Why the HELL it would not be completely legal (in fact, why it would not be a legal REQUIREMENT) for stations to post their public file on-line (as OPPOSED to, NOT in addition to, maintaining it on paper) is beyond me--other than that it is the usual inertia of government bureaucracies. Sure, there would be complaints about crashed servers. Sure, hackers would attempt to alter the files. But those problems could be handled. For one thing, the public should be given access only to a copy. The original ought to be on a completely separate computer, which should be backed up off-site (for example, through a service like Carbonite). But this is the 21st century, for heaven's sake, and this is the Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission! The FCC, of all agencies, should be tuned into modern technology. If the public file were on line, it should be the station's right to charge anyone a substantial fee ($500?) for a paper copy, which would not have to be up to date and could legally be delivered to the requester as long as 60 days after the station received the requester's written request.
-
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
WSRO public files question
- Thread starter ferreira_67
- Start date
I'm sure this isn't the reason the FCC hasn't moved to require on-line posting of public files, but WJIB gets about 2,500 letters and emails (all but about 5 are positive) a year. Taking time/resources to post all of these would be very burdensome, and deplete time to run a radio station. Imagine scanning all of those. I imagine many talk stations get that many letters/emails, too. And, the whole public file issue is way outdated and unecessary. If stations have to have public files, then so should all internet sites, especially with ownership reports, as there is way more deception of WHO is telling the story with internet sites than there is with broadcasting stations.DanStrassberg said:
JIBGUY said:
Bob's exactly right! There are more efforts going on at the FCC to change the public file rules (or eliminate them) than to make it more costly and time consuming for small stations to maintain a relic of the 1930's. I agree though, it's a heck of a lot easier to put a card of thanks in a file drawer than to scan it and post it online.
MarcB said:
Not only not correct, but a potentially costly assumption. The FCC looks at it *every* time a station is inspected, and levies fines if the owner has even one required document missing from the file. The public, for whom the file is (in theory) maintained, hardly ever looks at it, but the public doesn't have the power to levy fines either.
This is Alex Langer. I am the owner of WSRO AM 650 and formerly owner of WBIX and the old AM 1470 AM WSRO in Marlborough, MA. Just for the record, I used to be on this board a lot more often in the past, than recently. When someone pointed out this thread to me, I felt obligated to respond right away. I'm just sorry that I did't see it sooner.
I don't know who the person that started this thread is, nor his or her motives. I do know many of you who responded personally. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I have to take this person's comments at face value. But I need to set the record straight.
We take our public file obligations at WSRO extremely seriously. Besides community service, a public file, well kept, is the primary responsibility of any broadcaster. Contrary to this anonymous person's claims, WSRO is well-staffed during business hours and the public file is open for anyone to inspect. I'm not saying you can't go there once and not find someone in the office. Sometimes I leave to mail a letter, or I'm not in at all and a couple of employees are at a meeting off site at the same time, but we're never out of the building for long. I remember the old owner of WBOQ who was a one-man show and ran the radio station from his house. If someone rang his doorbell on any given day, where would he be? In the post office? Sleeping? Aaah, The good old days! I don't know when, how many times or even if the person who started the thread came to 100 Mt. Wayte Ave. and tried to look at the public file, or whether he or she had an axe to grind.
We're so commited to keeping a clean and up-to-date public file at WSRO, that we actually pay our FCC attorey extra to review it quarterly. I have the bills and emails to prove it. If anyone wishes to view the WSRO public file, or my bills and emails, please call me on my personal phone, 508-820-0001 X 105. I'll be proud to show off all the above and will welcome you personally. Thanks for listening.
I don't know who the person that started this thread is, nor his or her motives. I do know many of you who responded personally. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I have to take this person's comments at face value. But I need to set the record straight.
