FCC getting looser---let's pirate have STA until LPFM app is filed...

[radiobop]

FCC Lets Pirate Stay On Air
It pays to have your congressman on your side even if you are engaging in illegal activity...(honestly, I haven't researched the whole story so I can't comment without knowing all the facts behind Senator Reid's support)...

Allows Pirate To Keep Broadcasting
The PAHRUMP VALLEY TIMES reports that the FCC, with pressure from Senate Majority Leader HARRY REID (D-NV), is allowing a pirate station in GOLDFIELD, NV to operate with Special Temporary Authority until it can apply for an LPFM license in the next filing window.

A JANUARY 29 letter from the Commission to RADIO GOLDFIELD BROADCAST INC. owner ROD MOSES allows MOSES' pirate station to operate, moving from 100.3 to 106.3 FM, at 100 watts. His operation had been raided and shut down by the FCC on JUNE 9, 2006.

In the letter, the Commission cites Sec. 309(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 to allow STAs in "extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary authorizations in the public interest." The Commission's actions followed lobbying by Sen. REID, who wrote the FCC in support of the station's programming.

 

[jcolletta275]

Oh this is rich. This means that if I can convince my rep that what I'm doing illegally should really be legal, I get a pass to keep doing it illegally until it becomes legal?

Maybe someone oughtta try that idea with murder.

 

[tomservo]

I wonder what the "extrordinary circumstances" were -- other than the Majority Leader in Congress being on your side?

 

[Black_Shire]

Oh this is rich. This means that if I can convince my rep that what I'm doing illegally should really be legal, I get a pass to keep doing it illegally until it becomes legal?

Maybe someone oughtta try that idea with murder.

I'm basically a law-and-order type myself, but I can't work up much sympathy for the FCC on this issue. They made LP-100 (100 watt LPFM) licenses as hard to get as Matzoh ball soup in Saudi Arabia and cited interference concerns, while simultaneously granting thousands of technically identical FM Translator applications. FM spectrum is either in short supply or it isn't--they can't have it both ways. Also, the would-be LP-10 (10 watt LPFM) station operators have yet to be granted a filing window.


-- Black Shire

 

[w9wi]

I'm basically a law-and-order type myself, but I can't work up much sympathy for the FCC on this issue. They made LP-100 (100 watt LPFM) licenses as hard to get as Matzoh ball soup in Saudi Arabia and cited interference concerns, while simultaneously granting thousands of technically identical FM Translator applications. FM spectrum is either in short supply or it isn't--they can't have it both ways. Also, the would-be LP-10 (10 watt LPFM) station operators have yet to be granted a filing window.

I agree that it's utter crap that LP-100s can't be authorized on frequencies where more-powerful translators can. However, I don't think it's fair to blame the FCC for that: it was Congress that made that decision.

The failure to grant a filing window for LP-10's, on the other hand, is indeed fully the FCC's fault. (well, maybe not *fully*, I'd bet lobbyists have a part)

 

[DeadElvis]

is allowing a pirate station in GOLDFIELD, NV to operate with Special Temporary Authority until it can apply for an LPFM license in the next filing window.

OK, I know no facts of this issue beyond what I have read in this string. BUT, there is an odd issue here.

I can't imagine why the FCC would allow anything pending application (and presumed granting) of a license. According the the above facts, the operator is specifically disallowed from being granted a license to operate an LPFM. 47 CFR § 73.854, a section of the FCC Broadcast Rules, states:

No application for an LPFM station may be granted unless the applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, that neither the applicant, nor any party to the application, has engaged in any manner including individually or with persons, groups, organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any station in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Well, that's pretty clear; and, the Rule was specifically written for situations such as this. There is little the FCC can do when the Rules are as clear as they are. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

DE

 

[DeltaKing]

I voted for Bush, so GIMME MY STATION! ;D

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

Looks like the public interest will change the rules. We need new voices.

The station was in Goldfield, NV. There was no other local radio. Just him.
If he wants to broadcast in a desert, then the FCC will give him a license.

Had the same experience myself. The FCC agent who closed my pirate station
27 years ago said ("The Federal Communications Commission wants to give you
a license for a small town so you will be busy and shut your mouth.")

Since then, I have owned many stations with FCC blessing.

 

[RadioStarOne]

Goldfield, NV. Hey guys look at a map its in the middle of nowhere. I say give the guy a 50,000 watt FM. The only problem with that is it would probably drain the local electric company's power supply. The town is
filled with junk left over from when it was a booming mining town and all of its rusted with signs posted that it is not for sale. The population is around 150 people tops! I've been there many times it's a relic of the past.

 

[DeadElvis]

Looks like the public interest will change the rules. We need new voices.

