http://www.radioworld.com/article/orielly-puts-forth-a-pirate-radio-policy-draft/277168
I'm 100% convinced that the FCC doesn't know what it's doing. At all.
O'Reilly went on the offensive and decied to make the issue of piracy a scary one.
The problem is, they're completely, utterly, missing the point.
The Commission reiterates our firm position, as articulated in the Communications Act and Commission rules, that unauthorized broadcast operations within the FM and AM radio broadcast bands — often referred to as pirate radio broadcasting — is strictly prohibited and subject to enforcement measures. Violations are not to be taken lightly, as the harmful interference caused by pirate operations sabotages licensed broadcasters serving their communities and puts the valuable public safety contributions of these stations in jeopardy to the detriment of the American people who count on them, including diverse and underserved populations.
Further, the Commission makes clear that it intends to enact a vigorous campaign of enforcement activities to disrupt and permanently terminate all pirate radio stations that are in operation today and prevent those that may attempt to come online in the future. We will collaborate with federal and state law enforcement authorities, as needed, to enhance and complement our enforcement operations. Our effort will include an education component for those entities that may knowingly or unknowingly assist pirate radio operations in any capacity, including building owners and managers, national and local campaigns for political office, media advertisers, radio programming suppliers, concert promoters and venue operators, and equipment manufacturers and importers. All interested parties should be on notice that facilitating pirate radio broadcasting will not be tolerated, and may be subject to enforcement or legal actions, as permitted under law. Accordingly, we seek full cooperation by anyone who may have relevant information to help identify, locate, and take action against the operators and owners of pirate radio stations.
Doesn't this guy understand that nobody is serving communities in large markets? If you're listening to a NYC station, they don't give a rat's ass about your teeny town. That's the reason why pirates pop up. That's why I started the idea of a low-power community system. Instead of working WITH people to get piracy off the air and turn some of those people legal, and allow people waiting in the wings (like me) to start legal, they put the fear of God into everyone.
This isn't going to work. It's like the war on drugs. It didn't work, and it took 45 years for people to finally realize that. The FCC needs to sit down, shut up, and listen to the needs of the people that just want to properly, legally serve their communities.
From the OP above: "... The Commission reiterates our firm position, as articulated in the Communications Act and Commission rules, that unauthorized broadcast operations within the FM and AM radio broadcast bands — often referred to as pirate radio broadcasting — is strictly prohibited and subject to enforcement measures. ..."
Please note that unlicensed AM/FM systems that actually COMPLY with U.S. Title 47 CFR Part 15 are authorized to operate in areas subject to FCC jurisdiction. Such operators/stations are not "pirates."
Operators of unlicensed systems that DO NOT comply with Title 47 CFR Part 15 might be defined by the FCC (and others) as being pirates, and might find themselves more subject to FCC field inspections and actions.
Jesus, Rich, WE KNOW THAT. Please stop regurgitating things we already know and please try to keep on topic.
Did you read what I wrote? Probably not:
"The FCC needs to sit down, shut up, and listen to the needs of the people that just want to properly, legallyserve their communities."
I truly think you just try to troll everyone.
RE: "Did you read what I wrote? ... The FCC needs to sit down, shut up, and listen to the needs of the people that just want to properly, legally serve their communities."
My Reply 2 in this thread just states present-day reality.
Your clip above tells us what you want.
Of course you are free to pursue that cause by whatever method(s) you choose.
Your "present day reality" doesn't contribute to the conversation which I started. At all.
Others have said the same thing to you over the course of several months. Someone makes a post which is on point, and you regurgitate Part 15 rules as if we're all a bunch of dopes.
If the FCC doesn't give FM a usable range people will somehow make it happen. Furthermore I'm afraid that the training of local law enforcement will be fast and incomplete which will exclude the training pertaining to part 15 operations. The only hope is for the use of 87.9 Mhz with either 50-100 mW for the new rules for part 15 in the white space section of the spectrum. AM stations will soon feel the wrath as well because some 10 foot antennas may look to be a Pirate operation to an improperly trained police post. Take a Red Neck town like Elizabeth City, NC where as it takes rocket science to get decent Internet and cable because of lack of education and then try and explain to a Red Neck sheriff about the difference between part 15 and blatant Pirates who are well over and try to be well over any attempt to be part 15. These are two entirely different animals and if the FCC can't do their job then its time to re evaluate the purpose for their existence in the modern age where as the economy is far too low to enforce these laws imposed. Better yet extend the broadcast band and allow some white space for Hobby broadcasting and this should help far more than this feeble excuse for a War On Pirate Radio. It could cause a war on the broadcast spectrum just to spite.
I am looking forward to reading this present link about O'Reilly of the FCC and his call for War on Radio Pirates, and I recall a blog he posted somewhere a few months ago that initialized his battle cry and after studying it very carefully made note of several factual errors and misstatements which in my mind forever labeled him as a propagandist - one who speaks to promote a cause no matter what needs to get said, whether true or false.
There is no reason to trust Rich in believing that people like O'Rielly or the local police are able to sort out the difference between actual "pirates" and compliant Part 15 operators. Ignorance is rampant in law enforcement circles and courts have ruled that law enforcers can prosecute arrests without actually knowing the law, the theory being that all matters can be sorted out later in a court of law.
Of course leaving it to the courts to decide on trivial matters like Part 15 vs. piracy places an impossible legal burden on the accused who is apt to accept a plea deal - an admission of guilt in return for a lesser sentence.
Also note that Rich is utterly uncritical of O'Rielly's blatherings, a true believer in whatsoever the FCC utters or publishes.
Zieg heil!
"Harmful interference" could also mean interference to commerce, like a commercial station's bottom line, even though it implies signal interference.
Right, big city stations aren't that great on local events anymore. I'd always want to hear more about local bands, and most decent sized cities have bands of every kind that play every night, and a local station could send in someone with a microphone to record, that's something I'd want to do with a bigger station.
This kind of bluster from non-elected Federal bureaucrats is everywhere these days. It's not just the FCC but the DOJ, DEA, BATFE, NLRB, and so on. Is this just a paper tiger or something to be worried about?
I suggest the latter. I can cite many examples where agencies come down hard on individuals and small businesses and place the burden of proof of innocence on them rather than the burden of proving guilt on the prosecution. Add to that ill informed law enforcement people and we have a very bad situation for those accused.
Granted, we should have protection under Part 15 as long as we comply but the burden of proof will be on us and it will be time consuming and expensive.
I am hoping that this is just political huffing and puffing but it may not be.
Remember well these words...Elections have consequences.
Neil
Neil, your opening statement mentions "...bluster from non-elected Federal bureaucrats...," while your closing line states "Elections have consequences."
What is the connection between non-elected bureaucrats and elected ones?
The heads of government agencies are appointed and confirmed by elected officials, namely the President and the Senate and policy is often strongly influenced by same.
Neil
Neil could mean that the FCC serves at the pleasure of the president. The ruling party has 3 commsioners.