On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:28:32 -0400, Ari Silversteinn
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:42:16 GMT, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote:

A disadvantage I see is that a waiver is going to be required in order
not to violate FCC rules. In fact, in the state of Florida, interfering
with broadcast stations is against state law, so another hurdle to be
overcome.

Yes, the budget is rich with expected legal expenses. Since DHS has become
a player in this, we are hopeful that we can get the necessary punch to
overcome FCC and statutory issues.

That being said, for this system to work, you have to blanket
the entire AM and FM broadcast bands. Even doing so will leave out the
motorists who use XM or Sirius, the Ipod listeners and those who are
driving with their cellphones plugged into their ears.

Do we have to blanket or only blanket each locale, that is, the
broadcasting stations of each locale?

Not only will we miss those no AM/FM listeners, we will miss those that
don't have their radios on. An aggressive, road sign campaign is planned
something like " Turn On Your Radio, It Could Save Your Life" type of thing
near each incident site.

While Florida may have laws to this effect, in fact they are
unenforcable because of federal preemption for all radio matters.
Still illegal, just the wrong enforcement entity. A state or locality
cannot for example legislate on TVI matters (though many have tried.)
When they try, the FCC will send a notice to the locals that they are
in charge and will handle enforcement. Unfortunately the FCC is
unwilling to get involved in the matter of private contracts such as
antenna exclusions in housing developments.

That said, be aware that when it comes to radio useage in the US, the
FCC is actually NOT the ultimate authority. They are responsible only
for those frequencies which a military controlled panel has ceded to
the FCC for administrative purposes. I can't remember the name right
off hand, but during my federal career, I had to work with them and we
actually were able to override an FCC allocation because it interfered
with a military application. While the FCC played ball with the DOD
outfit I worked for, the ultimate beneficiary of that allocation (a TV
station) sued and the matter wound up in Federal Court. The court
reaffirmed the DOD's ultimate sovreignity in this matter. It
ultimately got resolved by some allocation juggling when a combination
of the Court, The FCC and the DOD gave the plaintiff some "religion."

W3JT