Birmingham WJLX (Again!)

[exdjted]

It's been a while since we talked about this station and it's missing tower accordingly, but as I recall the timeline is pretty obvious based on the silent STA's filed by the prior owner. It seemed like the prior owner filed for a silent STA on his AM due to the 'inability to source parts for the transmitter'. The station changed hands shortly after they filed to return to the air, but then accounts were that the AM was off again, or never actually returned once the original STA had been granted.
Seems to me if there's a question about the timeline of when or if the AM ever returned to the air, the Commission could insist on a document timeline showing when repairs were made, receipts for parts, and make the current licensee sign an affidavit under penalty of federal perjury, that all the associated timeline for the AM was factual and accurate...blah blah.

Truthfully, Brett Elmore doesn't care, and what can the FCC do to him anyway? He could stand in front of them and profess his guilt, and all they can do is take away his license and fine him, and he'll never pay and they'll never prosecute him. Oh, sure, if he failed to timely file paperwork regarding what happened after a storm, or didn't file FCC EEOC paperwork because 3 Ubangi sheepherders stayed at a Motel 6 one night in his coverage area, then they'd give a crap and the commissioners would be falling all over themselves issuing statements on this supposed travesty against the public trust. Asking them to do their job and actually enforce rules regarding translators originating programming and station owners selling towers for scrap in order to buy their wife a new purse? Heaven forbid!

I sometimes wonder if anyone from the FCC was lurking on this board, would things miraculously be brought to their attention and dealt with? What would a proactive FCC look like, versus an inactive FCC as far as real enforcement goes?

 

[Kelly A]

I sometimes wonder if anyone from the FCC was lurking on this board, would things miraculously be brought to their attention and dealt with? What would a proactive FCC look like, versus an inactive FCC as far as real enforcement goes?

I have a friend who works fairly high up at the Commission I was thinking of mentioning this issue, more out of curiosity than anything. I changed my mind because it wouldn't be appropriate for me to risk some serious cage-rattling at the FCC when anything I would mention would be complete hearsay and speculation on my part. I'm sure there are local folks with actual insider knowledge that could shed credible light on the subject.

 

[tomservo]

What gets me is that I know the FCC has been through Alabama in the not too distant past and issued notices and fines to other stations here, so why they didn't tackle the easy and obvious rulebreaking from WJLX is beyond me. Seems like they have had plenty of time to formulate a NAL and publish it.

 

[wattwatcher]

Wow... The last post regarding this station (fully supported with video evidence) was deleted by management of this site...

This site seems to not like the posting of facts regarding this mangled mess being posted here. They regularly deletes factual reports and the substantiating evidence while allowing and even encouraging some to "trash-talk" others.

There's definitely a political agenda here.

Of course, I'm expecting to find my account also removed (or disabled) after making and pointing out this observation.

 

[radiofan2023]

Wow... The last post regarding this station (fully supported with video evidence) was deleted by management of this site...

This site seems to not like the posting of facts regarding this mangled mess being posted here. They regularly deletes factual reports and the substantiating evidence while allowing and even encouraging some to "trash-talk" others.

There's definitely a political agenda here.

Of course, I'm expecting to find my account also removed (or disabled) after making and pointing out this observation.

Why don't you ask why they removed the post, instead of assuming?

 

[lanceventa]

Wow... The last post regarding this station (fully supported with video evidence) was deleted by management of this site...

This site seems to not like the posting of facts regarding this mangled mess being posted here. They regularly deletes factual reports and the substantiating evidence while allowing and even encouraging some to "trash-talk" others.

There's definitely a political agenda here.

Of course, I'm expecting to find my account also removed (or disabled) after making and pointing out this observation.

There's ZERO agenda. You created a new thread that tried but failed to properly embed a video multiple times that added nothing new...

 

[wattwatcher]

There's ZERO agenda. You created a new thread that tried but failed to properly embed a video multiple times that added nothing new...

Amazingly, there were comments indicating that the video was visible to most and a single comment which indicated one person was unable to see it.

If you would care to embed it yourself, the video is at the following location:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=825823846423727

As for "adding nothing new", there are a LOT of people who have been asking for updates on how the $23,643 in construction has been going. The video addresses that issue "head on". In fact, I think the video shows there hasn't been $23 spent on rebuilding a transmitter site at that location, let alone the $23,643 which was taken and spent "elsewhere".

Of course, it's not my site and you are owner so, it's yours to run as you please. I'm only paying in response to questions I'm asked from the scene and there are obviously others, much farther away and not directly connected to the community who seem to know more. (And, I'm *not* being facetious at all. There are people who are not local to this who seem to think they actually do know more.)

 

[radiofan2023]

Now I can see the video

 

[lanceventa]

Of course, it's not my site and you are owner so, it's yours to run as you please. I'm only paying in response to questions I'm asked from the scene and there are obviously others, much farther away and not directly connected to the community who seem to know more. (And, I'm *not* being facetious at all. There are people who are not local to this who seem to think they actually do know more.)

And there's a lot of he says/he says that I need to ensure doesn't take this site into a legal battle.

It takes time with the FCC, but those skirting afoul of the rules will eventually get what's coming to them. I saw it very recently with a licensee in Texas. Posting for readers of a radio message board is not going to change how quickly that plays out. Take any evidence to proper authorities if you have it, not to ensure "tvfan1974" knows one side.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And there's a lot of he says/he says that I need to ensure doesn't take this site into a legal battle.

