Let me say up front that this blog is not an editorial position but only a discussion of the very interesting subject of the FCC’s jurisdiction. The subject came to attention by way of a news report this morning on “Between the Lines”, a national journalism program on current issues.
There is a move to prompt the FCC to issue a notice of proposed rule making in the interest of placing a cap on the amount charged by phone companies for service within penal institutions which presently are very expensive for inmates and their families. But here’s the part that stands out: because the FCC is a Federal agency, they only have jurisdiction over phone calling that crosses state lines and cannot impose rules on phone calls within states.
Hearing that brought to mind the defense being used in Austin, Texas, by unlicensed 90.1, which covers half the city, in their on-going court case claiming the FCC has no jurisdiction over their transmitter because the signal does not cross state lines.
That made me remember the largely redacted guide book obtained by kc8gpd under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Whatever was redacted is something we are not being allowed to know, and perhaps that includes the truth that the FCC has no jurisdiction over radio signals contained within a single state.
For broadcasting I can appreciate why the subject of jurisdiction would be carefully concealed, because there would be an outbreak of unlicensed signals popping on the air in every state, and each state would need to have a “State Communications Commission” with whole sets of rules in order to preserve order.
But for a few part 15ers “in the know”, it might be some comfort to know that hair-splitting rules may not apply to coverage within the state.
Quoted without Further Discussion
From the FCC info at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/inspect.html
Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) gives the Federal Communications Commission the authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1) … Non-licensees include those individuals or entities operating in accordance with Part 15 of the Rules. Non-licensees also include those who should have a license to operate their equipment but have not obtained a license and are operating without authority.
Uneven Application of Law
Referring again to the news report on “Between the Lines”, the FCC itself has explained that they do not have the authority to regulate in-state telephone service, but only inter-state telephone service.
Speaking for the FCC, rich informs us that radio broadcasting falls under their purview regardless of intra- or inter-state coverage.
Two different standards are being stated.
If rich is correct, and broadcast jurisdiction belongs monopolistically to the FCC, then several states, including Florida and New York, are treading outside of their own jurisdiction by legislating against unlicensed broadcasting within their states.
As I said earlier, I am not here with a decided opinion, but merely to mount this discussion. What is there that the public is not allowed to know?
Also, rich passed by my reference to the redacted portion of the FCC’s Inspection Guidelines, and neglected to provide a comment on that question.
Regulatory Authority
It seems that when the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted that it was very likely that almost all of the radio signals, being medium wave, would have the potential of crossing state lines and therefore this could justify a Federal approach to regulation.
It wasn’t too many years ago that the telephone charges for long distance calls were much higher for within state calls compared to between state calls so clearly the regulation of rates depended on the call status with state rates being set by the states. .
Redaction appears to be a means by which the government can appease those who demand access to public information without giving up the ability to withhold same. If that doesn’t work then there is Presidential executive privilege.
Someone once said “Power is not granted, it is assumed” and the Fed has operated this way almost all of the time and gets away with it. Also, once power is assumed it is not relinquished easily nor gracefully.
Back to the initial point I don’t foresee the courts undoing federal regulatory authority as it is now applied to radio or wired communications, and I do see frequent attempts to regulate and tax internet traffic. Even the U. S. Constitution does not stop the assumption of power by some.
Neil
Say What ?
carl posted: Speaking for the FCC, rich informs us that radio broadcasting falls under their purview regardless of intra- or inter-state coverage.
I was not “Speaking for the FCC.” I simply quoted the text appearing on an FCC website, without further comment in that post.
Also, rich passed by my reference to the redacted portion of the FCC’s Inspection Guidelines, and neglected to provide a comment on that question.
I have not found any link to any FCC text provided to anyone concerning this subject in response to an FOIA action — with redactions, or not.
Public comments might follow if such FCC responses were made public.
Both The Same?
“here’s the part that stands out: because the FCC is a Federal agency, they only have jurisdiction over phone calling that crosses state lines and cannot impose rules on phone calls within states.”
If the FCC only had jurisdiction over phone calling that crosses state lines, why are there specific parts to Title 47, each for specific forms of wired and wireless communications?
“Hearing that brought to mind the defense being used in Austin, Texas, by unlicensed 90.1, which covers half the city, in their on-going court case claiming the FCC has no jurisdiction over their transmitter because the signal does not cross state lines.”
That one will be a tough cookie to chew on. If I am not mistaken, the FCC has authority and jurisdiction in all states, territories and possessions.
