[FPARC] Fwd: NEWS BULLETIN FOR ALL FLORIDA HAMS

[Bill Sinbine]

I don't know who all got this so here it is for you to act on...

73, Bill N4XEO


>From: EasyManner at aol.com
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 15:14:44 EDT
>Subject: NEWS BULLETIN FOR ALL FLORIDA HAMS
>To: w4akh at arrl.net
>X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116
>
>FLORIDA AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS AT RISK
>As of July 1, 2005 a new Florida statute (S. 877.27) makes it a 3rd degree 
>felony to transmit without a license or cause radio interference to a 
>licensed broadcast station in the State of Florida, with penalties ranging 
>up to $100,000 fine and five years in prison.
>This law is broad and vague and even could allow someone to use it to 
>settle a grudge with a amateur radio or CB operator who might interfere 
>with their radio or TV reception. Instead of calling the FCC to 
>investigate interference complaints, someone now need only call the local 
>police or sheriffs department. In a newspaper article, Ralph Barlow of the 
>Tampa FCC office said that under this new law, local police and sherriffs 
>departments can act without even having to contact the FCC. This fact was 
>brought to the attention to the national organization that represents 
>amateur radio (hams) radio operators, the American Radio Relay League 
>(ARRL). On Feb 25, 2005, the ARRL filed at the FCC a Request for 
>Declaratory Ruling seeking to have the FCC invoke federal preemption thus 
>striking down the Florida radio law. The ten-page request points out that 
>radio interference and regulation of radio waves is solely under the 
>jurisdiction of the federal government (FCC) and this power cannot be used 
>by the States. At present the FCC is just sitting on the Request for 
>Declaratory Ruling, but if enough people contact the FCC asking that they 
>act on te ARRL Request for Declaratory Ruling, then it is likely the FCC 
>will invoke its federal preemption thus striking down the Florida law.
>Contact the FCC Chairman and Commissioners and tell them to act on the 
>ARRL Request for Declaratory Ruling (Filed 2/25/05) and strike down 
>Florida Statute 877.27   - - - - - - -
>Chairman Kevin J. Martin: <mailto:KJMWEB at fcc.gov>KJMWEB at fcc.gov
>Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: 
><mailto:Kathleen.Abernathy at fcc.gov>Kathleen.Abernathy at fcc.gov
>Commissioner Michael J. Copps: 
><mailto:Michael.Copps at fcc.gov>Michael.Copps at fcc.gov
>Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: 
><mailto:Jonathan.Adelstein at fcc.gov>Jonathan.Adelstein at fcc.gov
>.
>Here is an article from the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) website 
>about this problem for Florida hams.
>
>League Asks FCC to Void Florida RFI Statute
>NEWINGTON, CT, Mar 1, 2005--The ARRL has asked the FCC to declare invalid 
>a Florida law that prohibits anyone making radio transmissions without a 
>license or Commission "exemption" from interfering with a licensed 
>broadcast station. In a Request for Declaratory Ruling to the Commission 
>February 25, the League maintains that only the FCC has authority to 
>regulate radio stations and RFI. By prohibiting interference to 
>broadcasters, the ARRL contends, the Florida law could have the apparently 
>unintended consequence of affecting ham radio licensees as well as 
>operators of certain unlicensed Part 15 devices, such as cordless telephones.
>"What is clear is that no radio transmissions, licensed or not, are 
>permitted if they result in interference to public or commercial radio 
>stations licensed by the Commission," the League said. "Thus, it would 
>appear that Commission-licensed Amateur Radio stations in Florida are 
>subject to felony prosecution if their transmissions interfere with 
>interference-susceptible broadcast or other radio receivers used in 
>listening to public or commercial radio stations."
>The law also could subject operators of Part 15 unlicensed intentional 
>radiators that interfere with broadcast stations to felony criminal 
>prosecution, the League said, adding that it "could be interpreted to 
>prohibit operation of Part 15 devices entirely."
>Citing case law and legal opinions dating as far back as the 1930s, the 
>ARRL requested a declaratory ruling from the FCC that the Florida statute 
>"exceeds the jurisdiction of the State of Florida and intrudes on the 
>exclusive jurisdiction afforded the Commission by the Communications Act 
>of 1934 as amended, to regulate radio stations and to address interference 
>phenomena."
>The Florida Legislature enacted the law, §877.27 of the Florida Criminal 
>Statutes (under "Miscellaneous Crimes"), last year. It took effect July 1, 
>2004. Violations would be considered third-degree felonies in Florida.
>The ARRL says it's not clear that Florida lawmakers intended the law to be 
>as broad in its application as it reads, but that the new law--apparently 
>aimed at unlicensed "pirate" broadcasters--"nonetheless on its face 
>prohibits any person from causing interference" with an FCC-licensed 
>broadcast station.
>Although the Communications Act of 1934 does not specifically preempt 
>state regulation of RFI matters, Congress clarified in 1982 that all 
>telecommunications are interstate and subject to exclusive regulation by 
>the FCC, the ARRL pointed out. It cited the Communications Amendments Act 
>of 1982, Public Law 97-259 to support its stance.
>"The legislative history of the Communications Amendments Act of 1982 
>demonstrates that Congress intended to completely preempt the regulation 
>of RFI," and leave it solely in the hands of the FCC, the ARRL said. The 
>League also noted that courts "likewise have refused to allow private 
>lawsuits against commercial broadcasters to abate RFI problems."
>In a 2003 case, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the FCC "held clearly that 
>all attempts by states and municipalities to regulate RFI are void as 
>preempted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution," the ARRL said. The 
>League's petition concludes that the Florida statute "is void as preempted 
>by federal communications law."


Think about it .....
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

73, Bill Sinbine
n4xeo at bellsouth.net