I have no idea. Ken also stopped his web stream. So his leaving broadcasting may have nothing to do with the inspection.
I merely provided a condensed version of Ken's own account of what happened to put an end to this "98 feet" notion regarding part 15 AM as it relates to the KENC incident.
I'm Glad you did for that Inspector was obviously clueless when he made that statement in the newspaper. If that were the case 98% of all AM micro broadcasting stations would have called "Pirate". See this is another reason I like the Facebook idea too to get support for more range and awareness of part 15 micro broadcasting and why the public should not shidder at the thought of these micro Radio stations.
As the story went, Ken was offered a position at a commercial AM.
Anyone else remember that?
I think it was something like that.
I also remember that he said that his experiences with the FCC soured him on Part 15.
... his experiences with the FCC soured him on Part 15.
Could it be more likely that such "souring" actually was the result of KENC following the non-compliant installation recommendations of others -- rather than the FCC actions relating to his installation following those recommendations?
For lack of a Plaintiff this hearing is declared null and void.
put forth in this case was the operator of KENC.
And you are speaking for the prosecution on behalf of the FCC?
"Could it be more likely that such "souring" actually was the result of KENC following the non-compliant installation recommendations of others -- rather than the FCC actions relating to his installation following those recommendations?"
Why don't you ask him?
... Why don't you ask him?
Because based on the history of this situation, I wouldn't expect a technically accurate response from him.
Objection!
I find this witness prejudiced and biased.
This isn't a real trial. It's roll play, as you've said by way of invalidating what else you said.
Anyway, the Ken Cartright case is novel in the miniscule record of Part 15 cases, and we whould go on examining it until the truth comes out, which has yet to happen by my witness.
This isn't a real trial. It's roll play, as you've said by way of invalidating what else you said.
Please post the proof of your belief of such an invalidation.
If it's roll play, none of it is real.
If none of it is real, it has no validity.
I'm resting just in case.
Objection! I find this witness prejudiced and biased.
Kindly note that an objection is always subject to being overruled by the judge, and disregarded by the jury.