County Issuing Radio Licenses
Wheeler
"radio license." I saw one this weekend, and they look official.
It matters not they are legal, since the "licensees" believe they are.
Got in a heated discussion with one guy. Told him it wasn't worth
the paper it was printed on. He assured me it was and he is running
a low power FM station, using his "license" to broadcast.
Watching how far this "license" thing will go should prove to be
interesting.
And for the cynics, no it is not a troll, just an item of interest to
people interested in radio things.
73 from Wheeler
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Wheeler" cwhe...@zipmailsvc.net
>Date: 12/16/02 8:07 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <atkmnj$d1t$0...@pita.alt.net>
>Apparently, Davidson County in Tennessee is issuing some sort
>"radio license."
Was this from an offical county office? I wonder who would think that
they could issue these and why?
Steve Robeson, K4YZ
Winchester, TN
Bob Stevens
frequencies which they can do whatever they want to with, but for the ham
bands? There's no question in my mind as to the legality (in this case,
the lack thereof) of that.
Bob
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>From: "Bob Stevens" gand...@yahoo.ca
>Date: 12/16/02 12:07 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <pan.2002.12.16....@yahoo.ca>
>
>On the ham bands? I know that certain locales are assigned certain UHF
>frequencies which they can do whatever they want to with, but for the ham
>bands? There's no question in my mind as to the legality (in this case,
>the lack thereof) of that.
That was my thought. The original poster said something about "low power
FM", so it does not appear to be an Amateur band impact, but it certainly could
be if not brought under scrutiny.
CAP is an example of an oranization that issues it's own "callsigns". We
are under NTIA, and as a whole authorized to operate on assigned federal
frequencies. There is no "license" per se issued to us, only "authorizations"
by appropriate officials. CAP uses tactical callsigns, not traditional "K" or
"W" prefixed calls like FCC issued calls would.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian
I thnk k4yz lives in TN. He should be able to answer this question.
Wheeler
FM broadcasting station (one-way transmissions). The guy was
operating on what he said was an unused frequency in the commercial
FM broadcasting band.
73,
Wheeler
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021216135950...@mb-bk.aol.com...
Wheeler
in the commercial FM broadcast band.
73 de Wheeler
"Bob Stevens" <gand...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.16....@yahoo.ca...
Robert Casey
> On the ham bands? I know that certain locales are assigned certain UHF
> frequencies which they can do whatever they want to with, but for the ham
> bands? There's no question in my mind as to the legality (in this case,
> the lack thereof) of that.
Don't suppose it would be good for DXCC credit? :-)
radiofun XP
> And for the cynics, no it is not a troll, just an item of interest to
> people interested in radio things.
Sure.
CW
"Chaos" <ch...@davesucks.com> wrote in message news:3dfe1d3d_5@server....
> Guess they can do what ever they want, until someone tells them different!
W5TIT - Kim
An excerpt from the FCC webpage (http://www.fcc.gov/lpfm/):
Low Power FM Broadcast Radio Stations
This page contains information about the Low Power FM (LPFM) radio service,
which was created by the Commission in January 2000. These stations are
authorized for noncommercial educational broadcasting only (no commercial
operation) and operate with an effective radiated power (ERP) of 100 watts
(0.1 kilowatts) or less, with maximum facilities of 100 watts ERP at 30
meters (100 feet) antenna height above average terrain (HAAT). The
approximate service range of a 100 watt LPFM station is 5.6 kilometers (3.5
miles radius). LPFM stations are not protected from interference that may be
received from other classes of FM stations. A construction permit is
required before a LPFM station can be constructed or operated.
END OF EXCERPT
I don't know if this is what you're posting about, above, but I suspect so.
Kim W5TIT
Jim Hampton
panties in a knot over unlicensed FM broadcast stations. This invariably
brings down the FCC and a hefty fine (the FCC does enforce the broadcast
bands as that is where the money is). I wonder if the county is thinking
they can do this or if someone is running a scam and issuing 'county'
licenses?
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim
"Wheeler" <cwhe...@zipmailsvc.net> wrote in message
news:atlfk0$d2t$0...@pita.alt.net...
Jim Hampton
website. Maybe the idiot paid for a 'business' license. You certainly may
have a radio station and pay for a business license, but you'll need the FCC
license to legally broadcast. Nothing on the website about a 'broadcasting'
license.
73 from Rochester, N.Y.
Jim
"Wheeler" <cwhe...@zipmailsvc.net> wrote in message
news:atkmnj$d1t$0...@pita.alt.net...
Jim Hampton
believe they are still licensed by the FCC.
73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
"W5TIT - Kim" <sevent...@eightyeight.net> wrote in message
news:A2C1B15E14A881A2.D86365D3...@lp.airnews.net...
Steve Robeson K4YZ
>Date: 12/16/02 10:10 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <uvt8uh7...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>I'm more curious now. I just visited the Nashville and Davidson County
>website. Maybe the idiot paid for a 'business' license. You certainly may
>have a radio station and pay for a business license, but you'll need the FCC
>license to legally broadcast. Nothing on the website about a 'broadcasting'
>license.
That's a good point, Jim...I didn't think of that. But the original
poster did say he tried to tell the "broadcaster" that his "license" was not
sufficient for what he was using it for.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian
Steve, he could be TN militia. You know something about that, don't you?
Brian Kelly
Right. I dunno if it can be called a "service" or a "sub-service" or
what but from what I've read the FCC intent for the authorization of
these stations involved, for one, to provide low-power broadcasts for
urban ethnic groups in their ghettos which the "majors" do not serve.
"Gettos" taken in it's historic connotation, a concentration of
immigrants with English as their second language. If at all. Dunno
about a county getting into the act, that sounds very fishy.
w3rv
Doug Smith
> On the ham bands? I know that certain locales are assigned certain UHF
> frequencies which they can do whatever they want to with, but for the ham
> bands? There's no question in my mind as to the legality (in this case,
> the lack thereof) of that.
I don't think they're allowed to reassign those frequencies to anyone
else. They're strictly for use for community business. (garbage
trucks, landscapers, overflow spectrum for police, whatever)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
Doug Smith
Got any idea what frequency he thinks he's licensed for? Been awhile
since I've logged a FM pirate...
(what division of Metro Government does he think issued this?)
KØHB
"Doug Smith" <m...@invalid.invalid> wrote
:
: Got any idea what frequency he thinks he's licensed for? Been awhile
: since I've logged a FM pirate...
:
Tks for the ARL10 QSO Doug. Strange conditions, with lots of MS and
sporadic E. Hope you did well.
73, Hans, K0HB
Trent Creekmore
Dear Mr. Hunt:
I notice that you personally introduce your agency as being charged with
regulating interstate and international communications consisting of almost
all electronic methods. This leads me to ask you, does your agency, the
Federal Communications Commission, have any jurisdiction over intrastate
radio communications, meaning "within the state"?
If you do have jurisdiction, where may I find the implementing regulation in
the Federal Register, and specifically, what section and paragraphs would
pertain to radio transmissions that do not cross state borders?
