sandmonkey in the FCC say they couldn't consider my application or
>my fucking waiver...I applied long before I went pirate and their are other
>"pirates" out there that I know that also applied long before going pirate.
>So I'm going to continue to bitch and whine til somethings done about this
>injustice.
Good luck. You're dealing with politicians who deflect bitching and
whining without cash attached as part of their day. Piece a cake.
At this point you've admitted in a public forum that you've violated
the law. The regulation spcifically says pirates are unsuited for LPFM
licences.
I believe there's a special circular file for applications and
comments that are loaded with obscenities and invective.
Rich
Todd Daugherty
"Rich Wood" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2ih8vvsri7g3vbkvh...@4ax.com...
if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the unlicensed operation of
any station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 USC 301)."
(Radio Broadcast Preservation Act)
The FCC went farther stating "We note that the statutory language is not
limited to applicants and licensees that have been found to have engaged in
unauthorized operations by the Commission. Accordingly, an applicant will be
ineligible to hold an LPFM license if it has engaged in unlicensed operation
regardless of whether the Commission has made a specific finding that the
party has engaged in such conduct."
The FCC could of used the less restrictive mean which was ban those were
found guilty of violating Section 301 and thoses who were not allow to get a
license. It was the FCC who went a step farther...the less restrictive mean
could of work and would of still comform to congress wishes. but instead the
Fuck the American People Cmmunication Commission disregard Due Process and
the Administrative Procedure Act...and yeah I admitted to Piracy on a open
forum...but you forget dumb ass I also admit that I applied six times with
waivers LOOOOOOOONG before I went pirate so did a bunch of other "pirates" I
know. The FCC are a bunch of fucking liars claiming all you have to do is
apply for a license and ask for a waiver....well I did a looong time before
I ever went pirate. the courts has told the FCC three times "The FCC must
consider waiver" Wait radio Vs FCC, and Turro Vs FCC. the bottom line those
shacks of shit are not consider waiver...so fuck them and you....Hell since
I can't get a license I just go back on the air without....after all it was
judge Randoph that stated " No one has a First Amendment right to a
license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389 (1969), and it
follows that no one has a First Amendment right to apply for a license."
then why the fuck should I apply???
Todd Daugherty
>
> Rich
Rich Wood
<tod...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>The FCC could of used the less restrictive mean which was ban those were
>found guilty of violating Section 301 and thoses who were not allow to get a
>license. It was the FCC who went a step farther...the less restrictive mean
>could of work and would of still comform to congress wishes. but instead the
>Fuck the American People Cmmunication Commission disregard Due Process and
>the Administrative Procedure Act...and yeah I admitted to Piracy on a open
>forum...but you forget dumb ass I also admit that I applied six times with
>waivers LOOOOOOOONG before I went pirate so did a bunch of other "pirates" I
>know.
It's very hard to understand why they didn't just hand you a license.
Someone with your charm and command of communication skills certainly
deserves one.
>The FCC are a bunch of fucking liars claiming all you have to do is
>apply for a license and ask for a waiver....well I did a looong time before
>I ever went pirate. the courts has told the FCC three times "The FCC must
>consider waiver" Wait radio Vs FCC, and Turro Vs FCC. the bottom line those
>shacks of shit are not consider waiver...so fuck them and you....Hell since
>I can't get a license I just go back on the air without....after all it was
>judge Randoph that stated " No one has a First Amendment right to a
>license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389 (1969), and it
>follows that no one has a First Amendment right to apply for a license."
>then why the fuck should I apply???
Probably because you want to spread your joy throughout the community.
It's the only reason I can come up with considering the number of
times they've said you're unfit. I know a few people who lost out on
real licenses. Not one of them became a pirate.
Perhaps they saw "Minority Report" and the pre-crime unit determined
you were destined to commit a crime. In this case it wasn't murder.
Judging from your postings here I don't think I'd need all that
futuristic gadgetry to believe you would.
I think dumbass is one word.
Rich
Dr. Daffodil Swain
>follows that no one has a First Amendment right to apply for a license."
Why does one need a license for the the Article One of the Bill of Rights?
Furthermore, why does one need a permit for Article Two of the Bill of
Rights?
Hmmm....Todd may be on to something. BTW Todd, spend more time collecting
your thoughts in a diplomatic fashion and you may find more allies than
enemies. Just an opnion.
"Rich Wood" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fl59vvcs6df48i8b5...@4ax.com...
