- Posts
I believe the FCC should adopt the same procedures that law enforcement has. when someone calls law enforcement to make a complaint while interviewing complainant the officer is looking around at complainants property and complainant for any probable cause to dig deeper.
the FCC needs to adopt this policy with licensed stations who file complaints against other stations whether part 15, pirate, or licensed.
if the FCC would investigate the complainant in addition to the subject then one of two or both scenarios would happen.
frivolous complaints will drop like a rock and/or complainant will make sure their house is in regulatory order before filing complaints.
either scenario makes the FCC’s job easier.
law enforcement has had this policy since the 60’s why has the FCC not adopted it?
I know FCC.gov visits this site so if you are reading these FCC i think it would benefit your agency to institute this policy within your agency.
it sickens me to see complaints against part 15’s by licensed stations who are flagrantly violating the rules more than a part 15 being slightly out of spec with maybe a little too much f/s or little long ground wire could ever be.
Total posts : 45366I like the subject brought for discussion by kc8gpd. But I would like to fine-tune the idea as follows….
I think that if all law enforcement followed the Constitution and revealed the identity of the complainant along with bringing the complaint, that all by itself would make many people stop short of filing a frivolous complaint. As it is they hide behind anonymity, which allows complaining as a form of mischief.
If it turns out that the complaint points toward a serious violation, such as a brutal beating taking place or, in the case of radio, a thousand Watts right on top of another station’s channel, then the enforcers should focus all attention to the wrong-doing.
But if and when it comes to light that the “violator” is within the law or only slightly out of compliance, THAT is when the enforcement should make a U-turn and check out the motives and activities of the complainer.
If we could manage to keep law fair, it could not so easily be used against us.
Total posts : 45366If we could manage to keep law fair, it could not so easily be used against us.
Just for consideration and discussion…
Another point of view is that the law is the law, and to avoid consequences for its violation it needs to be observed.
In the US there are ways to modify/repeal unfair laws by legal and due process.
Total posts : 45366“In the US there are ways to modify/repeal unfair laws by legal and due process.”
That was the point of this thread to begin with.
No one ever discussed non-observance of the law.
You tend to issue frequent warnings. If you had a police whistle you could blow on it.
Total posts : 45366That was the point of this thread to begin with. No one ever discussed non-observance of the law “as it is.”
The way I read the OP, there was a justification given to evade the consequence of the law if someone else violated the law to a more “serious” extent.
But if that POV was followed, then (for example) no thieves should be cited and prosecuted until after such had been applied to all murderers.
It really doesn’t matter how law enforcement officials became aware of violations of the law.
You tend to issue frequent warnings. If you had a police whistle you could blow on it.
Carl, I am not a whistle blower. My posts deal with technical and logical reality, and are totally non-specific to every unlicensed operator.
Total posts : 45366The line you quoted was being changed via the EDIT feature just as you posted. The line quoted was:
“That was the point of this thread to begin with. No one ever discussed non-observance of the law “as it is.””
By editing, I removed “as it is,” because it was superfluous. But I still stand by my statement.
You said:
“The way I read the OP, there was a justification given to evade the consequence of the law if someone else violated the law to a more “serious” extent.”
But here is what kc8gpd said:
“it sickens me to see complaints against part 15’s by licensed stations who are flagrantly violating the rules more than a part 15 being slightly out of spec with maybe a little too much f/s or little long ground wire could ever be.”
Mr. kc8gpd does not explicitly nor through inference suggest evasion of consequences, but is merely expressing frustration at being complained by a violator.
Your next statement is wrong on its face:
“It really doesn’t matter how law enforcement officials became aware of violations of the law.”
Of course it matters. Take illegal searches, for one.
I was not suggesting you are a whistle blower. The “police whistle” is the type of alarm call seen in many films. These days police tend to sound sirens.
It would not be easy whistle blowing on anything ever said here on part15.us. Over the years every discussion has gone to every extent in maintaining adherence to the rules as understood, and much academic discussion flows regarding weaknesses in the rules, and of course wishes for future rule changes are expressed.
