Steve at RadioNewark you have reached this blogger with your comment, and, after going back and re-reading the NOUO I admit to having been blind to the very first sentence, which is the heart of your message: "The NY Office has received information..."
It also, based on your further remarks, seems very likely that the station at 1620 must have "made noise" in a way that made it obvious WHERE IT WAS LOCATED, and produced content which IGNITED SOMEONE'S IRE.
With this scenario the fcc didn't need to raise program content as a cause of action, it only needed a technical violation.
Naive or not, I also believe that a low power signal operated with the smooth sound of a "normal" radio station, would go mainly unnoticed by the average dial twirler, and would seemingly be coming from "anywhere," unless great emphasis is given to a specific location.
Wiser and age-ier.
"... unless great emphasis is given to a specific location."
You mean like me? The whole purpose of my effort here is to serve the town and whatever I can of the island. We really don't much care how things are done on the mainland. When we go off-island, we often say things like:
"Yeah, I have to go over to America today." 😉
As was already noted, 15.223 is not applicable to 1620 kHz. Maybe the inspector is inexperienced, but although the recipient of the NOUO can note the FCC's error in his reply, there was still a violation of another part of the rules. I've heard of legal proceedings being dismissed because of errors in the legal paperwork. I wonder what would happen if the accused asked for dismissal of the NOUO because of the error.
If you are in compliance with the technical aspects of Part 15, it should not matter if you draw attention to yourself, sell ads, even broadcast controversial material (as long as it meets FCC or CRTC content guidelines). Even though I am located in Canada, events like this incense me as much as someone in the U.S. The rules are there to be followed. If they aren't, then you can expect to suffer the consequences. But if you are at least attempting to follow the rules (and there's no evidence that that's not the case, innocent until proven guilty after all), then the regulatory bodies at the very least need to be accurate in informing you and the public what exactly the issues are.
Just about every NOUO starts out with that line of "..received information from...". Now how else does the FCC find out about anything unless they receive information from someone..be it through a complaint or tattle tale??
They don't have magical mystical alien brains and scan the spectrum via remote viewing.
In any case..that NOUO is not specific and is using a double standard as their base....something that seems to be quite common in government and law these days. After all...when a person who openly disputes a sitting president's ideas and policy and is then labeled as a "racist"...well no wonder there are not any recent new publications of dictionaries on the library shelves.
The "either/or" syndrome holds no water. There cannot be "well it could be"..or "well it might be"..or "well it can be".
Interesting to say the least and interesting to see how this one plays out.
RFB
*I've heard of legal proceedings being dismissed because of errors in the legal paperwork.*
And most likely this one will be thrown out because of the double standard jibber jabber within that NOUO.
Really...the FCC could be doing better things and in this case..should have IMO.
RFB
"They don't have magical mystical alien brains and scan the spectrum via remote viewing."
Well, no magic, but they most certainly do have monitoring stations albeit not as many as they used to. This map is not necessarily accurate, but it gives a good idea:
http://www.0xdecafbad.com/fcc
The NW Region agent was the one who filed against KENC. He was 'scanning' in his car and heard a station he didn't recognize, checked it out, and ended up shutting KENC down.
Still, take heart, the FCC has filed against very few operators in the AM band (maybe half dozen a year) compared to the FM band ... people led astray by the sellers of those little 1/2 watt and up desktop rigs, and the intentional pirates.
NOTE: Rant follows. Don't read it if you don't think you can handle it ...
Like other government agencies, the FCC hires private contractors to do a lot of work they're supposed to be responsible for, and now they're having to scramble for every buck they can get their hands on, and marketing strategies have replaced real leadership and its duty to protect the public interest ... US ... if that makes any difference these days.
Our school system here has to rely on bake sales to help some families get books and used computers for their kids. The state has slashed virtually all funding for state parks, so local and visiting bands have had outdoor concerts to raise funds to keep their educational programs running.
Business-wise? Hey ... please pay us so we can pay them so they can pay you ... it's an island. I just took a drunk islander home in my taxi ... says he'll pay me Friday. But if he doesn't, someone else will double-down at some point.
