One More Reason...

[dbdigital]

Here's one more reason why we won't see New Jersey or Florida strike down their unlicensed broadcasting law any time soon.

And this is just the kind of anecdotal fuel the NAB needs to send ignorant legislators into a tizzy over any form of unlicensed broadcasting; even the legal kind.

db

llegal Broadcasts Hamper Miami Pilots
From Associated Press
March 19, 2006 6:26 PM EST

MIAMI - Airline pilots taking off from Miami International Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate radio station that sometimes interfere with their communications with the control tower.

The music comes on a pair of frequencies from a station that calls itself Da Streetz.

"It's intermittent. Not all day, everyday," said Kathleen Bergen, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman. "But clear communication between air control and the pilots is a critical part of flying."

Authorities traced the signals to an antenna at a nearby warehouse but did not find the disc jockey, although they did confiscate equipment including three computers and a CD player.

Despite that discovery and the seizures, the broadcasts have continued, authorities said.

A call seeking comment Sunday at an FAA weekend contact number in Atlanta was answered by a man who said he was too busy to talk.

The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport transmissions in the past decade.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is helping with the investigation under a state law that went into effect a year ago. The law makes it a felony to interfere with signals from licensed public or commercial stations, or to broadcast without a license.

Authorities said the owner of the warehouse had no idea the building was being used by an illegal radio station.

 

[radioranch]

And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions in excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by the FCC.

> Here's one more reason why we won't see New Jersey or
> Florida strike down their unlicensed broadcasting law any
> time soon.
>
> And this is just the kind of anecdotal fuel the NAB needs to
> send ignorant legislators into a tizzy over any form of
> unlicensed broadcasting; even the legal kind.
>
> db
>
> llegal Broadcasts Hamper Miami Pilots
> From Associated Press
> March 19, 2006 6:26 PM EST
>
> MIAMI - Airline pilots taking off from Miami International
> Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate
> radio station that sometimes interfere with their
> communications with the control tower.
>
> The music comes on a pair of frequencies from a station that
> calls itself Da Streetz.
>
> "It's intermittent. Not all day, everyday," said Kathleen
> Bergen, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman. "But
> clear communication between air control and the pilots is a
> critical part of flying."
>
> Authorities traced the signals to an antenna at a nearby
> warehouse but did not find the disc jockey, although they
> did confiscate equipment including three computers and a CD
> player.
>
> Despite that discovery and the seizures, the broadcasts have
> continued, authorities said.
>
> A call seeking comment Sunday at an FAA weekend contact
> number in Atlanta was answered by a man who said he was too
> busy to talk.
>
> The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar
> investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport
> transmissions in the past decade.
>
> The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is helping with
> the investigation under a state law that went into effect a
> year ago. The law makes it a felony to interfere with
> signals from licensed public or commercial stations, or to
> broadcast without a license.
>
> Authorities said the owner of the warehouse had no idea the
> building was being used by an illegal radio station.
>

 

[radio8z]

> And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions in
> excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by the FCC.


As they are.

It is worthy of note that in this case neither the federal nor state laws prevented the interference since they were apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response from legislators to situations such as this is to pass more laws, further restricting the majority who attempt to obey the law and who are not causing problems.

Neil

 

[EastCountyRadio]

Re: One More Reason, Give me a break...