It is because of the purity of intention in the discussion that I wonder at a seemingly scolding tone with lectures about enforcement, lacking always a more lawyerly commentary on reasonable proposals for improvements in the regulations.
Total posts : 45366…Over the years every discussion has gone to every extent in maintaining adherence to the rules as understood, …
The “as understood” part above is exactly the subject of my posts from a technical point of view, the accuracy of which posts has not been disproven.
To my post including “It really doesn’t matter how law enforcement officials became aware of violations of the law,” you responded Of course it matters. Take illegal searches, for one.
Agreed. But that doesn’t excuse one violator of the law from suitable action by law enforcement officials learning about such violations from more egregious violators. Aren’t all violators of the law subject to its enforcement?
It is because of the purity of intention in the discussion etc
Please elaborate. What purity are you describing?
Total posts : 45366“Another point of view is that the law is the law, and to avoid consequences for its violation it needs to be observed.”
Indeed. Perhaps these wall street banksters and gangsters running the hill should heed that. And perhaps the public should hold these supported law breakers accountable.
“In the US there are ways to modify/repeal unfair laws by legal and due process.”
For us..or for them? Funny that in a country that claims to adhere to law and liberty, the very ones churning out these laws place themselves above it, while everyone else is subject to it. The way language is manipulated in court rooms and by lawyers on both sides, changing unfair law requires becoming one of the tainted students in law school to learn that alien language. Not everyone dreams of becoming a tainted lawyer.
Greed is wrong, greed is bad…greed does not work.
Right now I know of a broadcasting company who is violating so many rules that it would make every single one of you cringe and freak out. Just recently this cat set up a pirate system on FM just to throw it on air for 24 hours so he can retain the license and continue STA. Show me where it states in the rules that a station can continuously file for STA, claim financial hardship, set up pirate systems since the real transmitting equipment is in disrepair, runs for seven years without proper STL licensing, has no staff at the offices, lies and makes false statements on FCC documents, and declares himself as God and makes his own rules.
The FCC has yet to act on this criminal.
Anyone..I do mean ANYONE, by all means please post any justifiable reason to even turn on the news or read the paper about these fakes they throw up on the screen and put behind the podiums every day convincing people they care.
I vote for None Of The Above…or below.
You all really want to know how freedom and democracy works in modern times? It’s quite simple. $$$$$$$..if you got it..you got real freedom.
RFB
Total posts : 45366There seems to be some kind of double standard at work, at least in some areas, in the licensed broadcasters vs Part 15 operators.
Like RFB, I am aware of some licensed stations that seem to think they are above the law. One station (not in my area) failed to file for renewal of license or an STA, and was issued a cease-and-desist letter on April 6 by the FCC. This letter, which I read today, cancels the station’s license, deletes the call sign from the database, and has a cease-and-desist sentence in it.
Some one I know who lives near this station is seeking an LPFM and apparently heard it on the air this past week. Is this not a pirate station now? There’s no license and no STA but the station is operating. I also know of some stations that are “licensed and on air” on the FCC database but are not on the air at all. Two of those are not far from me.
I’ve been fortunate to have befriended pretty much all of the engineers in my market and most of the surrounding areas. I’ve never had a cross work or complaint from any of them.
My Part 15 AM is temporarily off the air while I rebuild the studios in its own building, but I plan to be back – and would like to try the i AM transmitter and ATU system.
Total posts : 45366…that is listed as being on the air but really hasn’t been on air in years. It’s 1610 AM in Batavia, OH (4 miles from the future home of Channel X 1610). You probably think I’m playing with fire putting a part 15 operation so close to a TIS on the same frequency.
BUT, I haven’t heard anything on 1610 AM for at least 10 years now. It’s silent during the day(even in Batavia, I’ve drove all around town a few times) and skywave from Toronto at night.
