NY’s Radio Laws Supersedes FCC?

The NY law criminalizing unlicensed broadcasting reminds me of state laws back in the 70s that disallowed home installation of C-band satallite dishes as a means of receiving TV and radio. The state laws in that situation were influenced by cable systems who did not want the public to have a choice.

But Federal court determined that the right to have a dish superceded state law and the state laws were overturned.

Since the NAB has lobbied for the NY ban on unlicensed broadcasting, it appears to be a similar type of situation, and a court challenge might restore the Part 15 rights to the residents of NY.

Another question is one of jurisdiction, and I believe the Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC the authority to govern use of the radio spectrum, and states are subject to the rules of the FCC.

If states want to have a more useful law they should claim authority over the AM & FM channels allocated within their state and ban National corporate ownership of radio stations within the state.

Here is a snip of the applicable law:

"S 190.72 UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AN UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THE SECOND DEGREE WHEN SUCH PERSON:
1. KNOWINGLY MAKES OR CAUSES TO BE MADE A RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THIS STATE, ON RADIO FREQUENCIES ASSIGNED AND LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR USE BY AM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUENCIES OF 530 KHZ TO 1700 KHZ, OR FM RADIO STATIONS BETWEEN THE FREQUENCIES OF 88 MHZ TO 108 MHZ, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, OR DULY AUTHORIZED FEDERAL AGENCY; "

It could be argued that the phrase "..or other authorization" would include compliant operation under Part 15 rules but many times this type of interpretation is not determined until a court rules on a case prosecuted under such a law.

The same can be said about the federal law preempting state law, namely that this would need to be decided in a court case.

You most likely will not find a definitive answer from sources such as this forum.

Regarding your question about amendments, you could contact your state legislators about this.

Neil

Thank you both for your prompt replies.
The challenge would ultimately be one of
a costly nature, to say the least ... and one
in which most could not afford. No doubt,
the state is well aware.

Perhaps a call to your State Attorney General would resolve this question.

I would certainly consider Part 15 rules to be the "other" authorization which allows you to broadcast without an FCC license as that is the intent of the Part 15 rules pertaining to our license free, low power broadcasting.

Is this New York State law enforced at the State or Local level?  I would suggest including your local Prosecutors office in the query. 

Mr. Hamilton, the source of the Hamilton Rangemaster 1000 and the people who do Chez Procaster must be concerned about the New York law, since they surely have many present and potential customers there.

What do they think about this law and what do they say to customers who ask about it?

If you are an owner of either of these transmitters I hope you'll have that conversation with either of those manufacturers and report to this forum what you learn.

I think it is clear that "..or other authorization" includes Part 15 operation, otherwise NY would be outlawing all of the hundreds of brands of little iPod FM transmitters on the market. I don't think that is the intent of the NY law.

what happens (as has happened in the past and just recently) that even though you are using a certifed transmitter you get an inspector who still wants to cite you for a violation. we have already seen this happen to gerry. in NY gerry would be facing jail time (even though he was obviously legal) just because an fcc agent decided (for some unknown reason) he was not legal.

There is something about the law today that most people find hard to believe until it happens to them. It starts with a concept called "selective prosecution". It can start if someone files a complaint about you, or a local official simply doesn't like you.

Charges are filed against you, even though you may truly not have violated the law. Thing is, once charged, the individual is in the position of having to defend themself.

Hiring an attorney can be very costly, but it is an option. Trouble there is, not all attorneys will represent you as they should, for a whole range of reasons.

Some attorneys try to milk your case for more and more money, and consider the work of defending you to be secondary.

There are attorneys who deal with the court and prosecuter, and "give up" some of their clients in exchange for "winning" other cases," a kind of slave trading in a modern guise.

When an attorney wants to shortcut your case he may advise you to agree to a plea deal, which means pleading guilty to a lesser charge, which taints your record unfairly, but saves everybody the time and expense of a trial.

If the individual decides to "represent himself" the judge will mock and jeer this person and treat them like a fool, overuling everything.

In the case of Part 15 being "a legal authorization," the state could claim it's illegal, putting you in the position of needing to prove it's legal.

Seem like something that could be settled by a civil phone call between adults? No. They don't do that. Money needs to flow and the prosecution will use their excessive authority to end up "right" and you lose before it begins.

We only have the rights that we are willing to afford.