• 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

XHBCE-FM, 105.7 MHz

S

SDRadio

for your viewing and dining pleasure: the latest saga (and lawyer talk) at: this link in stereo where available.

Stay Tuned.<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
 
> for your viewing and dining pleasure: the latest saga (and
> lawyer talk) at: this link in stereo where available.

Beat me to it this time, Mr. C.

Fascinating reading, though. Wonder who's right? hehehehe
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

>Wonder who's right? hehehehe

Actually the FCC is still trying to control Mexican stations through use of a 1930'a law that was designed to quiet "The Goat-Gland Surgeon" and his alleged sexual cure.

Read about it at http://www.ominous-valve.com/xerf.html or check Google for "The Brinkley Act"

In this day of the free-flow of information across borders, section 325(c) looks more and more like the relic of another era when the US Government could get away with bullying the Mexican government.

In the 21st Century, let Mexico determine if Mexican stations are operating within terms of the Treaty. The FCC should only be issuing permits when radio transmitters are used to send programming south and then their criteria should be the same as it is for any other microwave link.
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

> In the 21st Century, let Mexico determine if Mexican
> stations are operating within terms of the Treaty. The FCC
> should only be issuing permits when radio transmitters are
> used to send programming south and then their criteria
> should be the same as it is for any other microwave link.

Since the BCA application would include use of a STL, I expect the FCC would use technical criteria for same, but they also would not want to license a transmitter for STL purposes if the receiving station was not operating within the licensed specifications. And like it or not, any Mexican station whose licensed signal area includes the U.S. is subject to international laws and treaties. So the questions raised in the Lazer/Emmis petition are valid, and the FCC is legally required to investigate.

Your vision is far too simplistic to work under international law.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

> And like it or not, any
> Mexican station whose licensed signal area includes the U.S.
> is subject to international laws and treaties. So the
> questions raised in the Lazer/Emmis petition are valid, and
> the FCC is legally required to investigate.
>
> Your vision is far too simplistic to work under
> international law.
>

The issue is: why doesn't the FCC let Mexico decide if Mexican stations are operating within the terms of the treaty? Again, it's because in the 1930's the US had an easier time patronizing Mexico and Tio Sam obviously could not trust the Mexican government, so the Brinkley Act was created as a means for the FCC to be able to apply heat to Mexican stations in some instances.

U.S. stations have primarily used it over the years as a way to try to stifle competiion. KRLA even filed a complaint because Metro News was emailing info to XEMO with a 325(c) permit. As one might expect, that was thrown out, but how much money was wasted on lawyers because of that?

Such jingoism might have a hard time being enacted into law today.


By the way, the section 325(c) reads:

"No person shall be permitted to locate, use, or maintain a radio
broadcast studio or other place or apparatus from which or whereby sound
waves are converted into electrical energy, or mechanical or physical
reproduction of sound waves produced, and caused to be transmitted or
delivered to a radio station in a foreign country for the purpose of being
broadcast from any radio station there having a power output of sufficient
intensity and/or being so located geographically that its emissions may be
received consistently in the United States, without first obtaining a permit
from the Commission upon proper application therefor."

If you send a tape or CD or even email a WAV or MP3 file to a foreign station that reaches the US, you must have a 325(c) permit. In reading this, it sounds like you could legally challenge any record company that ships its CD's to Mexico or Canada without a 325(c) permit. Certainly in the past the law has been applied to producers of pre-recorded programs specifically designed for broadcast (American Top 40 type programming).

This law may be a favorite of disgruntled US radio engineers who continue to trump up alleged violations - and big consulting fees - for a few desperate Southern California radio station owners, but clearly in the age of satellite, internet and other global communications, 325(c) is dinosaur from another era.

Let the programming flow freely across borders, and if the FCC has a problem with a Mexican station, make them approach it through the front door by dealing directly with the SCT not be intimidating program providers.
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

> Let the programming flow freely across borders, and if the
> FCC has a problem with a Mexican station, make them approach
> it through the front door by dealing directly with the SCT
> not be intimidating program providers.

This entire issue could be easily resolved by Jamie Bonilla. He could simply move his studios south of the border. End of FCC jurisdiction over his STL use, end of story.

But obviously, he does not want to move away from easy acces to the San Diego market. And the American dollars that reside there. If the Tijuana market is so rich, as David Eduardo pointed out a while back, it seems like a no-brainer to simply move away from the FCC hammer.

