The only reason I've even addressed the dire warnings is that I would hate to see someone elect not to take advantage of a great site out of concern about paying humongous fines for problems that neither have been caused by the tenant nor practically capable of being eliminated or mitigated by the tenant. Having said that, if you are actually taking over a site, that is something to be cautious about because at the moment you take over effective control of the site, you have inherited the obligation to correct its regulatory deficiencies. It's analogous to buying a house. If the seller sells you a house without proper permits, you may have a beef with the seller, but local code enforcement considers the problem and the solution to be yours. As a practical matter, there is more than one "government" involved in this sort of issue. The FCC is a regulatory agency with considerable discretion, but their regulations can't be inconsistent with the enabling legislation. Historically, it was Goliaths like Motorola who would hide behind their corporate shield and pushed for holding the site tenants accountable for the condition of the site. But they pushed it a bridge too far and in the face of a Congressional proposal to totally immunize site tenants, Part 17.6 was a compromise resolution that clearly defined who was responsible and what they were responsible for. Last thing - the news you generally hear and remember is an announcement that the FCC has levied a monetary forfeiture on some party. What you don't hear is that the forfeiture amount often is reduced if not entirely remitted if the infraction is unintended with eventual compliance. And you also don't hear about people who take their case before an Administrative Law Judge who may have no qualms about telling the FCC that their proposed action is either too harsh or even entirely out of line. The FCC wins some - and they lose some. The point is that, if push comes to shove, it is ultimately the ALJ, not the FCC that sustains or kicks any monetary fine proposal. K7IJ In a message dated 6/17/2007 12:36:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, XXXXXXXXXXXXX writes:
I like your attitude. Far too many people repeat what they've heard as if it's the hard truth when in reality they don't have all the facts. Not saying he doesn't know of one (because I don't have all the facts!) but it seems either very doubtful he'll come up with a victim or our government is way out of line on this issue (too!). ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