Ketch Hupp
>
> Furthermore, why does one need a permit for Article Two of the Bill of
> Rights?
Right. Also, nowhere does the constitution say you need a PERMIT (government
permission) to own or BEAR arms, it just gives you that right without any permit
or license requirements.
Government license needed to get married? How ridiculous!
Bob Haberkost
that anyone who has the desire may stand on a corner and orate, or contract to, or
simply, print, the issue the citizen desires to air (the definition of air, here, has
nothing to do with being "on the air")
The difference between spoken or printed words and broadcasting is that, when a
station is licensed to use the electromagnetic spectrum (a public resource), no other
station may use the same frequency (and several around it, as well as other channels
related to the operating frequency) without preventing the licensed operation from
being heard. Thus, contrary to spoken or printed word, where many documents may
exist concurrently, no such situation exists for broadcasting (or, for that matter,
anywhere else on the electomagnetic spectrum, unless the transmission is beamed to a
distant point...but that's not broadcasting).
Thus, it's not the abridgement of one's first amendment rights not to have a
broadcast license, it's a physical limitation. And, unless you want to get into how
the Consitution can overrule physical laws (and I'm sure there's case law which
actually affirms the reverse) you can't invoke a first amendment challenge.
Kapeesh?
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" <wa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f71Jb.19382$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Todd Daugherty
that shit to me, but I can name at four others who applied and went pirate.
I'm sure if there is four there is probably more. They've (FCC) has used the
waiver process as only a excuses in the federal courts but when it came to
considering waivers they wouldn't. They would send them back say that they
can't consider a waiver for low power. As a matter of fact asshole I
enquired about a shortwave license and I told them I was going to as for a
waiver (the waiver was to run at a lower power...Under FCC rules no one can
run a International shortwave station below 50KW...we want to run one at 5
to 10KW) and they fucking told me flat out they wouldn't consider any
license below 50KW...BUT, if a pirate went on the air the FCC would tell
that fucking judge that all that pirate had to do was apply for a license
and ask for a waiver.
Todd
Todd Daugherty
If it's a public resource like you say then everyone should have the right
to apply....however, the U.S. court of appeal in Ruggiero Vs FCC (2003) NO
ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE.As for "physical limitation" with
all this "DIGITAL" communication coming out the Idea of "Scarcity of the
frequencies" might not hold up anymore.
Todd
Rich Wood
<tod...@consolidated.net> wrote:
>FIRST off Dipship They didn't say I wasn't Unfit ok.
Then let me say it. Also "dipship" sounds like a marine term. I
believe you meant dipshit. It fits the rest of your posts much better.
> As a matter of fact asshole I
>enquired about a shortwave license and I told them I was going to as for a
>waiver (the waiver was to run at a lower power...Under FCC rules no one can
>run a International shortwave station below 50KW...we want to run one at 5
>to 10KW) and they fucking told me flat out they wouldn't consider any
>license below 50KW
50kw actually seems low power for true International shortwave, unless
the antenna is very high gain, then you have to deal with severe
directionality in a log periodic. David Eduardo can probably give you
a good course on what you'd need to spread obscenity throughout the
world. 50kw probably won't do it. 5kw sure won't.
Rich
Don Forsling
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff4f...@127.0.0.1...
I may be missing the sense (if any) of the thread, but in truth, everybody
_does_ have the right to _apply_ for a license. Now, whether the
application will be accepted for filing or whether you, Mr. Applicant, will
get a license is what is, to say the least, always in question, i.e. it's
the license that you don't have a "right" to. So apply all you want, early
and often.
Todd Daugherty
"Don Forsling" <dfor...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:vvb46ff...@news.supernews.com...
right to a license and no one has a right to apply for a license. Greg
Ruggiero Vs FCC (Feb 2003)
Todd Daugherty
frequency listing at the power some of those stations are running....some
run as low as 500 watt. As a matter of WWV and CHU run 5 to 10KW. I have,
and I know may other ham operators that have talk to people
all over the world on low power. That's all I really have in the Amateur
Bands. I've talk to people as low as 50 watts all over the world. It depends
on many factors antenna height, propergation, frequency (because not all
Shortwave frequencies are the same) and power.
Todd
> Rich
BIAS COMMS
> 50kw actually seems low power for true International shortwave, unless
> the antenna is very high gain, then you have to deal with severe
> directionality in a log periodic. David Eduardo can probably give you
> a good course on what you'd need to spread obscenity throughout the
> world. 50kw probably won't do it. 5kw sure won't.
