• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

LPFM question #8 'Unlicensed Operation'

R

radiopilot

When I filed for the LPFM back 3 years ago, one question arose which at the time did not make sense, it was question No. 8, 'Unlicensed Operation', and if it's read correctly this pertains to 'pirate' or it may pertain to 'Part 15' and of course if you are running a part 15 (with a certified unit legally) but the FCC/State regulators determine to get you off because they don't want anyone on the air... does this count towards the question # 8?
I know what b) and ii) states... Just wondering...


Question #8

Unlicensed Operation.

a. The applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that neither the applicant nor any party to the application has engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons, groups, organizations, or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301.

Yes No


b. For applicants responding "No" to Question 8a. only, the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that to the extent the applicant or any party to the application has engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons, groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of a station in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, all such engagement:
i. ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999, without direction from the Commission to do so; or

Yes No


ii. ceased within 24 hours of being directed by the Commission to terminate unlicensed operation of any station.

Yes No


I know it's going to be tough, my application is already entered and as soon as the new window for my area opens, I can then file the form as all the forms have a 'Valid' status to them...

Anybody gotten past that point?

I don't want to crank up the 100 watter till I get that CP... but using that handy calculator I posted below, it's good to see how far the signal might go and how strong a signal it'll be.

How many here have filled out the FCC 318 Application for LPFM? Any CP's issued to anyone here browsing the Community board?

Radiopilot
 
That question shouldnt be there after a court ruling stating
that it was unconstitutional to bar anyone from the license
process because of pirate history. But to answer that question you
would answer no if its just a legal part15 station. I will did
up that court ruling and let you decide for yourself how to take that.

here the link to that ruling from the FCC website:
http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1100.html


> When I filed for the LPFM back 3 years ago, one question
> arose which at the time did not make sense, it was question
> No. 8, 'Unlicensed Operation', and if it's read correctly
> this pertains to 'pirate' or it may pertain to 'Part 15' and
> of course if you are running a part 15 (with a certified
> unit legally) but the FCC/State regulators determine to get
> you off because they don't want anyone on the air... does
> this count towards the question # 8?
> I know what b) and ii) states... Just wondering...
>
>
> Question #8
>
> Unlicensed Operation.
>
> a. The applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that
> neither the applicant nor any party to the application has
> engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons,
> groups, organizations, or other entities, in the unlicensed
> operation of any station in violation of Section 301 of the
> Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section
> 301.
>
> Yes No
>
>
> b. For applicants responding "No" to Question 8a. only, the
> applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that to the
> extent the applicant or any party to the application has
> engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons,
> groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed
> operation of a station in violation of Section 301 of the
> Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, all
> such engagement:
> i. ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999,
> without direction from the Commission to do so; or
>
> Yes No
>
>
> ii. ceased within 24 hours of being directed by the
> Commission to terminate unlicensed operation of any station.
>
>
> Yes No
>
>
> I know it's going to be tough, my application is already
> entered and as soon as the new window for my area opens, I
> can then file the form as all the forms have a 'Valid'
> status to them...
>
> Anybody gotten past that point?
>
> I don't want to crank up the 100 watter till I get that
> CP... but using that handy calculator I posted below, it's
> good to see how far the signal might go and how strong a
> signal it'll be.
>
> How many here have filled out the FCC 318 Application for
> LPFM? Any CP's issued to anyone here browsing the Community
> board?
>
> Radiopilot
> <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by meisrc on 01/27/06 02:29 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> That question shouldnt be there after a court ruling stating
>
> that it was unconstitutional to bar anyone from the license
>
> process because of pirate history. But to answer that
> question you
> would answer no if its just a legal part15 station. I will
> did
> up that court ruling and let you decide for yourself how to
> take that.
>
> here the link to that ruling from the FCC website:
> http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1100.html
>


I read that court filing awhile back.. In my forms that answer is NO....

The question is just for those considering geting their LPFM, it's unfortunate that the FCC has to view anyone on the 'board' with any pirate background to even participate, this reminds me of the real life drama of the guy who wrote thousands of bad checks back in the late 50'/early 60's, a movie was made 'To Catch a Thief', this guy was caught and serve his jail sentence, afterwards he started working for the FBI helping to catch other fraudulent check thieves and today is a multi-millionare with his own bank security company.. funny but wasn't that a double standard?