A well-designed 1-watt transmitter from Broadcast Warehouse is far better for public safety than a poorly designed 25-milliwatt transmitter from Ramsey etc.
While touring a number of broadcast facilities on the west coast over the last couple of months, I found a high number of licensed broadcast facilities in violation of just about ever FCC rule you can think of. One radio station had no tower lights or tower number, another had the strobes out on all four towers, and another had lights out on three towers. One radio station had been dark for six years while filing false documents with the FCC to the contrary, another radio station was running 6-kilo watts instead of the licensed 1,500 watts, it also moved it’s studio 80 miles from the city of license without telling the FCC. A number of radio stations had no monitoring equipment including EBS. Performance wise these stations are a real headache for the FAA, lets face it a 3,000 watt station without a harmonic filter will cause a lot more harm than a 25 milliwatt, why don’t you hear more? Simple: everyone involved is protecting one another, keep in mind many in the print media are owned by those with broadcast interest. Fact is a dark tower in the middle of a moonless night is just as dangerous if not more so than a stray harmonic from a pirate station. The broadcast friendly press is using this isolated case to justify Florida laws regarding undocumented broadcasting.
If the public only knew about the large number of Clear Channel owned stations that violate the rules regarding tower lighting and failure to notify the FAA when lights are out, and how it effects their safety, the public would blow a fuse! The frightening thing is that the bean counters at Clear Channel consider it an acceptable loss like Ford did with the Pinto; they would rather pay a fine here and there than correct the obvious danger to the public.
I asked the engineer I was touring with; why doesn’t the FCC shut these stations down? The answer was: The FCC does not like to shut down licensed stations protected by the NAB regardless of the violations, even if it causes harmful interference, or endangers public safety. The FCC is only interested in the interference an undocumented station might cause the bottom line of some mega broadcaster. In a nut shell the mission of the FCC is to protect big corporate radio as dictated by the NAB, make no mistake it’s about the money; the FCC could careless about public safety or RF interference.
That radio station that moved its studio and did an unauthorized power increase was rewarded by the FCC with a power increase to 6KW and allowed to relocate it’s tower closer to a larger city. Was the FCC aware of the violations by the station before it was granted the upgrade? You bet it was!
As a broadcaster of 35 years, this tour has convinced me the FCC (via congress) is nothing more than a hand puppet for the NAB and big corporate radio, I have lost all respect for the NAB & FCC.
To be fair I have also visited 45 undocumented radio stations over the last two years; only one was causing a problem, mainly operating out of band on 87.9. We contacted the station operator, after advising him of the problem he promptly shut down. Technically not one station caused any harmful interference via harmonics or being to close to another station. We even found a group in an area that was self-policing each other. The group would check one another for harmonics and audio quality etc.
Mike
High Desert Radio
www.radiooutlaw.com

 

[dbdigital]

> > And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions in
> > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by the FCC.
>
>
>
> As they are.
>
> It is worthy of note that in this case neither the federal
> nor state laws prevented the interference since they were
> apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response from
> legislators to situations such as this is to pass more laws,
> further restricting the majority who attempt to obey the law
> and who are not causing problems.
>
> Neil
>

And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great at concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially when prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.

I can just picture state legislatures all across the country following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it even tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if things weren't tough enough already).

Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should be branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC will ever make a move against it.

db

 

[JasonW]

A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

It could be an interesting class action "test case" in Florida or New Jersey (or both) if users of 100% legal (per the FCC rules) Talking House or TalkingSign transmitters (realtors, car dealerships, schools, restaurants, museums, parks, etc.) get charged under the state laws banning unlicensed broadcasting. -- Jason

> > > And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions in
> > > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by the
> FCC.
> >
> >
> >
> > As they are.
> >
> > It is worthy of note that in this case neither the federal
>
> > nor state laws prevented the interference since they were
> > apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response from
>
> > legislators to situations such as this is to pass more
> laws,
> > further restricting the majority who attempt to obey the
> law
> > and who are not causing problems.
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
> And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great at
> concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially when
> prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.
>
> I can just picture state legislatures all across the country
> following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it even
> tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if
> things weren't tough enough already).
>
> Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should be
> branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC will ever
> make a move against it.
>
> db
>

 

[radioranch]

Re: One More Reason, Give me a break...

The FCC has the ability if not always the resources or the desire to police licensed broadcasters (as proven by the five figure fine the previous owners of my station had to pay before I could close on it).

But when radio outlaws get involved, the FCC has to rely on the court system and we all know what a quagmire that is.

www.radiooutlaw.com pretty much proves the point. When 1 watt tranmsmitters are outlawed (and they are), only outlaws will have 1 watt transmitters.

