Red Wave Radio

Hi Aaron,

I don't want you to feel that I'm unfair with you in any way. I'll be the first
one to point out that a reader rebuffed an earlier letter of mine. In my
letter, I'd pointed out that it was difficult to apply the term "illegal" to
the breaking of FCC rules/regs since the FCC has no voted representation. I
further pointed out that, I do realize that the FCC rules/regs are laws and the
violation of said laws technically and correctly termed "illegal." I was just
making a point.

While the reader stated "I realize he <me> was just making a point, however,
considering the confusion with the definition of "is" some freebanders might be
disoriented and not read between the lines of his letter." This sounds very
much like your assertion that some "impressionable" freebanders might infer a
degree of righteousness. This was not my intent and I am certainly not above a
public apology if anybody inferred such from my words. He then goes on to issue
a reminder with "So a word of warning to your freeband readers - check the
options the FCC has if a person is found guilty of illegal operations in the
radio spectrum by an unlicensed station." This is very correct and I'll be the
first to say so. So perhaps, you can send this fellow an anti-freebanding
bumper sticker.

Unfortunately for this reader, it turns out he was the unknowing victim of a,
somewhat cruel, April fool's joke. The case he chose to cite was a spoof run by
the staff of CQ Amateur Radio magazine (Pop'Comm's sister publication.) on pp.
28-32 of their April 2001 issue.  Perhaps he should've followed his own advise
and done some research before submitting a letter citing specific enforcement
actions. Despite his minor mishap, (Which resulted in his being heartily
heckled by the editor.) his message is correct. This letter and the editor's
response can be found on pp. 76-77 of the October 2001 issue.

I also have excerpts of my USENET posts along with those of a well-known
r.r.cb/r.r.a.p. poster appear on pp. 26-27 under the title of 'Follow The
Money.' Some of you may remember this thread. It was titled 'ARRL PRAISES
CBERS' on r.r.a.p., and it ended up being 569 articles long. (I think that's
the correct thread?) So there you have it, Aaron. I'll rib you when you're
wrong, but no more so than I'd have done to myself.

73 de Bert
KC2HMN

Bert our Senators call it Illegal, So If it talks Illegal, It looks Illegal,
it smells illegal, Its usually Bill Clinton.

"President Bill Clinton has signed legislation that permits
the enforcement of certain FCC Citizen Band regulations by state
and local governments.  "Congressional lawmakers saw the measure as a way to
give a
voice to those experiencing radio frequency interference resulting
from illegal CB radio operation.  The FCC will not yield its
authority to regulate Citizens Band or other radio services,
however.
     "In short, the measure authorizes states and localities to
enact laws that prohibit the use of unauthorized CB equipment
- - consistent with FCC regulations.  This would include the use
of high-power linear amplifiers or equipment that was not FCC-
certificated.
     "FCC --licensed stations in any radio service - are excluded
from such state or local enforcement, and state or local laws
enacted under this legislation must identify this exemption.
     "The bill - HR.2246 is the House version; it was S.2767 in
the Senate - - actually is the old Senate "Feingold bill" from
several sessions ago.  The bill's sponsor, Rep Vernon Ehlers
of Michigan says local hams asked him to support the bill because
of the bad rap they were getting from illegal Cbers using high-
power linear amplifiers that resulted in TV and telephone inter-
ference while the Cbers involved hid behind federal preemption.
     "As did Feingold before him, Ehlers asked the ARRL to review
his measure to ensure that it would not unintentionally harm
Amateur Radio.

Quote:> Hi Aaron,

> I don't want you to feel that I'm unfair with you in any way. I'll be the
first
> one to point out that a reader rebuffed an earlier letter of mine. In my
> letter, I'd pointed out that it was difficult to apply the term "illegal"
to
> the breaking of FCC rules/regs since the FCC has no voted representation.
I
> further pointed out that, I do realize that the FCC rules/regs are laws
and the
> violation of said laws technically and correctly termed "illegal." I was
just
> making a point.

> While the reader stated "I realize he <me> was just making a point,
however,
> considering the confusion with the definition of "is" some freebanders
might be
> disoriented and not read between the lines of his letter." This sounds
very
> much like your assertion that some "impressionable" freebanders might
infer a
> degree of righteousness. This was not my intent and I am certainly not
above a
> public apology if anybody inferred such from my words. He then goes on to
issue
> a reminder with "So a word of warning to your freeband readers - check the
> options the FCC has if a person is found guilty of illegal operations in
the
> radio spectrum by an unlicensed station." This is very correct and I'll be
the
> first to say so. So perhaps, you can send this fellow an anti-freebanding
> bumper sticker.

> Unfortunately for this reader, it turns out he was the unknowing victim of
a,
> somewhat cruel, April fool's joke. The case he chose to cite was a spoof
run by
> the staff of CQ Amateur Radio magazine (Pop'Comm's sister publication.) on
pp.
> 28-32 of their April 2001 issue.  Perhaps he should've followed his own
advise
> and done some research before submitting a letter citing specific
enforcement
> actions. Despite his minor mishap, (Which resulted in his being heartily
> heckled by the editor.) his message is correct. This letter and the
editor's
> response can be found on pp. 76-77 of the October 2001 issue.

