Good luck with that reasoning as it would mean that FCC rules are
meaningless since every “customer is under contract”. As mentioned, ‘the
willfull impedance of a contractural obligation” in this instance would be
due to RF interference which in the US is solely regulated by the FCC.
Lots of case law out there where similar local cases were thrown out due to
federal preemption.
Bottom line, a good law firm well versed in the Communications Act of 1934,
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC Rules should be consulted for their
more learned opinion.
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 20:03:03 -0600
From: Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Message-ID:
<CAGOa4nMrdnFOV6vtTwbng3z5+25K_xm6qbGBkPAJ=esp+fy...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.