Guess what? It works! ... now if we can just get the government out of our way so we can actually get some things done ... 😉
End Rant
We would like to a hear a program titled "Conversations with Drunk Islanders," so give it some thought.
Actually, I carry a program from Canada called "The Stuph File" (which can be found at radio4all.net) and he has a regular feature from "The Gabby Cabby" in New York City. The gabby cabby simply tells stories about his experience on the streets, he has never put his riders on the air.
You could do a twist on the Las Vegas slogan: What happens on the Island stays on Friday Harbor Tiny Radio."
the fcc has loads of monitoring stations, especially in metro area's and rogue stations that get moved around to problem area's all remote controlled and streamed via broadband internet connections.
they're cheap compared to other methods using i believe a discone, communications receiver and a control interface.
There are so many places we can vent our frustrations with our government and so few where we can discuss part 15 broadcasting.
While the two are certainly interdependent, a well regarded philosopher once something like "...render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." and I think that's good advice.
FCC leadership decisions, FCC business practices, how NOUOs are written, FCC remote monitoring stations - very interesting.
Epithets and dictionaries, not so much.
With so much concentration right now on the many view points about the AM NOUOs, I began wondering whether these stations actually consider themselves to be "Part 15" stations, even though they would be exceeding the guidelines..... and I'm inclined to think they are simply pirates.
Consider the fact that none of them, with the possible sole exception of Ken Cartwright, are members of a Part 15 group.
For us in the Part 15 community I think we should include in our list of concerns the question of whether an NOUO recipient is a Part 15 type or a plain pirate.
The FCC has reissued the NOUO that is the subject of this thread, eliminating the reference to Section 15.223, but still not mentioning anything about a ground lead, or anything else related to Section 15.219.
"For us in the Part 15 community I think we should include in our list of concerns the question of whether an NOUO recipient is a Part 15 type or a plain pirate."
Well given that a real compliant operator of Part 15 would do their best to comply with all the regulations...maybe even going as far as getting their systems checked and documented for those "SURPRISE" inspections, it is pretty safe to say that the majority of those NOUO's are tagging plain pirate operations...especially with the numbers noted within the NOUO's.
We can assume that the field engineer knows what they are doing and how to work those fancy Potomac meters which are calibrated religiously, that the numbers are in the zone of 99.999999 correct and accurate. The incredibly rare error of a measurement noted in the field engineer's measurements results usually get corrected right away....that is the field engineer will measure at various points, with your TX on, and again with it off. They do take more than one measurement for the very reason of determining what is what..separating the chaff from the wheat so to speak.
We can also assume that the field engineer will be well versed in radio theory and of man made electromagnetic garbage cluttering the spectrum which can and will affect their readings on that incredibly sensitive and accurate fancy Potomac unit. Is it detecting too much signal from your TX...or is there some spike of garbage noise interfering with the measurement...adding to the result.
In that aspect, all radio operations, be it 15, 73, 92 or whatever...is subject to the inspector's interpretation of said readings and measurements with all the variables of noise garbage etc also being detected, their job is not easy. To write down that final number that either makes or breaks your operation..again be it 15, 73, 92 or whatever will have to be darn accurate and correct. The FCC does not occupy their incredibly busy schedule for their field agents to have them just "guess" and jot any number down for the sake of sending out NOUO's or NAL's.
It can..and has in the past become legal messes for both sides over incorrect measurements or typo's...further wasting time and resources of both parties. I believe that both try to avoid such things as much as possible.
But we are all human and humans do make mistakes.
"Whomever hath not sinned cast the first stone"
RFB
The rules don't mention anything about "pirates." That is a popular epithet for gross violators of the rules. There are unintentional violators who are not considered to be pirates according to the popular perception.
The FCC inspector issues NOUOs to operators who exceed the legal limits of the rules by an amount that eliminates the possibility of measurement errors, and by whatever allowences the inspector permits unofficially.
Both gross violators (i.e. pirates) and minor violators (those making a good faith effort to obey Part 15), can get NOUOs. It's a matter of exceeding the threshold of what the FCC as a whole, and also the inspector individually, consider to be a violation.
If you throw the stone first and sin afterword it's o.k.