For my part, I would like to reconfirm that everything I wrote for Radio World back in February was based on what I could find as factual information using multiple sources. Where I have expressed an opinion, I have preceded same with the appropriate disclaiming language and have based my opinions on the facts in evidence.

It takes time with the FCC, but those skirting afoul of the rules will eventually get what's coming to them. I saw it very recently with a licensee in Texas. Posting for readers of a radio message board is not going to change how quickly that plays out. Take any evidence to proper authorities if you have it, not to ensure "tvfan1974" knows one side.

Very true on all counts. I think that we have devolved as a society into expecting "instant gratification" but the reality is that from a legal standpoint, the FCC will not move forward without knowing they can make the NAV and subsequent actions "stick". And the FCC is not in any way motivated to hurry the process because of comments on a radio message board ... they know that people actually in the business with facts to contribute will do so to the Enforcement Division directly.

(P. S. - My use of "stick" above is intended to be a double entendre, given that this centers around a "stolen" tower.)

 

[R.D.P.]

Time to put this guy out of business. I detest those who break the rules and think they can get away with it.

Dan <><​

 

[secondchoice]

The FCC site is running slow again. Who is the actual owner of WJLX?

 

[K.M. Richards]

The FCC site is running slow again. Who is the actual owner of WJLX?

Go back to post #24. I covered that already.

 

[secondchoice]

I read the post, if I read it correctly "Elmore" is the owner. If I went to the FCC site and it was working: Brett D Elmore" would be the licence holder of WJLX? I want to be sure because some posts said he was the manager but told everyone he was the owner.

If he doesn't use the funds for WJLX could this be wire fraud? I am not sure if "go fund me" folks are required to tell the truth. I am not a lawyer. I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking the question.


BTW assuming they try to make the FCC happy, could they use one of the "Fiberglass" antennas the commission allows non directional AM's use?

 

[K.M. Richards]

I read the post, if I read it correctly "Elmore" is the owner. If I went to the FCC site and it was working: Brett D Elmore" would be the licence holder of WJLX? I want to be sure because some posts said he was the manager but told everyone he was the owner.

I said very clearly that James Earley holds the license. Did you miss that paragraph, perhaps?

Here, look at the entry at Michi's site, which uses the FCC databases:

https://fccdata.org/?facid=&call=WJLX&ccode=1&city=&state=&country=US&zip=&arn=&party=&lmspf=&lmspl=&party_type=ELMFA&latd=&lond=&lang=en

And yes, it is well documented that Elmore holds himself out to be the owner. Does any of that surprise you in this convoluted story?

 

[secondchoice]

IMHO :James Earley (name on license) has the legal responsibility for this mess.

He should have fired Elmore a long time ago but that's water under the bridge. He also should charge Elmore with theft unless the "go fund me" money gets to the WJLX because it was raised for that station.

Could Earley sell this mess? Would the FCC allow a new operator a six month STA to get this AM back running legal?

 

[K.M. Richards]

IMHO :James Earley (name on license) has the legal responsibility for this mess.

100% correct. The FCC never accepts "my employees screwed up" as an excuse. The responsibility always lies with the licensee.

He should have fired Elmore a long time ago but that's water under the bridge. He also should charge Elmore with theft unless the "go fund me" money gets to the WJLX because it was raised for that station.

I get the impression, from what I have been able to find out, that Earley has zero knowledge of what's going on.

Could Earley sell this mess? Would the FCC allow a new operator a six month STA to get this AM back running legal?

Hoo boy. Is that a can of worms, or what?

First, the silent STA expires in February of next year. In order to have any possibility of selling the CP (which is essentially what a licensed station reverts to, status-wise, when silent with no reasonable hope of returning to the air with its licensed facilities*) that STA will have to be renewed.

(*-recognizing the fact that the current licensed facilities no longer physically exist)

Then you have to find someone willing to pay whatever amount Elmore extorts as an asking price. Again, I think Earley -- for whatever reason -- believes everything Elmore tells him. And that somebody has to completely rebuild the station before the STA runs out (they might be able to get one extension but that's still a pretty big ask).

The problem here is that by now, someone has to have tipped off the FCC. We're not aware of it because -- as stated earlier -- the Enforcement Bureau works behind the scenes to put their case together before issuing a NAV. But at this point, even asking for an extension of the silent STA would likely get the attention of Enforcement, and a transfer of control application would definitely draw their scrutiny.

Elmore made a huge mistake in fabricating the "stolen tower" story because now everything he does turns a spotlight on him and will likely backfire on him.

This isn't over yet.

 

[secondchoice]

The real question is what does the translator bill? If it is billing over $50,000 a month this could be worth saving. Under$50 k it would be iffy due to the fact the money you would have to spend to on the AM.

 

[R.D.P.]

What a mess indeed! Glad that Jasper still has Mr. Gary Richardson's WIXI 1360 AM/103.3 FM brand. It's good to know that one legally and lawfully operated radio station still exists in that city. I wish Mr. Gary all the best and to keep at it.

Dan <><

P.S. Hope this story will end with Mr. Brett and all those involved, receiving the most severe punishment that can be given.​

 

[K.M. Richards]

The real question is what does the translator bill? If it is billing over $50,000 a month this could be worth saving. Under$50 k it would be iffy due to the fact the money you would have to spend to on the AM.

From a business standpoint, the translator is WJLX. And since it is being fed by a HD3 stream furnished by one of iHeart's Birmingham stations (which is legal because that translator is not tied to the AM license), there really isn't much point in getting the AM back on the air now.

I just wonder what tall tale Elmore concocted to get that deal with iHeart ...?