I just think the rules are sometimes written by people with no perception of reality....

Radiopilot

Radiopilot
 
While the FCC can not arbitrarily deny an applicant because of a "pirate past" under the Ruggiero ruling, they can still set aside an application for hearing in the event that the question the character of the applicant.

Since your station was operated under Part 15, it was authorized by rule and therefore would not be 301 violation.

ec



> > That question shouldnt be there after a court ruling
> stating
> >
> > that it was unconstitutional to bar anyone from the
> license
> >
> > process because of pirate history. But to answer that
> > question you
> > would answer no if its just a legal part15 station. I will
>
> > did
> > up that court ruling and let you decide for yourself how
> to
> > take that.
> >
> > here the link to that ruling from the FCC website:
> >
> http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1100.html
> >
>
>
> I read that court filing awhile back.. In my forms that
> answer is NO....
>
> The question is just for those considering geting their
> LPFM, it's unfortunate that the FCC has to view anyone on
> the 'board' with any pirate background to even participate,
> this reminds me of the real life drama of the guy who wrote
> thousands of bad checks back in the late 50'/early 60's, a
> movie was made 'To Catch a Thief', this guy was caught and
> serve his jail sentence, afterwards he started working for
> the FBI helping to catch other fraudulent check thieves and
> today is a multi-millionare with his own bank security
> company.. funny but wasn't that a double standard?
>
> I just think the rules are sometimes written by people with
> no perception of reality....
>
> Radiopilot
>
> Radiopilot
>
 
My point exactly...I operated a part15 station on the FM band, and was visted by the FCC a couple times, both times I was not in any violation, but I surrendered my Transmitter anyway after second visit...The FCC agant didnt want to take it, but after a go around about this matter he understood. And I actually my group hold a License for a LPFM station. So stand up fight back like i did it will work sometimes. What do you have to loose?

While the FCC can not arbitrarily deny an applicant because
> of a "pirate past" under the Ruggiero ruling, they can still
> set aside an application for hearing in the event that the
> question the character of the applicant.
>
> Since your station was operated under Part 15, it was
> authorized by rule and therefore would not be 301 violation.
>
>
>
ec
>
>
>
> > > That question shouldnt be there after a court ruling
> > stating
> > >
> > > that it was unconstitutional to bar anyone from the
> > license
> > >
> > > process because of pirate history. But to answer that
> > > question you
> > > would answer no if its just a legal part15 station. I
> will
> >
> > > did
> > > up that court ruling and let you decide for yourself how
>
> > to
> > > take that.
> > >
> > > here the link to that ruling from the FCC website:
> > >
> >
> http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1100.html
> > >
> >
> >
> > I read that court filing awhile back.. In my forms that
> > answer is NO....
> >
> > The question is just for those considering geting their
> > LPFM, it's unfortunate that the FCC has to view anyone on
> > the 'board' with any pirate background to even
> participate,
> > this reminds me of the real life drama of the guy who
> wrote
> > thousands of bad checks back in the late 50'/early 60's, a
>
> > movie was made 'To Catch a Thief', this guy was caught and
>
> > serve his jail sentence, afterwards he started working for
>
> > the FBI helping to catch other fraudulent check thieves
> and
> > today is a multi-millionare with his own bank security
> > company.. funny but wasn't that a double standard?
> >
> > I just think the rules are sometimes written by people
> with
> > no perception of reality....
> >
> > Radiopilot
> >
> > Radiopilot
> >
>
 
> Since your station was operated under Part 15, it was
> authorized by rule and therefore would not be 301 violation.
___________________

Unlicensed operation of a Part 15 certified transmitter doesn't automatically prove compliant use of it. For example, 25 mW of FM from a certified tx applied to almost any radiator will produce fields greater than allowed by Part 15 FM.

As sworn statements under penalties of perjury are required on these LPFM applications, an inaccurate answer could lead to problems -- even if the applicant did not understand or believe that their prior "Part 15" station was operating beyond the Rules.

