[BC] Station Rules compliance (AOL Webmail)

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/26/2007 04:22:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, KC4QLP at aol.com writes:

> Otherwise I and more than likely, many others on here have way to much to do 
>  than to waste, worrying about something like this. 

If someone spends hours at a time scanning the dial, looking for "infractions", then yes, they are wasting too much time. I agree, completely. It is, indeed, time to "get a life" in that case.

However, if all it takes is punching-up a freqency on the car radio while enroute to work, that is *not* wasting time. When the station being checked has shown a consistent pattern of violation, year in and year out, they have a significantly overlapping coverage area, and even a slightly similar format, they are indeed "harming" us by being on the air more than an hour before authorized sign-on.

When they have been contacted in the past, they will comply for a time... but they inevitably go back to their law-breaking ways. It is a repeating cycle... for the past 18 years or so. Currently, they are in their cycle of compliance. When contacted, their excuse was "Oh, we had a mix-up with our schedule." I don't remember what their excuse was last year... or the year before that... etc. This shows a very regular pattern of repeated and flagrant violations. That should *not* be permitted to continue. 

If a kleptomaniac enters a store and the Loss Prevention dept knows this person and has caught them repeatedly shoplifting, are they just supposed to turn their backs when so-and-so pockets an item, and tries to leave without paying for it? That is tantamount to what I am hearing, here... if a station is *known* to be a *repeat offender*, are we just supposed to look the other way? If my neighbor walks his dog and lets it pee on the grass at the curb in front of my house repeatedly (technically not my property, but right in front of it), thus killing it, am I supposed to just accept that? I don't think so!

If there is a *history of complicance* for a given station, and then a non-compliance condition is noticed... yes, it is very logical to assume that there is a legitimate malfunction involved. (Especially if it is a dead carrier.) Contacting the Engineer would be a professional courtesy, and I would most eagerly *welcome* such a call. Yes, even at 2am! If my station is malfunctioning, I want to know so that I can bring it into compliance as quickly as possible! That is also the attitude of this Company... which is just one reason I am still here, and will be marking my 20'th year this summer. :)

Willie...