-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Certainly the airwaves need a steward who will maintain adherence to technical parameters, allocate the spectrum such that it remains usable and, secondarily, promote the efficient and effective use of the spectrum. This could be achieved by a free market consortium or the government. It's been done by the government since they took over during World War I.
We've seen abuses of power by the FCC in content regulation, favoring heritage constituencies (AM over FM, radio over TV, TV over cable, cable over satellite, terrestrial over satellite and internet, etc....) and governance over business models (satellite radio) that go far beyond spectrum maintenance. This has been done in the name of the "public good" (whatever that is and however you determine it) and national security. We're currently watching the FCC attempt to regulate the business models of internet providers. The argument of scarcity of resources that the government used to regulate beyond frequency management has long since evaporated. Many radio people who grew up under the government control model don't want to let go of it whether due to familiarity, employment issues or a vague sense that the public somehow benefits from this overlording.
We have an electorate that either doesn't understand or doesn't care how this affects them. So the overregulation continues.
All that said, the regulation of rampant and blatant (high-power) piracy falls clearly under spectrum management. Through efficient use of law enforcement resources and partnering with state authorities, the FCC could engage in a selected number of high profile 'take downs' in states with the toughest statutes. That would go a long way toward reducing the magnitude of a problem that, admittedly, is never going to go away entirely. The guy running a 1-watt FM in his neighborhood isn't the problem. The guy spraying several kW into an improperly tuned antenna is. Use the limited resources to take him out, and publicize it.
For an historical overview on how the airwaves first came under government control, read the first couple of chapters of Jesse Walker's Rebels On the Air (2001 NYU Press).
We've seen abuses of power by the FCC in content regulation, favoring heritage constituencies (AM over FM, radio over TV, TV over cable, cable over satellite, terrestrial over satellite and internet, etc....) and governance over business models (satellite radio) that go far beyond spectrum maintenance. This has been done in the name of the "public good" (whatever that is and however you determine it) and national security. We're currently watching the FCC attempt to regulate the business models of internet providers. The argument of scarcity of resources that the government used to regulate beyond frequency management has long since evaporated. Many radio people who grew up under the government control model don't want to let go of it whether due to familiarity, employment issues or a vague sense that the public somehow benefits from this overlording.
We have an electorate that either doesn't understand or doesn't care how this affects them. So the overregulation continues.
All that said, the regulation of rampant and blatant (high-power) piracy falls clearly under spectrum management. Through efficient use of law enforcement resources and partnering with state authorities, the FCC could engage in a selected number of high profile 'take downs' in states with the toughest statutes. That would go a long way toward reducing the magnitude of a problem that, admittedly, is never going to go away entirely. The guy running a 1-watt FM in his neighborhood isn't the problem. The guy spraying several kW into an improperly tuned antenna is. Use the limited resources to take him out, and publicize it.
For an historical overview on how the airwaves first came under government control, read the first couple of chapters of Jesse Walker's Rebels On the Air (2001 NYU Press).
musichead1029 said:
That's correct, and the Justice Department's ruling in the Sirius-XM merger can be used to support your view.
musichead1029 said:
I agree. There's no point in requiring licenses if people can circumvent the system. Piracy makes a mockery of the system. The more agencies that can be involved in policing the spectrum, the better.
TheBigA said:
Are you purposely not getting the point? This doesn't even make sense. This isn't a democracy. Every single thing the government does isn't voted on by the people. We entrust them to do things in our best interest. You may not like some things the FCC does, and I know that's really the case for me the last few years, but there's nothing improper about the FCC's existence.
TheBigA said:
Well, let's try this again... hit the wrong key...
What they knew was interference.
In 1927, licensing was nothing new. Broadcasting had always required licenses; until the 1926 Supreme Court decision, the government had had the power to decide who could receive these licenses.
Those who were about to land on the wrong side of the regulations could probably be counted on to oppose them!
From what I've read a small number of preachers like McPherson did have substantial followings. McPherson was to a large degree the exception, however, for having her own station. Most of the influential radio preachers broadcast over regular commercial stations.
Absolutely, it's both a political & Constitutional issue. I do however have to insist my reading of period literature doesn't suggest any large part of the population favored rolling back the pre-1926 regulations.
I see a bigger issue with a state attempting to regulate something they are not empowered to.
The Federal Government has charged the FCC with ALL RF spectrum mangement.
Seems to me the state of New York is looking to get into a court battle over who has authority to write
communications legislation regarding use of RF for public broadcast. Florida and NJ are in the same boat.
It WAS conclusively decided in the civil war that states have limited rights, and those poweres delegated to federal
levels cannot be usurped at the state level.
It's like a city trying to write legislation to keep products from "country x" from entering its "borders".
Cities don't HAVE the rights to regulate such. Neither do states have authority to dictate RF law and policy,
which is totallly the domain of the FCC.
States trying to regulate RF spectrum management policy is morally more questionable than "pirate radio" itself.
No one has charged the legislators with conspiracy yet? Wow!
They would seem to be conspiring to wrest authority and control of rf matters from the Federal Government when it clearly defined in Federal law as NOT a state matter.
The Federal Government has charged the FCC with ALL RF spectrum mangement.
Seems to me the state of New York is looking to get into a court battle over who has authority to write
communications legislation regarding use of RF for public broadcast. Florida and NJ are in the same boat.
It WAS conclusively decided in the civil war that states have limited rights, and those poweres delegated to federal
levels cannot be usurped at the state level.
It's like a city trying to write legislation to keep products from "country x" from entering its "borders".
Cities don't HAVE the rights to regulate such. Neither do states have authority to dictate RF law and policy,
which is totallly the domain of the FCC.
States trying to regulate RF spectrum management policy is morally more questionable than "pirate radio" itself.
No one has charged the legislators with conspiracy yet? Wow!
They would seem to be conspiring to wrest authority and control of rf matters from the Federal Government when it clearly defined in Federal law as NOT a state matter.
TheBigA said:
That's a nice way to put it. The more cynical of us would say the public can be manipulated into wanting things not in its best interest by a crafty salesman and a catchphrase.
K
kenglish
Guest
MattParker said:
Seems like this same law could be used to go after anyone, including Ham Radio and CB operators, taxi cab and tow truck ops, the power company, or your neighbor's new Plasma TV set. It seems a bit overly broad. And, do the local cops have the resources to make a determination of what is actual "interference"? The FCC does, and that's why their agents are trained electronics engineers.
Maybe they should have created a law that offers more ("gun totin' ") assistance, from the local and state cops, to the FCC....as THEY do THEIR jobs. That would prevent thugs from interfering with the FCC.
kenglish said:
Boldface emphasis mine. Agreed. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but the way I read part 2 above, the law prohibits the operation of a FCC-licensed station if it causes interference to another FCC-licensed station. If you're with an AM station this should scare you too. I can see this bill being applied to prosecute you if your station is coming in on your neighbors' unshielded phones/TV sets/overloaded radios tuned to other stations. Of course, it's not good news for hams either.
Any such application would be preempted by the feds. But you'd have to spend a few thousand $$ on lawyers to get to that point.
I think there's a lot to be said for that. It's pretty easy to figure out where a pirate is and that they're operating illegally. It's a lot harder to bring the wrongdoers into custody.
I also think at some point, broadcasters have to start putting a bit more effort into fighting this. Some of the more blatant pirates -- especially those operating within the city-grade of first-adjacent legal stations -- should be facing expensive lawsuits. "Kids playing radio" probably aren't worth pursuing, but the big guns -- the ones running several kilowatts; the ones selling spots; the ones operated to promote a particular business -- it needs to be economically impossible for them to continue
Me Three! If this is the LAW, then enforce it to all who ever turn on or off a light, or ever operate a dimmer, etc, etc.
As an engineer, this law would seem moot by all standards of existing FCC law.
Pt 15 in particular, which has been brutally "fudged" these last 40 years.
There are ways to supress even the worst of these offenders, if only it didn't cost 10 dollars more in design.
Even high-voltage spark iginition noise in auto radios was pretty much conquered,
so why couldn't we limit noise at the source? Well, we can but it costs more money to keep it clean.
It wasn't required, so it wasn't built in....
I can't WAIT for some smarta** in New York to decide
to use this law to get an industrial park to clean their power so he can listen to the radio again.
Why shouldn't such heinous producers of interference over miles and miles of residential areas be heavily fined?
As I read this, pretty much everyone except the old-order Amish are confirmed, satisfied felons.
As an engineer, this law would seem moot by all standards of existing FCC law.
Pt 15 in particular, which has been brutally "fudged" these last 40 years.
There are ways to supress even the worst of these offenders, if only it didn't cost 10 dollars more in design.
Even high-voltage spark iginition noise in auto radios was pretty much conquered,
so why couldn't we limit noise at the source? Well, we can but it costs more money to keep it clean.
It wasn't required, so it wasn't built in....
I can't WAIT for some smarta** in New York to decide
to use this law to get an industrial park to clean their power so he can listen to the radio again.
Why shouldn't such heinous producers of interference over miles and miles of residential areas be heavily fined?
As I read this, pretty much everyone except the old-order Amish are confirmed, satisfied felons.
kenglish said:
The problem is with all the police layoffs going on recently, they just don't have the resources to go after pirate radio operators. I'm not saying it's not important, but with the limited number of cops on the street they need to focus on the life-threatening issues. So I doubt there will be much support on this from local police departments.
Only partially. The FCC used the NAB's fallacious 'lack of competition' argument to enact several sanctions attached to the Sirius-XM merger, the most notable being an overall price freeze on the base subscription rates and a pledge to design radios that would receive both services. It will be interesting to see how much political resistance Sirius-XM encounters to its ability to freely set its pricing options now that the rate cap provision is nearing expiration.TheBigA said:
Seems as if some people are taking a rather hysterical "sky is falling" attitude toward this, when it may not be justified.
This bill may not be as onerous as feared, at least the way it is worded now -- which states:
"... A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION WHEN SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY MAKES OR CAUSES TO BE MADE A RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THIS STATE WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE OR AN EXEMPTION FROM LICENSURE FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION..."
The phrase in bold text in the quote above should mean that operators of unlicensed transmit systems in the AM & FM broadcast bands are not making unauthorized radio transmissions in NY state as long as they (really) comply with Part 15.
Of course all the people with systems just claiming to be compliant with Part 15 still will be at risk from the proposed NY law, as well as they always have been from actions by the FCC.
This bill may not be as onerous as feared, at least the way it is worded now -- which states:
"... A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TRANSMISSION WHEN SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY MAKES OR CAUSES TO BE MADE A RADIO TRANSMISSION IN THIS STATE WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE OR AN EXEMPTION FROM LICENSURE FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION..."
The phrase in bold text in the quote above should mean that operators of unlicensed transmit systems in the AM & FM broadcast bands are not making unauthorized radio transmissions in NY state as long as they (really) comply with Part 15.
Of course all the people with systems just claiming to be compliant with Part 15 still will be at risk from the proposed NY law, as well as they always have been from actions by the FCC.
- Status