Now it seems that they're quoting the Mitre Report and saying that the FCC has determined that it's okay to park an FM station 2 channels away from another one in the same community. These guys have the mistaken belief that their proposed 91.3 is really 4 channels away from 91.7, because they think FM channels are 100kHz apart. As far as I have been able to determine, they plan to go ahead with their fundraiser and to put their station on the air from just 1 mile away from the KALW transmitter.
Of course, the Mitre Report says nothing about 2nd adjacencies (such as 91.3 to 91.7), except to say that current FCC mileage separatations are adequate. And, it's also talking mainly about digital anyway, but these guys will pretend just about anything to try to justify their station.
> Now it seems that they're quoting the Mitre Report and saying that the > FCC has determined that it's okay to park an FM station 2 channels away > from another one in the same community. These guys have the mistaken > belief that their proposed 91.3 is really 4 channels away from 91.7, > because they think FM channels are 100kHz apart. As far as I have been > able to determine, they plan to go ahead with their fundraiser and to > put their station on the air from just 1 mile away from the KALW > transmitter.
> Of course, the Mitre Report says nothing about 2nd adjacencies (such as > 91.3 to 91.7), except to say that current FCC mileage separatations are > adequate. And, it's also talking mainly about digital anyway, but > these guys will pretend just about anything to try to justify their > station.
> Watch out KALW, KKUP, KCSM, KUOP.
As soon as they hit the air, I'll have them DF'ed and see if the SF Regional office of the FCC agrees with their assessment.
By the way, I never so much as received a reply to my email, so they're at the top of my hit list. Wait until they find out what trouble from me is all about.
David kaye wrote: > Now it seems that they're quoting the Mitre Report and saying that the FCC has determined that it's okay to park an FM station 2 channels away from another one in the same community.
I'm wondering if the Mitre Report also says that the FCC allows unlicensed operation?
I can't wait to read Mr. Higdon's hunting expedition story and the photographs that will accompany it. Great fun!
I think the Radio X people may want to consider making their station Internet-only, rather than going on the air illegally and incurring the wrath of people that do this professionally (and legally).
In article <1149010175.343244.6...@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"DavidFJackson" <djack...@bayarearadio.org> wrote: > I can't wait to read Mr. Higdon's hunting expedition story and the > photographs that will accompany it. Great fun!
If it weren't for some fires that needed extinguishing this past weekend, the south bay Spanish pirates would have been hit by me. Two chiefs at a couple of major Bay Area clusters think this is great fun, and I can count on their assistance at any time.
> I think the Radio X people may want to consider making their station > Internet-only, rather than going on the air illegally and incurring the > wrath of people that do this professionally (and legally).
Well, I've sent my cordial greetings and got no response. Apparently, if they can't think of anything nasty to say, they don't say anything. I wish there were some way to effectively communicate to them that A) I'm not bluffing; and B) I can and will be their worst nightmare when it comes to dogged effort to put them in regulatory hot water. Oh, and by the way...they won't get my first time/last time offer. The first visit they will receive will be from the Feds, who will have nailed them up front.
I will NOT have them interfering with one of my licensed "children", especially considering the hell we continuously go through to make sure our operation complies with the terms of our *license*. Who they are and what they claim to represent cuts no ice with me. There are plenty of *licensed* stations in the educational band who are just as if not more deserving the enjoyment of getting their signals to listeners.
On 30 May 2006 09:29:49 -0700, "David Kaye" <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Of course, the Mitre Report says nothing about 2nd adjacencies (such as >91.3 to 91.7), except to say that current FCC mileage separatations are >adequate. And, it's also talking mainly about digital anyway, but >these guys will pretend just about anything to try to justify their >station.
Looks like they are...oooooh, creative! Oooooh!
Look at their schedule. One of their DJs is using the air name "Denny Crane". Nothing says creativity like swiping your air name from a popular network TV show. ("Boston Legal", in this case, the character played by William Shatner.) What's next, music with Homer Simpson?
Another show is called "The Blank Chick Show". Oooh, I get it. Blank CHICK instead of Blank CHECK!
> Now it seems that they're quoting the Mitre Report and saying that the > FCC has determined that it's okay to park an FM station 2 channels away > from another one in the same community. These guys have the mistaken > belief that their proposed 91.3 is really 4 channels away from 91.7, > because they think FM channels are 100kHz apart. As far as I have been > able to determine, they plan to go ahead with their fundraiser and to > put their station on the air from just 1 mile away from the KALW > transmitter.