Thank you very much in advance for your answer to me.
The answer was as follows:
March 3, 1997
I've been asked to respond to your letter regarding intrastate radio
communications, meaning "within the state." The FCC only regulates
interstate and foreign commerce in radio communications. For your reference,
I have enclosed a copy of Title 1, Section 2, 47 United States Code 152.
Also enclosed are copies of other sections and titles referred to in Title
1. Respectively, they are Sections 223 through 227, Section 332, Section 301
Title 6, and Sections 201 through 205 of the Communications Act of 1934 as
amended.
Intrastate, meaning "within the state," radio communications may be
regulated by individual states, and I would recommend contacting your state
utility commission for further information.
Signed,
Martha E. Conti
Chief, Public Service Division
Office of Public Affairs
"Wheeler" <cwhe...@zipmailsvc.net> wrote in message
news:atkmnj$d1t$0...@pita.alt.net...
Rich Mooreland
(Davidson County TN) has taken advantage of the authority to
issue radio licenses and make some revenue in the process.
Rich
"Trent Creekmore" <tcr...@gt.rr.com> wrote in message
news:acVL9.5408$KW2.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Dick Carroll
know what it was they were putting out.
Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity to cross state
lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on the Federal
level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
Somewhere along the way someone heavy from DC will get wind of it all and will
grab them and straghten them out.
Dick
Brian Running
didn't
> know what it was they were putting out.
> Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity to cross
state
> lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on the Federal
> level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
> Somewhere along the way someone heavy from DC will get wind of it all and
will
> grab them and straghten them out.
But you know, Dick, it's absolutely true that 47 USC 152 says that the FCC
has no jurisdiction over intrastate radio transmissions. Notwithstanding
any court decisions, if your transmissions do not cross state lines, then
the FCC can't regulate you. Of course, this is a problem of proof, but the
burden is on the FCC to prove their jurisdiction, not the other way around.
Telephones are instruments of interstate commerce, even if you only call
across town, but telephones are all interconnected, worldwide. Radios
aren't. Looks like a little recreational legal research project comin' up.
Bill Sohl
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:YM5M9.2159$qU5.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > It'll never fly. The answerer was just another bureaucrat who really
> didn't
> > know what it was they were putting out.
> > Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity to
cross
> state
> > lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on the
Federal
> > level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
> > Somewhere along the way someone heavy from DC will get wind of it all
and
> will
> > grab them and straghten them out.
>
> But you know, Dick, it's absolutely true that 47 USC 152 says that the FCC
> has no jurisdiction over intrastate radio transmissions. Notwithstanding
> any court decisions, if your transmissions do not cross state lines, then
> the FCC can't regulate you.
As you state...notwithstanding the courts...the FCC has long ago been
acknowledged/granted exclusive jurisdiction for both inter and intra-state
radio transmissions (i.e. federal preemption being the applicable phrase
I believe.
If such was not the case, then the only time part 15
might apply would be for those cases that were very close to a state line
and
might, therefore, be interstate in nature. Can you imagine the mess that
we'd
have with things like locally generated interference, etc.
> Of course, this is a problem of proof,
Which is exactly why the FCC has the full jurisdiction in radio matters.
> but the
> burden is on the FCC to prove their jurisdiction, not the other way
around.
Not so, again, because the feds got full jurisdiction years ago.
> Telephones are instruments of interstate commerce, even if you only call
> across town, but telephones are all interconnected, worldwide. Radios
> aren't. Looks like a little recreational legal research project comin'
up.
Let us know what you find in case law.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dick Carroll
Brian Running wrote:
So how do you propose to prevent any radio wave from crossing state lines?
Even UHF/SHF will do it. There is nothing magic in a state line, they're only
visible when deliberately marked by some human.
It's a smoke screen. Nothing has changed. If it has, then GMRS away from a
state line doesn't require a license, as does not a UHF TV broadcast station in
the center of a state. But occasional propagation vagaries make it just possible
for even that RF to cross state lines, thus the court ruling. NOTHING has
changed, but I imagine Phil Kane might be in better position to comment.
Dick
Brian Running
>
> > but the
> > burden is on the FCC to prove their jurisdiction, not the other way
> around.
>
> Not so, again, because the feds got full jurisdiction years ago.
But that's the point, Bill -- jurisdiction is granted by 47 USC 152, that's
the jurisdiction statute. And the statute says very specifically that there
is no jurisdiction over intrastate radio communications. Here is the
pertinent section:
(b)
Except as provided in sections 223 through 227 of this title, inclusive, and
section 332 of this title, and subject to the provisions of section 301 of
this title and subchapter V-A of this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall
be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to
(1)
charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations
for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio
of any carrier,
Federal courts cannot override statutes with their decisions, unless they
find them unconstitutional. I think this is interesting.
> > Telephones are instruments of interstate commerce, even if you only call
> > across town, but telephones are all interconnected, worldwide. Radios
> > aren't. Looks like a little recreational legal research project comin'
> up.
>
> Let us know what you find in case law.
If and when I get the time to do it, I'll let you know.
Brian Running
lines?
> Even UHF/SHF will do it. There is nothing magic in a state line, they're
only
> visible when deliberately marked by some human.
I don't propose to do anything. I'm not taking any position on this -- I
just think it's interesting that the statute that grants the FCC its
jurisdiction over radio specifically excludes intrastate communications,
particularly when, as you state, almost any radio transmission can be
interstate.
> It's a smoke screen. Nothing has changed. If it has, then GMRS away from
a
> state line doesn't require a license, as does not a UHF TV broadcast
station in
> the center of a state. But occasional propagation vagaries make it just
possible
> for even that RF to cross state lines, thus the court ruling. NOTHING has
> changed, but I imagine Phil Kane might be in better position to comment.
You can't call federal legislation a smoke screen. Like Richard Pryor said
about cancer, you can't laugh that shit off. I'll be interested to see how
the court decisions have handled this.
Bill Sohl
Additionally, why isn't there any "radio regulations" on an "intra-state"
basis in each of the 50 states?
Methinks there's a misreading or misapplication of 47 USC 152
in your analysis.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:sh9M9.65056$Hs2.8...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Bill Sohl
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:sh9M9.65056$Hs2.8...@kent.svc.tds.net...
On second thought...
Here's your analysis failure....
There is NO presumption that any radio service can be truly
intrastate only in nature. The courts long ago recognized the interstate
(as well as inter-country) nature of all radio propogation
regardless of specific content or intended limitation to intra-state
only communications. We have long ago seen that nothing
can guarantee limiting propogation of a radio signal to
only an intra-state geographic boundary 100% of the time.
Indeed, folks have done amazing distances with
verrryyy low power at all sorts of different frequencies.
Soooo... without an actual case to the contrary, the court record of
radio regulation clearly is on the side of FCC jurisdiction of all
radio station transmissions within the USA.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Trent Creekmore
"> So how do you propose to prevent any radio wave from crossing state
lines?
