|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Low-Power FM Legal Victory, Prohibition Against Former Pirates Unconstitutional |
Current rating: 0 |
by Paul Riismandel
Email: paul (nospam) mediageek.org (unverified!)
Address: Sunny Urbana |
08 Feb 2002
Modified: 09 Feb 2002 |
|
This morning the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconsitutional the so-called "character provision" passed by Congress in late 2000 that prohibits former unlicensed broadcasters from obtaining licenses for low-power FM stations. |
This morning the DC Circuit Court of Appeals struck down as unconsitutional the so-called "character provision" passed by Congress in late 2000 that prohibits former unlicensed broadcasters from obtaining licenses for low-power FM stations. Circuit Judge Tatel wrote the opinions for the court on this case, Ruggieo v. FCC. Here's an excerpt:
"Finding nothing in the Act, its legislative history, or the record before us to justify the character qualification provision's unique and draconian sanction for broadcast piracy, nor to explain why a more limited restriction would not achieve Congress's objective, we hold that the provision and its implementing regulation fail to
meet this standard and are therefore unconstitutional."
|
See also:
http://www.mediageek.org
|
|
Now If They Would... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2002
|
Strike down the draconian restriction of licensing only FM stations seperated to the third adjacent channel and instead go back to the original, technically sound second adjacent channel seperation as the FCC originally proposed, residents of Champaign County could enjoy a more diverse broadcast radio spectrum. The National Association of Broadcasters bought off Congress to protect their monopoly control of the airwaves by forcing the third adjacent channel provision at the same time they forced the so-called "character" provision into law. A number of local groups applied for Low Power FM licenses, but they sit in limbo because of Congress' cave-in to big campaign contributors.
After all, the airwaves are public property. Treating them as if they were an entitlement to big business sells out the public interest. The public has the right to use at least part of the spectrum, which corporations like to think of as their private turf. |
|
Yay, it sounds good, but it's not much |
by Wankstor X. Muzzlebutt
systemp (nospam) dog.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2002
|
I mean, the first filing windows for 100-watt LPFM stations has come and gone already. And, as ML pointed out, the overly-restrictive channel restrictions placed on the LPFM service still exclude the vast majority of the country from ever getting an LPFM station - and most pirates DO tend to pop up in urban areas, where ANY type of microradio station is still expressly prohibited.
So the pirates got vindicated, and should have a seat at the table after all. Nice discussion of legal theory, but the practical application of this change will be certainly underwhelming.
-wxm |
|
what does it mean for would-be LPFM folks? |
by JF
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2002
|
|
Does it mean that would-be LPFM stations can start broadcasting now as pirates and still have a chance at being licensed as official LPFM stations in the future, or does the ruling only apply to pirates operating before LPFM licensing began? |
|
For Prior Pirates Only |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2002
|
|
This ruling applies only to those who had been pirates before a certain date (I forget when, but it's past now) and certified that they had ceased broadcasting then. If you're a pirate now, it's both too late to apply for a license and you'd have no excuse of not being aware of the availability of a (admittedly partial) LPFM service. |