> A well-designed 1-watt transmitter from Broadcast Warehouse
> is far better for public safety than a poorly designed
> 25-milliwatt transmitter from Ramsey etc.
> While touring a number of broadcast facilities on the west
> coast over the last couple of months, I found a high number
> of licensed broadcast facilities in violation of just about
> ever FCC rule you can think of. One radio station had no
> tower lights or tower number, another had the strobes out on
> all four towers, and another had lights out on three towers.
> One radio station had been dark for six years while filing
> false documents with the FCC to the contrary, another radio
> station was running 6-kilo watts instead of the licensed
> 1,500 watts, it also moved it’s studio 80 miles from the
> city of license without telling the FCC. A number of radio
> stations had no monitoring equipment including EBS.
> Performance wise these stations are a real headache for the
> FAA, lets face it a 3,000 watt station without a harmonic
> filter will cause a lot more harm than a 25 milliwatt, why
> don’t you hear more? Simple: everyone involved is protecting
> one another, keep in mind many in the print media are owned
> by those with broadcast interest. Fact is a dark tower in
> the middle of a moonless night is just as dangerous if not
> more so than a stray harmonic from a pirate station. The
> broadcast friendly press is using this isolated case to
> justify Florida laws regarding undocumented broadcasting.
> If the public only knew about the large number of Clear
> Channel owned stations that violate the rules regarding
> tower lighting and failure to notify the FAA when lights are
> out, and how it effects their safety, the public would blow
> a fuse! The frightening thing is that the bean counters at
> Clear Channel consider it an acceptable loss like Ford did
> with the Pinto; they would rather pay a fine here and there
> than correct the obvious danger to the public.
> I asked the engineer I was touring with; why doesn’t the FCC
> shut these stations down? The answer was: The FCC does not
> like to shut down licensed stations protected by the NAB
> regardless of the violations, even if it causes harmful
> interference, or endangers public safety. The FCC is only
> interested in the interference an undocumented station might
> cause the bottom line of some mega broadcaster. In a nut
> shell the mission of the FCC is to protect big corporate
> radio as dictated by the NAB, make no mistake it’s about the
> money; the FCC could careless about public safety or RF
> interference.
> That radio station that moved its studio and did an
> unauthorized power increase was rewarded by the FCC with a
> power increase to 6KW and allowed to relocate it’s tower
> closer to a larger city. Was the FCC aware of the violations
> by the station before it was granted the upgrade? You bet it
> was!
> As a broadcaster of 35 years, this tour has convinced me the
> FCC (via congress) is nothing more than a hand puppet for
> the NAB and big corporate radio, I have lost all respect for
> the NAB & FCC.
> To be fair I have also visited 45 undocumented radio
> stations over the last two years; only one was causing a
> problem, mainly operating out of band on 87.9. We contacted
> the station operator, after advising him of the problem he
> promptly shut down. Technically not one station caused any
> harmful interference via harmonics or being to close to
> another station. We even found a group in an area that was
> self-policing each other. The group would check one another
> for harmonics and audio quality etc.
> Mike
> High Desert Radio
> www.radiooutlaw.com
>

 

[radioranch]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

Florida and New Jersey are not interested in closing down 100% legal operations. Nor have they gone after anyone's Ramsey 25 whether legal or not. They are going after people running hundreds or even thousands of watts even after getting their C&D letters from the FCC.

If you read every public notice about the FCC shutting down pirates, they are all running thousands or even tens of thousands times the legal limit. The FCC doesn't come down on someone because their FM 25 has 260 microvolts at 3 meters.

Since neither the state nor the FCC is putting people in jail for being slightly out of tolerance, I don't see how this is making it difficult for people who want to operate legally.


> It could be an interesting class action "test case" in
> Florida or New Jersey (or both) if users of 100% legal (per
> the FCC rules) Talking House or TalkingSign transmitters
> (realtors, car dealerships, schools, restaurants, museums,
> parks, etc.) get charged under the state laws banning
> unlicensed broadcasting. -- Jason
>
> > > > And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions
> in
> > > > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by the
> > FCC.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As they are.
> > >
> > > It is worthy of note that in this case neither the
> federal
> >
> > > nor state laws prevented the interference since they
> were
> > > apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response
> from
> >
> > > legislators to situations such as this is to pass more
> > laws,
> > > further restricting the majority who attempt to obey the
>
> > law
> > > and who are not causing problems.
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
> >
> > And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great at
> > concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially
> when
> > prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.
> >
> > I can just picture state legislatures all across the
> country
> > following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it even
> > tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if
> > things weren't tough enough already).
> >
> > Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should be
> > branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC will
> ever
> > make a move against it.
> >
> > db
> >
>

 

[WCWalker]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

***These laws are ILLEGAL. Federal Law takes precedence over State and Local law. When they contradict or conflict then Federal Law is supreme.

