[BC] to light or not to light

[Blake Bowers]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Ray Boyer" <drboyer at centralcom.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:01 PM
Subject: [BC] to light or not to light


> If a proposed tower supports the antenna for any non Federal Governmental 
> transmitting facility, such as a AM or FM radio station
> or even your local police department Part 90's transmitter, when the FCC 
> grants the station authorization - they become a second
> Federal Governmental entity that has jurisdiction in the matter.

Just what exactly are you claiming a local PD would have on the operation of
a tower based on their transmitter being on that tower?  Or, what their 
license
would have to do with said tower?



> If a tower does not have a transmitting facility licensed to it (ie: 
> receive only site), the FCC does not regulate such sites.
>
> The FCC does not regulate receive only sites, except for certain licensed 
> satellite receive sites.
> However, in the case of a tall tower that supports a receive only site, 
> you still to make sure that you are compliant with the painting and 
> lighting mandates by the FAA for the structure.
Which the FCC will enforce the lighting and painting mandate, and require 
the use of a FCC ID.  What
will they not regulate insofar as the tower on a recieve only site compared 
to a transmitting site?