“That made me remember the largely redacted guide book obtained by kc8gpd under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Whatever was redacted is something we are not being allowed to know, and perhaps that includes the truth that the FCC has no jurisdiction over radio signals contained within a single state.”
Not quite. The table of contents are a clue. What is mostly redacted are certain procedures in “hunting” down illegal signals and enforcement actions/procedures that may prevent the field agents from doing their job if the public knew exactly how the agents go about doing their job. But even that is pretty lame because us radio folks know exactly how to triangulate signals even with simple radios with S meters. We even know how to calculate field strengths at given distances from a located radio emission source. How many hams out there spent the hours on fox hunts? How many radio tinkerers out there went signal hunting or plotted their Part 15 station pattern with that simple radio and S meter?
“For broadcasting I can appreciate why the subject of jurisdiction would be carefully concealed, because there would be an outbreak of unlicensed signals popping on the air in every state, and each state would need to have a “State Communications Commission” with whole sets of rules in order to preserve order.”
I seriously doubt any outbreak of unlicensed signals would be popping up causing chaos out of (cough) order. That whole concept is no different from the radical concept of killing off 2/3’rds of the population because of overcrowding, yet there are millions of acres of undeveloped countryside all over the world and plenty of resources to go around. It’s easy to convince a duped down society that resources are scarce when only a hand full of elites control those resources.
What was lacking prior to the communications act was volunteer organization in the operation of radio systems, and in those days those systems were not exactly the highest order of spectral purity. Things are considerably different these days, especially technology, which is light years ahead of what was around at the turn of the 20th century and at the time of the communications act.
“But for a few part 15ers “in the know”, it might be some comfort to know that hair-splitting rules may not apply to coverage within the state.”
The hair splitting of the rules began much later after the communications act. Splitting of the rules allowed for the corporate conglomerates to consolidate the radio industry into a hand full of corporate ownership.
Whats needed is a revamp and modernizing of the entire telecommunications act. Only one problem…the goons we all have to deal with are crooks and part of that big corporate conglomerate consolidating monster.
Start picking another candidate to vote for this November….across the board.
Neil hit it dead on. Power is assumed. So don’t assume those who assume power are interested in your assumptions.
RFB
Following the Thought
I believe we have a genuine state’s rights issue when it comes to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is as much part and parcel of each state as is land and air.
The electromagnetic spectrum in Illinois is part of Illinois.
Only radio signals reaching several states, now I am reaching an opinion as this thinking matures, would rationally require federal oversight.
I think radio8z has nailed it by recalling that in the early days radio was “boundless” in its reach across countries and territories. Very local area broadcasting was not practicable until FM entered the picture, and of course now we have part 15, which requires a form of “blocks rights” so that small stations do not violate neighbors on the next block.
It is a fact from law school that our legal system is adversarial, and to quote FCC rules as if they were the incontestable final determination in keeping the status quo the way it is, is to side with a one-sided enforcement mindset as the adversary of alternative thinking in the part 15 community.
Proves My Point
“radio8z has nailed it by recalling that in the early days radio was “boundless” in its reach across countries and territories.”
It only proves my point, the rules are outdated, long overdue for an overhaul. Much of the rules on the books were there since 36 and still apply, yet those rules clearly are meant for an era when technology was kin to stones and sticks.
RFB
FCC Rules
carl wrote: …to quote FCC rules as if they were the incontestable final determination in keeping the status quo the way it is, is to side with a one-sided enforcement mindset as the adversary of alternative thinking in the part 15 community.
No problem with alternative thinking unless maybe it exposes those acting prematurely on such thinking toward FCC inspections/citations (assuming that avoiding this is important to such operators).
Existing FCC rules are subject to change, using the legal processes needed to change them.
Ignoring those rules to achieve a given, immediate personal goal always is possible, but is not without certain risks to those doing so.
Shifting the Subject
Nowhere in this discussion has anyone suggested ignoring or breaking FCC rules or any other rules.
For unstated reasons completely academic discussions so often get slurred into enforcement warnings about breaking rules.
One dimension is a good starting point, but life becomes fuller by adding additional dimensions, as we have tried to do in this discussion, before being warned of the risks of breaking rules.
No one’s alternative thinking is “being exposed” as “acting prematurely on such thinking toward FCC inspections/citations”.
Subject Shifting
carl wrote: No one’s alternative thinking is “being exposed” as “acting prematurely on such thinking toward FCC inspections/citations”.
On a sufficiently comprehensive reading/understanding of my earlier post in this thread, it will be seen that my comment applied to those who ACTED prematurely on such alternative thinking — not to the alternative thinking, itself.
