Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+FCC\s+fines\s+station\s+for\s+exceeding\s+RF\s+field\s+strengthlimits$andother\s+things$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+FCC\s+fines\s+station\s+for\s+exceeding\s+RF\s+field\s+strengthlimits$andother\s+things$\s*$/: 2 ]

Total 2 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [RFI] FCC fines station for exceeding RF field strengthlimits(andother things) (score: 1): Author: "Jim P" <jvpoll@dallas.net>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:10:26 -0600; Someone has to 'write that check' - and right now (former) management/licensee types (the station looks to have been sold already at some point) are looking around quoting each other saying "don't lo; /archives//html/RFI/2005-02/msg00099.html (9,280 bytes)
2. Re: [RFI] FCC fines station for exceeding RF field strengthlimits(andother things) (score: 1): Author: "Cortland Richmond" <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:27:02 -0800; Reading the document in the URL I see the station claims it is unable to pay due to being 1) a startup, 2) off the air, 3) has no revenue and )4 has only one stockholder. The commission was skeptical; /archives//html/RFI/2005-02/msg00100.html (7,109 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 2
Page: [1]