Probably this post will anger some of you, but still it is better to understand and deal with reality than not to.
//
 
> While the FCC can not arbitrarily deny an applicant because
> of a "pirate past" under the Ruggiero ruling, they can still
> set aside an application for hearing in the event that the
> question the character of the applicant.
>
> Since your station was operated under Part 15, it was
> authorized by rule and therefore would not be 301 violation.
>
>
>
ec
>
>


Rec, good reply...

While I did do some support type activities in Seattle for the 'Free Olympia' radio, I was not on the staff.

This does not mean I actually 'ran' a pirate operation... and as such believe that the question does not apply to me... now my electric toaster may be operating higher than part 15 levels without my knowing it and cause unwanted interference, so am I purjuring myself by saying I'm not over the 'compliant' level and therefore should not be able to click 'Yes' on the application for question # 8?

I click 'Yes' anyway and I don't think purjury is justified for anyone running slightly over part 15 levels... unless you admittingly are broadcasting with the intent of being a pirate and are using excessively large wattage and are caught doing so by the FCC.

I believe anyone using the RF adapter attached to his gaming device attached to his TV and antenna is broadcasting unknowingly past part15 levels is not grounds for purjury if he ever applied for the LPFM.

Same goes for anyone using a part 15 (100mw for AM or 250uv/3 meters for FM)device attached to an antenna and broadcasting is not intentionally trying to be a pirate and therefore denied getting any LPFM.

Technical violations such as antenna being 3.2 meters or ground wire being 1 foot longer for AM or 250uv/3.2 meters or 255uv/3 meters or the unit being 50 or 100 ft. high for FM, to me not pirate broadcasting and I think people REALLY need to see that these types of technicalities are really off the wall.... I say wake up and smell the coffee PLEASE!

I think alot of people here are afraid to post and offer REAL solutions and provide helpful hints because of constantly being attacked or ridiculed or belittled in one form or another... it's frustrating and tiresome sometimes....

I for one will continue to offer what I believe is REAL solutions and suggestions to get your station on the air if you want it... Yes, I don't know it all, after all I'm an aerospace engineer and NOT a broadcast engineer but I offer helpful solutions and or advice, I'm not all that DUMB am I?

Radiopilot
 
> > While the FCC can not arbitrarily deny an applicant
> because
> > of a "pirate past" under the Ruggiero ruling, they can
> still
> > set aside an application for hearing in the event that the
>
> > question the character of the applicant.
> >
> > Since your station was operated under Part 15, it was
> > authorized by rule and therefore would not be 301
> violation.
> >
> >
> >
ec
> >
> >
>
>
> Rec, good reply...
>
> While I did do some support type activities in Seattle for
> the 'Free Olympia' radio, I was not on the staff.
>
> This does not mean I actually 'ran' a pirate operation...
> and as such believe that the question does not apply to
> me... now my electric toaster may be operating higher than
> part 15 levels without my knowing it and cause unwanted
> interference, so am I purjuring myself by saying I'm not
> over the 'compliant' level and therefore should not be able
> to click 'Yes' on the application for question # 8?
>
> I click 'Yes' anyway and I don't think purjury is justified
> for anyone running slightly over part 15 levels... unless
> you admittingly are broadcasting with the intent of being a
> pirate and are using excessively large wattage and are
> caught doing so by the FCC.
>
> I believe anyone using the RF adapter attached to his gaming
> device attached to his TV and antenna is broadcasting
> unknowingly past part15 levels is not grounds for purjury if
> he ever applied for the LPFM.
>
> Same goes for anyone using a part 15 (100mw for AM or
> 250uv/3 meters for FM)device attached to an antenna and
> broadcasting is not intentionally trying to be a pirate and
> therefore denied getting any LPFM.
>
> Technical violations such as antenna being 3.2 meters or
> ground wire being 1 foot longer for AM or 250uv/3.2 meters
> or 255uv/3 meters or the unit being 50 or 100 ft. high for
> FM, to me not pirate broadcasting and I think people REALLY
> need to see that these types of technicalities are really
> off the wall.... I say wake up and smell the coffee PLEASE!
>
> I think alot of people here are afraid to post and offer
> REAL solutions and provide helpful hints because of
> constantly being attacked or ridiculed or belittled in one
> form or another... it's frustrating and tiresome
> sometimes....
>
> I for one will continue to offer what I believe is REAL
> solutions and suggestions to get your station on the air if
> you want it... Yes, I don't know it all, after all I'm an
> aerospace engineer and NOT a broadcast engineer but I offer
> helpful solutions and or advice, I'm not all that DUMB am I?
>
>
> Radiopilot
>

Hi,

I don't think you are dumb.