There are MANY successful international broadcasters using powers much lower
than even 5 kW Remember - you come from a country that assumes that 10 kW
is required for a city-wide FM signal!
Dr. Daffodil Swain
>license below 50KW
Remember that's 50KW ERP
"Rich Wood" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3g2bvvokacjpe0hv2...@4ax.com...
David Eduardo
As, ahem, probably the only person on this group who has owned a commercial
shortwave license, I truly can agree that below 50 kw on SW you no longer
have an international shortwave station. What you have is a domestic SW
station, and those are not permitted in the USA.
5 kw to 10 kw SW stations are generally, in the rest of the world, found on
the tropical bands. these are used to get decent reception in an area the
size of Venezuela, Ghana or Botswana.
Most international SW stations today are above 100 kw; the few remaining
50's don't cut it.
Oh, is a "dipship" sort of like a sheep dip, but for boats?
David Eduardo
> > the antenna is very high gain, then you have to deal with severe
> > directionality in a log periodic. David Eduardo can probably give you
> > a good course on what you'd need to spread obscenity throughout the
> > world. 50kw probably won't do it. 5kw sure won't.
> >
> Really?? get a copy of Passport to World Band Radio and look in the
> frequency listing at the power some of those stations are running....some
> run as low as 500 watt.
Those low power stations are domestic services; you find them in places like
Peru and Bolivia and Ecuador. They are not "international" in any aspect,
except to DXers who may spend years trying to log one of them.
> As a matter of WWV and CHU run 5 to 10KW.
They are domestic stations.
> I have,
> and I know may other ham operators that have talk to people
> all over the world on low power. That's all I really have in the Amateur
> Bands. I've talk to people as low as 50 watts all over the world. It
depends
> on many factors antenna height, propergation, frequency (because not all
> Shortwave frequencies are the same) and power.
However, a 5 kw or 10 kw SW station would only have regular reception
domestically. And the US does not license domestic short wave stations.
David Eduardo
> they fucking told me flat out they wouldn't consider any
> >license below 50KW
>
> Remember that's 50KW ERP
I don't think so; I believe US shortwave stations have a minimum 50 kw into
the antenna system.
Don Forsling
writing instrument and some time. Period. I don't need anyone's
permission. Now, the application might not be accepted for filing, it then
won't be considered at all, and a license certainly won't be granted, but by
God, I will have applied and will have been turned away, but I certainly
won't be subject to any fine, forfeiture, or subject to imprisonment for
simply filling out a form and sending it, along with appropriate exhibits,
to the FCC. "Applications will not be accepted for, etc" is not the same as
saying "You can't apply." I have applied at the moment I drop my
non-acceptable application in the mailbox.
BIAS COMMS
> As, ahem, probably the only person on this group who has owned a
> commercial shortwave license, I truly can agree that below 50 kw on SW you
> no longer have an international shortwave station. What you have is a
> domestic SW station, and those are not permitted in the USA.
>
> 5 kw to 10 kw SW stations are generally, in the rest of the world, found
> on the tropical bands. these are used to get decent reception in an area
> the size of Venezuela, Ghana or Botswana.
>
> Most international SW stations today are above 100 kw; the few remaining
> 50's don't cut it.
>
> Oh, is a "dipship" sort of like a sheep dip, but for boats?
Some of us here have operated legal, licenced SW stations, some at the 100
kW level, and some smaller.
Most SW stations in Europe run much less than 50 kW - you can cover Europe
with as little as 5 kW if you have a sensible choice of frequency, good
antenna system / site, and no co-channel 100 kW Yank blasting over the top
of you!
We can broadcast "internationally" using tens of Watts - we have three other
countries within 100 miles of here!
Rich Wood
I have one. You're proposing LPSW. As I look at the stations the low
powered ones are, generally, for domestic service. Since domestic
shortwave isn't allowed in the US I can only assume you want to spread
something throughout the world.
WWV and CHU run time and test signals. WWV can't do it alone, so they
have WWVB. In most places I've lived the WWV signals are very weak
Every clock I've owned that relied on WWV for accuracy hasn't been
able to receive it. To successfully use the WWV test signals you need
a much more expensive receiver than most people in the world own.
I'm also a Ham Radio Operator (Advanced Class) and I'm familiar with
propagation. Shortwave, generally, runs AM. Hams run SSB. You probably
have a very directional, rotatable antenna. If you used an antenna
that directional on shortwave you'd miss most of your target unless
the target is at a great distance where the main lobe broadens.
