We still need help, NPR tells its listeners

Maybe if they weren't so busy making certain liberal pals rich -- Bill Moyers, for instance -- they wouldn't have to beg.

41 posted on 01/15/2004 8:37:10 PM PST by hershey

That's a fairly keen observation right there. How much does PBS eat up, incidentally? Could chopping them off knock out the other half?

42 posted on 01/15/2004 8:58:24 PM PST by Angelus Errare

I need help to. Money I can use to pay my rent is being taken away from me in taxes to pay for this lefist NPR crap.

43 posted on 01/15/2004 9:00:10 PM PST by Dan from Michigan ("And it's worth the sweat, and it's worth the pain, cause the chance may never come again" -)

are you saying Digital Channel 43 ... low band VHF frequency

CH 43 is in the UHF spectrum (I thought that was evident by the CH # designation). That facility (CH 43) does not seem to be active at the moment (no digital signal on that channel). Daystar is currently enjoying the exercise of their First Amendment rights and the privilege to broadcast on their new CH 2 - in analog form.

The local PBS affiliate *has* possesed an active digital transmission facility - CH 14. It is currently active. They also posses CH 13 analog - a channel they have held for quite a while now and formerly their only TV transmission channel (before CH 2 and long before digital).

It looks like the PBS affiliate also transferred the CH 43 license to Daystar *but* there exists *no* actual antenna or transmitter for CH 43. I don't know. It appears the proper paperwork has been filed with the FCC on CH 43 by Daystar already; there is a filing for both a CP (construction permit) and a station 'Application' (separate processes with the FCC for commercial licensees). I don't know more than that since I haven't pulled up a copy of the actual CP or App paperwork yet ...

44 posted on 01/15/2004 9:01:46 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))

It appears, as of 12/15/2003, that NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING, INC. had filed a change to an existing CP (Construction Permit) that had been extended at least once and possibly twice before - I think think they were running out of time and rather than 'lose the license' they bargained with it.

Futher investigation shows that the original filing for a CP for the DTV (CH 43) station occurred back in 2000. Last year they filed for *2* CP extensions.

45 posted on 01/15/2004 9:22:13 PM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))

To: Angelus Errare

cut all funding for the arts and kill boondoggles like the crusader and osprey and we can go to the moon and mars on this current budget.

46 posted on 01/15/2004 10:40:02 PM PST by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)

I have little doubt that's likely true ... if only there were a politician who had the guts to stand up and say it.

47 posted on 01/15/2004 10:48:37 PM PST by Angelus Errare

You have mounted a spirited and well argued defense of the price that the PBS affiliate got for the sale. I salute you for that.

While you have not convinced me that they did not get snookered on the deal, if an investigation does ensue, they would be well served in retaining you to assist them in their defense, as your points could well convince the fact finder.

48 posted on 01/16/2004 10:05:43 AM PST by PAR35

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794