What do you guys think? Should I change to 1630khz or higher? Or would I be safe on 1610 considering the TIS 4 miles away has been off air for at least a decade.
In the FCC’s eyes, wouldn’t I be causing interference to a station, even if it’s not on the air?
Total posts : 45366This may seem inappropriate to this particular thread, but it really isn’t. There are a couple of other recent topics in which I almost commented on but didn’t. – But what the hay, right here and now is as good a place as any…
This is a sad situation. Why or how it came to be, I can only speculate.
But the bottom line, fact of the matter is this..
Someone, who is a well established, master disruptor and manipulator in relation to the promotion of part 15 broadcasting – who has previously been banned from this and several other related forums (and remains to be), has now inexplicably been welcomed back to this very prominent and valuable meeting place.
Is he welcome?This is a person; who has never -at any time- had any interest whatsoever in setting up his own part 15 station.. no interest at all – none..
It’s a joke.His sole objective has always been to express and elaborate on why our objectives are unfeasible or unrealistic.
I personally believe that our goals concerning Part15 are feasible and realistic.
But that’s just my opinion.He’s a knowledgeable man, no question about it.
But he’s deliberately negative to part 15, like a very rough sandpaper, who doesn’t have our interest at heart.Shouldn’t of there been some kind of vote before unlocking the door for him to come back in?
OK, I’m done scratching.
This is really all I care to comment here about this particular matter.
But I’m glad to have put it out on the open.
Total posts : 45366“Should I change to 1630khz or higher? Or would I be safe on 1610 considering the TIS 4 miles away has been off air for at least a decade. In the FCC’s eyes, wouldn’t I be causing interference to a station, even if it’s not on the air?”
Go to the FCC’s audio division site and enter the station’s call sign in the AM Query box. If that station is still licensed for that frequency, perhaps even filed for silent STA, that info will be there, and you will want to use another frequency regardless if that station is on the air or not because that frequency is still licensed to that TIS station and it is protected.
RFB
Total posts : 45366RFB, your advice to avoid a currently licensed frequency even if the station is silent makes me think of a related idea I once had.
There is a daytimer here that leaves the air at sunset, and the channel is amazingly quiet all night.
What if I declared myself as “sharing the frequency” and used their channel after they sign off?
Total posts : 45366for WNWC842, 1610 AM, Batavia, OH, and found nothing. BUT, If I do a search on the REC Networks query ( http://cdbs.recnet.net:8080/fmq.php?facid=&call=&ccode=1&latd=&lond=&city=&state=&country=US&zip=45103&party=&party_type=LICEN&fac_type=ALL ) it shows it as being there.
But, I think the government knows more than a Japanese music network.
I’m happy to report Channel X will be safe on 1610, UNLESS I messed up on the FCC query.
Total posts : 45366As long as you don’t get into the
local media, I think you are
safe.I really believe you have to be
just all so slightly below the radar. In
other words, you have to find a
way to get the word out about your
station, but you also have to make
sure it doesn’t get out of control.Don’t do what one particular guy did –
don’t get married on the air on the
Part 15 station. I’m not saying this
to make fun of the man (who’s name I
don’t remember) I actually was a big
fan of his station – it’s just that –
it got into the papers.I would say that if a Part 15 station runs
legally and the neighborhood knows about
it – along with friends or whatever – who
would care?My station was on for two years with
listeners, and nothing happened. And
I took pains to be completely legal.Well – take it for what it’s worth. I’m
no expert at all, it’s just my ideas.I mean, anything can happen. I could
get hit by a bus tomorrow. Anybody could.I’m not trying to be a know-it-all. it’s
just what I think. I honestly don’t know
if it’s a help. But that’s my 6 cents. I
also think a frequency below 1610 is more
low key than above. Although this might
be possible for a lot of people. During
the daytime, 1590 kHz here is as clear as
day. I’m thinking of going there if I
ever get the Part 15.219 set-up going.Best Wishes,
Bruce, DRS2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