If you're proposing an actual service to people you'll need enough
power to give them a reliably clean signal.
HCJB is still one of the world's serious shortwave broadcasters. They
use transmitters as low as 1kw, but most are 50 and 100kw with a
couple of 250kw and 500kw sites. If all you need is 5kw why would
anyone pay the power bill for a 500kw transmitter that sucks up much
more power than it puts out?
Rich
Todd Daugherty
say....go to yahoo and type in Greg ruggiero Vs the FCC and read it for
yourself....they said simply you don't have a right to a license and judge
(I love Hitler) Randoph said it could even farther that you don't have a
right to apply for a license....or if you want I'll post the whole ruling
here for you to read.
toddnews:vvbj8m7...@news.supernews.com...
David Eduardo
>
> HCJB is still one of the world's serious shortwave broadcasters. They
> use transmitters as low as 1kw, but most are 50 and 100kw with a
> couple of 250kw and 500kw sites. If all you need is 5kw why would
> anyone pay the power bill for a 500kw transmitter that sucks up much
> more power than it puts out?
I was in Ecuador when HCJB went from 50 kw to 100 kw main transmitters in
the mid-60's. The reasoning had to do with band congestion, adjacent channel
interference and man-made noise. Later in that decade, they decided to go to
300 kw for most of the international broadcasts. They use 50 kw and under
for domestic service to the Andean zone... 50 kw barely covers the area in
which the Quechua service is able to be understood, roughly North of Lima to
very southern Colombia.
since several of the HCJB engineers helped me build stations and design
transmitters, I was very familiar with their propagation studies and
facilities.
David Eduardo
> whoa mate don't bite my head off I'm just telling what the court of
appeal
> say....go to yahoo and type in Greg ruggiero Vs the FCC and read it for
> yourself....they said simply you don't have a right to a license and judge
> (I love Hitler) Randoph said it could even farther that you don't have a
> right to apply for a license....or if you want I'll post the whole ruling
> here for you to read.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
Todd Daugherty
broadcast transmitters go for?
"David Eduardo" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZupJb.5135$cq3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
David Eduardo
> broadcast transmitters go for?
I have not bought one for years.
A fixed frequency one for the 3.3 MHz or 5.8 MHz local bands will be just a
bit more than a comparable MW (AM) transmitter of similar power.
Anything using higher bands is likely to have to be frequency agile, meaning
it can tune to different frequencies in a few seconds and make all tuning
circuit adjustments automatically. An agile transmitter is quite a lot more
than a fixed frequency one.
SW high-gain directional antennas are vary expensive to design and build,
much more than a single non-directional AM tower.
If you figure a top of the line solid state 100 kw AM transmitter is near
$300 thousand dollars, an agile transmiller is going to be over $450
thousand. Figure $2.00 to $3.00 a watt for high power AM transmitters for
fixed frequency use.
There are manufacturers in places like Chile and Bosnia that make good High
Frequency AM transmitters for much less than US or Western European rigs
cost. There is somewhat of a market for used transmitters, too.
You might ask the engineers at HCJB if they know of used gear. They are very
knowledgeable, and have a website and equipment company in Indiana
somewhere.
Bob Haberkost
given channel (IBOC...actually, it uses more, but let's ignore that for now) will
allow the proliferation of additional allocations over the current method (analog).
Interference is interference.
But (proving rather emphatically that you don't grasp legal language) I've consulted
the FCC website to find the decision you've been wailing against throughout this
thread, and....guess what? You're way off base. The decision does not bar anyone
from applying for a license. It does, however, affirm the FCC's power to refuse,
under specifically defined terms, an application for a license. In a concurring
opinion attached to the decision, Judge Randolph notes
"All that is involved is filing an application with the FCC.
Many pirates have done so. Creation of a Low Power
Radio Serv., 16 F.C.C.R. 8026, 8030, 8060 (2001).
If they file applications in the future no harm will befall
them. Their applications will simply be denied."
(http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2003/00-1100.pdf, page 12).
There is, in Judge Rogers' concurring opinion, the phrase you cited earlier, but
taken out of context, it has no meaning in and of itself...the decision must be taken
whole. Even at that, since obtaining a broadcast license is not a First Amendment
right, applying for a broadcast license (following Judge Rogers' extrapolation of the
Red Lion case) is not a First Amendment right, either. Mr Ruggiero, et.al, missed,
and continue to miss, that essential point.
