[BC] Public File now must include Articles of Inc. and Bylaws

[Jerry Mathis]

Not to mention the requirement now to respond to the question on your renewal, Are you currently in violation of any Rules. Why a court doesn't find this unconstitutional is beyond me. (has it even be challenged yet?)
 
Oh, wait, it's the Gov't. They can do what they want.

--
Jerry Mathis

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Tom Taggart <tpt at literock93r.com> wrote:

>This came out a few days ago, some of the dispute revolved around the
>failure of the station to provide copy of the articles/bylaws after a
>real public request.

>Suspect some sort of semi-internal squabble at the station...see this article

>http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2010/04/articles/fcc-fines/1250-fcc-fine-for-not-having-licensees-articles-of-incorporation-in-stations-public-file/

>See also Oxenford's nonsense answer that their guide to the public
>file indicated this recently manufactured FCC requirement.

>Also note that this station had gone through an "alternate inspection"
>which bought them exactly nothing with the FCC's stazi agents.

>Hate to take this to politics, but this is yet another reflection of
>the shift in government attitudes with the new administration; E.G.
>the over-reach in the broadband proceedings.  Part of the general
>attitude that we are to serve the government, not the other way around.