R
RadioActive05
Guest
Ah, the pirate on 107.7 maybe a silent.
Read more.
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-20A1.html
Read more.
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-20A1.html
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
E
eGillCVI
Guest
Okay, defendant Louis Gentile of "4727 Oakmont Street in Philadelphia, PA" is a goofball but $10,000?
$10,000?! Come on! That's ridiculous. At least in this case, the FCC is trying to enforce an actual and existing rule instead of pretending to be the country's morality police. But $10,000 seems a bit excessive, no?
I do love how "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont Street, Philadelphia, PA"* said it was he doing it...and then said it must be someone else--even though he has an antenna on his roof! It's a pretty entertaining situation. A bit like Spy vs. Spy. Remember them?
Anyway, what was "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont Street, Philadelphia, PA" allegedly* broadcasting? And was it even strong enough to interfere with anything else? And why did the FCC have to keep using his name and address in the filing? Seems like a humiliation tactic but maybe it's legalese.
<font size="1">*- Publicly available info. Nothing illegal in my humor here.</font size>
$10,000?! Come on! That's ridiculous. At least in this case, the FCC is trying to enforce an actual and existing rule instead of pretending to be the country's morality police. But $10,000 seems a bit excessive, no?
I do love how "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont Street, Philadelphia, PA"* said it was he doing it...and then said it must be someone else--even though he has an antenna on his roof! It's a pretty entertaining situation. A bit like Spy vs. Spy. Remember them?
Anyway, what was "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont Street, Philadelphia, PA" allegedly* broadcasting? And was it even strong enough to interfere with anything else? And why did the FCC have to keep using his name and address in the filing? Seems like a humiliation tactic but maybe it's legalese.
<font size="1">*- Publicly available info. Nothing illegal in my humor here.</font size>
K
KlassikKountry
Guest
Why does the FCC continue to let Stone broadcast his Reggae, Rap, Hip/Hop and Urban Jamacian pirate on 97.7 with no intervention for years. Could it be the FCC only tackels and harrasses non-minority law breakers, seems like double standards here folks.
Re: Okay, defendant Louis Gentile of "4727 Oakmont Street in Philadelphia, PA" is a goofball but $10,000?
> $10,000?! Come on! That's ridiculous. At least in this
> case, the FCC is trying to enforce an actual and existing
> rule instead of pretending to be the country's morality
> police. But $10,000 seems a bit excessive, no?
No, it isn't. It's what is called for under the federal statute. And it might just send a message to others thinking about doing the same thing. Frankly, I'm glad the FCC is finally getting around to busting some of these illegal broadcasters.
>
> I do love how "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont
> Street, Philadelphia, PA"* said it was he doing it...and
> then said it must be someone else--even though he has an
> antenna on his roof! It's a pretty entertaining situation.
> A bit like Spy vs. Spy. Remember them?
>
> Anyway, what was "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont
> Street, Philadelphia, PA" allegedly* broadcasting?
I don't care, to be honest, if he was reciting Mother Goose on a loop. It is not the content that got him into trouble, but rather the fact he chose to operate on the commercial FM band without a license. Pure and simple.
> And was
> it even strong enough to interfere with anything else?
Again, it doesn't matter. If the law means anything, it must be enforced.
> And
> why did the FCC have to keep using his name and address in
> the filing? Seems like a humiliation tactic but maybe it's
> legalese.
It is, in fact, typical legal language used in many documents...such as criminal indictments and affadavits of probable cause.
To sum up...it's one thing to debate the pros and cons of broadcasting on a forum such as this. Even play pseudo-PD, if you'd like. If you want to play DJ...set up a web site and knock yourself out. But pirate broadcasters are lawbreakers. Nothing less. Want to broadcast? Get a license, even an LPFM. But operate under the law.
My guess here is this will not be a popular opinion on this board. So be it.
> $10,000?! Come on! That's ridiculous. At least in this
> case, the FCC is trying to enforce an actual and existing
> rule instead of pretending to be the country's morality
> police. But $10,000 seems a bit excessive, no?
