Pirate Radio Stations Challenge Feds

Thundgelmir writes "Yahoo news has an article about how pirate radio is taking on the FCC. It describes the growing trend of low-power FM stations, and their crusade to be heard across the country and around the internet." From the article: "Over four days, a dozen men and women shyly bumped shoulders as they studied schematics and tinkered with romex connectors, resistors, microphone cords, meters, sockets and capacitors — the stuff of illegal radio stations. 'We're not stealing anything. We're claiming something that's rightfully ours,' he says. His goal is to create FM radio stations faster than the FCC can shut them down ... 'It's always been our position that if enough people go on the air with their stations, the FCC will be overwhelmed and unable to respond.'"

Comments

Dupe.

[B3ryllium]

Wasn't this news in the 1960s? Sheesh. ;-)

Re:Dupe.

[Silver Sloth]

This has more insight than it maybe looks at first glance. Here, in the UK, the 60's pirate boom was driven by the rise of the cheap transistor radio. Suddenly there were plenty of people who had a requirement for broadcast popular music that the established channels were not meeting. The pirates filled the gap until the establishment changed to meet it (Wonderful Radio 1!!).

Now we have a new era with a new medium. The consuming public demand/expect that their requirements are met. The interesting question is whether the established media is as reactionary as in the 60's or whether they can meet the needs that the pirates meet.

Re:Dupe.

[B3ryllium]

Well-said, thank you. As to the established media being able to adapt ... in recent history, they've started to show an interest in catching up to their innovative rivals. So this could play out VERY interestingly. But, I fear, whenever the MPAA or RIAA are involved, it may degenerate into a witch-hunt.

So I hope this all just concerns news and talk radio! lol :)

Re:Dupe.

[rucs_hack]

Radio 1 was staffed by former pirate radio bods anyway.

Re:Dupe.

[speculatrix]

There are parts of London (UK !) where even the regular BBC stations can't be heard due to the pirate stations blasting out low-quality FM. I think there are three problems, firstly that there's very little spectrum space on the FM broadcast band that's spare, and secondly that the "new" Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system in the UK doesn't have enough bandwidth to cope with the number of radio stations who want to use it, and lastly that it probably costs too much for a radio station to get onto DAB at all.

I am speculating that there must also be a rise in the number of "pirate" internet radio stations too, but of course as and when they become too well known they will be taken "off air".

Whatever happened to Mercora?

Re:Dupe.

[letxa2000]

What exactly is the point of overwhelming the FCC on this particular issue? I'm pretty fond of driving across town with my radio tuned to a single station and being able to hear that station clearly without it being stomped by a dozen illegal stations on some ilconceived crusade. There is a reason why anarchy isn't our choice of government, and those same reasons are why anarchy of the airwaves is no better than any other anarchy.

Re:Dupe.

[Archangel Michael]

"There is a reason why anarchy isn't our choice of government"

Speak for yourself, buddy! Imagine a government that cannot be bought because you truly own it, unlike our current version which only the special interest groups and corporations can buy access, while the average citizen has no ability to petition his government.

Re:Dupe.

[letxa2000]

What part of "anarchy" don't you understand? How do you plan on petitioning a government that doesn't exist? How do yo "own" a government that doesn't exist? Sorry, man, as bad as things may be, I'll take it to anarchy any day of the week.

Re:Dupe.

[jamar0303]

I think it's because there is no government that control is separated among the people- thus, the "cannot be bought".

Re:Dupe.

[weierstrass]

>There is a reason why anarchy isn't our choice of government

yes, that the govt would not allow us to make such a choice

Re:Dupe.

[Maxo-Texas]

You own your government which has just as much power as you do.

Let me introduce you to Vinny, whose government has as much power as he does.
Or to William Gates, whose government has as much power as he does.

Anarchy is great if you are the biggest guy on the block or the population is very low.

Otherwise it is immediately going to break down as you try to form powerblocks to protect yourself from groups of your neighbors who feel they can legitimately use your car, your house, your body, etc.

Re:Dupe.

[cayenne8]

Well, considering that most all of the radio stations in the US are owned by 2 or 3 conglomerates, I would welcome some Pirate Stations in my area.

Maybe get some local content, rather than new piped in from who knows where...live DJ's...and someone who will play what they feel like playing if they do music.

There are new bands...hell, good local bands to play. Not to mention if they want to play some 'classic rock'...there are many more good tunes Zeppelin did besides Stairway to Heaven...and tons of great one hit wonders.