Basically these states are willfully committing acts of civil disobedience whether they realize it or not. A legal precedent is being set here that now allows ANY legal jurisdiction other than the Fed to regulate broadcasts. This also means a place like Brattleboro, VT could create its own legal unlicensed broadcast rules permitting states like RFB to broadcast.



> Florida and New Jersey are not interested in closing down
> 100% legal operations. Nor have they gone after anyone's
> Ramsey 25 whether legal or not. They are going after people
> running hundreds or even thousands of watts even after
> getting their C&D letters from the FCC.
>
> If you read every public notice about the FCC shutting down
> pirates, they are all running thousands or even tens of
> thousands times the legal limit. The FCC doesn't come down
> on someone because their FM 25 has 260 microvolts at 3
> meters.
>
> Since neither the state nor the FCC is putting people in
> jail for being slightly out of tolerance, I don't see how
> this is making it difficult for people who want to operate
> legally.
>
>
> > It could be an interesting class action "test case" in
> > Florida or New Jersey (or both) if users of 100% legal
> (per
> > the FCC rules) Talking House or TalkingSign transmitters
> > (realtors, car dealerships, schools, restaurants, museums,
>
> > parks, etc.) get charged under the state laws banning
> > unlicensed broadcasting. -- Jason
> >
> > > > > And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions
>
> > in
> > > > > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by
> the
> > > FCC.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As they are.
> > > >
> > > > It is worthy of note that in this case neither the
> > federal
> > >
> > > > nor state laws prevented the interference since they
> > were
> > > > apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response
> > from
> > >
> > > > legislators to situations such as this is to pass more
>
> > > laws,
> > > > further restricting the majority who attempt to obey
> the
> >
> > > law
> > > > and who are not causing problems.
> > > >
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > >
> > > And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great at
> > > concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially
> > when
> > > prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.
> > >
> > > I can just picture state legislatures all across the
> > country
> > > following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it
> even
> > > tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if
> > > things weren't tough enough already).
> > >
> > > Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should
> be
> > > branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC will
> > ever
> > > make a move against it.
> > >
> > > db
> > >
> >
>

 

[JasonW]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

I'm in Alaska, although I'm a native of Miami and grew up there.

I agree--these states are not very likely to "bust" realtors with their Talking House transmitters. The problem with state broadcasting laws like these is that they can be used to shut down Part 15 community radio stations that licensed stations don't want to have around as competition.

Even though only the FCC legally has jurisdiction over broadcasting, most Part 15 radio station owners don't have the resources to fight these state laws in court. Most will simply go off the air to avoid the cost and hassle. That is why these state broadcasting laws should be challenged and ruled illegal (which they are) as soon as possible. -- Jason

> Florida and New Jersey are not interested in closing down
> 100% legal operations. Nor have they gone after anyone's
> Ramsey 25 whether legal or not. They are going after people
> running hundreds or even thousands of watts even after
> getting their C&D letters from the FCC.
>
> If you read every public notice about the FCC shutting down
> pirates, they are all running thousands or even tens of
> thousands times the legal limit. The FCC doesn't come down
> on someone because their FM 25 has 260 microvolts at 3
> meters.
>
> Since neither the state nor the FCC is putting people in
> jail for being slightly out of tolerance, I don't see how
> this is making it difficult for people who want to operate
> legally.
>
>
> > It could be an interesting class action "test case" in
> > Florida or New Jersey (or both) if users of 100% legal
> (per
> > the FCC rules) Talking House or TalkingSign transmitters
> > (realtors, car dealerships, schools, restaurants, museums,
>
> > parks, etc.) get charged under the state laws banning
> > unlicensed broadcasting. -- Jason
> >
> > > > > And it's one more reason why ALL radio transmissions
>
> > in
> > > > > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by
> the
> > > FCC.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As they are.
> > > >
> > > > It is worthy of note that in this case neither the
> > federal
> > >
> > > > nor state laws prevented the interference since they
> > were
> > > > apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the response
> > from
> > >
> > > > legislators to situations such as this is to pass more
>
> > > laws,
> > > > further restricting the majority who attempt to obey
> the
> >
> > > law
> > > > and who are not causing problems.
> > > >
> > > > Neil
> > > >
> > >
> > > And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great at
> > > concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially
> > when
> > > prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.
> > >
> > > I can just picture state legislatures all across the
> > country
> > > following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it
> even
> > > tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if
> > > things weren't tough enough already).
> > >
> > > Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should
> be
> > > branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC will
> > ever
> > > make a move against it.
> > >
> > > db
> > >
> >
>

