From: jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams)
Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Calling All Help Offered
Date: 20 Jan 2003 13:29:00 -0800
References: <email@example.com> <%jgQ9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <40MW9.28394$Ji6.email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jan 2003 21:29:00 GMT
"Ed Price" wrote in message news:<40MW9.28394$Ji6.firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> "EEng" wrote in message
> > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:50:15 GMT, "Ed Price" wrote:
> > >
> > >"EEng" wrote in message
> > >news:email@example.com...
> > >> On 19 Jan 2003 11:29:07 -0800, jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael
> > >> Williams) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >FCC sent back an Email, saying the interference
> > >> >was my fault for not having a "filter", and
> > >> >appending a list of commercial vendors of power
> > >> >cord filters (ferrites, mostly). How much
> > >> >were they paid for that?
> > >> >
> > >> >I wrote again, saying the interference still was
> > >> >occurring, with a filter, and FCC simply refused
> > >> >to reply. They are a pack of lazy spectrum marketers,
> > >> >crafting and recrafting their regulations so
> > >> >they won't have to be bothered expending any effort
> > >> >on complaints.
> > >> >
> > >> >Subtract the FCC from the Federal Government, and
> > >> >you have the same government. The miracle of
> > >> >the loaves and fishes . . ..
> > >> >
> > >> >Go ahead, take a bite at the toll-free number
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The FCC does not reply, respond, investigate, or pursue any complaint
> > >> that does not call out a specific violation of a specific code; and
> > >> then they do so only for their own benefit. They are not interested
> > >> in helping you or anyone but themselves. If you can site chapter and
> > >> verse the code that is being violated and offer proof of such
> > >> violation, then and only then will they intervene, but only for their
> > >> own purposes and the fines they can levy.
> > >...
> You are implying that the FCC personnel are "lazy spectrum marketers" who
> "craft... their regulations so they won't have to be bothered expending any
> effort on complaints." Congress has directed that FCC fees be related to the
> costs of providing the regulatory function associated with those fees.
OK. Explain to me how they incurred expenses of over a billion
dollars to run an AUCTION? eBay can run an auction for $20.
And since when is the air something to be auctioned off
with no regard for content or benefit to the public? Is this
a responsible government function? Is an AUCTION what we
expect from enforcement of the law?
Even with all the comments and disputes of a WorldCom, just
one lawyer and maybe a clerk could handle any spectrum auction
ever held, in about three months. Actual cost: Maybe $200,000,
even in the Washington DC area.
The FCC simply tried to extort as much bribe money it could,
using an "auction" as a cover for unwillingness to award
free air, for free, to the most deserving requestor, the one
who would do most for the public and the voters in particular.
Blame Congress, if you want, for the auction. But the
PRICE should be dropped squarely on the head of the FCC.
> leave the impression that the spectrum auction money was somehow diverted
> into an FCC bureaucracy.
Evidently, it was. Think of all the favors to be returned
after FCC paid off IRS by sending them a falsely-billed
(by your criterion) billion dollars. I'm rounding DOWN,
here, to just one billion.
Just because they transferred funds to a different agency
doesn't make the money any less illegally obtained and illegally
transferred. See below for why I say illegally.
FCC has considered itself above the law and above all
criticism (notice any similarity to that certain ex-President
who started them off?): Money talks, politics talks,
not the US Code of law.
> I thought you would understand the concept of a
> beer fund, as you previously liked using a reference to bread and fish.
> > >Congress has significantly reduced the size of the FCC. Email your
> > >congressman for filter advice.
> > Their size yes, their authority, no.
> The FCC does what the Congress pays them to do, not to investigate and
> mitigate what specifically vexes you.
It does not. They are charged with regulating the spectrum.
They get payoffs from those depending on them for regulation,
not from Congress.
This is like saying the police are charged with upholding
the law, not with arresting any specific criminal or investigating
any complaint. The police are REQUIRED to investigate every
complaint--this is why giving them false statements is a crime.
A peace officer is REQUIRED to arrest a felony committed in his
or her presence, and likewise a misdemeanor. A citizen is so
charged with regard to a felony (if there is power to arrest,
such as a weapon, available), but not a misdemeanor. A
peace officer (viz., someone charged with regulation) is
REQUIRED to follow up on every complaint.
The point here is that FCC has ACCEPTED its responsibility,
but has failed to fulfill it, and that this is not an
occasional error, but a systematic process, a modus operandi.
They block anyone else, such as State of local government
from investigating violations, and do nothing but send out
spam Emails in exchange.
> You don't like that? That's called a
> political problem. How successful have you been lately in influencing your
Mine were willing to investigate the Email fiasco I
described above. But there still is interference, no
matter how much smaller or weaker the FCC is made to be.
Well, at least, my taxes are a little lower, lately.
What is needed, in my opinion, is proper reading of the
Constitution, which enumerates ALL the powers to be allowed to
the Federal Government. There is NO POWER AT ALL implied
to regulate anything related to communications; so, to
this extent, the FCC's ignoring of Congress and failing to
enforce spectrum laws actually is a recognition of the limits
of Federal power.
What is lacking is a recognition by the States,
that emissions not crossing State borders are not
allowed to be regulated by Federal law or agency, that
NONcommercial broadcasts are not allowed to be regulated
(per the "commerce clause") at all, and that the States
should pass laws to provide the missing regulation.
The neighbor I originally complained about is using line-of-sight
frequencies which are not capable of crossing a State or national
border. Thus, although FCC has grabbed power here, it should
have sent an Email to the State of California, not to me,
requesting assistance or authorization to intervene.
In short, FCC, like INS, should be shut down and maybe a few of
its parts rebuilt consistent with the Constitution. This
truly is a political issue.
John Michael Williams