[BC] Legal ID Question

[Barry Mishkind]

At 04:36 AM 8/27/2006, Dale H. Cook wrote
>While we are on the subject, Section 73.1201 (2) requires that 
>station identification shall be made "Hourly, as close to the hour 
>as feasible, at a natural break in program offerings." Many station 
>put the ID in the last stop set of the hour, and run a jingle or 
>liner at or near the top of the hour. It has always seemed to me 
>that such a top-of-the-hour jingle or liner constitutes "a natural 
>break in program offerings" and that the ID should be run there to 
>satisfy the wording of 73.1201 (2).
>
>Is such a top-of-the-hour jingle or liner considered part of the 
>"program offerings," whereas the previous stop set would be 
>considered "a natural break in program offerings?" Have there been 
>any Commission rulings or opinions, or actions by the Enforcement 
>Bureau, that would clarify this matter?

         Dale,

         I have first-hand knowledge, having heard the FCC
         official in charge of enforcement speak directly
         to the issue.  I still had the tape recording as of
         a couple of years ago, when I extracted it for someone.

         A top of the hour jingle/logo etc is a violation of 73.1201.
         Two musical items, segued, is NOT a "work" and
         there was a "natural break" at the end of the first cut.

         As Harold has posted, some stations have received either
         warnings or NOVs on this issue.

         Why are there relatively few NOVs and fines for this?
         From what I can determine, it is largely due to the
         fact that, unless an inspector has been dispatched
         purposely to inspect a station, the FCC relies on
         listeners to provide specific information regarding
         such violations.

         Part of it appears to be an unintended consequence
         of the ABIP ... where a certified station is not to be
         inspected unless there is some compaint or evident
         interference being caused.

         Part of it appears to be the political aspect: Congress
         (hence the FCC) is so much more fixated on the
         easy money from EAS and Public File violations that
         the emphasis is going there.

         There is also a continued "rumor" that many of
         the Enforcement Specialists are not qualified to
         do more than read EAS/Tower light logs and Public
         File contents.

         I want to make it clear that I have met many FCC
         field agents and many of them are dedicated,
         highly qualified professionals. They deal with a
         lot more than broadcast ... in fact, we are a small
         part of their concerns, made even less important
         by the rise in problems/hassles/complaints about
         cell phone service, cable leakage, and other issues.

         In some offices, the money and equipment available
         for inspections is greatly reduced from earlier years.
         The political will is in a different area. Just think
         of the number of bureaucrats, secretaries and lawyers
         who have been involved in the Janet Jackson "incident."
         It is quite likely that alone has depleted any funds
         available for broadcast oversight.

         Some may well point out that call letters and the
         ID requirements may be anachronisms in 2006.
         But, I will submit that either the Rule should be
         changed or enforced. As with modulation, day power
         at night, etc, it is a lax attitude toward these things,
         combined with broadcaster realization that enforcement
         is spotty/non-existent, that leads to the casual
         attitude we see in the field.

         There has been, and will be, no change in this
         situation without sufficient pressure upon the
         FCC from Congress to do so.

         Guess who has pull with Congress?