> Even UHF/SHF will do it. There is nothing magic in a state line, they're
only
> visible when deliberately marked by some human.
>
The people who represent the govrnment like to use interstate commerce and
crossing state line synonymously. Commerce and crossing state lines are two
distinict things.
Article I, Section 8 states:
"The Congress shall have Power........
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes; "
> It's a smoke screen. Nothing has changed. If it has, then GMRS away from
a
> state line doesn't require a license, as does not a UHF TV broadcast
station in
> the center of a state. But occasional propagation vagaries make it just
possible
> for even that RF to cross state lines, thus the court ruling. NOTHING has
> changed, but I imagine Phil Kane might be in better position to comment.
>
However I am sure that if the transmission affects another transmitter
engaging in interstate commerce then they could do something about it.
Bill Sohl
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
> > So how do you propose to prevent any radio wave from crossing state
> lines?
> > Even UHF/SHF will do it. There is nothing magic in a state line, they're
> only
> > visible when deliberately marked by some human.
>
> I don't propose to do anything. I'm not taking any position on this -- I
> just think it's interesting that the statute that grants the FCC its
> jurisdiction over radio specifically excludes intrastate communications,
> particularly when, as you state, almost any radio transmission can be
> interstate.
That's exactly why there is no conflict and there is no
state level regulation of radio. See prior posting on this
point. Dick has it 100% right as to all radio being interstate
in nature at some point...and since the originator can't control
or limit the interstate nature of any RF signal, the issue
is always under FCC regulation.
> > It's a smoke screen. Nothing has changed. If it has, then GMRS away
from
> a
> > state line doesn't require a license, as does not a UHF TV broadcast
> station in
> > the center of a state. But occasional propagation vagaries make it just
> possible
> > for even that RF to cross state lines, thus the court ruling. NOTHING
has
> > changed, but I imagine Phil Kane might be in better position to comment.
>
> You can't call federal legislation a smoke screen. Like Richard Pryor
said
> about cancer, you can't laugh that shit off. I'll be interested to see
how
> the court decisions have handled this.
The courts have not, to my knowledge, ever sided with your
viewpoint that radio can ever truly be 100% intrastate only
100% of the time.
Works for me.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dan Morisseau
Dick Carroll wrote:
>
> Somewhere along the way someone heavy from DC will get wind of it all and will
> grab them and straghten them out.
And they will leave their erstwhile "licensee" to twist in the wind when the
Bureau of Enforcement comes down on them.
--
Dan Morisseau - N 38°34'53", W 90°22'32", 680'
Cardinal Nation: On the sunrise side of Mo-Pac's famous Kirkwood Hill!
"¡Y tu madre tambien!"
Brian
> It'll never fly. The answerer was just another bureaucrat who really didn't
> know what it was they were putting out.
> Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity to cross state
> lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on the Federal
> level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
It's a good thing that automobiles cannot cross state lines as the
states would have to give up licensing authority to the Feds.
Dan Morisseau
Trent Creekmore wrote:
Is this public trough feeding bureaucratic bimbo brain damaged!!? Anyone
with even a smattering of understanding in the area of federal pre-emption and
communication law knows that this nonsense is laughably wrong! Someone get hold
of these clowns and remind them that issues of this type was effectively settled
over at Appomatox Courthouse in Virginia about 137 years ago. I'm sure they must
have heard of it - it was in ALL the papers.
Trent Creekmore
"Brian" <brian...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:f45722ac.02121...@posting.google.com...
Touché!
It is a very valid point.
David Eduardo
The keyword is "commerce." Private vehicles don't pay to travel outside
either home state; commercial vehicles have a complicated set of
apportionment rules that allow them to engage in interstate commerce. Ma
and Pa on vacation are not part of the commercial aspects that are in play.
W5TIT
original poster was posting about. It's probably a low-power FM station
licensed by the FCC if it meets the qualifications.
Kim W5TIT
"Jim Hampton" <aa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:uvtb7j9...@corp.supernews.com...
W5TIT
news:20021217072529...@mb-df.aol.com...
I have a feeling the original poster was just under an assumption that there
was no licensing for LPFMs.
Kim W5TIT
W5TIT
one's gonna grab anyone or straighten anyone out. I'd be willing to be this
is a station operating under the LPFM rules.
Kim W5TIT
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:atqf5f$2gp$0...@208.206.142.88...
Trent Creekmore
state doing commerce thn no federal regualtion
"David Eduardo" <amd...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4saM9.702$P02...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
KØHB
: Was this from an offical county office? I wonder who would think
that
: they could issue these and why?
APPLICATION for TENNESSEE HAM LICENSE
NAME: ___________________________________ CB HANDLE: ___________________
ADDRESS: (R.F.D. - H.C.R.) _________________________________________________
DADDY (If unknown, attach list of 3 suspects): _____________________________
MAMA: ______________________________________________________________________
NECK SHADE: ( ) LIGHT RED ( ) MEDIUM RED ( ) DARK RED
NUMBER OF TEETH EXPOSED IN FULL GRIN: _______ UPPER: _______ LOWER: _______
MAKE OF PICKUP OWNED: _____________________ SIZE OF TIRES: ________________
NUMBER OF EMPTY BEER CANS ON FLOOR OF PICKUP: ______________________________
TRUCK EQUIPPED WITH:
( ) GUN RACK ( ) MUD FLAPS ( ) CAMPER TOP ( ) AIR HORN
( ) 8 TRACK ( ) 2 METER RADIO ( ) AMERICAN FLAG ( ) RUST
( ) FUZZ BUSTER ( ) LOAD OF WOOD ( ) HIJACK SHOCKS ( ) MUD TIRES
( ) SPITTOON ( ) RUNNING BOARDS ( ) C.B. ANTENNAS ( ) ROLL BAR
BUMPER STICKERS:
( ) HONK IF YOU HAVE A LEENYER ( ) HONK IF YOU LOVE MORRIS KOAD
( ) ALMOST HEAVEN, NO-CODE ( ) I (HEART) THE STUMPJUMPERS
( ) OLD FART ( ) I LOVE HINEY WINE
( ) RTTY HAPPENS ( ) REDMAN CHEWING TOBACCO
( ) WB2OTK FOR PRESIDENT ( ) SAVE THE BLACK FLY
( ) ALL YOU ECOLOGICAL BASTARDS CAN FREEZE IN THE DARK
FAVORITE BEVERAGE:
( ) BUSCH ( ) STAG ( ) OLD STYLE ( ) FALSTAFF
