In a message dated 2/10/98 10:05:15 AM Central Standard Time,
It is my understanding that the Communications Act of 1934
that set up the FCC also gave the FCC the EXCLUSIVE rights to deal
with cases such as this one and the city has no authority legally to
get involved in this problem. I do not condone in any way the CB'ers
use of profanity, but most law enforcement people don't know the
difference in a amateur radio operator and a un-licensed CB operator.
I think the city could set a dangerous example if it starts to charge
and arrest people in RFI cases when this may be an area that is totally
outside their jurisdiction.
This type of criminal action is against the law. Section 302(a)(2) of the
Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the FCC in these matters. The legislative
history of that section explicitly provides that the FCC has exclusive
authority to regulate RFI. In the Conference Report, Congress stated:
The Conference Substitute is further intended to clarify the reservation
of exclusive jurisdiction to the FCC over matters involving RFI. Such
matters shall not
be regulated by local or state law, nor shall radio transmitting
subject to local or state regulation as part of any effort to resolve
complaint. The Conferees believe that radio transmitter operators
be subject to fines, forfeitures or other liability imposed by any
authority as a result of interference appearing in home electronic
H.R. Report No 765, 97th Congress., 2d Sess.33 (1982). reprinted at 1982 U.S.
Code Cong. & Ad News 2277.
See also: Still v. Michaels, 791 F.Supp 248 (USDC Az, 1992) and Broyde v.
Gotham Tower, Inc., 13 F3d 994 (6th Cir. 1994) among other cases holding that
such actions are preempted.
73, Jim O'Connell, W9WU ARRL VC
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com