-
Posts
-
The link below leads to recently-stated beliefs of Bill DeFelice included in a Radio World opinion piece titled Distinguish Pirates From Part 15 Operators.
The last paragraph of that opinion piece states this: “My hope is that any change in spectrum enforcement doesn’t turn the radio dial into the Wild West, making every Part 15 radio enthusiast or campus-limited signal a potential target for unjustified legal actions simply because it rubs some licensed station the wrong way.”
However, wouldn’t this point of view/concern be inapplicable to those operators who actually meet the operational limits for unlicensed systems stated in Part 15?
The FCC reacts very lightly via an NOUO to many of the systems they inspect who don’t meet Part 15 limits, at least as far as the first citation they issue to such operators.
Subsequent FCC actions toward operators of such given and non-compliant systems can get more serious.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/newbay/rw_20150520/index.php#/29/OnePage
Total posts : 45366I’d just finished reading the Radio World article when I arrived for Rich’s post above.
I agree that the RW piece is kind of a “sky might be falling” conjectural leap, but the writer does have a point about the storm trooping inspector in Oregon. Those two raids were “shoot the dog” type bringdowns lacking reasonable explanation.
But yes, those (of us) who measure our short-wires and keep the signal close to home aren’t being disappeared.
Total posts : 45366I think one thing that needs to be considered is that states like Florida can have a Part 15 AM station operating in full compliance in a densly populated business district in a small town. The Part 15 operator makes a deal with local business and under cuts the local 1KW AM station. The local 1KW knows about the Florida’s 3rd Degree Felony law and calls the local P.D. BTW, the local 1KW guy is a member of Florida Association of Broadcasters. The local P.D. comes out and does his job by arresting the Part 15 operator and charging him as a pirate radio operator. He also conficates his transmitter. Part 15 operator has to hire a lawyer to fend off local 1KW. Now the Part 15 operator has spent $$$ to defend himself and his former customers no longer buy time from him at a discount because they are afraid. 1KW is now happy. Lawyer is happy. Part 15 operator wishes he never started a station. See Gerald Gaule.
No Carl and Rich, it is irrelavant that the station was complaint since the FCC was never involved. In the case of Gerald, the FCC was involved and threatend to involve his landlord as well. Either way, your station is at risk and Bill’s editorial is articulate and food for thought.
Total posts : 45366With respect to all, Mr. DeFelice didn’t include statutory radio laws in his opinion piece, therefore it isn’t what’s being discussed in the postings by Rich and me, although it is a serious cause for concern.
Is the Florida case detailed by you (John WDCX) an actual event or is it a hypothetical example of what could concievably happen?
If hobby radio is due to be criminalized and subjected to a reign of terror than perhaps the pirate’s time has come.
Total posts : 45366Bill DeFelice’s RW opinion piece linked earlier in this thread appears to support excusing unlicensed operators claiming to operate in compliance with Part 15 from the legal actions of the FCC when, to some extent, FCC on-site inspections/measurements prove otherwise.
Who but such operators know (accurately) whether or not such systems have “strayed” from Part 15 unintentionally, or deliberately?
To John/WDCX: The DeFelice RW opinion piece is not based on non-FCC, non-Federal, local enforcement actions relating to 47 CFR Part 15 (which is codified in U.S. Federal Law).
Does anyone know the legal basis for enforcement of 47 CFR Part 15 by agencies other than those of the U.S. Government?
Total posts : 45366The Part-15 operator shouldn’t be operating a “Business” without at least a Vendors Licence. After all, IF the Part-15 operator is collecting money for advertisement, He’s a business, correct?
If the Part-15 station was tested by a field agent and it passed the muster, and the operator has a vendor’s licence and pays royalties for the music he’s using, then he would be legit. Now the operator would have a leg to stand on..
Ain’t no freebees. Ya gotta pay someone. The big boys do..
Total posts : 45366Federal.
State.
Local.
Industrial (music industry).
Ignorant law makers?
Total posts : 45366Business licenses are specific to the area in which you are operating. Some jurisdictions do not require licensing at all. I didn’t when I operated on Bowen Island.
But back to the original thread. While I disagree with Bill D. on many issues, and feel that he often lets his personal biases overly influence his so-called engineering and scientific statements, I don’t see the problem with his opinion piece (although I noted that he made sure that he sung his own praises several times). However, he’s bringing up a valid point, which was also brought up here – letting others as opposed to the FCC go after ‘pirates’ (in their opinion) has the potential for disaster, and could remove many legal Part 15 installations because they just don’t have the financial means to fight the allegations.
Total posts : 45366I appreciate that Bill was able to get some attention to the subject of Part 15 operations. In his article he mentioned a proposal by a Commissioner and I found it. It is a disturbing read for several reasons. Here’s a link:
https://www.fcc.gov/blog/consider-new-way-combat-pirate-radio-stations
Adding the ability for broadcasters (and not listeners) to sue “pirates” for damages while maintaining the FCC’s current enforcement authority is trying to have it both ways and is very dangerous. It appears as an admission that the FCC is unable or unwilling to enforce the regulations and wants to allow others to do so in the court system while not abdicating their own authority. If I were a Congress Member and read this I would ask the FCC “Why are you not doing your job?”
In most cases it is allowable for one party to sue another party for damages but, with the exception of a couple of states, federal FCC regulations preempt other actions.
The real danger for us is the breakdown of FCC preemption and this has to be watched for and stopped.
Now, some comments about the proposal. It is written as a political speech which it probably is. It identifies a demon, argues how terrible the demon is, tells how damaging the offenders’ actions are, compares it to other demons (spammers), cites a law which allows the other demons to be prosecuted by non regulatory entities (without presenting any data concerning the effectiveness of the law), discusses broadcasters losing audience as “theft” (with no data or documentation) and in general appeals only to emotion and not facts. Typical political hype which unfortunately many in positions of power take seriously.
If it were illegal to “steal audience” then why don’t broadcasters sue each other?
I am with Bill DeFelice and ArtisanRadio on this one. There is a danger brewing for legal Part 15 operators if they are made to defend themselves against emotionally motivated charges in court and required to prove they were operating legally but with no possible defense against such things as “stealing” an audience.
At least, at present, most of us would be dealing with the FCC on defined and understood technical matters and as Rich suggested shouldn’t have a problem if operating within the rules. This is the way it should remain.
The failure of the FCC to deal with real pirates should not place the burden on those who are operating within the law.
Neil
Total posts : 45366it’s the state association of broadcasters you gotta watch out for As well… some SAB’s are corrupted… Such as Minnesota Oregon and several others. Some of them don’t even know the rules for part 15 and their not the fcc to begin with. one of the members tried to get my station shut down according to information I received through the ether sort of speak but the fcc checked me out and said I was legal this was like 2 and a half years ago so. I told you guys before this had happened. I just found out why a few months back…
Total posts : 45366To John/WDCX: The DeFelice RW opinion piece is not based on non-FCC, non-Federal, local enforcement actions relating to 47 CFR Part 15 (which is codified in U.S. Federal Law).
True, But the FCC is on record appalauding local law enforcement to do the job they are charged to do. Research Man! 🙂
Total posts : 45366I’m not to worried about it. My local police department listens to my station in their office. As does City Hall and the City Clerks Office. And the library.
Tim in Bovey
Total posts : 45366Tim raises an important thought about the treatment of low power broadcasters…
Some places might start to label unlicensed broadcasting as terrorist activity while other places are friendly and neighborly, like Bovey.
Total posts : 45366The FCC employs unequal treatment. If one takes a look at the FCC Pirate Map, one might think that some states do not have pirate operators when in effect the enforcement is non-existent.
Total posts : 45366Since the RW piece appeared I’ve seen plenty of praise to the author for bringing attention to part 15 radio, but until now no one actually reviewed the article. I give you the critical review:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