( ) BUCKHORN ( ) RED WHITE & BLUE ( ) BUDWEISER ( ) OLD MILWAUKEE
( ) CRICK WATER
FAVORITE VOCALIST:
( ) ELVIS ( ) CONWAY TWITTY ( ) LORETTA LYNN
( ) SLIM WHITMAN ( ) JOHNNY CASH ( ) WILLIE NELSON
( ) DICK CURTIS ( ) GEORGE JONES ( ) YOURSELF IN THE SHOWER
( ) DREW DURRIGAN
FAVORITE RECREATION:
( ) LISTENING TO 3865 ( ) COON HUNTING ( ) JAMMING K1MAN
( ) DRINKING ( ) BLUE GRASS FEST ( ) FISHING ALONE
( ) RACE TRACK ( ) FLOATING ( ) DEER HUNTING
( ) APPLE BUTTER FEST ( ) THREE WHEELING ( ) COLLECTING 10-10 #'s
HOW MANY CARS DO YOU HAVE UP ON BLOCKS IN YOUR FRONT YARD? _________________
HOW MANY KITCHEN APPLIANCES ARE ON YOUR FRONT PORCH? ____ HOW MANY WORK? __
NUMBER OF HOUNDS: _________ TYPE: ( ) BLUE TICK ( ) BEAGLE ( ) BLACK/TAN
MEMBERSHIPS:
( ) NRA ( ) VFW ( ) PTL CLUB ( ) FISTS ( ) BARF
( ) FISH & GAME CLUB ( ) KKK ( ) WACKY WARRIORS ( ) ELKS
( ) NCI ( ) STUMPJUMPERS
BASEBALL CAP EMBLEM:
( ) JOHN DEERE ( ) HAMMARLUND ( ) SWAN ( ) CAT
( ) PREVIOUS CALL SIGN ( ) CHEVY ( ) BASS PRO ( )
COLLINS
( ) SMARTASS WHITE BOY
ARE YOU MARRIED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING? (Check all that apply)
( ) SISTER ( ) COUSIN ( ) COUSIN'S SISTER ( ) SOW
( ) COUSIN'S AUNT ( ) K4YZ's COUSIN
DOES YOUR SPOUSE WEIGH MORE THAN YOUR PICKUP? ( ) YES ( ) NO
DO YOU WEAR MOSTLY POLYESTER PANTS WITH SNAGS? ( ) YES ( ) NO
DO YOU OWN ANY SHOES (NOT COUNTING BOOTS)? IF SO, HOW MANY? ______________
LENGTH OF RIGHT LEG: _________________ LENGTH OF LEFT LEG: _________________
CAN YOU SIGN YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT CORRECTLY EVERY TIME? ( ) YES ( ) NO
HAVE YOU EVER HAD MORE THAN ONE BATH A WEEK? ( ) YES ( ) NO
ARE YOU A REGISTERED VOTER? ________ DO YOU KNOW WHERE TO DO IT? ________
DO YOU WONDER IF YOU NEED TO FILE A TAX RETURN? ( ) YES ( ) NO
DO YOU WORRY THAT YOUR HOUSE COULD BLOW AWAY IN HIGH WINDS? ( ) YES ( ) NO
WHEN WAS YOUR LAST UFO SIGHTING? ___________ ELVIS SIGHTING? ___________
MEDICAL INFORMATION (DO YOU HAVE AT LEAST TWO OF THE FOLLOWING?):
( ) B.O. ( ) CRABS ( ) HEAD LICE ( ) BAD BREATH
( ) SCABIES ( ) YELLOW TEETH ( ) GREEN TEETH ( ) FLEAS
( ) RUNNY NOSE ( ) TATTOOS ( ) CROSSED EYES ( ) STUTTER
SIGNATURE (ONE `X' WILL DO) ___________________________ DATED: ____________
Tom Fidmore
on in Tennessee for some time now. The county radio licenses
are quite legal and the federal bureaucrats would do well to keep
their obnoxious collective noses out of local affairs, lest they have
their noses clipped off and handed to them. Then again, look at
K1MAN. The FCC is leaving him alone, with good reason.
If the commission bothers Baxter anymore, he will slap the FCC
from one end of the federal court system to the other, and
Hollingsworth will be lucky to leave the commission with his
pension still intact.
Tom
"Dan Morisseau" <dp...@morisseau.org> wrote in message
news:3E012C9E...@morisseau.org...
Bill Sohl
> Exactly...you you had your own little station as a hobby or even within
the
> state doing commerce thn no federal regualtion
Wrong... No such "your own little (radio) station...can exist on a purely
intrastate basis 100% of the time. The nature of RF propogation
can't be limited to only intra-state 100% of the time.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
Why am I not surprised to find that you don't know the difference?
Brian Kelly
With Phil floating around here it's gonna be a very short project.
Methinks the Feds prempted jurisdiction in all matters radio with the
Communications Act of 1934. At least to the extent that no civilian or
civilian entity can put a legal 100w transmitter of any type in any
service without an FCC license. Anywhere. Maybe not counting the old
lowfer induction radiophones used by the railroads back when.
w3rv
Dick Carroll
Tom Fidmore wrote:
> Pirate radio enthusiasts have been closely watching the goings
> on in Tennessee for some time now. The county radio licenses
> are quite legal and the federal bureaucrats would do well to keep
> their obnoxious collective noses out of local affairs, lest they have
> their noses clipped off and handed to them. Then again, look at
> K1MAN. The FCC is leaving him alone, with good reason.
> If the commission bothers Baxter anymore, he will slap the FCC
> from one end of the federal court system to the other, and
> Hollingsworth will be lucky to leave the commission with his
> pension still intact.
More from the peanut gallery? FCC hasn't busted Baxter because he's another
nutcase and when he goes dpown it'll probably have to be the hard way. So far
he just isn't worth the trouble. The evidence is still a-building, and when
the time comes the evidence will be complete. It WILL come.
And the Tennessee "license" situation will be resolved as well. Such actions
aren't taken until ALL the background work is done, evidence collected and
everything is in place. That's all the result of lessons learned from the
past.
Dick Carroll
Brian Kelly wrote:.
>
> With Phil floating around here it's gonna be a very short project.
I'd certainly think so.
>
> Methinks the Feds prempted jurisdiction in all matters radio with the
> Communications Act of 1934.
I'm not sure but it may have began with the original Radio Act of 1912. Much modified and updated with tje Act amd the
formation of the Commission in '34.
> At least to the extent that no civilian or
> civilian entity can put a legal 100w transmitter of any type in any
> service without an FCC license. Anywhere. Maybe not counting the old
> lowfer induction radiophones used by the railroads back when.
>
Yep, even the unlicensed low power radiators and services are "authorized" by FCC action.
Dick
Linktech
Low power transmission can be calculated to be below X microvolts at X
distance,
the amount of energy past the point of being equal to interference from the
local oscillators in
domestic equipment.
Let them argue about tropo ducting, sporadic E and all the rest of their
arsenal of propaganda.
Current licenced stations transmit further than their service area anyway
and that can cause interference to other
paid up broadcasters.
I think that if the jusisdiction issue was raised with states and counties
and that they were made aware of licence income
then you may have a winner.
You lot need to group together and push this as an interest group, go take
the battle to the FCC..
Get a smart lawyer.....................
Peter
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"
Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:atrl1a$rai$0...@208.207.71.133...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002
Trent Creekmore
Lots of the people here just let the Feds run right over them and let them
to continue to think they are the ones with absolute power.