 

[radioranch]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

> I agree--these states are not very likely to "bust" realtors
> with their Talking House transmitters. The problem with
> state broadcasting laws like these is that they can be used
> to shut down Part 15 community radio stations that licensed
> stations don't want to have around as competition.

And sanitation laws can be used to shut down restuarants that McDonald's doesn't want as competition. And traffic laws can be used to slow up shipments to stores that Wal-mart doesn't want to compete with. And sign ordinances can be used to shutter businesses that don't join the local merchants association.

When the Florida authorities raid a legal Part 15 operator then I'll join you in your outrage. Until then, it's nice to see someone with actual arrest authority trying to capture the bad guys, instead of Federal bureaucrats with cease and desist orders.

 

[wkbam1690]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

> ***These laws are ILLEGAL. Federal Law takes precedence
> over State and Local law. When they contradict or conflict
> then Federal Law is supreme.
>
> Basically these states are willfully committing acts of
> civil disobedience whether they realize it or not. A legal
> precedent is being set here that now allows ANY legal
> jurisdiction other than the Fed to regulate broadcasts.
> This also means a place like Brattleboro, VT could create
> its own legal unlicensed broadcast rules permitting states
> like RFB to broadcast.
>
>
>
> > Florida and New Jersey are not interested in closing down
> > 100% legal operations. Nor have they gone after anyone's
> > Ramsey 25 whether legal or not. They are going after
> people
> > running hundreds or even thousands of watts even after
> > getting their C&D letters from the FCC.
> >
> > If you read every public notice about the FCC shutting
> down
> > pirates, they are all running thousands or even tens of
> > thousands times the legal limit. The FCC doesn't come
> down
> > on someone because their FM 25 has 260 microvolts at 3
> > meters.
> >
> > Since neither the state nor the FCC is putting people in
> > jail for being slightly out of tolerance, I don't see how
> > this is making it difficult for people who want to operate
>
> > legally.
> >
> >
> > > It could be an interesting class action "test case" in
> > > Florida or New Jersey (or both) if users of 100% legal
> > (per
> > > the FCC rules) Talking House or TalkingSign transmitters
>
> > > (realtors, car dealerships, schools, restaurants,
> museums,
> >
> > > parks, etc.) get charged under the state laws banning
> > > unlicensed broadcasting. -- Jason
> > >
> > > > > > And it's one more reason why ALL radio
> transmissions
> >
> > > in
> > > > > > excess of a few milliwatts SHOULD be regulated by
> > the
> > > > FCC.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As they are.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is worthy of note that in this case neither the
> > > federal
> > > >
> > > > > nor state laws prevented the interference since they
>
> > > were
> > > > > apparently not followed. Unfortunately, the
> response
> > > from
> > > >
> > > > > legislators to situations such as this is to pass
> more
> >
> > > > laws,
> > > > > further restricting the majority who attempt to obey
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > law
> > > > > and who are not causing problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neil
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And this is exactly my point. Politicians are great
> at
> > > > concocting knee-jerk, reactive legislation, especially
>
> > > when
> > > > prodded by powerful lobbies using dubious evidence.
> > > >
> > > > I can just picture state legislatures all across the
> > > country
> > > > following Florida's and New Jersey's lead, making it
> > even
> > > > tougher for unlicensed, but legal, broadcasters (as if
>
> > > > things weren't tough enough already).
> > > >
> > > > Even though a state law regulating broadcasting should
>
> > be
> > > > branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC
> will
> > > ever
> > > > make a move against it.
> > > >
> > > > db
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
I would think this would have far-reaching consequences, not just regarding broadcasting, but ANY Federally-mandated regulations, which states will now have precedence in usurping...