> I also have excerpts of my USENET posts along with those of a well-known
> r.r.cb/r.r.a.p. poster appear on pp. 26-27 under the title of 'Follow The
> Money.' Some of you may remember this thread. It was titled 'ARRL PRAISES
> CBERS' on r.r.a.p., and it ended up being 569 articles long. (I think
that's
> the correct thread?) So there you have it, Aaron. I'll rib you when you're
> wrong, but no more so than I'd have done to myself.

> 73 de Bert
> KC2HMN

Quote:>   "In short, the measure authorizes states and localities to
>enact laws that prohibit the use of unauthorized CB equipment
>- - consistent with FCC regulations.

To date, not one locality has enacted any such laws. If your research comes up
with any data to the contrary, please post it for the benefit of the NG. Pretty
old news, some (Myself included.) feel that this was the FCC "unofficially"
washing it's hands of CB enforcement.

With the recent, and not so recent, behaviour of our elected official...it
strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder what poor Ms. Condit's
views might be on our Senator's concerns for the welfare of the people? Don't
mind me, empty screen name trolls put me in a catty mood.

73 de Bert
KC2HMN

Quote:>Hi Aaron,

>I don't want you to feel that I'm unfair with you in any way. I'll be the
>first
>one to point out that a reader rebuffed an earlier letter of mine. In my
>letter, I'd pointed out that it was difficult to apply the term "illegal" to
>the breaking of FCC rules/regs since the FCC has no voted representation. I
>further pointed out that, I do realize that the FCC rules/regs are laws and
>the
>violation of said laws technically and correctly termed "illegal." I was just
>making a point.

>While the reader stated "I realize he <me> was just making a point, however,
>considering the confusion with the definition of "is" some freebanders might
>be
>disoriented and not read between the lines of his letter." This sounds very
>much like your assertion that some "impressionable" freebanders might infer a
>degree of righteousness. This was not my intent and I am certainly not above
>a
>public apology if anybody inferred such from my words. He then goes on to
>issue
>a reminder with "So a word of warning to your freeband readers - check the
>options the FCC has if a person is found guilty of illegal operations in the
>radio spectrum by an unlicensed station." This is very correct and I'll be
>the
>first to say so. So perhaps, you can send this fellow an anti-freebanding
>bumper sticker.

>Unfortunately for this reader, it turns out he was the unknowing victim of a,
>somewhat cruel, April fool's joke. The case he chose to cite was a spoof run
>by
>the staff of CQ Amateur Radio magazine (Pop'Comm's sister publication.) on
>pp.
>28-32 of their April 2001 issue.  Perhaps he should've followed his own
>advise
>and done some research before submitting a letter citing specific enforcement
>actions. Despite his minor mishap, (Which resulted in his being heartily
>heckled by the editor.) his message is correct. This letter and the editor's
>response can be found on pp. 76-77 of the October 2001 issue.

>I also have excerpts of my USENET posts along with those of a well-known
>r.r.cb/r.r.a.p. poster appear on pp. 26-27 under the title of 'Follow The
>Money.' Some of you may remember this thread. It was titled 'ARRL PRAISES
>CBERS' on r.r.a.p., and it ended up being 569 articles long. (I think that's
>the correct thread?) So there you have it, Aaron. I'll rib you when you're
>wrong, but no more so than I'd have done to myself.

>73 de Bert
>KC2HMN

Good post. You once called me a "class act." Now's an appropriate time for me
to return the compliment. Your humility only helps the image of 11 meter
enthusiasts. Nice to see your willingness to be very visable. The "screen name
trolls" (Nice term, I'll borrow it.) are unable to take advantage of such a
luxury. Take care and 73.

Mark

Quote:>>   "In short, the measure authorizes states and localities to
>>enact laws that prohibit the use of unauthorized CB equipment
>>- - consistent with FCC regulations.

>To date, not one locality has enacted any such laws. If your research comes
>up
>with any data to the contrary, please post it for the benefit of the NG.
>Pretty
>old news, some (Myself included.) feel that this was the FCC "unofficially"
>washing it's hands of CB enforcement.

I concur. Good call. Take care and 73.

Mark

Bert, I am taken aback by the Troll remark I have been posting here for
quite sometime and a good contributor to the CB Ng I may add.

AKC 4 Life

Quote:> >   "In short, the measure authorizes states and localities to
> >enact laws that prohibit the use of unauthorized CB equipment
> >- - consistent with FCC regulations.

> To date, not one locality has enacted any such laws. If your research
comes up
> with any data to the contrary, please post it for the benefit of the NG.
Pretty
> old news, some (Myself included.) feel that this was the FCC
"unofficially"
> washing it's hands of CB enforcement.

> With the recent, and not so recent, behaviour of our elected official...it
> strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder what poor Ms.
Condit's
> views might be on our Senator's concerns for the welfare of the people?
Don't
> mind me, empty screen name trolls put me in a catty mood.

> 73 de Bert
> KC2HMN

I wonder what the American Kennel Club has to do with it???

::smirk::

-SSB

And I was just gonna ask you If SSB stood for Sidewalk *** Brigade! Or
Stupid Sea BEEer!

::double smirk::

AKC 4 Life

Quote:> And I was just gonna ask you If SSB stood for Sidewalk *** Brigade! Or
> Stupid Sea BEEer!

> AKC 4 Life

Nah, sideband was popularized during the Elvis era so the technonerds were
known by their Short Side Burns.

ROFL!

now THAT one was good! Thanks for the laugh!

-SSB

Quote:>What can I say? You are a saint, Bert.

>-Aaron-

Hardly, but I try my best. Take it easy.

73 de Bert
KC2HMN