Brian
My guess is that the county has a license, and they are issuing a
piece of paper or a card, being called a "license," to those that they
have authorized to use the frequency.
Brian
Brian
Tell that to Mickey Mouse and the State of Florida. Bed tax is used
for revenue instead of state income tax.
Brian
The difference between what? Try finishing a thought once in a while.
Brian
> Is this public trough feeding bureaucratic bimbo brain damaged!!? Anyone
> with even a smattering of understanding in the area of federal pre-emption and
> communication law knows that this nonsense is laughably wrong! Someone get hold
> of these clowns and remind them that issues of this type was effectively settled
> over at Appomatox Courthouse in Virginia about 137 years ago. I'm sure they must
> have heard of it - it was in ALL the papers.
Dick was there. He broke the news using a knee key hooked up to the
telegraph wires. Wasn't no "wireless" in those days.
Tom Fidmore
"remarks"?
Tom
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:atrmh9$vjq$0...@208.207.71.133...
Tom Fidmore
Hillsdale College's battle with federal bureaucrats in Michigan.
For 20 years, Hillsdale College battled the federal department
of education for the right to be just left alone. Hillsdale College
fought for and eventually won the right to enjoy rights which were
already granted Americans in the U.S. Constitution. If more
Americans educated themselves, the federal monster could be
brought to heel, using powers the people already have in the U.S.
Constitution. The "sheeple" would rather drink beer and watch
TV football, and that is why criminal tin horn federal bureaucrats
are drunk on illegal power. The principle is simple and was
conceived a long time ago by that politically incorrect crowd in
Philadelphia known as "The Founding Fathers." THE POWER
FLOWS FROM THE PEOPLE TO THE GOVERNMENT.
How much simpler can it be said people????????????
Tom
"Trent Creekmore" <tcr...@gt.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BQgM9.14449$6H6.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Brian Running
> in your analysis.
Bill, you're misunderstanding me -- I'm not making an analysis, taking a
position, staking out turf, etc., etc. -- I am merely saying that this is an
interesting point of law, and I have acknowledged several times here that I
don't have an answer and am going to do some further research on it. Relax,
guys, there's nothing to jump on.
Brian Running
> viewpoint that radio can ever truly be 100% intrastate only
> 100% of the time.
That is not my view... Oh, never mind.
Brian Running
> states would have to give up licensing authority to the Feds.
There has to be "commerce" involved for the federal government to have
jurisdiction. Remember the ICC?
Brian Running
> basis in each of the 50 states?
>
> Methinks there's a misreading or misapplication of 47 USC 152
> in your analysis.
>
> Bill K2UNK
Okay, Bill, now after doing a little bit of research on this (not legal yet,
just scanning a Google search) I see that this topic is pretty hotly debated
by the black-helicopter kooks and separatist-militia types. I can see why
this is a hot-button issue for some of you folks -- I walked right into this
one. I assure you, I am not advocating any position on this topic at all,
but being both somewhat of a radio enthusiast and a lawyer, these legal
issues have some interest to me. I just thought I'd do a Lexis search some
time when I had a free moment, and see if the courts have interpreted the
use of radio similarly to the use of the telephone -- even if a call is not
across state lines, a telephone is an instrumentality of interstate
commerce, and is thus subject to federal regulation. That's all. Around
here, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, I guess.
Trent Creekmore
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:R1lM9.66553$Hs2.8...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Well...
Since the US Supreme court was threaten from the Congress in the 1930s that
it would stack the court with democrats ,it has upheld every Interstate
Commerce claim the Federal government put forth. There is nothing in the US
Constitution that indicates there has to be twelve justices. Shortly after
democrats took control , democrat Justices were appointed to the court
replacing the exiting one. This change is what made the US government grow
in leaps and bounds. Shortly after though, democrat Justices were appointed
to the court replacing the exiting one. It was not till the Regan years that
the court finally saw many Republicans. Before WWII the US tax was only
about 7%. During the war the is when the tax grew. It was not till the
Regan years that the court finally saw many Republicans. 1995 is the first
time since the 1930s the US Supreme court reversed the congress on an
interstate commerce in the case of US vs. Lopez.
The problem is that the courts have no real authority. They can only claim a
law unconstitutional. They cannot get rid of a law because they don't like
it. The district courts were created by congress and could be easily
dismantled. What if the president and congress decided to gang on the US
Supreme court? The court could do nothing. They only have a few bailiffs.
Their pay comes from congress.
So just because a court decides a case does not make it right. They have to
appease in many cases and hold on to what power they have.
Dick Carroll
Linktech wrote:
> I would take the FCC on over this...
>
> Low power transmission can be calculated to be below X microvolts at X
> distance,
> the amount of energy past the point of being equal to interference from the
> local oscillators in
> domestic equipment.
>
> Let them argue about tropo ducting, sporadic E and all the rest of their
> arsenal of propaganda.
>
> Current licenced stations transmit further than their service area anyway
> and that can cause interference to other
> paid up broadcasters.
>
> I think that if the jusisdiction issue was raised with states and counties
> and that they were made aware of licence income
> then you may have a winner.
>
> You lot need to group together and push this as an interest group, go take
> the battle to the FCC..
>
> Get a smart lawyer.....................
So you then believe that each and every state needs a local version of the
FCC to administer all this? Which would have to coordinate with all adjoining
states for frequency coordination and non-interference issues? Or to decide who
is and isn't too close to the borders to use "intrstate" radio? When most
states are beyond broke and in debt already? Are you serious? Why do you think
FCC got the job in the first place?
Trent Creekmore
"
> issues have some interest to me. I just thought I'd do a Lexis search
some
> time when I had a free moment, and see if the courts have interpreted the
> use of radio similarly to the use of the telephone -- even if a call is
not
> across state lines, a telephone is an instrumentality of interstate
> commerce, and is thus subject to federal regulation. That's all. Around
> here, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, I guess.
>
>
But just because it was decided that in the past does not mean it will be
decided that way in the future.
Maybe the lawyer against the regulation did not present his case very well,
or the judge was 100% pro government. It could be any number of reasons.
Things change.
What about the prohibition of alcohol in the 20s?
The biggest reason the was changed because of the people. juries were no
longer convicting people on the cases.
But now days the government lies and tells juries they must make decision of
the law only.
So many people in this country now days are ignorant sheep. They don't take
the time to look up things to learn and accept what they are told. As long
as they get their weekends off and watch their cable TV they don't care
about anything else.
I have called many government offices and ask them about their particular
area they enforce.
Their response is 100% of the time...well according to
document..publication..etc etc.
I have to stop them and say..I don't care about that, I want to know the
law. That is when they become stupor .
Here is a good example. 2 years ago I apply for a passport. On the
application it mentions about according Interal Revenue code requiring your
social security number on the application or else there could be a $500 fine
I took the time to look up this US code. It says nothing about SSN. It does
mention about tax payer identification number. SSN and TIN are not the same
thing. I called both the state department and IRS and they went into that
same stupor when I ask them about this. They said they would call me when
they could find out something. I am still waiting. Good thing I did not
wait on their response.
