|[AMRadio] Why the League Petition would be BAD for AM |
k5sep at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 26 15:24:14 EST 2006
To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:35:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Why the League Petition would
be BAD for AM
From: "peter markavage" <manualman at juno.com> Add to
Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Bob said: "ARRL will not want to enforce it through
program because of legal liability."
It might be helpful if you could explain what "legal
liability" you are
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:24:24 -0800 (PST) Bob Scupp
<k5sep at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Web page appears in
opposition to RM-11306
> I agree with you! Based on historical retrospect,
the FCC will not
possess the budgetary means to enforce it also. The
ARRL will not want
enforce it > through the Official Observer program
because of legal
liability. Therefore, the entire Amateur Radio
community will have to
respond to it. Sorry, but I
> do no think that will happen either or will be far
and few between
> "Just the fact ma'am and only the facts!", as they
say on Dragnet.
> Thanks for your and everyone else's comments.
> Bob K5SEP
AMRadio mailing list
Pete and All-
I was speaking of legal action such as law suits
against ARRL or any of it's representatives acting in
their capacity. This happening after the League
Petition goes through the NPRM stage and is
unmodified(?) and is included in a revised Part 97.
Sorry I did not clarify that point. I really hope I am
wrong on this one though.
Thank you for asking.
Life Member QCWA and ARRL
Member - Antique Wireless Association
Life Member - New Mexico Radio Collectors Club
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 13 Dec 2017.