Is Part 15 Valid Law?

This audiofile contains an explanation from 90.1 FM Austin, Texas unlicensed operator Deborah Stevens describing their interesting take on FCC Regulations

http://www.kdxradio.com/FM_901.html

Ms. Stevens needs to "study and research" part 15 rules more carefully so she can at least get the facts correct (such as her statement "250 milliV/m"). She seems to be making the claim that part 15 regulates the transmission of radio energy but not broadcasting thus she fails to realize that this is how radio broadcasting works, namely the transmission of energy. Despite a few technical errors her thesis that part 15 doesn't apply to broadcasting doesn't hold water since broadcasting uses transmission of energy. Part15.239 covers our use of the FM band but only from a technical perspective and it does limit the transmission of energy by virtue of the limit on field strength. It does not prohibit broadcasting therefore broadcasting is legal under 15.239. It also mentions intentional radiators which is what is used for broadcasting.

I haven't yet listened to her "second bombshell" but her first is not persuasive.

Neil

There is no Part 15 Law. Rules and Regulations are not laws, only Rules and Regulations.

Like the folks who say, "The IRS is illegal and Income Tax is voluntary."

A little knowledge is still a dangerous thing.

I was worried sick about my grandkids having to pay for all the current nonsense.. But no more... I see this girls going to be paying for all of it plus all us old farts social security. Hopefully she keeps racking up the days of violations. Ka'ching Ka'ching.

Well, in the real world, it doesn't much matter. Although laws are enacted by Congress, and only by Congress, the regulations, or statutes, are simply codified rules which bring practical authority to laws.

IOW, ignoring such a rule is generally deemed to be the same as breaking the law with which it is supposed to be in accordance, and therefore constitutes some sort of threat to public well-being.

If the station in question continues to operate in deliberate defiance of the regulations, they can not only be shut down, but also have their gear confiscated, and the operators arrested and jailed, then criminally prosecuted. If the people involved lose in court, they could lose their gear, pay a huge fine, may be imprisoned, and be permanently barred from getting any sort of communication license.

I listened to the audio treatise by Deborah Stevens, and I think Carl is right, she's failed to recognize the basic concept that radio communications cannot take place without radiation. You'd think she could put the two words 'radio' and 'radiation' together in her head, even if she's not an engineer.

Additionally, using specific definitions in Title 47 301 as a back-door approach to say that the FCC has no authority over anyone but their own agents in any state is not likely to stand up very well. It seems like the same sort of argument that the FCC isn't allowed to control what passes through the air, which belongs to everyone, not the FCC. That's been tried before and it didn't work.

While it may impinge upon the so-called freedom of some individual or group, I think reasonable regulations which can be shown to support the general good while still allowing as much freedom as possible is desirable. I believe we have a responsibility to try to walk that line, even if we stumble (for me that's always been 'there but for the grace of God ...' etc., etc.), or else we are all just a bunch of self-centered jerks who deserve what ever evil befalls us.

I am by no means inferring that it's a flawless system to which blind obedience must be rendered, but tell me how much better it would be if, say, drivers could simply ignore traffic rules, get drunk, and do anything they want with their cars, or Airbus pilots could play games on laptops with no regard for rules or the safety of others in their charge?

That's anarchy ... eventually we would simply wipe each other out ... thus solving all our problems on Earth 😉

If my memory serves me correctly, the entire process of government regulation of radio frequency spectrum began with an Act of Congress in 1934. The F.C.C. came into existence 3 years later. The Communications Acts, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, throughout history having produced much of communications law. The laws are implemented by the federal agency responsible for carrying out the understood intent of the law. Hence, we have rules and regulations. The Supreme Court and U.S. District Court have also created legal precedents in the past 40 years that carry the weight of law. The F.C.C. also has at its disposal, it's own administrative court system and legal staff to prosecute the rules and regulations of the agency.

Many people simply don't understand that the F.C.C. has the whole of CFR 47 and all of its parts to use in the regulation of RF spectrum. The federal agency is not hamstrung by one section or one part of the rules and regulations. As an administrative matter, the F.C.C. as a regular federal agency is given full sway in the implementation of bills passed down to it by the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government. Broadcasting covers many sections of CFR 47, not just one or two sections. And for that reason, previous efforts at using the "freedom of speech" argument have failed miserably.