I just left reponse area blank. I got the passport 10 days later.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
It's all very simple - the state, which ever state it is, is going to raise so much revenue to conduct it's
affairs. The rest is a matter of detail. In my state we pay a state income tax, and the tax on our housing is
quite moderate by comparison with Texas, where your real estate tax on your home easily runs into the thousands
of dollars. But Texas has no state income tax.
They gotcha coming or going, whichever way you happen to be headed.
Dick Carroll
Brian wrote:
> Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message news:<atrl1a$rai$0...@208.207.71.133>...
> > Brian wrote:
> >
> > > Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message news:<atqf5f$2gp$0...@208.206.142.88>...
> > > > It'll never fly. The answerer was just another bureaucrat who really didn't
> > > > know what it was they were putting out.
> > > > Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity to cross state
> > > > lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on the Federal
> > > > level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
> > >
> > > It's a good thing that automobiles cannot cross state lines as the
> > > states would have to give up licensing authority to the Feds.
> >
> > Why am I not surprised to find that you don't know the difference?
>
> The difference between what? Try finishing a thought once in a while.
Why don't you try starting one occasionally? Try the difference between RF which goes every
which way with no regard to where it is, and vehicles which don't.
Unless you happen to be behind the wheel, maybe?
Dick Carroll
Brian Running wrote:
> Around
> here, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, I guess.
Sorry to say, you're right, there. Seems on usenet one is expected to explain
completely his creed and position on any given subject with each and every
post.
Patriot
agencies, with no legal justification for their existence. They have no
basis in the law and are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
Don't believe it? Take 20 minutes and read your Constitution. I
suggest you start with a strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.
Then again, forget it and go back to your beer guzzling and football
games while your kids are being taught to hate the Founding Fathers in
their government controlled schools.
Patriot
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:atss9o$8de$0...@208.206.142.111...
K0HB
: I would take the FCC on over this...
: I think that if the jusisdiction issue was raised with states
: and counties and that they were made aware of licence income
: then you may have a winner.
G'day, ya ignorant mate down there. (Damn, you Aussies spell
"license" funny.)
Since almost all counties (and even a couple of states) over here are
only a few square miles, you would have something over 3,000
jurisdictions "regulating" radio, and trying to gain some financial
reward.
Sheeeeeeeeet, and you thought CB was a mess? This would be a cluster
phuque of magnificent and spectacular magnitude!
73, de Hans, K0HB
Brian Running
Plus, I didn't notice until now that this was cross-posted to a several
groups. Oy.
John Worthington
whenever you liberal big government types cannot debate an
issue on its substance, you resort to name calling.
73 de John Worthington
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:KNmM9.2282$qU5.1...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Brian Running
> whenever you liberal big government types cannot debate an
> issue on its substance, you resort to name calling.
>
> 73 de John Worthington
John, I don't know which of the three cross-posted groups you're from, but
let me tell you, in the month or so since I've begun visiting
rec.radio.shortwave, it's been easy to see that this topic attracts some,
uh, "interesting" people. You are apparently one of those "interesting"
people.
Dave Heil
>
> The FCC and most other federal bureaucratic agencies are outlaw
> agencies, with no legal justification for their existence. They have no
> basis in the law and are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
> Don't believe it? Take 20 minutes and read your Constitution. I
> suggest you start with a strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.
> Then again, forget it and go back to your beer guzzling and football
> games while your kids are being taught to hate the Founding Fathers in
> their government controlled schools.
>
> Patriot
*Guffaw* Whew! Pardon me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my
face.
There are a lot of smart boys like you who have done time or paid large
fines (or both) as a result of their attempts at becoming homemade
lawyers.
Should you decide to test your peculiar theory, I wish you what you have
coming.
Dave K8MN
Trent Creekmore
>
> *Guffaw* Whew! Pardon me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my
> face.
> There are a lot of smart boys like you who have done time or paid large
> fines (or both) as a result of their attempts at becoming homemade
> lawyers.
>
> Should you decide to test your peculiar theory, I wish you what you have
> coming.
>
> Dave K8MN
It is people like you that think the people who represent the US government
are gods and always honest and what they say goes.
I read about a married couple who became homemade biologist after their son
came up with a rare diesease with no cure. They sure did find one.
Crash Knorr
<brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote:
> There has to be "commerce" involved for the federal government to have
> jurisdiction. Remember the ICC?
Brian, I hope you will do some research into the history of this matter
and share your findings with us. The COmmunications Act, case law, etc.
A lot of pirate broadcasters have tried a lot of legal tactics over the
past 8 decades, surely this matter has been ruled on several times by
now???
Paul W. Schleck
>>
>> *Guffaw* Whew! Pardon me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my
>> face.
>> There are a lot of smart boys like you who have done time or paid large
>> fines (or both) as a result of their attempts at becoming homemade
>> lawyers.
>>
>> Should you decide to test your peculiar theory, I wish you what you have
>> coming.
>>
>> Dave K8MN
>It is people like you that think the people who represent the US government
>are gods and always honest and what they say goes.
No, I think what he is saying is that anyone trying to go against
well-established legal precedent, and without competent legal advice, is
in for a long, hard road. Seek qualified legal counsel with expertise
in both the area of law you seek advice, and in the jurisdiction in
which you reside.
A classic example of misguided "resistance," and associated kooky legal
theories, is the tax avoidance movement. The IRS actually has a
detailed FAQ document on so-called "Frivolous Tax Arguments":
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
According to this document, not only will these frivolous arguments be
summarily dismissed by the IRS and the U.S Courts, the courts may even
assess substantial penalties just for wasting their time.
You are free to "disagree" with the IRS or the FCC, the courts that will
uphold their regulations (through multiple levels of appeal all the way
up the Supreme Court), and the U.S. Marshals that will sieze your
property and your person to enforce the law. However, that is really
beyond the scope of judicial review of the legislative and executive
branches of government. Resistance at that point falls into the realm
of armed revolution. I'll leave that discussion to the conspiracy nuts
who form "militias" because they see black helicopters wherever they go.
>I read about a married couple who became homemade biologist after their son
>came up with a rare diesease with no cure. They sure did find one.
Non-sequitur.
Law != Medicine
Furthermore, while neither field is perfect, there's much less
uncertainty in established case law about common legal questions than
there is in medical knowledge about rare diseases.
Next?
--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
John Worthington
application of the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps you should take
a high school government class, then come back here and launch
a logical debate.
Good Luck,
John Worthington
"Paul W. Schleck" <psch...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:3e024bad$0$206$45be...@newscene.com...
Brian Kelly
> Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message news:<atrss3$e8q$0...@208.206.142.114>...
> > Brian Kelly wrote:.
> >
> > >
> > > With Phil floating around here it's gonna be a very short project.
> >
> > I'd certainly think so.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Methinks the Feds prempted jurisdiction in all matters radio with the
> > > Communications Act of 1934.
