Proposed Shortwave Broadcast Station Prompts Objection

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

-Winston Churchill-

 

Didn't want to throw too many new jargon words into this mix;-)

 

But hey--look how well its working in Portland Oregon!

 

I'm one of the people involved. What education do we need, Sir.

 

Wow, this seems to have really gone beyond the topic of the original post.

 

I am familiar with your reading reference, and I agree. Of course this opens the discussion up to the role of unions. In the coal mining era, unions were a natural outgrowth of the deplorable conditions. I have to question the role of unions today in society, especially given their long history of corruption. I also find the link-up between various unrelated unions troubling. I really do not see where the public benefits by having a plumber's union go out on strike with a teacher's union. That goes way beyond the scope of protesting to gain bargaining power.

 

I agree, but at least is is still civil. I think the whole discussion of stock trading is speculative. That being said, in reading the article I'm not sure I understand what the intended purpose of this project is.

 

Please tell us the basis for the adverse feedback. For example, is the transmission of stock-- information--not in the public interest,nor intended for the public, and assuming the assertion is to that affect, then why are historical transmissions of stock information--such as the QUOTREK system of 30 plus years ago-- different in principle than this DRM request.

Note that stock TRADING arises with a TRANSMISSION from outside the US, and thus the RECEPTION of same in the US is unregulated by the FCC.

Awaiting your comments.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Did you read our filing?

It doesn't really concern reception in the U.S. We think the restrictions on domestic HF service should be re-examined, and removed if possible. The filing mentions that issue. But that's the only thing that could be construed as related to reception in the U.S.

 

Reading your text on the filing does not justify its assertions.

If this is news to thousands of radio aficionados, and you clearly chose to join us, then provide us with the justifications. You don't need to be a lawyer to make a valid case. Hit us with facts. Show the validity of the objections.

If it is MERELY opinion, then why is that OPINION more important than a million others'?

You have a public forum here, If you have a valid case then you should not be sarcastic about discussing it here. I do not see anything, personally, that is valid (in the public interest) in your objections.

But I, and others, can be convinced otherwise by facts. Take a shot.

Start with a simple point--and a compelling one.

Why is this not like QUOTREK in 1985? Why should QUOTREK have been 'ok', but HFT should not..

?

Please don't get cute about 'digital' versus analog. We are civil here, or at least are capable of being so if treated with the respect from presentation of fact.

Thanks.

 

I agree the unions originally formed to correct social injustices once wages and working conditions were improved they found had considerable
political power as well.
Unfortunately as history has proven time and again power corrupts. Hoffa was a glaring example.

 

QUOTREK was a nonbroadcast subscription service with data carried over FM subcarriers. FCC rules allow that for AM and FM radio stations.

No such rules permit that to U.S. international broadcast stations. Not just the rules; the the construction permits and licenses for these stations forbid any use that is not broadcasting to the public.

We do not know that WPBC will be engaged in anything like QUOTREK. They didn't say. For all we know they will transmit secret donut orders to MI5. The law says this must be broadcasting to the general public, and it has to follow many other rules that cover languages, marketing and even international fairs. No exceptions.

To the extent this station will send encrypted data to specific receivers to the London and Frankfurt exchanges, where their two antennas are aimed, that is an international fixed service and not a public broadcast. The FCC abolished the International Fixed Service in 2010.

We didn't say that it should or it shouldn't. The FCC has never made any rules or policies to allow it. The service needs a top-to-bottom public review, which has never happened in more than 50 years.

 

Please show a link(s) that define(s), in the applications so licensed or in desire of license, the following terms you have used:

1) 'general public'
2) 'international broadcast'
3) 'point to point'
4) 'International Fixed Service'

You assume that these definitions are common-law knowledge. I am giving you the opportunity to illuminate the legally accepted definitions before we publicly explore the reasoning chain of your stated objections.

Additionally, the focus here on this 'news' item is not a bully pulpit for an opinion of 'top to bottom public review' but the objections to this license application, and whether they have a valid basis on fact.

So if you wish to discuss the latter, may I suggest a separate thread under 'discussions'.

There is no linkage between the objections to the license application and the separate assertion of a 'top to bottom review'.

 

The FCC's definitions for 1,2 and 4 are cited in the filing. A radio amateur should understand those terms anyway. For example 97.3(a)(10) defines broadcasting.

Point to point is defined in FCC Rule 101.3 for Fixed Service: "A radio communications service between specified fixed points."

Sure there is. International broadcast stations are not stations in the Fixed Service. Even if they are datacasting, it still has to be broadcasting as the FCC has well defined it.

If such operations should be allowed, it would require a comprehensive review of the rules. We'd like to see that.

 

You are avoiding the issue.

If you want to sling these words around like they come from some creative mind, as an example, you need to cite them here. It is not our responsibility to dig out definitions, and then discover you may or may not have used them improperly or misinterpreted their meaning in your post(s). Furthermore, if we are illuminated with these conventions of meaning, it will avoid a considerable amount of tangential discussion and focus us on the thread topic.

IMO its in your best interest, given your voluntary action to publicly comment, to do this.

Its a simple request: Your entire case pivots on the proper use of those definitions. So show what they are here. Copy and paste from your formal objection filing if you want.

Take care that those definitions map to your use here, please.

I am of the opinion that you may have not used them properly in your comments here, and as your formal objection was, IMO, either written or edited by an attorney, you may have a different sense of what they mean from how they were formally used. And maybe not. You can show it easily.

It's really your obligation to clarify this , IMO.

73
Chip W1YW