 

[JasonW]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

I don't have to fall off a cliff to know that edging ever closer to the precipice is a bad idea.

Some *FCC* field agents have already issued shutdown orders to fully-compliant Part 15 radio stations (just ask William Walker about the infamous "Kansas Incident"), and they're supposed to be the experts in such matters.

When he was in Medina, New York, his Part 15 AM radio station was reported to the police, who blew off the whole issue. If New York had had a law like New Jersey's, the legal problems could have easily put his station off the air.

I doubt if the Florida or New Jersey state broadcasting enforcement units have engineering expertise on a par with the FCC's (as incomplete as theirs sometimes is), and I for one would not want to have my Part 15 broadcasting activities regulated by broadcast engineering amateurs armed with guns and the full force of the law. -- Jason

> > I agree--these states are not very likely to "bust"
> realtors
> > with their Talking House transmitters. The problem with
> > state broadcasting laws like these is that they can be
> used
> > to shut down Part 15 community radio stations that
> licensed
> > stations don't want to have around as competition.
>
> And sanitation laws can be used to shut down restuarants
> that McDonald's doesn't want as competition. And traffic
> laws can be used to slow up shipments to stores that
> Wal-mart doesn't want to compete with. And sign ordinances
> can be used to shutter businesses that don't join the local
> merchants association.
>
> When the Florida authorities raid a legal Part 15 operator
> then I'll join you in your outrage. Until then, it's nice
> to see someone with actual arrest authority trying to
> capture the bad guys, instead of Federal bureaucrats with
> cease and desist orders.
>

 

[billybee]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

> > > > > Even though a state law regulating broadcasting
> should
> >
> > > be
> > > > > branded as illegal, there is no indication the FCC
> > will
> > > > ever
> > > > > make a move against it.
> > > > >
> > > > > db
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> I would think this would have far-reaching consequences, not
> just regarding broadcasting, but ANY Federally-mandated
> regulations, which states will now have precedence in
> usurping...
>
FCC Rules and Regulations are not laws. The FCC, as a regulatory agency, has more power with rules/regs than local agencies have with laws, as long as they're dealing with licensed broadcasters. Clear Channel can lose a license or pay a huge fine for a bad word on the air. A pirate station has nothing to lose except through the courts. And that very rarely happens.

While states can't contradict or be in conflict with federal regulations, they can enact more restrictive regulations. Unless the FCC fights it in court, which they won't.

 

[radioranch]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

>
> While states can't contradict or be in conflict with federal
> regulations, they can enact more restrictive regulations.
> Unless the FCC fights it in court, which they won't.
>

And the Florida law does not contradict FCC rules. If you are an otherwise legal Part 15 operation and you are interfering with anybody's efforts to listen to a licensed broadcaster, then you are illegal.

If you are running 10 nanowatts on 96.5, and the guy in the apartment below you wants to listen to a Class A on 96.7 40 miles away, you would be illegally interfering, even if it's not within the 96.7 station's protected contour.

Translators are forced to shut down or move all the time because one listener complains of interference to a station he would rationally not normally listen to. That's the FCC rules and they can enforce them on a licensed translator which is a secondary service. They have to use the courts, marshalls and other agencies to enforce the rules on pirates.

If the state shuts you down because of some capricious local official who doesn't like you, get a lawyer and get rich.

 

[WCWalker]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

***The FCC has made it abundantly clear that they are the sole overseers of the airwaves. In fact they issued a formal statement on this issue not too long ago and in it they said that the FCC is responsible for managing and policing the airwaves.

Rogue entities in state governments like NJ and FLA have no business trying to pass legislation prohibiting unlicensed broadcasting even if it is on a pirate level because the FCC already has regulations in place.

That simple...