Congress, in recent history, has forced the F.C.C. to design regulations around laws passed down to them. (e.g. LPFM, broadband over power lines interference standards, ect.) The Local Community Radio Ac,t being considered by Congress currently, is another example of a citizens group (Promtheus) causing laws to be passed and then implemented by the F.C.C. as policy, rules and regulations eventually.

These folks are about to discover the futility of the argument and the consequence of civil disobedience. We have responsibilities along with rights. These folks are not only barking up the wrong tree, they will eventually discover the tree was only a phantom. They will find themselves boxing the air. And I will argue and defend their right to be wrong.

I did not say the FCC had no authority. I said rules and regulations are not laws. That's why you have an admistrative law judge review or hear cases regarding rules and regualtions, because sometimes the agency incorrecly applies rules and regulations as in the case Ken Cartwright.

I know you didn't but what I was pointing out is that in most cases, it doesn't matter. Enforcement issues do not normally null the accordance of regulations with law. IOW, the case with KENC seems relatively unique, although I certainly hope it has an effect on policy of application of regulations. Thank God he cooled off enough to demonstrate cooperation, rather than flagrant rebellion ... because now, those events have a potentially positive effect on the Part 15 community.

OTOH, I don't see the same sort of thing happening with FM 90.1 in Austin and this new development. They seem bent on rebellion, and that might be more damaging.

NOTE: A very major concern of mine is this business of the FCC auctioning frequencies ... this:

======================
(7) Auction R&O:
Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission’s Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, WT Docket No. 05-211, Report and Order, FCC 06-4, adopted January 23, 2006, released January 24, 2006.
======================

To me that seems wholly unconstitutional, and at its outset, wholly impractical. There is an obvious and drastic difference between imposing and enforcing regulations, which is their primary job, and selling frequencies they never owned to begin with ... to the highest bidder.

Have they forgotten physics? Do they not understand that radio doesn't know borders? What will they do with non-U.S. users that run right over frequencies sold to someone inside our borders?

I can just hear it ... FCC says: "Hey, you can't use that frequency because we sold it to the NBC Shopping Network!"

Mexican user says: "We dun need no steenkeen permission from you!"

😉

even if it is unconstitutional (and i still say the FCC has no jurisdiction on broadcasts that don't send their signal across state lines) no judge is going to be known as one who hamstrung the FCC and their corporate money tree.

the Vermont case should have won. the FCC under the constitution had no jurisdiction. it was in the capital of Vermont using 10 watts of power. there was no way that signal could make it to the state line under any conditions. as such it should have been deemed unconstitutional for the FCC to defy the state of Vermont who issued a trespassing warrant on the FCC and ordered that the agents be arrested on sight. the capital of Vermont wanted it's station. i think in the end before the ruling came down they voluntarily shut down because someone put up a LPFM that started to serve the community.

this just goes to show you the Federal government does not care what the states want they only care about the multinational corporations lining their campaign coffers.

this went down like 10 years ago when all this LD brewer, SFLR stuff was in full swing.

i heard the LD brewer thing was a sight to see that they even brought in a helicopter to steal his towers and that they stole his other equipment unrelated to the station as well.

Dunno about LD Brewer or SLFR. What is that about? I know LD Brewer based in Tampa sells a lot of electronics, including pirate radio gear. What went on in Vermont is before my 'time' as it were. I wasn't thinking about radio stuff during that period, though I was still doing some occasional repair work on electronics.

Hi Robert,

"this went down like 10 years ago when all this LD brewer, SFLR stuff was in full swing.

I don't know anything about this. I know Tampa-based LD Brewer Electronics sells, among other things, low power pirate radio stuff, but what happened in Vermont?

I guess the problem is countering many years of court precedents.

Well, we've only been arguing this since the late 1700s 🙂

What are appropriate state's rights? What laws are best enacted on a national level? What about the commerce clause of the Constitution?

Former Governor George Wallace fought national civil rights enforcement on the basis of state's rights while some African American educators say that desegregation actually eliminated opportunities for teachers of color.

Interestingly enough, the act that created the FCC predates civil rights by 30 years...

As James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay said in 1787, "The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the union, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed.

Hey, if I had the answer to this one, I wouldn't be typing comments on a web site 🙂

"i heard the LD brewer thing was a sight to see that they even brought in a helicopter to steal his towers and that they stole his other equipment unrelated to the station as well."

They didn't get his mixer, I have it. 🙂 They left his tower alone. It was Lonnie Kobres' tower they hacked down. It's back up now.