That whole decision states that the FCC is empowered, by Congress and legislation
enacted thereby, to enforce broadcast policy, including the determination as to the
worthiness of an applicant for a broadcast license of any class. In this regard, a
pirate who willfully ignores established rules on the operation of a broadcasting
facility is unqualified on a number of criteria, not the least of which is quality of
character (a trait which you've also failed to demonstrate in these newsgroups) and
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the FCC, a determination supported by the courts,
to be unfit as a licensee for any class of broadcasting station. Live with it...it's
a situation of your own creation....as an old girlfriend of mine used to
say...."always be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions."
What Mr Ruggiero and the rest don't get is that broadcast allocations take into
account a substantial amount of criteria, and that the coverage areas must, in order
to make an impossible calculation doable, adhere to arbitrarily determined (but
substantiated by experimentation) formulas. (The fact that a lot of this preliminary
work was done before the days of computers is actually pretty astounding.) Then,
after determining reasonable coverage areas for several classes of stations, circles
are, effectively, drawn on a map, the intersections of which are, by these rules,
prohibited from overlapping, this to prevent interference to those allocations which
would render the facility useless or, at least, unable to cover the area previously
determined as appropriate for the station's class. It is to protect existing
broadcasting licensees that one can't just find an "empty spot" on the dial and
broadcast, and no amount of finagling will change that fact without unduly affecting
an existing operation.
It means nothing, here, that this existing station may prevent an aspiring
broadcaster from having his/her own slice of the pie - it's worth noting that the
existing station's continued existence is no more guaranteed by the First Amendment
than a new applicant has any right to a license. Perhaps, if you're big into tilting
at windmills, you should consider contesting the renewal of a stations license,
because it's at that point that a station's existence can be terminated. Be prepared
to spend a lot of money, and get the best telecommunications lawyers you can afford.
And, while you're at it, you might want to start effecting a change in Congress which
would require the FCC to be more demanding in the criteria used to approve license
renewals. But give up on this "free speech" approach. It's been decided, it won't
be changed, and your just wasting your time and money trying. I just can't believe
I've allowed myself to be dragged into another one of these useless debates. And
with that, I have nothing further to say on the subject, except that if Ruggiero and
his ilk use this issue for fundraising, they're either delusional or guilty of fraud.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff4f...@127.0.0.1...
Bob Haberkost
agreement, and that the frequencies are set aside for as frequency standard...other
nations also have frequency standard broadcasts, and so it would be pointless for
WWV/WWVH or CHU to put more power than what they need to cover North America.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Rich Wood" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7s1cvvknvmva75kke...@4ax.com...
David Eduardo
"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:9JrJb.21301$x34....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> It's worth noting too, Rich, that WWV and CHU are protected by
international
> agreement, and that the frequencies are set aside for as frequency
standard...other
> nations also have frequency standard broadcasts, and so it would be
pointless for
> WWV/WWVH or CHU to put more power than what they need to cover North
America.
I don't understand what you mean by "protected."
For example, the 5000 kHz WWV channel is used in Argentina, Australia,
China, Ecuador, Korea, Taiwan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela. 2500 is used in
Australia, China and Uzbekistan. 10000 is used by Russia, Argentina,China,
India, Russia and Uzbekistan.
CHU's 3300 is used as close to North America as Guatemala. 7335 is used by
the Vatican, China, Iran and Russia.
And I agree with Rich. On many occasions, it is impossible to get WWV in any
usable form in areas where it should be covering. In fact, I got an FCC
notice of violation reversed on a violation of the old +/- 2 minute ID rules
by showing that for many months of the year there was no accurate time
standard listenable at the station location, and the only alternative was,
at that time, to use then-less-than-accurate crystal based ESE clocks that
cost over $1,000.
Todd Daugherty
"Yet there is no chilling effect on speech. "No one has a First Amendment
right to a
license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389 (1969), and it
follows that no one has a First Amendment right to apply for a license."
(PAGE 14)
And one more thing about Ruggiero....He NEVER applied for a license (as a
matter of fact the courts had already ruled against he before Steal radio Vs
the FCC) as for me I did a number of times...and again I was never found
guilty of violating the law. nor was I ever given a warning letter or a
cease and desist notice. He was trying to act on a behalf of a "third party"
which the courts didn't go along with.
