I found this in my digital edition of Radio World

I know you're not talking about me!..

On another note, I had meant to mention that in Radio World's "Newsbites" email last Wednesday under the "Around the Industry" portion it provided the following link, with the following comment:

How to Make Your Own Pirate Radio Station (Wired)
Sharing without further comment …

ok,

pirate operation is illegal, but if you are not running vast amounts of power, cochannel or 1st adjacent, not causing actual RF interference (not financial interference) then yes it should be low priority.

if you act like a real moron with foul programming, large amounts of power, actual RF interference, etc. then you deserve all you get from FCC or otherwise.

that is where i sit.

i still also think the FCC should alot a 1/2 Watt ERP (not TPO) on a select set of frequencies across the fm band to license exempt community service. similar to what NZ does and something similar for AM. maybe set asside 5 Frequencies on FM just for this service and 5 on AM just for this service.

this is not impossible and would permit legal neigborhhod stations that don't have to jump through hoops.

maybe we (ALPB) should come up with a set of rules and tech spec's for such a service to include in a NPRM to the FCC.

we also have the greatest technical resource among us "Rich" who could guide us in such a proposal.

if anyone knows any retired FCC agents we should bring them into the mix as well.

Just to be clear.. I wasn't insinuating doing anything to cross a line from part 15 into pirating. I was pointing out that it was rather odd that the publishers of Radio World  would provide a link to a method on a 'how to' pirate a broadcast to any degree.

{Derogatory comments directed at another forum member have been removed. Such comments are not helpful.}

i don't advocate crossing the line from part 15 to pirate and do everything within my technical expertise and available test equipment to make sure i am compliant to the best of my knowledge. not sure if the rest of my statement went unioticed or not about coming up with a license expemt NPRM.

I'm sure fighting piracy is costly. It takes time and money to get the equipment, roll out to where you need to go, do the readings, research the location, etc.

I still think that it would be nice if the FCC had some kind of local license. It would save everyone a lot of time. And before someone yells "LPFM", please remember that they open their window every few *decades*. If the FCC had a standing license application window and allowed people to broadcast to a certain small radius, it might be beneficial for everyone.

Gee, where did I hear this before...?

In respose to the "Derogatory comments directed at another forum member have been removed. Such comments are not helpful."

uh-huh.. There was nothing I said that was any less than completely true and accurate. Nothing I said was deniable. There was no fabrications. But fine.

I read that radio world article, but if you look at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ there are still some recent FM actions.

Of note is there are cases of a person having a company for the illegal broadcasting but the FCC goes after the individual, so being incorporated will not protect personal assets from the FCC.  Also of note is the FCC going after landlords for what tenants do.

So while enforcement may be backing off pirates, there is still enforcement actions going on, and some of the enforcement seems aimed at making someone pay even if under normal laws the parties the FCC goes after would not be responsible.

YOU Said: Also of note is the FCC going after landlords for what tenants do.

I said: That will never stand in court.

I did not say it, read the FCC enforcement actions, it is happening.  They do not need a warrant to enter a property.  If they come to a landlord and say a tenant is not complying with FCC limits they are going to say the landlord should give the FCC access to the tenant’s area, otherwise the landlord is impeding the FCC.  So while the landlord may not be exceeding the FCC limits, the landlord could probably be issued a NAL for not cooperating with the FCC field agent.  In that case depending on the amount the landlord is found liable for it might be cheaper to just pay up than to fight it in court; lawyers are expensive.

I think the way FCC enforcement works is inconsistent across the country.  I think it is unfair to individuals compared to small business compared to massive corporations.  I think the way the rules mandate giving a FCC inspector access to transmitters nearly immediately is dangerously close to violating the 4^th amendment.  But without the right violations being challenged in court and taken as far high up as the court system will hear it or some action taken by congress I do not see any of that changing.

(Look at how dysfunctional the FCC is even at the top.  There was disagreement if the FCC had the authority to say “don’t jam Wi-Fi.”)

"They do not need a warrant to enter a property..."

"If they come to a landlord and say a tenant is not complying with FCC limits they are going to say the landlord should give the FCC access to the tenant’s area, otherwise the landlord is impeding the FCC. .."

Naww.. and naww..

I don't think so. First off the FCC does not have the right to enter the property while the tenant is not present. Likewise the landlord can rightfully refuse to allow the FCC to enter the tenants property while the tenant is not there.

I'm not pretending to be some kind of legal expert, it's simply common sense - The FCC does not have such rights to enter any private property with out the tenants presence, or at least their permission.