[BC] RE: Vague FCC Rules

[Bailey, Scott]

IMHO.....Part 73 AM Rules are out dated, and need to be rewritten. They
are over 70 years old and the world has changed, and they need to
rewrite them to meet up the changes in our times today.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Tom Taggart
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:05 PM
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: [BC] RE: Vague FCC Rules

Rich:

To quote, once again, Dick the Butcher, "first we kill all the lawyers."


Note how quickly the FCC wanted their obscenity case sent back to them
"for review" when someone with money & lots of Washington lawyers took
it to the next level (Court of Appeals).  It's Newton Minnow and
government by "raised eyebrows" all over again.

On IBOC interference, I have a nice case I found from the Ohio court of
appeals that would be interesting precedent to get an IBOC interference
case at least into court. In that case the trial court wouldn't let a
neighbor sue a cell tower owner with dead tower lights because the issue
was "premepted" by the Feds, that is, the FAA.  Court of appeals said
no, the neighbor could try to at least make his case (though they were
clearly skeptical that he had any case).

For IBOC I would argue on a theory of trespass (by the IBOC station on
the harmed station's licensed coverage) or nuisance, or a malicious
interference with business. In the local court of the interferred-with
station.  Suspect the GM of the IBOC station would turn the system off
before paying his high-priced counsel to go down argue this issue before
a local judge. (We elect judges out here...heh, heh, heh.)
-- 
_______________________________________________

The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com