"Ruggiero has not applied to the FCC for a low-power
license. He does not claim that his particular circumstances
would warrant any special treatment. His attack is on the
face of the statute and the implementing regulations. The
lifetime bar is overbroad, he claims, because there may be
applicants who "briefly or long ago engaged in unlicensed
broadcast operations" and who now have become "model
citizens." Petitioner's Br. at 26. The court rejects Ruggie-
ro's claim on the ground that Congress rationally treated all
pirates alike. Maj. op. at 12. Although I agree with the
court, I believe another rationale leads to the same result.
Litigants ordinarily do not have standing to raise the rights
of others. But in arguing about hypothetical third parties,
Ruggiero is in effect invoking the familiar overbreadth doc-
trine, a staple of First Amendment jurisprudence." (page 11)
"Congress rationally treated all pirates alike" Which allows a agency to
violate the APA and Due Process...Regardless of the crime wither it's pirate
radio or murder everyone has the right to due process in this country. As
for congress...Congress view was Bias and one sided....Thanks in part but
the NAB congress Bribery fund. The only reason the RBPA was passed was
because it was stuck in a budget bill. Had it gone the proper way through
both houses it would of never passed because their was more people in
congress against it then for it.
Todd
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff4f...@127.0.0.1...
Todd Daugherty
In my view Bob this had nothing to do with free speech it had to do with due
process and the APA. Some all agency most follow....except
one....CONGRESS....They don't have to abide by the APA and they've allowed a
federal agency...the FCC to do the same.
Todd
Bob Haberkost
possible to have cochannel operation by others on WWV's frequencies - there's
virtually no beat note, and what may be there is more than overwhelmed by normal
propagation fade.
CHU is only a time standard, by the way....the frequency isn't intended (nor should
anyone use it) as a calibrating standard, at least not to the tolerances you can
expect from WWV.
And I'm amazed that you have such a problem getting WWV or WWVH. In Pittsburgh (not
that I've tried lately) I can usually get both of them any time I want (although
hearing Jane Barbee on WWVH is a real challenge, especially when WWV is coming in
like a ton of bricks), except when we have a solar event. Could you benefit by using
a longwire antenna?
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"David Eduardo" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dsJb.4855$J%2.2...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Bob Haberkost
constraints and procedural rules established by the respective Houses. That's "due
process." And, if it has nothng to do with free speech, then why did Ruggiero use
this as an argument in his suit? (And this is irrelevant to whether Ruggiero had
applied for a license or not.)
There's plenty of "due process" here. FCC uses a process which opens it for comments
to a "notice of proposed rulemaking". The procedural structure predates the APA (the
existence of which, at the federal level. I can't even find...could you be
delusional again?) by many, many years. This was done for LPFM (as it's done for all
new rules), and had to be modified when Congress mandated stricter qualifications.
Whether this was in response to NAB actions or not is immaterial. And, once again,
the FCC has the power, by a law created under due process, to create and enforce
rules relating to telecommunications issues, including....broadcasting.
Although it's probably too late now, what probably would have worked in your favor is
if you had been more friendly to NAB interests, by not operating a pirate
station....whoops! There's that little detail again.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff65...@127.0.0.1...
David Eduardo
> By virtue of the very tight tolerances used for standard frequncy
broadcasts, it's
> possible to have cochannel operation by others on WWV's frequencies -
there's
> virtually no beat note, and what may be there is more than overwhelmed by
normal
> propagation fade.
>
> CHU is only a time standard, by the way....the frequency isn't intended
(nor should
> anyone use it) as a calibrating standard, at least not to the tolerances
you can
> expect from WWV.
>
> And I'm amazed that you have such a problem getting WWV or WWVH. In
Pittsburgh (not
> that I've tried lately) I can usually get both of them any time I want
(although
> hearing Jane Barbee on WWVH is a real challenge, especially when WWV is
coming in
> like a ton of bricks), except when we have a solar event. Could you
benefit by using
> a longwire antenna?
This was 30 years ago, when ESE crystal clocks cost a kilobuck... but
propagation theory has not changed.
We had several dipoles on two large posts, aimed at Boulder. One was for the
10 mHz signal of WWV, and another was for 5 mHz. There were times when we
could not get a signal, using an HRO-600 backed up by an HQ-180, to set our
clocks by. Every local station was +/- as much as 3 minutes, so everyone
obviously had the problem.
Interference on both channels was also an issue. At times, CHU was a backup
choice, as the channel is clearer.
Bob Haberkost
were too far for the ground wave (and what little of that existed in the first place)
and too close for skip distance. Given the east coast is a lot farther from Boulder,
we may have had better luck, on one frequency of another. I generally found 15MHz to
be the clearest and most reliable, followed by 10, 20, 5 and 25, in that order. No
wonder 25MHz was shut down in the 70's.
