The FCC rarely issues an NAL and monetary fine to the operator(s) of an unlicensed AM or FM setup. Normally an NOUO is sufficient.
But for a heads up, the link below includes the comments of Bill DeFelice and Carmine5 about a very recent NAL issued by the FCC for non-compliance of an unlicensed system using the FM broadcast band.
It is interesting/revealing that the response of Carmine5 there refers to FCC §15.209 -- which applies to unlicensed systems using the AM broadcast band.
But regardless of that, how could Carmine5 rationally expect that operators subject to such an NAL and fine might be influenced by anything that I or anyone else might tell them, when they've already ignored their official inspections and legal actions by the FCC?
That is ridiculous.
https://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/community/index.php?topic=3551.msg22526#msg22526
The NAL itself seems to have been earned by the pirate operator, having previously been contacted, but as with all FCC NOUOs and NALs information is lacking.
We'd like to know what kind of transmitter/antenna/power/programming, and name of the compainant.
Most of all the color commentary from Bill and Carmine5 are a charm.
Yes, it's ridiculous, but it's also goofy, unless those are the same thing.
... Most of all the color commentary from Bill and Carmine5 are a charm. ...
Mr Blare: Could you kindly differentiate the comments in those posts that have charm from those that do not?
I expect that your reply might be of general interest here, and even elsewhere.
Charm in the sense of having one's attention drawn to a bumbling carnival side-show such as the 3 Stooges.
It is not wrong to chuckle at foolishness when it is freely offered on a public website.
I look forward to Carmine5's visits here at part15(dot)us each time he renews his friendship long enough to tell us where we've gone wrong.
If only Bill would sign himself in. Shame never to encounter him in person.
OMG! This is rich (sorry). Someone here jokingly says that everyone should raise their input power to 110mW for some show that a member has produced and R.Fry goes into his usual humorless FCC traffic cop mode and starts reciting chapter and verse of the Part 15 code. I make a joke about it and get unfairly dog-piled over here.
Guess what, Fry? We're adults. We know the Part 15 rules backwards and forwards. Nobody but NOBODY needs your constant tut-tutting as to what is and what is not legal.
I don't know what else one could say about a NOUO that carries a 15 grand fine (I suppose I could say, "Don't do this at home", but that should be self-evident). So I jokingly said that these folks could use a paternal lecture from Mr. Fry.
So, R.Fry--stop whining and lighten up.
You're wasting your breath, Rich could not give a rats ars about anything we say to him here or at many of the other radio related forums. See some people quoute scripture from the bible or what ever holy book they seem to think is written by a higher power and expect the choir to nod and holler Amen.
Rich qoutes from his bible, the official fcc rule book ad nauseam all over the net and yet cannot seem to take his nose out of this rule thumping long enough to see the human side of things.
Like humor, sarcasm, anger, boredom and a host of other human emotions that FRY seems to lack.
If i didn't like Mr. Spock of Star Trek, I would have already associated Rich with the famous vulcan who was always and i do mean always, anal yzing everything.
As you said "So, R,Fry--stop whining and lighten up." Really, lighten up. Shut down all those computers, close your rule book ,turn off your cell phone, rip the landline out of the wall, go outside and see the world for what it really is without all those rules you are so religiously spout about and live a little.
We know the rules already, stop beating that old dead horse and leave us alone for awhile.
I promise you, the rest of us free thinking adults will behave ourselves while you take a year long sabatical from Rule Thumping.
That kind of behavior can't be healthy.
Reverand Barry Sallade
Blue Bucket Radio 89.7 FM
Broadcasting 200 feet as approved
Mr. R.Fry himself. (not really)
I think the FCC is sending us a message and we haven't been catching on.
Think of this... Mr. Ramirez broadcast openly and presumably with high power for who knows how long, and in the end it will cost him $15,000.
That's it.
Broadcast now, pay later. It's a deal.
The FCC may require a license that they won't give, but they let you broadcast without one until they find out and collect the money.
It's cheaper than building a licensed station.