> >
> > I'm not sure but it may have began with the original Radio Act of 1912. Much modified and updated with tje Act amd the
> > formation of the Commission in '34.
> >
> >
> >
> > > At least to the extent that no civilian or
> > > civilian entity can put a legal 100w transmitter of any type in any
> > > service without an FCC license. Anywhere. Maybe not counting the old
> > > lowfer induction radiophones used by the railroads back when.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, even the unlicensed low power radiators and services are "authorized" by FCC action.
> >
> > Dick
>
> My guess is that the county has a license, and they are issuing a
> piece of paper or a card, being called a "license," to those that they
> have authorized to use the frequency.
That can apply in the case of the county itself holding a land mobile
service license which permits the operation of some number of public
service base stations & mobile units under the same license. County
non-profit emergency services organizations, police, fire, etc. This
guy is apparently tossing signals out on the FM broadcast band for
commercial purposes. Pirates is pirates whether via stupidity or
intent. In either case he's inviting a knock on his door.
And this "intrasate only" crappola is just that. I can routinely copy
low-power FM BC stations in four states from here with a decent
consumer-level FM rcvr. I've worked six states on 2m FM with 25 watts
and a gain whip.
>
> Brian
w3rv
Dick Carroll
Trent Creekmore wrote:
Keep reading. You're sure to learn something.
Dick Carroll
John Worthington wrote:
> Your entire argument is trumped by the proper (and legal)
> application of the Tenth Amendment.
So whose interpretation and application of the 10th and any other amendment do
you really believe will trump all others? Yours or the US Supreme court's?
Dick Carroll
Brian Kelly wrote:
> r.
>
> And this "intrasate only" crappola is just that.
More wishful thinking.
John Worthington
standard English.
73 de John Worthington
"Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
news:attuko$qf7$0...@208.207.71.163...
Trent Creekmore
That is a bad example you gave. It makes me also believe that you fall into
that US Govt = fact/truth.
That document is written by the people whos job it is enforce the US tax
laws and is one sided and biased.
It is their job to enforce tax laws, not interpret them. This is the same
thing with the FCC. I probably could go through that document and pick it
apart. I am sure they have listed only the cases where persons have lost.
Wwhat about the ones who won a court case? The government is also known to
let it go and drop everything when a person comes up with a valid point that
could very well win in the courts. It would be better to have that one go
than go have the law changed in a way they do not want. I am sure there are
lots of people the IRS let go.
That instance happened to me when I challenged the Texas automobile
liability insurance law. the state attorney requested it be dismissed for
"certain reasons."
The "kooks" just seem to make up their own ideas. If you take the time to
actaully read those laws then you will see problems with them. They are not
written in chinese and do not have to be interpreted.
The US Constitution says that the Supreme court is the interpreter of the
Consitution, but that only means the government.
The people are the real final interpreters via juries. This is one of the
major reasons why prohibition was finally reversed. Juries finally stopped
convicting people of alcohol crimes.
>
> >I read about a married couple who became homemade biologist after their
son
> >came up with a rare diesease with no cure. They sure did find one.
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
> Law != Medicine
>
> Furthermore, while neither field is perfect, there's much less
> uncertainty in established case law about common legal questions than
> there is in medical knowledge about rare diseases.
Huh??? The cure for AIDS draws closer but still there is no knowlege to even
begin where to find a cure for the common cold. That sounds like much more
uncertianty than law.
Larry Roll K3LT
73 de Larry, K3LT
John Anderson
-John-
In article <BQgM9.14449$6H6.5...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "Trent
Creekmore" <tcr...@gt.rr.com> wrote:
> hear hear!
>
> Lots of the people here just let the Feds run right over them and let
> them
> to continue to think they are the ones with absolute power.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > You lot need to group together and push this as an interest group, go
> > take
> > the battle to the FCC..
> >
> > Get a smart lawyer.....................
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
> > There is a solution!"
> >
> > Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
> > The most powerful anti-spam software available.
> > http://www.giantcompany.com
> >
> >
> > "Dick Carroll" <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
> > news:atrl1a$rai$0...@208.207.71.133...
> > >
> > >
> > > Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dick Carroll <di...@townsqr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<atqf5f$2gp$0...@208.206.142.88>...
> > > > > It'll never fly. The answerer was just another bureaucrat who
> > > > > really
> > didn't
> > > > > know what it was they were putting out.
> > > > > Federal courts long ago ruled that since radio has the capacity
> > > > > to
> > cross state
> > > > > lines with no regard for jurisdictions it will be regulated on
> > > > > the
> > Federal
> > > > > level. A single letter from any functionary won't change that.
> > > >
> > > > It's a good thing that automobiles cannot cross state lines as the
> > > > states would have to give up licensing authority to the Feds.
> > >
> > > Why am I not surprised to find that you don't know the difference?
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002
> >
> >
>
>
--
.......................
John Anderson
DIYmedia
http://www.diymedia.net
.......................
Dick Carroll
John Worthington wrote:
> My good man, your basic problem is you cannot comprehend
> standard English.
Try using some.
Bill Sohl
>
> Linktech wrote:
> > I would take the FCC on over this...
> >
> > Low power transmission can be calculated to be below X microvolts at X
> > distance,
> > the amount of energy past the point of being equal to interference from
the
> > local oscillators in
> > domestic equipment.
> >
> > Let them argue about tropo ducting, sporadic E and all the rest of their
> > arsenal of propaganda.
> >
> > Current licenced stations transmit further than their service area
anyway
> > and that can cause interference to other
> > paid up broadcasters.
> >
> > I think that if the jusisdiction issue was raised with states and
counties
> > and that they were made aware of licence income
> > then you may have a winner.
I'd love to see the engineering/scientific arguments that would support
this intra-state only silliness. Like it or not, there is NO way to
limit radio propogation.
> > You lot need to group together and push this as an interest group, go
take
> > the battle to the FCC..
> >
> > Get a smart lawyer.....................
Any smart lawyer will avoid this unless s/he is getting paid directly
and not on a contingency.
> So you then believe that each and every state needs a local version of
the
> FCC to administer all this? Which would have to coordinate with all
adjoining
> states for frequency coordination and non-interference issues? Or to
decide who
> is and isn't too close to the borders to use "intrstate" radio? When most
> states are beyond broke and in debt already? Are you serious? Why do you
think
> FCC got the job in the first place?
It is so comical it's almost pathetic.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Trent Creekmore
In theory radio waves travel indefinitely.
But~~
Use a little common sense.
if Some hobbiest is using a 5 watt transmitter in the center Kansas, will a
person in New York pick up that transmission on their auto's FM radio?
You have to consider the effect range of the transmitter.
Bill Sohl
"John Worthington" <J...@wowwaz.net> wrote in message
news:attjqk$2af$0...@pita.alt.net...
> Your entire argument is trumped by the proper (and legal)
> application of the Tenth Amendment. Perhaps you should take
> a high school government class, then come back here and launch
> a logical debate.