No, it isn't. It's what is called for under the federal statute. And it might just send a message to others thinking about doing the same thing. Frankly, I'm glad the FCC is finally getting around to busting some of these illegal broadcasters.
>
> I do love how "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont
> Street, Philadelphia, PA"* said it was he doing it...and
> then said it must be someone else--even though he has an
> antenna on his roof! It's a pretty entertaining situation.
> A bit like Spy vs. Spy. Remember them?
>
> Anyway, what was "Mr. Gentile, who resides at 4727 Oakmont
> Street, Philadelphia, PA" allegedly* broadcasting?
I don't care, to be honest, if he was reciting Mother Goose on a loop. It is not the content that got him into trouble, but rather the fact he chose to operate on the commercial FM band without a license. Pure and simple.
> And was
> it even strong enough to interfere with anything else?
Again, it doesn't matter. If the law means anything, it must be enforced.
> And
> why did the FCC have to keep using his name and address in
> the filing? Seems like a humiliation tactic but maybe it's
> legalese.
It is, in fact, typical legal language used in many documents...such as criminal indictments and affadavits of probable cause.
To sum up...it's one thing to debate the pros and cons of broadcasting on a forum such as this. Even play pseudo-PD, if you'd like. If you want to play DJ...set up a web site and knock yourself out. But pirate broadcasters are lawbreakers. Nothing less. Want to broadcast? Get a license, even an LPFM. But operate under the law.
My guess here is this will not be a popular opinion on this board. So be it.
R
raydofan
Guest
This guy had a professional listing too
Look at <a href ="http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypMap.py?Pyt=Typ&tuid=25501179&ck=1655660773&tab=B2C&ycat=8105102&city=Pemberton+Heights&state=NJ&uzip=08068&country=us&msa=6160&cs=4&ed=Acss_q1o2TxRtBM5TAJMv_Z4omRTlTHWFzzwI7YLxQLm&stat=
os:4:regular:regT:20:fbT:0">this.<a/>
Look at <a href ="http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypMap.py?Pyt=Typ&tuid=25501179&ck=1655660773&tab=B2C&ycat=8105102&city=Pemberton+Heights&state=NJ&uzip=08068&country=us&msa=6160&cs=4&ed=Acss_q1o2TxRtBM5TAJMv_Z4omRTlTHWFzzwI7YLxQLm&stat=
os:4:regular:regT:20:fbT:0">this.<a/>
A
apco25
Guest
> Why does the FCC continue to let Stone broadcast his Reggae,
> Rap, Hip/Hop and Urban Jamacian pirate on 97.7 with no
> intervention for years. Could it be the FCC only tackels
> and harrasses non-minority law breakers, seems like double
> standards here folks.
>
I noticed that to. In S. Florida, there's quite of few that are on brazingly swearing the F word this, and the N word that. There very brass like it was legal, and if the FCC intervenes, they'll sue them for racism. They were all black operated pirates with no holes barred.
> Rap, Hip/Hop and Urban Jamacian pirate on 97.7 with no
> intervention for years. Could it be the FCC only tackels
> and harrasses non-minority law breakers, seems like double
> standards here folks.
>
I noticed that to. In S. Florida, there's quite of few that are on brazingly swearing the F word this, and the N word that. There very brass like it was legal, and if the FCC intervenes, they'll sue them for racism. They were all black operated pirates with no holes barred.
E
eGillCVI
Guest
Re: Okay, defendant Louis Gentile of "4727 Oakmont Street in Philadelphia, PA" is a goofball but $10,000?
> My guess here is this will not be a popular opinion on this
> board. So be it.
There are no popular opinions on this board. When making an unpopular point around here, the best way to go about it is to word it as softly as possible. Otherwise, they think you're an arrogant arsehole and they try to eat you alive. LOL.
> My guess here is this will not be a popular opinion on this
> board. So be it.
There are no popular opinions on this board.
When making an unpopular point around here, the best way to go about it is to word it as softly as possible. Otherwise, they think you're an arrogant arsehole and they try to eat you alive. LOL.- Status