Some difference now, eh? I just got an "atomic" clock...with a radio-remoted
external thermometer that syncs to WWVB once a day....for $23. Whether it would work
in a studio environment, I somehow doubt, but at $23 bucks, it's almost worth the
gamble.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"David Eduardo" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LVsJb.4863$fM3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Rich Wood
<cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote:
>It's worth noting too, Rich, that WWV and CHU are protected by international
>agreement, and that the frequencies are set aside for as frequency standard...other
>nations also have frequency standard broadcasts, and so it would be pointless for
>WWV/WWVH or CHU to put more power than what they need to cover North America.
True. .
WWV uses 10Kw on 5, 10, and 15 MHz and 2.5 Kw on 2.5 and 20 MHz.
WWVH uses 10Kw on 5, 10, and 15 MHz and 5Kw on 2.5 MHz
WWVB has an ERP of 50Kw at 60 kHz
Rich
David Eduardo
> Yeah, I suppose....on the assumption that this was all on the west coast,
perhaps you
> were too far for the ground wave (and what little of that existed in the
first place)
> and too close for skip distance. Given the east coast is a lot farther
from Boulder,
> we may have had better luck, on one frequency of another. I generally
found 15MHz to
> be the clearest and most reliable, followed by 10, 20, 5 and 25, in that
order. No
> wonder 25MHz was shut down in the 70's.
Actually, this was all at WUNO, San Juan, Puerto Rico. The local FCC office
seemed to think that WWV was a reliable read in the tropics 900 miles from
the mainland.
>
> Some difference now, eh? I just got an "atomic" clock...with a
radio-remoted
> external thermometer that syncs to WWVB once a day....for $23. Whether it
would work
> in a studio environment, I somehow doubt, but at $23 bucks, it's almost
worth the
> gamble.
I have a collection of those critters. Most get a signal often enough to
actually useful. I'd bet that one could be remoted pretty easily, or the
antenna could "go external" without much problem. I got one that has an
external antenna, and that kind would make a good candidate for an exterior
antenna.
Todd Daugherty
equiptment but haven't really found any
Todd
"David Eduardo" <radio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YYpJb.5150$jF3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Todd Daugherty
constitutional
constraints and procedural rules established by the respective Houses.
That's "due
process." And, if it has nothng to do with free speech, then why did
Ruggiero use
this as an argument in his suit? (And this is irrelevant to whether
Ruggiero had
applied for a license or not.)
Yes it does matter whenit comes to those who applied and who
didn't....ruggiero didn't applied as the US Court of Appeals pointed out.
However, if you look at other court cases the idea that someone who had
applied and someone who hadn't makes a big factor. A good example of this is
Stephen Dunifer Vs United States.Both the US District court and the court of
appeal ruled that Mr. Dunifer never applied for a license and if would of
applied with a waiver then he could challenge the ban on Low Power FM (see
also FCC Order against Stephen Dunifer)
" 9. Given that the requirement for a license is thus clearly
constitutional, if Mr. Dunifer believes it would be unconstitutional for the
FCC to deny him a license, he should have, consistent with the
Communications Act, asked for a license, along with a request for a
waiver of the relevant rules limiting low power FM service. If such a
request were denied, he could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 402(b)(1). See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418
F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (FCC must consider
waiver request of applicant who makes a nonfrivolous First Amendment claim);
Turro v.FCC, 859 F.2d 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (Court reviews and rejects a
First Amendment challenge to an FCC decision refusing to waive its rules
prohibiting low power FM translator
stations from originating local programming). Alternatively, if Mr. Dunifer
believes the FCC's existing low power FM rules are unconstitutional, he
could have filed a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.401.
If this request were denied, he could have filed a
petition for review in a court of appeals pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 402(a).
See Quincy CableTV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 476 U.S. 1169 (1986) (FCC denied a petition for rulemaking to repeal
certain rules and court of appeals, in reviewing
FCC's order, held rules unconstitutional).
http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Orders/fcc95333.txt
U.S. DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDS FCC RADIO LICENSING AUTHORITY;
ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST UNLICENSED BROADCASTER STEPHEN DUNIFER
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
yesterday issued a permanent injunction against unlicensed broadcaster
Stephen Dunifer ("Free Radio Berkeley"). The 18-page decision reaffirms the
FCC's authority to require a license before any person can broadcast on the
public airwaves.