Isn't it amazing, therefore, that you claim such clarity
of legal analysis and attribute same to High School government classes...yet
the 9 justices of the Supreme Court apparently can't?
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
>
> In theory radio waves travel indefinitely.
>
> But~~
>
> Use a little common sense.
> if Some hobbiest is using a 5 watt transmitter in the center Kansas, will
a
> person in New York pick up that transmission on their auto's FM radio?
> You have to consider the effect range of the transmitter.
And in the above "strawman" it isn't NY, but rather it is ANY
state other than Kansas that might be affected. And there is
no way to guarantee that even a 5w FM transmitter in the middle
of Kansas can be limited to ONLY the state of Kansas.
That's not simply common sense, it is also scientific fact.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
KØHB
:
: In theory radio waves travel indefinitely.
:
: But~~
:
: Use a little common sense.
: if Some hobbiest is using a 5 watt transmitter in the center Kansas, will
a
: person in New York pick up that transmission on their auto's FM radio?
:
: You have to consider the effect range of the transmitter.
:
If every county can issue licenses, then use a little common sense! A
5-watt transmitter FM transmitter in flat-assed central Kansas is likely to
be heard in several surrounding counties who might also be licensing
transmitters on the same frequency.
Better yet, a 5-watt FM transmitter in the high country around Denver might
be heard in 3 or 4 states!
Now are you getting a clue why the Feds (FCC) has pre-empted the management
of radio station licensing?
Like you say, use a little common sense!
With all kind wishes,
de Hans, K0HB
Trent Creekmore
"> And in the above "strawman" it isn't NY, but rather it is ANY
> state other than Kansas that might be affected. And there is
> no way to guarantee that even a 5w FM transmitter in the middle
> of Kansas can be limited to ONLY the state of Kansas.
> That's not simply common sense, it is also scientific fact.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
>
It does not matter if the signal goes into another state.
So I guess you are saying that a 5 watt transmistter in kansas is going to
affect a 100,000 watt transmitter on the same frequency in Misouri??
You better study some more
Trent Creekmore
> If every county can issue licenses, then use a little common sense! A
> 5-watt transmitter FM transmitter in flat-assed central Kansas is likely
to
> be heard in several surrounding counties who might also be licensing
> transmitters on the same frequency.
>
> Better yet, a 5-watt FM transmitter in the high country around Denver
might
> be heard in 3 or 4 states!
>
> Now are you getting a clue why the Feds (FCC) has pre-empted the
management
> of radio station licensing?
>
> Like you say, use a little common sense!
I do use common sense, it is a document that sets up the US Government and
their powers. And one of them is ro regulate commerce among the several
states. Not in a state
BIAS COMMS
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:atu7ga$m06$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Isn't it amazing, therefore, that you claim such clarity
> of legal analysis and attribute same to High School government
classes...yet
> the 9 justices of the Supreme Court apparently can't?
Perhaps they don't want to - American Law and American Business are both
enormously affected by the "vested interest" syndrome.
--
BIAS COMMS
Everything gets easier with practice except getting up in the morning
Dick Carroll
Trent Creekmore wrote:
I'd reccomend that you just study *some*.
BIAS COMMS
"KØHB" <kØh...@arrl.DOTORG> wrote in message
news:poxM9.1811$n97.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Better yet, a 5-watt FM transmitter in the high country around Denver
might
> be heard in 3 or 4 states!
With sensible frequency planning, that simply won't happen. Capture Effect
allows the use of many transmitters on the same frequency if they are
geographically spread in a sensible way. The "5 Watts in Denver" example is
a nonsense - we're talking about broadcasting in the FM broadcast band, not
NBFM amateur operation. You're talking about receivers with poor
sensitivity and selectivity. (You're also talking about listeners who
refuse to use a proper receiving antenna, but that's a different issue).
> Now are you getting a clue why the Feds (FCC) has pre-empted the
management
> of radio station licensing?
The FCC has a poor reputation for broadcast planning - they are, frankly,
inept. They also have a poor reputation for enforcement of their rules,
particularly when it's one of the big commercial radio concerns - there
isn't a single FM station in any major American city that isn't operating
outside the rules. They are almost invariably overdeviated, carrying
"unlicenced" additional services, and putting out substantial amounts of
harmonic and spurious rubbish. Many of the problems have been caused by
downgrading the engineering jobs (particularly by Clear Channel) to the
point where janitors actually earn more (and are often better qualified)
than the "engineers"!
KØHB
: With sensible frequency planning, that simply won't happen.
Sensible frequency planning? If each county is in charge of their own
licensing (there are upwards of 3,000 counties over here in the colonies)
how do you coordinate that? Then how do you coordinate between the 48
contiguous states? Damn, maybe this IS a job best left to the Feds, sorta
like the FAA keeps airplanes sorted out, etc.
: The FCC has a poor reputation for broadcast planning - they are, frankly,
: inept. They also have a poor reputation for enforcement of their rules,
: particularly when it's one of the big commercial radio concerns - there
: isn't a single FM station in any major American city that isn't operating
: outside the rules. They are almost invariably overdeviated, carrying
: "unlicenced" additional services, and putting out substantial amounts of
: harmonic and spurious rubbish. Many of the problems have been caused by
: downgrading the engineering jobs (particularly by Clear Channel) to the
: point where janitors actually earn more (and are often better qualified)
: than the "engineers"!
:
Given that jeremiad of problems by a well funded federal agency, am I to
believe that the situation would be better if instead of a single regulator,
there were something like 3,000 of them, one in each county across the
country, with 1/3000th of the talent available to FCC?
Did someone mention common sense?
With all kind wishes,
Hans, K0HB
KØHB
:
: Perhaps they don't want to - American Law and American Business are both
: enormously affected by the "vested interest" syndrome.
:
As opposed to your British Law and British Business over there?
KØHB
:
: Perhaps they don't want to - American Law and American Business are both
: enormously affected by the "vested interest" syndrome.
:
Of course Bias Comms, selling your cheap and dirty little transmitters out
of the UK, wouldn't have a "vested interest" in deregulating FM broadcasting
on these shores, now would you?
Sunuvagun!
Dave Heil
>
> >
> > *Guffaw* Whew! Pardon me while I wipe the tears of laughter from my
> > face.
> > There are a lot of smart boys like you who have done time or paid large
> > fines (or both) as a result of their attempts at becoming homemade
> > lawyers.
> >
> > Should you decide to test your peculiar theory, I wish you what you have
> > coming.
> >
> > Dave K8MN
>
> It is people like you that think the people who represent the US government
> are gods and always honest and what they say goes.
You must have me mixed up with somone else. People like me are amused
by people like you. Be sure to wrap yourself in aluminum foil before
going outdoors.
> I read about a married couple who became homemade biologist after their son
> came up with a rare diesease with no cure. They sure did find one.
I don't believe you.
Dave K8MN
Trent Creekmore
government rape you of your right.
Happy beer drinking and watsign away
"Dave Heil" <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E02B3CC...@earthlink.net...