Simple deductive reasoning points to the obvious: Having studios on the north side of the border is worth all of this legal wrangling, and the money it is costing everyone. If there was no extra money to be made on the north side of the border, all of this would be a non-story.
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

That was a nice attempt at obfuscation, Crusty.

However, the FCC is <u>not</u> making a determination of whether or not Bonilla's station is operating legally. The SCT has that responsibility.

The FCC <u>is</u> being asked if allowing Lynch to have approval uner 325(c) to provide programming to Bonilla is in the public interest <u>if</u> Bonilla is not complying with the terms of his SCT-issued license, issued with terms negotiated under the treaty.

If Bonilla is operating legally, there should be no reason to deny the 325(c) application. If he isn't, the FCC has every legal right to withhold the application until the SCT takes action against Bonilla.

Where you have muddied the waters is by incorrectly blurring the distinction. The FCC is not being asked to take action against Bonilla.
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Location, location, location

it's a simple solution of "Location, location, location." Having a Sandy Eggo address is far better for a radio station, it seems.

Bob, you make some valid points and know first hand about running a station from Chula Vista to Mexico-based transmitters.

KM: I still have that number handy if you need it. It's in the 818 area code. Probably toll free for you ...


Love your show like Tom Cruise likes bouncin' on Oprah's couch,

and ...

Stay Fricken' Tuned!!<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

>
> But obviously, he does not want to move away from easy acces
> to the San Diego market. And the American dollars that
> reside there. If the Tijuana market is so rich, as David
> Eduardo pointed out a while back, it seems like a no-brainer
> to simply move away from the FCC hammer.
>

The real issue is that Bonilla is an independent, and has no association with any large Mexican broadcaster. His only real market is San Diego, as to do business in Mexico, one must work with a big "rep firm" which actually takes control of the station, provides programming, management and sales in Mexico. Most of the larger companies, like Radiorama, OIR, Somer, etc. rep in this manner a bunch of their O&O stations and dozens if not hundreds of other stations.

Unless you are under a rep, which is almost like a US LMA, you can not get the national billing. Local TJ business is only enough to sustain stations like XEC and the likes.
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

What really galls me is that after the KSON tower partially blew apart what's left over is almost exactly a quarter wavelength on 1040. The Electrical Height had been 168.2 degrees. KURS' supposed 370 watts has always made it up here to Santa Barbara way better than KSON.

Bonilla and his cronies talked the FCC out of a $25,000 Notice of Apparent Liability for a number of violations including repeatedly runnung day power at night. Bonilla doesn't think the FCC regulations apply to him.

> The real issue is that Bonilla is an independent, and has no
> association with any large Mexican broadcaster. His only
> real market is San Diego, as to do business in Mexico, one
> must work with a big "rep firm" which actually takes control
> of the station, provides programming, management and sales
> in Mexico. Most of the larger companies, like Radiorama,
> OIR, Somer, etc. rep in this manner a bunch of their O&O
> stations and dozens if not hundreds of other stations.
>
> Unless you are under a rep, which is almost like a US LMA,
> you can not get the national billing. Local TJ business is
> only enough to sustain stations like XEC and the likes.
 
Re: The Goat-Gland Surgeon problem

> Bonilla and his cronies talked the FCC out of a $25,000
> Notice of Apparent Liability for a number of violations
> including repeatedly runnung day power at night. Bonilla
> doesn't think the FCC regulations apply to him.


Jaime Bonilla may be a real scuzzball for all I know, but even he is entitled to his "day in court" and if the judge - or in this case the FCC - finds that that some or all of the allegations by competitors are false, how does that imply, as you do, that he somehow talked his way out of it? Even if, as again you imply, he doesn't think the FCC regs apply to him, the FCC certainly does and I hardly think they gave him a free pass on this one ( read their decision in that 1999 case at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/da991208.txt ).

There was in fact no valid evidence that KURS violated power limits as alleged. It's one thing to address current allegations but you serve no good purpose by implying that old allegations were somehow improperly "fixed" by the FCC. It reminds me of the LA folks all miffed because KPFK had to share a channel with XLNC. They kept (and some still keep) making allegations about illegal operation of XLNC, but those allegations never held water, so instead they imply some sort of illegality by citing the fact that Victor Diaz was in fact fined because his company moved their US studios a few miles to the west and someone forgot to notice the FCC for a change of location for the STL link to Mexico.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom