owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
> >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 12:28:19 1998
> Received: from imo23.mail.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151])
> by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01948;
> Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:28:16 -0500 (EST)
> From: JimW9WU@aol.com
> Received: from JimW9WU@aol.com
> by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id CVMLa01210;
> Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:27:33 -0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <1df9c9c6.34e08e07@aol.com>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:27:33 EST
> To: bryan@prodistributors.com
> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com, rfi@contesting.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Local police and RFI problems
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 126
>
> In a message dated 2/10/98 10:05:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> bryan@prodistributors.com writes:
>
> <<
> 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
> Communications
> 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 apparatus be
> subject to local or state regulation as part of any effort to
> resolve an RFI
> complaint. The Conferees believe that radio transmitter
> operators should not
> be subject to fines, forfeitures or other liability imposed by
> any local or
> state
> authority as a result of interference appearing in home
> electronic equipment
> or systems.
>
> 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
--
Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
|