[BC] Vague FCC Rules

[Rich Wood]

------ At 12:52 PM 9/8/2006, Bruce Potterton wrote: -------

>I beg to differ if the Ix is from a translator and you can prove that
>you had a listenable signal before, they will.  If the Xlator is already
>on the air, you have to give the xlator licensee a chance to fix the Ix.
>If they can't fix it they have to shut down.

At this point, any FCC rule can be interpreted by any FCC employee. 
On the issue of LPFM s and brokered programming I've gotten responses 
(all different) from several official sources. Each one reads the 
rules differently.

We're launching into two areas where fixed definitions have got to be 
available. If the FCC expects to actually get a court to levy a 
$325,000 fine on a station, it seems they'll need something stronger 
than the vagueness of the current regulations. If the F word is OK in 
Saving Private Ryan why wouldn't it be OK in actual news coverage of 
disastrous events? The word often conveys deep emotion. I was on the 
street about 1/2 mile from the World Trade Center on 9/11. I heard 
more than my share of obscenities from the most unlikely people - 
Police, Fire, Medical, etc. It's a fact of life going back to the 
faux pas in the Garden of Eden, I'll bet.

The other issue is IBUZ interference. If the FCC won't do anything 
about it, does a civil court have jurisdiction? I've heard opinions 
on both sides.

Rich

Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-454-3258