 JamesonPremium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
kudos:1 | reply to morbo
Re: I call bullshit said by morbo:why don't you just say what you're thinking: kill the indians. they interfere with making money. there. is it that difficult to voice what you believe? rather than dancing around it with subtle and not so subtle threats. sounds good
--
Hughesnet | HN7000S |SM5, 117 West, 970 MHz | 3.2GHZ Intel | BFG GF 6800 OC | Win XP Pro SP2/98SE/ Macbook Pro OS X Tiger | PCs connected via Linksys WRT54G | DD-WRT firmware: DD-WRT v24 Beta (01/18/07) std |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to bmn
said by bmn:[...]you have no claim to the airspace above your home or land. I don't know how it works in any other State, but actually, in California, yes you do in fact have claim to air rights and ground, as well. Rights to the use of the open space or vertical plane above a property, for e.g.
Ownership of land includes the right to all air above the property. Until the airplane, this right was unlimited, but now the courts permit reasonable interference with one's air rights, such as is necessary for aircraft, so long as the owner's right to use and occupy the land is not lessened. Thus, low-flying aircraft might be unreasonably trespassing, and their owners would be liable for any damages. Governments and airport authorities often purchase air rights adjacent to an airport, called an avigation easement, to provide glide patterns for air traffic.
The air itself is not real property; however, air space is real property when described in three dimensions with reference to a specific parcel of land, as in a condominium unit.
Air rights may also be transferred by way of easements, such as those used in constructing elevated highways or in acquiring scenic easements or easements of light and air. It sounds to me like the Canuck Indians are looking to sell an easement.
--
The Toll
|
|
| reply to fiberguy
Re: I call bullshit said by fiberguy:The injins may be sovereign nations but they are a small "incident" from loosing their nations. That is pretty racist!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
|
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | reply to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:And the FCC is able to sell spectrum, because? The FCC doesn't "sell spectrum". Under U.S. Law, the electromagnetic spectrum (the portion considered radio, anyway) is owned by the American people, period. The FCC, as first authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, grants licenses to portions of that spectrum under various terms and conditions, sometimes for a fee, and also permits certain unlicensed operation.
The spectrum is a commonly-owned resource, i.e., an owner of real property in the U.S. does not have any ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum in the volume of space above his property.
Of course this is the case for the United States. The story is about a Canadian Tribe, so the FCC and U.S. law is irrelevant. Whether they have a case under Canadian law, I have no idea.
BTW, the comment as to "England controlling signals from France", the coordination of spectrum use between nations is governed by multinational treaty; namely, the Convention and the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). For example, the FCC follows slightly different rules in allocating TV and radio station licenses in areas close to the Canadian and Mexican borders, in order to coordinate with those governments. Although as far as the ITU is concerned, this would be an internal Canadian matter. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to anno 3
So with your thinking, maybe the muslims should kill all the Jews in Israel? The Mexicans should kill all the "white men" in the south west U.S.? With your thinking, maybe the whole world should kill each other.
It's survival of the fittest in this world.
And, you may want to do your fact finding, ... Indians were not the first people to settle on what is now called the United States.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:The injins may be sovereign nations but they are a small "incident" from loosing their nations. Wow, you're RIGHT!
Just imagine if the redskin savage heathens loosed their nation. Why, there would be whiskey bottles and teepees all over the place. No white womens would be safe from the ravaging hordes of loose "injins" full of fire-water!
Oh, wait a second, you meant "losing". See, they aren't the same word, you know. They mean very different things.
Now your comment makes more sense.
It's still a bigoted rant from an ignorant racist, but at least it makes sense.
I think this "air-wave money grab" idea is the second stupidest thing I've heard all week.
Fiberguy's prejudiced Klan-rant is obviously in first place.
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
|
| reply to major marco
Those air rights are generally for physical occupation by buildings, etc. Those air rights do not include wireless spectrum, which is owned by the people and licensed by the government (in the US anyway).
So no, you're wrong. |
|
major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | said by soccerguy:Those air rights are generally for physical occupation by buildings, etc. Those air rights do not include wireless spectrum, which is owned by the people and licensed by the government (in the US anyway). So no, you're wrong. I base my above-referenced statements on current California State Law. What's your source?
--
The Toll
|
|
1 edit | The fact that federal law trumps California state law on this issue. And federal law says the people through the federal government own the spectrum in the air above your property. You do not.
Air rights laws generally refer to development rights, which means physical building and construction, not the ownership of transmission of radio, television, cellular or other type of non-physical media that may pass through or above the property you own.
This is a well-settled area of the law. Perhaps you are misreading the purpose of the California law. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to fiberguy
Oh yeah, who was it then? The Norse/Vikings? I dare you to say that it was them, seriously. Say it was them so everyone can see how intelligent you are. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to sporkme
These natives should be entitled to the resources their ancestors had, as per their agreement with the government. I say we give them their cut of the proceeds of the radio wave spectrum, just like their ancestors had. I mean they're just as entitled to that as they are to being allowed to run a real vegas style casino... like their ancestors had of course. Their ancestors didnt settle for none of those video poker machines! so why should they? Also, better be careful, they might urinate on our ancestors with a mighty stream of urine. Also, Hesh wants married sex. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to james
I hear a lot of blabbing but nothing worth responding two.
Wow! Twice in the same thread has someone tried to put words in my mouth!
I didn't know I was on Comedy Central's website!
Grow up, little boy.
said by james:Say it was them so everyone can see how intelligent you are. I don't know about that, but I think you just did a great job showing your own lack of intelligence...
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..." |
|
