3 ms·

I completely understand the need for radio silence here, but that means living here means one cannot benefit from public radio. How is that legal? And when I

I completely understand the need for radio silence here, but that means living here means one cannot benefit from public radio. How is that legal? And when I ask that, I mean how is such law constitutionally permitable?

evgen 5y ago
The federal government (via the FCC) controls the airwaves as a public trust. It is completely permissible for them to declare a quiet zone for the same reason it is permissible for them to assign frequencies to radio stations or declare certain frequency ranges as being assigned to specific purposes or even manufacturers.
- randombits0 5y ago
  You made me look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q... The FCC has no enforcement power. The only law mentioned was West Virginia and they have no authority over the airwaves. Apparently the heaviest restrictions are on government-owned land and that seems appropriate. But I question the legality/enforceability of an administrative edict rather than law, especially one that deprives the public the benefit of a public resource. To your point, no, I disagree. The FCC does not have the authority (in my opinion) to arbitrarily decide who can and who can’t use wireless devices licensed for public use, certainly not without supporting Federal legislation. I have to be wrong here, there has to be something I’m missing.
  - evgen 5y ago
    The FCC has an enforcement bureau that determines if you are violating any licensing rules or federal rulings. They can issue warnings and impose fines as a first step. The justice department and the US district attorneys are the ones who will actively seize your equipment and haul you off to jail in handcuffs if the fines do not deter certain behavior. Whether you agree or not, we have collectively decided that the FCC has this jurisdiction and yes we can arbitrarily decide who can or cannot use the airwaves in certain situations. Your opinion has no standing here, but 47 CFR 1.924 (and how it may be interpreted by courts) does have standing.
    - randombits0 5y ago
      >Your opinion has no standing here. Nor yours.
xyzzy21 5y ago
National Security. It is accidentally for radio astronomy. But it's also the downlink site for SIGINT for military/intelligence agencies - the ban on radio is as much to prevent anyone from tapping into the downlinks as it is to avoid interfering with science.
- randombits0 5y ago
  Can’t put all your golf ball farms in Colorado! Or Alice Springs either.

evgen 5y ago

The federal government (via the FCC) controls the airwaves as a public trust. It is completely permissible for them to declare a quiet zone for the same reason it is permissible for them to assign frequencies to radio stations or declare certain frequency ranges as being assigned to specific purposes or even manufacturers.

randombits0 5y ago
You made me look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Q... The FCC has no enforcement power. The only law mentioned was West Virginia and they have no authority over the airwaves. Apparently the heaviest restrictions are on government-owned land and that seems appropriate. But I question the legality/enforceability of an administrative edict rather than law, especially one that deprives the public the benefit of a public resource. To your point, no, I disagree. The FCC does not have the authority (in my opinion) to arbitrarily decide who can and who can’t use wireless devices licensed for public use, certainly not without supporting Federal legislation. I have to be wrong here, there has to be something I’m missing.
- evgen 5y ago
  The FCC has an enforcement bureau that determines if you are violating any licensing rules or federal rulings. They can issue warnings and impose fines as a first step. The justice department and the US district attorneys are the ones who will actively seize your equipment and haul you off to jail in handcuffs if the fines do not deter certain behavior. Whether you agree or not, we have collectively decided that the FCC has this jurisdiction and yes we can arbitrarily decide who can or cannot use the airwaves in certain situations. Your opinion has no standing here, but 47 CFR 1.924 (and how it may be interpreted by courts) does have standing.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    >Your opinion has no standing here. Nor yours.

xyzzy21 5y ago

National Security. It is accidentally for radio astronomy. But it's also the downlink site for SIGINT for military/intelligence agencies - the ban on radio is as much to prevent anyone from tapping into the downlinks as it is to avoid interfering with science.

randombits0 5y ago
Can’t put all your golf ball farms in Colorado! Or Alice Springs either.