Double Shift
But in that case you would have taken the dialogue yet another degree apart from the subject at hand by raising the false suspicion that someone was either proposing the ACTING ON or PROPOSING ACTING ON an unruly course of action based on alternative thought.
In several years on this part 15 site no one has ever proposed nor admitted violating FCC rules. Yet what comes like clockwork is that periodic implication that by breaking rules we would be at risk. The explanation why that is such a persistent theme is not known.
To make an analogy, I am a man who wears his seatbelt when driving. If a passenger habitually warned me to use my seat belt they would not be my passenger for long.
Perhaps we could be told the condition that compels this odd behavior?
Breaking Rules
carl wrote Yet what comes like clockwork is that periodic implication that by breaking rules we would be at risk. The explanation why that is such a persistent theme is not known.
Just curious… do you propose that those who break the rules should NOT be at risk for doing so?
On Your Own
You’re off on your own.
What’s Going On?
Did not this thread begin with a discussion about jurisdiction and alternatives to the present system?
Though it appears that most of us do our best to abide by the rules there is nothing wrong with proposing and discussing changes in the rules and perhaps jurisdiction. This is how we get changes which we hope will improve things. It is rare when defiance expressed by breaking rules achieves beneficial change and this was not being proposed nor discussed so why get into a debate about obeying the rules?
Neil
Everyone Keeps Saying “Rules”…
For the benefit of all the noobies, please submit a list of all the “rules” included under Part 15 regarding a free radiate transmitter operated in the AM broadcast band.
I’ll start the list:
Part 15.219 –
(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage (exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.
(b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters.
(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
Anything else needed for a free radiate transmitter in the AM band?
Well, you could throw in two
Well, you could throw in two more..
§ 15.215 Additional provisions to the general radiated emission limitations.
(a) The regulations in §§15.217 through 15.257 provide alternatives to the general radiated emission limits for intentional radiators…. etc…
§ 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments
(l) Users of nonlicensed, low-power devices operating under part 15 of this chapter may use whatever identification is currently desired, so long as propriety is observed and no confusion results with a station for which the FCC issues a license.
Not to mention 15.221 referencing carrier current and campus broadcasting..
But I get your point Mram.
List of Rules
Perhaps a listing of the Part 15 rules should be posted on a tab at the top labeled “For Newbies”.
That way we don’t have to interrupt threads with stuff that should be researched prior to even thinking about firing up a station.
Might help a little I think.
RFB
List of Rules
I agree. If someone will prepare a file attachment of a list then I’ll put it up or maybe we should start a new thread on this subject so we can all review the “finished product.”
Neil
True.True.However, what
True.
True.
However, what might be the percentage of threads (over the days, months, and years) that veer off the original topic here?
Just saying.
Now, putting rambling comments aside..
A file attachment (under a newbies tab)containing an exhaustive (“finished product”) reference of official FCC documentation concerning Part 15 radio broadcasting requirements and permissions is a superb suggestion.
On Course
Member rich said
“Existing FCC rules are subject to change, using the legal processes needed to change them.”
That is very much on point with holding discussions that evaluate the rules themselves, as a prelude to any possible “legal processes needed to change them”.
The Low Power Broadcasters Association (is that the name of our new group? I’ve forgotten) has made one of its stated purposes the discussion of possible petition for changes in the part 15 rules.
Yet, such discussions seem to attract warnings that we are “breaking the rules” simply by evaluating them and considering changes as may be desired for the future.
The point has been fairly made that part15.us is a website “OF the rules”, as its name clearly upholds, but a tradition of a well ruled society is to be able to discuss, petition for change, or simply day dream about a different world, all the while being faithful to the existing rules of the moment.
What, Me Worry…
My comment was simply pointing to the fact that most of us Part 15 AM BCB broadcasters use an antenna.
As such, we have the option of Part 15.209 or Part 15.219.
The generally agreed upon choice is Part 15.219 as there is no specified field strength implied. Rather, a limit placed on transmitter final stage input power (100 mW) and antenna system. Therefore, that is THE RULE we live by and some are consumed with worry regarding interpretation of the rule.
Most use a commercially available kit or plug-and-play transmitter. In that case, technical details have been worked out regarding power and spurious output filtering.
Yes, Part 15 is a quagmire of rules when you view the whole book. And yes, some of us dabble in Carrier Current and must understand a different set of restrictions. And Part 73 reference to using a “Call Sign” is interesting regarding “discussions” of To Use or Not To Use a call sign.
But for the newbie that purchases a transmitter built to comply with Part 15 rules while using an antenna only needs one rule: Part 15.219.