Re:Dupe.

[Archangel Michael]

Go ahead and try to "petition" the government, see how far you get, by yourself. The government is nothing but an illusion. The only government I truly "own" is myself.

FWIW, I am not an "anarchist" in the sense of chaos and bedlam, but rather libertarian, as in be responsible for yourself and leave me the heck alone, and I'll do likewise.

Re:Dupe.

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak as if the MPAA/RIAA are separate from the media corporations.

In actuality they are the same. The media companies try to sue any medium, or users of any medium which they can't control. That's why they created the RIAA/MPAA. Unfortunately pirate radio is that type of medium.

Re:Dupe.

[senatorpjt]

Anarchy isn't the lack of government, it's the lack of coercive, involuntary authority.

Re:Dupe.

[danheskett]

I, like you, am also a practicing libertarian. As such, I'll give my divergent point of view.

Primarily the problem with the libertarian philosophy is two fold - first you can't trust people to leave each other alone, and two, in some cases exercising your own legitimate freedom lessens the freedoms of someone else. Therefore, taken to it's natural end the libertarian perspective leads to choas and an over valuation of the "alpha male".

Radio airwaves are a pefect example of this. If you, by exercising your perfectly natural rights to construct a transmitter do so you can very easily obscure or block the perfectly natural rights of two other people to communicate via said public airwaves. It becomes a race to see who can put the most power out over the largest band. In the end, you get just one large muddled mass of easily creatable frequences at huge power - noise. FM signals are not hard to generate. The equipment is old and cheap. And so is too much power. This is exactly why regulation of the airwaves is, despite it's anti-libertarian ethic - in the interests of greater freedom.

The same style argument can go for some other circumstances. Shared - public - resources require some sort of regulation that counts on more than mutal goodwill. Asking a person to do something not in his or her best interest is anti-libertarian in it's nature, and that's exactly what is sometimes required. In the end if comes down to force. The power to impose fines and to enforce payment, and the power to imprision.

This is very unfortunate.

But let's look at this way. I own some mercury. I own waterfront property on a lake. Therefore I can use the mercury to decorate my rocks on my waterfront property. It is my mercury, my rocks, and my waterfront property. Ergo, you stopping me from doing so is a violation of my freedom to utilize my capital as I see fit.

However, contamination of that lake with even just 2lbs of mercury will spoil most life in that lake for several seasons, and make the wather unhealthy to swim in. This will create a deficit of utility for the other land owners, and as such, their property will not longer be as valuable.

This is why libertarianism is not yet a viable option in my political situations. Myself and other libertarians have a lack of effective solutons to these "Shared resource" questions. At best a sharp fellow can suggest a sort of quasi-market based solution that involves credits you can buy and sell. In the end though, they are all artifical imprications strapped onto a marketplace that has failed to support an open, liberty-based solution.

Re:Dupe.

[Maxo-Texas]

And how do you keep a group of thugs from taking advantage of you without having an authority to coerce them with.

And so then how do you keep that coercive group from keeping you from dong other things you want to do?

And how do you keep it from doing whatever is necessary to protect the children.

Re:Dupe.

[senatorpjt]

Guns.

Seriously, though. Anarchy isn't the complete lack of any "government", it's just voluntary. More like the idea of the USA before federalism - the states were the primary authority, and one could move freely between states if they didn't like what theirs was doing. And, if you didn't like any of them, you could go west, like the pioneers. It has to do more with local control than the complete lack of it.

Re:Dupe.

[jerunamuck]

begin rant
Even GW can't take republicanism to the extreme you extol libertarianism to, and don't even get me started on what 2 lbs of mercury would do to an ecosystem. Try for the life time of your great grand children and that only if there is a concerted cleanup effort costing millions and affecting every downstream watershed.
end rant

Did we forget to consider that the pirate radio effort is a form of civil disobedience.
The new microbroadcaster designation is a start. Unfortunately it only legalized the hobbyist. What's at stake is not anarchy of the air waves. On the contrary, if you wanted to start a community broadcast station you either need funding outside the reach of all but the largest conglomerate corporations or you break the law.

Current FCC regulations are an example of legislation that promotes a mono culture (They're Bad! They don't tolerate change well and they're subject to pests, including political despots). For example, I have nothing against Clear Channel Communications but I'd like to hear some blue grass now and then. They won't program it because their bean counters say it's not profitable enough. My neighbors and I either need $20 million to bid on a broadcast license (and we'd probably loose the bid) or we break the law and broadcast above 1 watt (less than a mile range).