Just some comments:

I have never seen such a poorly written application question, especially the followup "when did you stop beating your wife" question for a yes answer. Forms which I know of ask about fines or convictions for offenses, not just did you ever do it. This reminds me of the old story about "did you ever steal?...Yes or No...really?, not even a pencil?". Unfortunately this question is what it is.

If you answered the question according to what you believe to be the truth, then go with that.

Hope everything works out the way you want.

Neil
 
> Hi,
>
> I don't think you are dumb.
>
> Just some comments:
>
> I have never seen such a poorly written application
> question, especially the followup "when did you stop beating
> your wife" question for a yes answer. Forms which I know of
> ask about fines or convictions for offenses, not just did
> you ever do it. This reminds me of the old story about "did
> you ever steal?...Yes or No...really?, not even a pencil?".
> Unfortunately this question is what it is.
>
> If you answered the question according to what you believe
> to be the truth, then go with that.
>
> Hope everything works out the way you want.
>
> Neil
>


Neil,

Question # 8 should have been worded:

Unlicensed Operation.

a. The applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that neither the applicant nor any party to the application has recieved a Notice Of Apperant Liability (NAL), in association with running an illegal and intentional 'Pirate' activity individually or with other persons, groups, organizations, or other entities, in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301.

YES or NO

If you have recieved an NAL, then:

b) All activities in asscociation with (a) above were ceased 24 hours after the NAL was issued.

Yes or NO

c) If activities were not ceased after 24 hours and fines were imposed, activity ceased and fines paid in full. Applicant under perjury has not engage in such activities 3 years after NAL in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301.

YES or NO

Then I can see justification for the above.... as it stands it denies the rights of others to pursue their dreams.

Yes, you are right... if there is anyone on this board that can say they NEVER put a pencil or sticky pad in their briefcase or purse and took it home unknowingly without the intent of stealing then that would be perjury in itself!

In fact I have personalized pens and pencils that state the following:

"This Pen or Pencil Stolen from the desk of "--------", and I give them out to my friends or they take them from my desk pen holder! It's quite a hit!

Radiopilot<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radiopilot on 01/27/06 06:43 PM.</FONT></P>
 
Hi again,

Unfortunately we can not rewrite the question.

"> In fact I have personalized pens and pencils that state the
> following:
>
> "This Pen or Pencil Stolen from the desk of "--------", and
> I give them out to my friends or they take them from my desk
> pen holder! It's quite a hit!".

Now your friends are going to be in trouble when asked "Did you ever steal?". Maybe trangressions are best kept to one's self.

Neil

(sorry if this multiple posts...I hit the wrong button)
 
The Correct answer to #8 would be YES and leave the B sections i and ii
Blank...
thats what I did..
and now running at 100 watts ERP with license in hand
Neal



> When I filed for the LPFM back 3 years ago, one question
> arose which at the time did not make sense, it was question
> No. 8, 'Unlicensed Operation', and if it's read correctly
> this pertains to 'pirate' or it may pertain to 'Part 15' and
> of course if you are running a part 15 (with a certified
> unit legally) but the FCC/State regulators determine to get
> you off because they don't want anyone on the air... does
> this count towards the question # 8?
> I know what b) and ii) states... Just wondering...
>
>
> Question #8
>
> Unlicensed Operation.
>
> a. The applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that
> neither the applicant nor any party to the application has
> engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons,
> groups, organizations, or other entities, in the unlicensed
> operation of any station in violation of Section 301 of the
> Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section
> 301.
>
> Yes No
>
>
> b. For applicants responding "No" to Question 8a. only, the
> applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that to the
> extent the applicant or any party to the application has
> engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons,
> groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed
> operation of a station in violation of Section 301 of the
> Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, all
> such engagement:
> i. ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999,
> without direction from the Commission to do so; or
>
> Yes No
>
>
> ii. ceased within 24 hours of being directed by the
> Commission to terminate unlicensed operation of any station.
>
>
> Yes No
>
>
> I know it's going to be tough, my application is already
> entered and as soon as the new window for my area opens, I
> can then file the form as all the forms have a 'Valid'
> status to them...
>
> Anybody gotten past that point?
>
> I don't want to crank up the 100 watter till I get that
> CP... but using that handy calculator I posted below, it's
> good to see how far the signal might go and how strong a
> signal it'll be.
>
> How many here have filled out the FCC 318 Application for
> LPFM? Any CP's issued to anyone here browsing the Community
> board?
>
> Radiopilot
>
 
