Brattleboro Selectboard passes diluted resolution for rfb
Thu Nov 20 01:12:00 EST 2003

In a message dated 11/20/03 12:07:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

> Hmmm they are getting for free what others are paying a lot of money for,
>  illegally. You think that's fair?

Is it fair that the FCC allows frequencies to go unused in a situation where 
there is clearly a public mandate to allow LPFM, the licenses for which are 
being held up by those corporations who "are paying a lot of money" even though 
it has been shown that, in this situation, no interference has been created by 
their presence?

The crime is that the FCC, as a holder of a "public trust," the airwaves, 
cannot figure how to allow a low budget operation to continue without incurring 
the wrath of those people who have paid a lot of money for other frequencies 
which were free for the taking in the beginning.

This is clearly a money issue here, the rest is a smokescreen. Inaction by 
the FCC on LPFM applications has caused a frustration in the general public 
which mimics the creation of the lawlessness on 27 MHz and subsequent abandonment 
of its' enforcement, plus the general disregard for good operating practice in 
the 802.11, 2.4 GHz band.

If all these frequencies are available under Part 15, then the FCC admits 
local "governing" of the airwaves is legal. As they specify only an accepted 
power level and not a "range," they leave open the concept of "local" enforcement 
to that of being subject to interference from other users. The power level 
then becomes arbitrary.

Well, there's a lot off my chest....

Do I hold an FCC License? yes, for the last 40 years Do I follow the rules? 

Do I feel the FCC operates efficiently and in a vacuum?  No

Roger Kolakowski


More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list