I don't disagree with you that we need new voices (I'm published on the subject, as a matter of fact), but, I can't imagine how § 73.854 can be anything but fatal to the application to come.

The FCC, or any other regulatory agency, may NOT simply ignore their own Rules. As the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit once wrote, in an often-quoted case which coincidently involved the FCC trying to ignore its own Rules, "Simply stated, rules are rules, and fidelity to the rules ... is required of those to whom Congress has entrusted the regulatory missions of modern life." Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946 (DC Cir. 1986). It's a fun case to read, by one of my favorite judges.

Perhaps the FCC need to be reminded of their statutory obligations. Certainly, somebody like me will do so when an application comes through.

DE

 

[jcolletta275]

I voted for Bush, so GIMME MY STATION! ;D

It was a Democratic Senator that gave these guys their station.

 

[DudeFan]

The Commission cannot waive statutory requirements (those in 47 U.S.C.). The Commission may, for good cause, waive any its rules (47 C.F.R.) so long as the waiver would not conflict with an express statutory mandate.

 

[DeadElvis]

The Commission cannot waive statutory requirements (those in 47 U.S.C.). The Commission may, for good cause, waive any its rules (47 C.F.R.) so long as the waiver would not conflict with an express statutory mandate.

No, they really can't. And, doing so would be a golden invitation to lawsuit. You may want to go back and read the case I mentioned earlier. See Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946 (DC Cir. 1986). Another great quote from the case:

"It is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations. Ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned … for therein lies the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and predictability which are the hallmarks of lawful administrative action." (emphasis added)

Another court has stated that there is a "black letter principle that properly enacted regulations have the force of law." See Flores v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1986). So, to ignore the Rule section would be just as if they ignored a statute.

They can always promulgate new Rules, but, they must follow the Administrative Procedures Act in doing so. And, the old Rules remain in force until they complete the process, which can take significant time.

Reuters Ltd. was a case of the FCC trying to ignore -- er, waive -- a Rule. They got their hand slapped. And, arguably, this case is more clear cut. The FCC, or any administrative agency, has some latitude in rules that are considered "housekeeping." § 73.854 would not be one of those.

Oh, well. Back to work.

DE

 

[Black_Shire]

As much as I would like to see low-power broadcasting made easier for communities and individuals to engage in, I must agree with you. If our country gets to a point where which laws apply to me depend on which legislator(s) I have an "in" with, we will no longer have a government of equally-applied laws but a (corrupt) government of men, as Mexico has.

While I think that the rules governing LPFM should be reformed (liberalized within sensible engineering limits), they should apply equally to everyone. Until then, the gentleman has *legal* Part 15 AM and Part 15 FM broadcasting options (multiple synchronized transmitters and/or Carrier Current systems) which, while challenging to implement, can and do permit small communities (and neighborhoods and districts in larger communities) to provide radio service to their residents.


-- Black Shire

The Commission cannot waive statutory requirements (those in 47 U.S.C.). The Commission may, for good cause, waive any its rules (47 C.F.R.) so long as the waiver would not conflict with an express statutory mandate.

No, they really can't. And, doing so would be a golden invitation to lawsuit. You may want to go back and read the case I mentioned earlier. See Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946 (DC Cir. 1986). Another great quote from the case:

"It is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations. Ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned … for therein lies the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and predictability which are the hallmarks of lawful administrative action." (emphasis added)

Another court has stated that there is a "black letter principle that properly enacted regulations have the force of law." See Flores v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1986). So, to ignore the Rule section would be just as if they ignored a statute.

They can always promulgate new Rules, but, they must follow the Administrative Procedures Act in doing so. And, the old Rules remain in force until they complete the process, which can take significant time.

Reuters Ltd. was a case of the FCC trying to ignore -- er, waive -- a Rule. They got their hand slapped. And, arguably, this case is more clear cut. The FCC, or any administrative agency, has some latitude in rules that are considered "housekeeping." § 73.854 would not be one of those.

Oh, well. Back to work.

DE

 

[FreddyE1977]

I actually find this to be very bad news, because it is now clear that LPFM's will be handed out on the basis of political patronage and favoritism....the only thing worse than the FCC's arcane rules.

 

[Timewarp]

What a load of sour grapes from a bunch of lame pirates!

Can't you say congratulations!

Can't you see that it has always been an FCC priority to provide radio service to unserved
American people?

You can get an STA too if you want to serve a community that is not in the primary
service contour of any station.

No one else wanted Goldfield. Our government found someone who was willing to do
it without the potential to make a buck.

The FCC can legally keep renewing that STA!

If you don't like the way the FCC does business, then you have a right to try and change the rules.
Ever heard of a petition for rulemaking? I am proud of the FCC.
They did the right thing!