Neal,

Thanks, that's my answer also...

Hey nice Cozy there, hope you get that 3-place built... Me, I'm building the Giles 202, fuselage complete, working the wings and cockpit panel when I get a break... they're fun but labor intensive...

Good luck....

Radiopilot



> The Correct answer to #8 would be YES and leave the B
> sections i and ii
> Blank...
> thats what I did..
> and now running at 100 watts ERP with license in hand
> Neal
>
 
Actually I built and flew the Teenie Two and the 3 place cozy

Presently Building the CozyMKIV 4 place..
worked on lots Of Soner's used to be crew chief for a few Formula V class Pylon Racers.. helped a neighbor build a long-eze and a Glassair RG.Lots Of aircraft building under my belt.
I had some really good aerobatic Flight instructors. All 3 of which are no longer with us.
Leo Loudenslager,Deke Slayton,Mike Brundage.Ive been told I'm a
Jack Of all trades master of them all.
I found 1 thing better than building and flying.... I'm a Master Falconer
nothing comes close to Flying these babys... now what does this have to do with radio you may ask.... I once Took a redtail after a Hunt to a hamfest across the road from the hunting grounds.. People would ask all kinds Of questions about the bird My reply" whats the matter Never seen a real live bird wattmeter before?" they would say WHAT... my reply thats 1 Watt...
LOL



> Neal,
>
> Thanks, that's my answer also...
>
> Hey nice Cozy there, hope you get that 3-place built... Me,
> I'm building the Giles 202, fuselage complete, working the
> wings and cockpit panel when I get a break... they're fun
> but labor intensive...
>
> Good luck....
>
> Radiopilot
>
>
>
> > The Correct answer to #8 would be YES and leave the B
> > sections i and ii
> > Blank...
> > thats what I did..
> > and now running at 100 watts ERP with license in hand
> > Neal
> >
>
 
> How many here have filled out the FCC 318 Application for
> LPFM? Any CP's issued to anyone here browsing the Community
> board?
>
> Radiopilot
>

They mean piracy. And the FCC doesn't have the right to ask you. If you haven't been convicted, you haven't commited a crime. Yeah, I know it's almost over, but this is still America for a couple of weeks, and you are still allowed a right to a trial before your rights are taken from you.

So tell them you haven't. And if they can't prove you HAVE, then you haven't anyway. And anybody STUPID enough to tell the government anything it doesn't need to know will probably learn the hard way why it's a bad idea.

Yes, people I know have engaged in "unlicensed operation" and have answered to the negative to that question. They answered yes, they haven't been unlicensed operators because there's no box marked NOYFB.

- Dick the Patriot<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Dick Fry on 01/29/06 07:29 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> As sworn statements under penalties of perjury are required
> on these LPFM applications, an inaccurate answer could lead
> to problems -- even if the applicant did not understand or
> believe that their prior "Part 15" station was operating
> beyond the Rules.
>
> Probably this post will anger some of you, but still it is
> better to understand and deal with reality than not to.
> //
>

For that matter, if you have ever driven over the speed limit, you are a CRIMINAL. So just give it up and crawl into a hole with your silly LPFM hopes. Only those who are pure of spirit should be allowed to have broadcast licenses, and those who don't a license already are obviously unworthy scumbags.

Besides, if people start to lie in government applications, it will work its way up the ladder and someday in the distant future, even the government leaders will start telling lies. Let's not have any of this perjury stuff going on or the nation will probably crumble.


- Dick the Defiant
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom