HFU HF Underground
General Category => General Radio Discussion => Topic started by: ChrisSmolinski on August 26, 2022, 1141 UTC
-
FCC Sends More Pirate Letters
Owners of properties in Brooklyn and Beltsville, Md., get notices
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/headlines/fcc-sends-more-pirate-letters
-
I was digging around in FCC press releases for the year and I found this, which is tangentially related.
Apparently an entity that owns a commercial station in Las Vegas, but whose license expired in 2018 and continued or continues to operate, is fighting with the FCC to delay further investigation/action. One of the things that the FCC did was threaten them through the provisions of the PIRATE Act.
2. The Order and LOI Correctly Apply Section 511 of the Act
10. We also agree with the Bureau that the LOI’s invocation of section 511 of the Act is not a
“tortured misinterpretation of the term ‘pirate radio’”22 that threatened or attempted to coerce CVGC and
its principals.23 As the LOI plainly states (and as directly quoted in the Application), “section 511 of the
Act establishes penalties for any individual who engages in or permits acts of pirate radio broadcasting,
which is defined as ‘the transmission of communications on spectrum frequencies between 535 and 1705
kilohertz, inclusive, or 87.7 and 108 megahertz, inclusive, without a license issued by the
Commission.’”24 Through the LOI, the Bureau is attempting to investigate, inter alia, whether the Station
continued to operate as a broadcast station after the expiration of its license, and, if so, the frequency on
which the Station operated. The LOI also provided CVGC with an opportunity to explain its legal basis
for continuing to operate.25 Thus, with respect to section 511 of the Act, the LOI plainly seeks
information to determine whether Station has operated without a license from the Commission on a
frequency identified in section 511(h) of the Act. In amending the Act to include section 511(h),
Congress did not draw a distinction between a station that has never held a Commission license and one
that previously held a Commission license,26 and we decline to do so here. Accordingly, we find that the
Bureau’s invocation of section 511 was appropriate in a preliminary inquiry whether the conduct of
CVGC and its principals met the statutory threshold for liability under section 511 of the Act
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-34A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-34A1.pdf) , page 4
Though I don't understand what else the FCC needs to "investigate". They already established that their license expired (they would seem quite qualified to know that :D ) and it seems pretty straightforward to establish whether they are still on the air or not. But I guess they have to go through the whole legal dog-and-pony thing.
-
Obviously they want a QSL, the paper chasin' ho's.
-
I wonder if the license fee is less expensive than 3.5 years of lawyers on retainer. I wonder if the cost of the lawyers will exceed their eventual fine.
-
Express language regarding landlords, property managers, advertisers and other financial supporters of pirate stations did not make it in the final version of the PIRATE Act in 2020.
However, FCC has taken the position that the statutory language regarding "willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done” such broadcasts effectively covers landlords and property managers, and are taking enforcement action accordingly:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-369037A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-369037A1.pdf)
The agency also amended its rules, authorized by the PIRATE Act, to propose penalties “against any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any pirate radio broadcasting,” supporting this same enforcement effort.
The PIRATE Act defines “pirate radio broadcasting” as unlicensed transmission of communication (not in compliance with Part 15) between 535 and 1705 kilohertz, inclusive, or 87.7 and 108 megahertz, inclusive.
-
Express language regarding landlords, property managers, advertisers and other financial supporters of pirate stations did not make it in the final version of the PIRATE Act in 2020.
However, FCC has taken the position that the statutory language regarding "willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done” such broadcasts effectively covers landlords and property managers, and are taking enforcement action accordingly:
That's interesting. I wonder if there is precedent for that sort of interpretation.
-
Good question Charlie DS. I suppose someone would have to challenge that in court. I suspect that the authority and latitude conveyed to the FCC by the PIRATE Act could be viewed as supporting such an enforcement posture through agency rule-making. They're, cleverly and effectively, following the money.
-
The side effect of those threats against the landlords
is that the landlords will become more eager than ever against any outdoor antenna
(even if not for standard AM and FM bands).
The strong interpretation by the FCC could even induce the closed communities and local authorities to forbid more than ever any outdoor antenna
(as anyone accused to help a pirate station is liable to the same HUGE fines).
Time for an amendment about free listening to the airwaves, including the right to listening antenna ?
-
The side effect of those threats against the landlords
is that the landlords will become more eager than ever against any outdoor antenna
I suppose that could be one effect of this, yes.
The strong interpretation by the FCC could even induce the closed communities and local authorities to forbid more than ever any outdoor antenna
(as anyone accused to help a pirate station is liable to the same HUGE fines).
Time for an amendment about free listening to the airwaves, including the right to listening antenna ?
I will note that I live in an area that is technically under a "covenant" that specifically forbids outdoor radio antennae (but television antennae are not mentioned, interestingly enough, because it was written in 1957 when over-the-air TV reception was important). However, the board that is supposed to enforce this and other restrictions (like having to seek approval for changing the color of your house and so forth) was disbanded many decades ago and I don't think anyone really cares. (Note, it's not an HOA.) I note many ham antennae within the covenant area and I'm not at all worried about my antennae. If it comes to it, I will put up a "television antenna" (wink, wink) with "guy wires" (more wink, wink) and that would shut them up, but, again, I'm not worried about it.
-
Maybe if those letturds were printer on Really absorbent paper then they could be emergency backup "T" Paper!
::) ::)