Sounds Reasonable
Just adding my two cents worth, that other site is also notorious for flagging posts with disclaimers if you just happen to phrase your posts with questionable words, which I found more insulting than anything.
If your vision is impaired and on screen type is hard to see, it goes without saying some sentences may be improperly worded and could be taken the wrong way.
A simple phrase such as "I Don't believe in pirating" misworded as "I do believe in pirating" can get you into a lot of hot water in this hobby. I can't remember now, exactly what the hell I misworded over there but that big red bold disclaimer got tossed on that post about that site does not endorse illegal operations and won't be tolorated Blah..blah..blah! Really, I find that quite offensive and then when you say it was misquoted, the admin who is the same person in second form does not at least edit the damned post to what it was meant to say in the first place.
Like I told The Legacy because he is also visually impaired, he needs to proof read his posts making damned sure his punctuation and componded words are correct. Did and didn't are two completely different words. Check my posts, 100% of them have spelling errors somewhere along the line. Trust me, impaired vision is not a choice, its an unwelcomed eye diease.
What's my point? Although you find Rich annoying here, quouting the good book, I found the same from the admin over there, who just happens to be two in the same person.
Bruce.
From Carmine5 in Reply 5 above "...We know the Part 15 rules backwards and forwards ..."
That may be true for some operators of unlicensed AM/FM systems subject to FCC jurisdiction.
But operators receiving FCC NOUOs/NALs probably didn't understand how to install a system to be compliant with Part 15, and/or weren't concerned with doing so.
Aiding and abetting this over the years are the website posts of some manufacturers, distributors, installers and operators of "Part 15" systems that promote non-compliant configurations.
Technical proof showing this lately has been labeled by some here as "techno babble," "whining," and "rule thumping."
Of course those people are free to believe/post/operate as they wish, even though compliance with Part 15 for a given system is unsupported by physical reality.
_______
PLEASE note that I have no personal interest in whatever unlicensed system anyone makes/sells/promotes/installs/uses.
My posts are made to provide operators wanting to comply with Part 15 with accurate technical information to do so.
But ultimately the configuration and operation of that system is their decision.
Rich finds some Part 15 manufacturers guilty of misconduct: "Aiding and abetting this over the years are the website posts of some manufacturers, distributors, installers and operators of "Part 15" systems."
To attack manufacturers and vendors of Part 15 products is to attack the Part 15 hobby itself.
This is NOT the World Court for airing personally held grievances against the few businesses serving the Part 15 community.
If anything is anti-Part 15 this repeated kind of derogatory slur makes the grade.
Destroying the commercially available equipment is the same as wrecking the hobby itself.
Mr Blare posts about me in Reply 11 above, "Ban him."
We should note that Mr Blare posted no disproof of my comments in Reply 10.
But apparently he didn't like them.
________
Added at 6:45 pm: Now I see that Mr Blare deleted his comment in Reply 11 about banning me. Better late than never, I guess.
I removed the "ban him" statement because I thought it was not a judgement for one person to make.
Further... you said:
"We should note that Mr Blare posted no disproof of my comments in Reply 10.
But apparently he didn't like them."
Rich, we are not a trial court judging the integrity of Part 15 transmitter manufacturers.
True, I didn't like your remarks.
Mr Blare posted about me, Good luck with your assault on the Part 15 businesses.
Kindly note that no assault is worth mounting to businesses and others who actually understand and observe the limits of Part 15 AM/FM. What would be the point of that?
Also note that I don't and have never made an "assault" against compliant systems, regardless of your belief to the contrary.
if you think you can prove otherwise, please do so.
Rich, I hesitate to be negative here... but come on. I've got to align myself with Carl. This forum has gotten your message, over and over again. Not to be too harsh, but you're starting to become the kind of guy who crashed a party and just refuses to leave.
Thank you for trying to keep us all "out of jail"... but we've heard you.
What's your point? Some people will drive 5 mph over the speed limit, yes. Warn them once, then let it go.
I'm guessing you have some other valuable input for us here. Please share *that* instead.