> Of course, the Mitre Report says nothing about 2nd adjacencies (such as > 91.3 to 91.7), except to say that current FCC mileage separatations are > adequate. And, it's also talking mainly about digital anyway, but > these guys will pretend just about anything to try to justify their > station.
> Watch out KALW, KKUP, KCSM, KUOP.
I dont think KUOP would be affeected, as they are around 100 miles away from the proposed Radio X transmitter. The other stations you mention would be affected, but KUOP would not.
In article <5ZGdnT65JtayuRzZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdn...@comcast.com>, "Charles Newman" <charlesnewm...@comcast.do.not.spam.me.net> wrote:
> I dont think KUOP would be affeected, as > they are around 100 miles away from the > proposed Radio X transmitter. The other > stations you mention would be affected, > but KUOP would not.
> On 30 May 2006 09:29:49 -0700, "David Kaye" <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >Of course, the Mitre Report says nothing about 2nd adjacencies (such as > >91.3 to 91.7), except to say that current FCC mileage separatations are > >adequate. And, it's also talking mainly about digital anyway, but > >these guys will pretend just about anything to try to justify their > >station.
> Looks like they are...oooooh, creative! Oooooh!
> Look at their schedule. One of their DJs is using the air name "Denny > Crane". Nothing says creativity like swiping your air name from a > popular network TV show. ("Boston Legal", in this case, the character > played by William Shatner.) What's next, music with Homer Simpson?
The use is aliases is no different from our periodic anonuymous Australian posters on here. All of them, as far as I know, except "Joe Gunchey" and "Alfred Lord Tennisball" are drawn from movie and TV characters. Its not that uncommon to use pseudonyms drawn from movie and TV characters, I can look in the Google archives and find thousands of messages from all over the world drawn from movie and TV characters.
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:51:28 -0700, "Charles Newman"
<charlesnewm...@comcast.do.not.spam.me.net> wrote: > The use is aliases is no different from our >periodic anonuymous Australian posters on here.
Geez, Chuckie, you do it as often as you breathe air, and you can't even spell the word!
>All of them, as far as I know, except "Joe >Gunchey" and "Alfred Lord Tennisball" are >drawn from movie and TV characters. Its >not that uncommon to use pseudonyms drawn >from movie and TV characters, I can look in >the Google archives and find thousands of >messages from all over the world drawn >from movie and TV characters.
Billions of people have bought hamburgers from McDonald's. That doesn't make a Quarter Pounder a prime rib.
In article <a8f3821um1ni4htc563jtb22uh0ji9b...@4ax.com>, Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> Billions of people have bought hamburgers from McDonald's. That > doesn't make a Quarter Pounder a prime rib.
Gee, that what I say about Microsoft Windows. It may have 90% of the world's desktops, but that fact does not mean that it is a superior operating system any more than McDonald's is fine food.
In article <greenfalcon-8D973A.11191203062...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Tom Groom <greenfal...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> In article <_9idnRh3_awD0BzZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdn...@comcast.com>, > "Charles Newman" <charlesnewm...@comcast.do.not.spam.me.net> wrote:
> > The use is aliases is no different from our > > periodic anonuymous Australian posters on here.
> Which are all creations of your own. Too bad you couldn't have channeled > all that energy getting into legitimate broadcasting.
In my discussions with pirates and potential pirates, a theme emerges. In an effort to get my sympathies, there is usually thread that amounts to a declaration that the pirate intends to obey all the laws that licensed stations follow.
That's nonsense. In addition to the trouble of getting a license, a legitimate broadcaster must *keep* his license. This means:
* Maintaining a Public File, the contents of which is specified in Part 73. Most pirates haven't a clue regarding the maintenance of a Public File.
* Documenting the station's community and issues-oriented programming. That requirement has never been dropped, notwithstanding comments made in this very group.
* Measuring and certifying correct power levels and lack of spurious emissions from the transmitting chain. Admittedly, it is hard to show compliance with the terms of one's license when he doesn't have one in the first place, but this is something *licensed* broadcasters must do. Pirates get a pass, I guess.
* Declaration and maintenance of hours of operation.
* Filing of ownership reports.
* Maintenance of authorization applications for public inspection. Again, not really applicable to pirates for obvious reasons.
* Creation and maintenance of an EAS plan, along with weekly and monthly tests, and cooperation with other broadcasters to provide information in the even of an emergency.
I just realized: this post could go on and on with duties and responsibilities EVERY licensed station is obligated to perform and accept which NO pirate bothers with.
Pirates take note: I don't want to hear about how you are being so circumspect when it comes to your illegal operation. You are just putting a noise on the air compared to what *real* broadcasters have to do to continue to be *real* broadcasters.
John Higdon wrote: > * Documenting the station's community and issues-oriented programming. > That requirement has never been dropped, notwithstanding comments made > in this very group.
If you're referring to me, I'm not saying that documenting the public service has been dropped, just that stations do far less of it than they used to. While most stations had a public affairs director whose job was to coordinate PSAs for airing, bring in guests for interview shows, and the like, today most stations do not have a public affairs director; it is often filled on a parttime basis by another staffer or farmed out to an intern. And PSAs? A thing of the past for the most part. Interview shows? Usually just running the Commonwealth Club broadcasts.
Oh sure, there is stuff in the public file, and it looks like hey, they've all done lots of good service, and they have a survey showing what are perceived as community needs. But over a year a page showing each week's Commonwealth Club broadcasts amounts to 52 pages in the public file. It looks impressive even if the broadcasts were aired at 6:00am as KOIT does.
Now, this is not discounting programming like KMEL's Street Soldiers, still a remarkable community program that reaches its core constituency, running each Sunday starting at 8. It's just that stations do far less of this kind of thing than they used to, and the FCC seems less interested in holding stations to doing public service than they do toward reporting properly on what they did do.
In article <1149361090.350240.38...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "David Kaye" <sfdavidka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you're referring to me, I'm not saying that documenting the public > service has been dropped, just that stations do far less of it than > they used to. While most stations had a public affairs director whose > job was to coordinate PSAs for airing, bring in guests for interview > shows, and the like, today most stations do not have a public affairs > director; it is often filled on a parttime basis by another staffer or > farmed out to an intern. And PSAs? A thing of the past for the most > part. Interview shows? Usually just running the Commonwealth Club > broadcasts.
I am one of the maintainers of the Public File at KKUP. Most of what I do is insert volumes (I mean *volumes*) of public affairs documentation into the PIF, which, because of its size is now stored electronically and made available for viewing on a PDF. Over 90% of the mass of the PIF relates to public issues and the programming that covers these issues.
> Oh sure, there is stuff in the public file, and it looks like hey, > they've all done lots of good service, and they have a survey showing > what are perceived as community needs. But over a year a page showing > each week's Commonwealth Club broadcasts amounts to 52 pages in the > public file. It looks impressive even if the broadcasts were aired at > 6:00am as KOIT does.
KKUP has hundreds of pages per year, each "page" containing many hours and days of such programming.
> Now, this is not discounting programming like KMEL's Street Soldiers, > still a remarkable community program that reaches its core > constituency, running each Sunday starting at 8. It's just that > stations do far less of this kind of thing than they used to, and the > FCC seems less interested in holding stations to doing public service > than they do toward reporting properly on what they did do.
What was the issue that threatened the license at KALW? And you still maintain that public affairs programming is "uninteresting" to the FCC?
Mike Ward wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:51:28 -0700, "Charles Newman" > <charlesnewm...@comcast.do.not.spam.me.net> wrote:
> > The use is aliases is no different from our > >periodic anonuymous Australian posters on here.
> Geez, Chuckie, you do it as often as you breathe air, and you can't > even spell the word!
> >All of them, as far as I know, except "Joe > >Gunchey" and "Alfred Lord Tennisball" are > >drawn from movie and TV characters. Its > >not that uncommon to use pseudonyms drawn > >from movie and TV characters, I can look in > >the Google archives and find thousands of > >messages from all over the world drawn > >from movie and TV characters.
> Billions of people have bought hamburgers from McDonald's. That > doesn't make a Quarter Pounder a prime rib.
John Higdon wrote: > In article <a8f3821um1ni4htc563jtb22uh0ji9b...@4ax.com>, > Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> > Billions of people have bought hamburgers from McDonald's. That > > doesn't make a Quarter Pounder a prime rib.
> Gee, that what I say about Microsoft Windows. It may have 90% of the > world's desktops, but that fact does not mean that it is a superior > operating system any more than McDonald's is fine food.
> > > The use is aliases is no different from our > > > periodic anonuymous Australian posters on here.
> > Which are all creations of your own. Too bad you couldn't have channeled > > all that energy getting into legitimate broadcasting.
> In my discussions with pirates and potential pirates, a theme emerges. > In an effort to get my sympathies, there is usually thread that amounts > to a declaration that the pirate intends to obey all the laws that > licensed stations follow.
> That's nonsense. In addition to the trouble of getting a license, a > legitimate broadcaster must *keep* his license. This means:
> * Maintaining a Public File, the contents of which is specified in Part > 73. Most pirates haven't a clue regarding the maintenance of a Public > File.
> * Documenting the station's community and issues-oriented programming. > That requirement has never been dropped, notwithstanding comments made > in this very group.
> * Measuring and certifying correct power levels and lack of spurious > emissions from the transmitting chain. Admittedly, it is hard to show > compliance with the terms of one's license when he doesn't have one in > the first place, but this is something *licensed* broadcasters must do. > Pirates get a pass, I guess.
> * Declaration and maintenance of hours of operation.
> * Filing of ownership reports.
> * Maintenance of authorization applications for public inspection. > Again, not really applicable to pirates for obvious reasons.
> * Creation and maintenance of an EAS plan, along with weekly and monthly > tests, and cooperation with other broadcasters to provide information in > the even of an emergency.
> I just realized: this post could go on and on with duties and > responsibilities EVERY licensed station is obligated to perform and > accept which NO pirate bothers with.
> Pirates take note: I don't want to hear about how you are being so > circumspect when it comes to your illegal operation. You are just > putting a noise on the air compared to what *real* broadcasters have to > do to continue to be *real* broadcasters.
> Take your toys and go home.
> -- > John Higdon > +1 408 266 4400
You're not getting the car, son, I know about the party.
> In article <a8f3821um1ni4htc563jtb22uh0ji9b...@4ax.com>, > Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> > Billions of people have bought hamburgers from McDonald's. That > > doesn't make a Quarter Pounder a prime rib.
> Gee, that what I say about Microsoft Windows. It may have 90% of the > world's desktops, but that fact does not mean that it is a superior > operating system any more than McDonald's is fine food.
Windows in the standard in computing. Nearly every software product on the market is made for Windows.
Also, there was a test published in Maximum PC, that showed Windows to run faster on the new Intel/AMD-based Macs, than Apple's own operating system. Windows beats MacOS X when it comes to speed and power.
In article <w6KdnY8ZRJftaBzZnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@comcast.com>, "Charles Newman" <charlesnewm...@comcast.do.not.spam.me.net> wrote:
> Windows in the standard in computing. Nearly every > software product on the market is made for > Windows.
Windows is the anti-standard. Every single Internet standard, all developed twenty years before Bill Gates even acknowledged the existence of the Internet has been subverted in some way by him. Just because Bill floods the market with broken wares doesn't make for "standards".
> Also, there was a test published in Maximum PC, > that showed Windows to run faster on the new > Intel/AMD-based Macs, than Apple's own > operating system. Windows beats MacOS X > when it comes to speed and power.
Different functions run faster or slower depending on a lot of factors. But more importantly, functionality, stability, and security are far more important than some minor differences in certain raw speeds.
John Higdon wrote: > In my discussions with pirates and potential pirates, a theme emerges. > In an effort to get my sympathies, there is usually thread that amounts > to a declaration that the pirate intends to obey all the laws that > licensed stations follow.
We used to hear that from the CB "pirates" : "We always obey the legal laws....." -- Phil Kane
Charles Newman wrote: > Windows in the standard in computing. Nearly every > software product on the market is made for > Windows.
Except those that are written for other operating systems.
I reluctantly had to migrate from a superior OS (IBM OS/2) to Win because four of my "must have" apps exist only in Win32 versions and one more was "upgraded" to a Win32 version. If someday I behave and am a good boy and eat all the cereal on my plate and the stars are aligned right and those programs are all ported to the Linux or Mac platforms or even back to IBM OS/2, XP and I go "bye-bye". The HDs for OS/2 and Linux are being stored serviceable in their slide-in trays waiting for that day, just like my ancestors stored the key to their villa in Bavel, a suburb of today's Baghdad, after they were expelled from it in the 13th Century. -- Phil Kane
|