As a result of an investigation, the San Francisco Field Office of the
Compliance and Information Bureau had found that Mr. Dunifer was
broadcasting without a license. Despite warnings from the field office, Mr.
Dunifer continued to broadcast in violation of Section 301 of the Act. The
FCC then pursued court action to enjoin Mr. Dunifer from broadcasting.
The ordering clause of the June 16, 1998, opinion of U.S. District
Judge Claudia Wilken reads as follows:
"The United States motion for summary judgment must be GRANTED.
Accordingly, Mr. Dunifer, and all persons in active concert or participation
with him, are hereby ENJOINED:
(a) FROM MAKING RADIO TRANSMISSIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNLESS
AND UNTIL THEY FIRST OBTAIN A LICENSE FROM THE FCC:
(b) From doing any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause
unlicensed radio transmissions or to enable such radio transmissions to
occur."
The Court's opinion also upheld the constitutionality of the FCC's
broadcast licensing procedures. It said, "The Court finds that the
regulatory scheme here withstands constitutional scrutiny because it
specifies procedures which the FCC must follow and it provides for judicial
review of any improper FCC ruling. Thus, Mr. Dunifer's claims that the
regulations are unconstitutional in every conceivable application and that
they are overbroad must fail." [EMPHISIS ADDED]
http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/News_Releases/1998/nrci8011.html
[6] In this regard, it is important to note that this is not a case in which
Dunifer had no means to obtain judicial review of the regulations. Cf.
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 212-13 (1994) (construing
claims in a manner so as not to foreclose all judicial review). Dunifer
could have applied for a license and sought a waiver of the applicable FCC
rules,(9) or he could have filed a petition for a rulemaking for new low
power regulations,(10) a denial of which would be reviewable by a court of
appeals. See Turro v. FCC, 859 F.2d 1498, 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (reviewing a
denial of a license request pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 402(b)); Quincy Cable
TV, Inc. v. FCC, 768 F.2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (reviewing a determination
of the FCC regarding a petition for a rulemaking pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §
402(a)). Instead, Dunifer decided to evade this carefully crafted process by
concededly violating the regulatory framework implemented by the FCC
DUNIFER VS UNTIED STATES (2000)
http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/99-15035.html
The fact is dipshit I appiled for a license with waiver...which you seem not
to be able to grasp. "The FCC must consider waiver" as the court put it; and
it is the public's interest, convenience and necessity. I applied six times
with waiver (unlike Ruggiero) for a Low Power TV license for a community
which has no TV service. Now I'm not a rocket scientist but I think That
would consititute in the public's interest, convenience and necessity...and
by not consider it...well, that would not be in the public's interest,
convenience and necessity.
There's plenty of "due process" here. FCC uses a process which opens it for
comments
to a "notice of proposed rulemaking". The procedural structure predates the
APA (the
existence of which, at the federal level. I can't even find...could you be
delusional again?) by many, many years. This was done for LPFM (as it's
done for all
new rules), and had to be modified when Congress mandated stricter
qualifications.
Whether this was in response to NAB actions or not is immaterial. And, once
again,
the FCC has the power, by a law created under due process, to create and
enforce
rules relating to telecommunications issues, including....broadcasting.
humm Dipshit, DUE PROCESS in the sense of the RBPA is this...I was accused
of violating section 301 of the communication act of 1934 as amended. I was
never found guilty of violating the law. But, I was accused AND I was banned
from getting a license. DUE PROCESS is that I have the right to defend
myself against those accusing me of a "Crime" weither it be a court of
law...which never happened. Or in front of a Administrative Law Judge in the
Agency. Under the APA (That Administrative Procedure Act for all you morons)
a Government agency "must gather all fact and findings before it renders a
decision" TITLE 5 USC CHAPTER 2. The banned and the FCC disregard of both
the APA and Due Process shows that this agency don't give a fuck about legal
system and the constitution. The APA applies to all rules regardless how old
they are....so the LPFM rules MUST abided by the APA. So my fuck opinion you
fucking Nazi is go back to your NAB bitchwhores and tell them that I said
FUCK YOU ALL
Todd BAP
Although it's probably too late now, what probably would have worked in your
favor is
if you had been more friendly to NAB interests, by not operating a pirate
station....whoops! There's that little detail again.
Bob Haberkost
"Todd Daugherty" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:3ff7c...@127.0.0.1...
[no point in repeating misconceived, unfocused and unrelated drivel]
<< plonk >>