We take our public file obligations at WSRO extremely seriously. Besides community service, a public file, well kept, is the primary responsibility of any broadcaster. Contrary to this anonymous person's claims, WSRO is well-staffed during business hours and the public file is open for anyone to inspect. I'm not saying you can't go there once and not find someone in the office. Sometimes I leave to mail a letter, or I'm not in at all and a couple of employees are at a meeting off site at the same time, but we're never out of the building for long. I remember the old owner of WBOQ who was a one-man show and ran the radio station from his house. If someone rang his doorbell on any given day, where would he be? In the post office? Sleeping? Aaah, The good old days! I don't know when, how many times or even if the person who started the thread came to 100 Mt. Wayte Ave. and tried to look at the public file, or whether he or she had an axe to grind.
We're so commited to keeping a clean and up-to-date public file at WSRO, that we actually pay our FCC attorey extra to review it quarterly. I have the bills and emails to prove it. If anyone wishes to view the WSRO public file, or my bills and emails, please call me on my personal phone, 508-820-0001 X 105. I'll be proud to show off all the above and will welcome you personally. Thanks for listening.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, Alex: When will the FCC act on WSRO's application for 1.5 kW-D/60W-N DA-2? If it's really true that the proposed operation would cause prohibited daytime overlap with WRKO, I can imagine that you might have to reduce the daytime power to 1 kW or so. If you have to reduce the day power, you will need to modify the pattern to provide the requisite daytime signal to Ashland. That would make the pattern less directional. Since the D and N patterns are the same notwithstanding the DA-2 classification, I guess the night power would have to be reduced. Still, 30 or 40 watts at night with a main lobe to the northeast would be better than the present 9W ND, especially in areas east of downtown Framingham. It's a shame to see the application apparently just languishing.
For the record, when we bought 1470 from Alex, I went out to Framingham,
personally, and picked up the 1470 Public File from him. It is now integrated with our own
current records, and is included in the ongoing 1470 (now WAZN) Public File.
personally, and picked up the 1470 Public File from him. It is now integrated with our own
current records, and is included in the ongoing 1470 (now WAZN) Public File.
DanStrassberg, All great questions. We expect to hear from the FCC any day now. We'll probably have to build it sometime next year. WSRO will not interfere with WRKO. We have outbound measurements from our tower site that prove that the actual conductivity is a lot less the FCC's published M3 data. If M3 were literally true, you'd be absolutely right and we would never have gotten 1500 watts! But neither would half the AMs in greater Boston ever have been built. The conductivity in New England is notoriously poor because our coastal soil is loosely packed sand and rock, unlike say, Oklahoma, which is solid rock. A watt in OK goes a lot further than a watt in MA! Poor isn't necessarily bad, though. Between the presence of the ocean that you can dump lots of excess signal into and poor conducivity, you can do a lot in NE that you can't in other parts of the country. AM signals do a lot worse in sand than solid rock, take the Cape for example, which seems to inhale AM signals. WSRO's day signal easily covers Ashland, the city of license, whether it's 250 W ND or 1500W D.
On another subject, if you are running less than 250 watts, as we are at night, the FCC doesn't require that you cover the city of license with NIF or even a 5 mV signal. I'm not sure we even cover Ashland at night right now.
And I'll verify that WLYNgm did indeed pick up the public file personally. I was there.
On another subject, if you are running less than 250 watts, as we are at night, the FCC doesn't require that you cover the city of license with NIF or even a 5 mV signal. I'm not sure we even cover Ashland at night right now.
And I'll verify that WLYNgm did indeed pick up the public file personally. I was there.
bixsro11 said:
Well, if anyone can demonstrate to Media Bureau Engineering that AMs will fit where nobody would believe they could, your man, Charlie Hecht, would seem to be the guy who can do it! Just don't ask him about WVVT vs WFAN and his proposed move of the WVVT CP from Essex Junction VT to E Greenbush NY. But when is WQOM going to get the license to cover its day-site move? I haven't even seen a notice of Holy Family's having filed for the license.
- Status