 

[RadioStarOne]

Re: FCC getting looser---Re: Timewarp but has can of worms just been

I agree the STA given by the FCC is theirs to give anytime they want! But have they just openned a great big can of worms much like back when Carter was president and the FCC granted a license to the first lady to operate a CB radio? When everybody complained the FCC did away with the license requirement one just had to send in a card or something lilke that, anybody remember back then? So who's complaining? I have a friend in another little town in Nevada with only a couple of stations to listen to from a far off town that plays music that is not their style. I told this friend about this story and now the friend wants to put a station on in town. This is going to be an unstoppable movement when the story gets out all over the country. What do you mean you can do this for Goldfield, Nevada, but you can't do it for anysmalltown, USA? And there are thousands of small towns that fit this description. Is the flood coming? I can't wait for Chapter 2 in this story!

 

[DeadElvis]

Well, by reading my of the Rules, the FCC's ability to grant and maintain STAs in not unlimited. Again, let's go the Rules. STAs may be granted "for an initial period not to exceed 180 days. A limited number of extensions of such authorizations may be granted for additional periods not exceeding 180 days per extension." 47 CFR § 73.1635(a)(4) (emphasis added).

So, by my reading, at some point, the STAs cannot continue to be granted. Where is that point? Who knows; perhaps when the next LPFM window opens. But, it isn't forever.

Sour grapes? Of course not. I am a big proponent of LPFM, and am published in a scholarly journal on the subject making arguments against the Radio Preservation Act of 2000. But I, and all Americans, should require our administrative agencies to follow the law. That's it. And, the law is pretty darn clear here.

And, as far as making a Petition for Rulemaking... sure. I have read the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC § 551, et. seq. But, to repeal § 73.854 would be a very serious matter, and an arduous process. Certainly, the FCC would get many, many comments in opposition. Me, for starters.

DE

 

[Timewarp]

No local service as defined by the FCC means that no AM or FM station puts a primary signal
over the community.

You can detemine if your town meets this by doing a simple search on radio-locator.com.

Very few towns in the USA qualify as having no local service. Maybe some other small towns
in Nevada or Alaska. If you live there or move there. You've got a good case.

The Valuable FM frequencies were all taken about 50 years ago. Ones that could make
you a meager living went 20 years ago.

So if you want to do this, Good Luck! The FCC will help you.

I guess there are those who make history and those who just watch the show.

Congrats to Goldfield! The FCC did the right thing!

What a bunch of old sticks in the mud! Lighten up! It's bad for your health!
No kidding!

 

[dbdigital]

The Commission cannot waive statutory requirements (those in 47 U.S.C.). The Commission may, for good cause, waive any its rules (47 C.F.R.) so long as the waiver would not conflict with an express statutory mandate.

No, they really can't. And, doing so would be a golden invitation to lawsuit. You may want to go back and read the case I mentioned earlier. See Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946 (DC Cir. 1986). Another great quote from the case:

"It is elementary that an agency must adhere to its own rules and regulations. Ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be sanctioned … for therein lies the seeds of destruction of the orderliness and predictability which are the hallmarks of lawful administrative action." (emphasis added)

Another court has stated that there is a "black letter principle that properly enacted regulations have the force of law." See Flores v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1986). So, to ignore the Rule section would be just as if they ignored a statute.

They can always promulgate new Rules, but, they must follow the Administrative Procedures Act in doing so. And, the old Rules remain in force until they complete the process, which can take significant time.

Reuters Ltd. was a case of the FCC trying to ignore -- er, waive -- a Rule. They got their hand slapped. And, arguably, this case is more clear cut. The FCC, or any administrative agency, has some latitude in rules that are considered "housekeeping." § 73.854 would not be one of those.

Oh, well. Back to work.

DE

In this case, no waiver of an FCC rule was involved. Regarding STA's, the FCC says:

"That rule provides for special temporary authorization in exceptional situations where (1) the operation does not conform to Part 15 of the Commission's Rules; (2) the operation would be a unique type of station that cannot be established as a regular service, and (3) the proposed operation would serve the public interest." Apparently, this criteria could be applied to the gentleman's station in Goldfield.

What's disturbing, of course, is that it took the arm-twisting of a politician to get the FCC to do the right thing. Obviously, there are many communities throughout the country that are in a similar situation to Goldfield but the FCC is notoriously rigid in its interpretation of its own rules and without the necessary clout these communities wouldn't have a chance. If you search the Commission's database, you'll see that several have tried to get an STA for a similar service but failed.

Of course, an STA is only good for 180 days, so every four and a half months or so the station owner is going to have to justify to the agency why the STA should be extended. Can he keep that going while waiting for an LPFM window to open?

It would be better if more political pressure were put on the FCC to re-start the LPFM process (where is the promised LP-10 service?) and consider the LPAM petition.

db