> >
> > While states can't contradict or be in conflict with
> federal
> > regulations, they can enact more restrictive regulations.
>
> > Unless the FCC fights it in court, which they won't.
> >
>
> And the Florida law does not contradict FCC rules. If you
> are an otherwise legal Part 15 operation and you are
> interfering with anybody's efforts to listen to a licensed
> broadcaster, then you are illegal.
>
> If you are running 10 nanowatts on 96.5, and the guy in the
> apartment below you wants to listen to a Class A on 96.7 40
> miles away, you would be illegally interfering, even if it's
> not within the 96.7 station's protected contour.
>
> Translators are forced to shut down or move all the time
> because one listener complains of interference to a station
> he would rationally not normally listen to. That's the FCC
> rules and they can enforce them on a licensed translator
> which is a secondary service. They have to use the courts,
> marshalls and other agencies to enforce the rules on
> pirates.
>
> If the state shuts you down because of some capricious local
> official who doesn't like you, get a lawyer and get rich.
>

 

[radioranch]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

> ***The FCC has made it abundantly clear that they are the
> sole overseers of the airwaves. In fact they issued a
> formal statement on this issue not too long ago and in it
> they said that the FCC is responsible for managing and
> policing the airwaves.
>
> Rogue entities in state governments like NJ and FLA have no
> business trying to pass legislation prohibiting unlicensed
> broadcasting even if it is on a pirate level because the FCC
> already has regulations in place.
>
> That simple...

Excellent theory. But the FCC has no enforcement teeth. The Dade County Sheriff does. If the Sheriff is enforcing FCC rules, I have no problem. If an FCC agent stops a robbery at the 7-11, I have no problem. If they are making rules that contradict FCC rules then there is a problem. The law refers to interfering with licensed broadcasts. If you are interfering, then you are no longer Part 15 compliant, whether it's a cordless phone, a Ramsey 25 or a Talking House.

Robbing a bank is a federal offense, and the FBI has jurisdiction over robberies of federally insured banks. Should the local police wait until a federal agent shows up to chase the bad guys? Or would that be a rogue government.

 

[Don2]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

Didn't the F.C.C. pass a law some time back that allowed local police departments to act on interference issues from C.B. radios? Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember there was a big stink about it..<P ID="signature">______________
"What is this R.F. and How Does It Do That?.."</P>

 

[WCWalker]

Re: A thought (Re: One More Reason...)

***Dunno. But I do know the FCC released a Statement on this issue right after they got wind of the proposed FLA legislation concerning unlicensed broadcasters. The FCC made it clear that the Telecommunications Act of 1934 prohibits local and state government entities from regulating broadcasting of any sort including unlicensed broadcasting.


> Didn't the F.C.C. pass a law some time back that allowed
> local police departments to act on interference issues from
> C.B. radios? Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember there
> was a big stink about it..
>

 

[dbdigital]

> Here's one more reason why we won't see New Jersey or
> Florida strike down their unlicensed broadcasting law any
> time soon.
>
> And this is just the kind of anecdotal fuel the NAB needs to
> send ignorant legislators into a tizzy over any form of
> unlicensed broadcasting; even the legal kind.
>
> db
>
> llegal Broadcasts Hamper Miami Pilots
> From Associated Press
> March 19, 2006 6:26 PM EST
>
> MIAMI - Airline pilots taking off from Miami International
> Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate
> radio station that sometimes interfere with their
> communications with the control tower.
>
> The music comes on a pair of frequencies from a station that
> calls itself Da Streetz.
>
> "It's intermittent. Not all day, everyday," said Kathleen
> Bergen, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman. "But
> clear communication between air control and the pilots is a
> critical part of flying."
>
> Authorities traced the signals to an antenna at a nearby
> warehouse but did not find the disc jockey, although they
> did confiscate equipment including three computers and a CD
> player.
>
> Despite that discovery and the seizures, the broadcasts have
> continued, authorities said.
>
> A call seeking comment Sunday at an FAA weekend contact
> number in Atlanta was answered by a man who said he was too
> busy to talk.
>
> The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar
> investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport
> transmissions in the past decade.
>
> The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is helping with
> the investigation under a state law that went into effect a
> year ago. The law makes it a felony to interfere with
> signals from licensed public or commercial stations, or to
> broadcast without a license.
>
> Authorities said the owner of the warehouse had no idea the
> building was being used by an illegal radio station.
>

Some of you may have already read this but here is a great article on why the Florida and New Jersey laws are a failure and should be abolished.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,05214.cfm

This really says it all.

db