If one had the $20 million one could use it to "Lobby" their representative to introduce a bill to change FCC rules but then there would be nothing left to buy the votes needed to get it passed or to affect the wording of the rules written to satisfy the bill should it pass.

The broadcasters won't dedicate any air time to informing the public of this issue so there is little hope of legislators giving the bill any importance. The grass roots are growing, but very very slowly.

Only channel left for change is the judicial branch. Unfortunately, to use this branch of government one must break the law, AKA Civil Disobedience. ...or were you sleeping through Civics class?

Re:Dupe.

[Maxo-Texas]

Sounds more like small government than anarchy.

Don't get me wrong- I come from libertarian backgrounds and favor minimal government.

The problem with both anarchy and libertarian philosophy is that they have no way to address the problem that occurs the second anyone gets significantly more power than average.

The government used to cut those people down to size but now the government is owned by them so even strong government couldn't do it.

It seems there is an inevitable progression towards some kind of nobility and higher class that takes an increasingly disproportionate share of the resources until it gets so bad that there has to be bloodshed to get a reset. But with the advance of technology, it is getting easier for them to put that day off forever.

Re:Dupe.

[ArtStone]

>>Well, considering that most all of the radio stations in the US are owned by 2 or 3 conglomerates

Take off the tinfoil hat for a moment

As of the first week of September, there were 13,838 licensed AM and FM stations in the United States (not counting low power FM stations)..

http://streamingradioguide.com/licensee.php

gives you a list of every licensee which you can click on to see which stations they own.

The list requires a little bit of interpretation to understand..... Carl Rove's Evil Right Wing Clear Channel Corporation (the one that is propping up Air America) has licenses under several different names... Capstar, CC licenses, Citicasters, Clear Channel, AM/FM Licenses, CXR Holdings (Cox Radio) are stations owned or managed by Clear Channel... their total is about 1600 stations, or a little over 10% of the licenses. As of about a week ago, Drudge leaked that Clear Channel was looking to unload some of its smaller market stations (the NAB convention was last week, I think)

Cumulus has 301, Citadel 225, Educational Media Foundation (K-Love, Air1) 166, American Family (Religious) 134,...) by the time we run out of "conglomerates", we have accounted for maybe 2,500 out of 13,838 licenses..

What I think you are really saying is "In my urban market, in the genre I like to listen to", most of those stations are owned by conglomerates - but for the country as a whole, that is clearly not accurate. Drive across the US some time with your radio turned to AM and you'll clearly see that isn't the case. On the other hand, when you hear the local preacher on the radio, or the local Swap Shop program, I'm guessing you don't want to count that as local live programming :)

Re:Dupe.

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, the shared resources of airwaves and water are excellent examples of where government is needed. However, the government of today is not libertarian in basis, nor resembles the founding fathers (USA) view of liberty. My view of Libertarianism is still quite libertine; I believe that rights (true rights) cannot be taken away by either action or inaction.

In the examples you have given, airwaves and polluted water are indeed "shared" by all, and thus should be administred as such. In the case of water polution, the libertarian would say that the polluter would be finacially responsible for the loss in value in such a case. People unable to pay would be imprisoned, and in less than optimal conditions (think Sheriff Arpeo in Arizona).

I don't have a problem with regulating "shared" resources, but not by political hacks, but rather by the community. To the degree that people are affected, the proportional representatation should be given. Local governance is always better than regional, state or even federal. The further away from the issue, the less in-touch the politicians truely are.

How many believe that their Senator actually represents anything but special interests? I know mine don't even come close to representing me. Even more so for the President, and to a lesser degree my US House Rep. However, I personally know the mayor of my town, even though I am not involved in politics whatsoever. In fact, I am fairly confident that our city council represents my community fairly well, but their power is limited due to being so close to the source of their electorate.

Can you see the problem now? More power is centered far away from the source of the electorate cannot be good, yet that power tends to grow until we have a dictatorship of one form or another.

Re:Dupe.

[danheskett]

How many believe that their Senator actually represents anything but special interests? This is interesting. The Senate and therefore senators actually were intended to, and in fact do, represent their state. Specifically, the state government. They are the representative of your state government in the federal government. This is why under the original Constitution Senators were appointed by their respective state legislatures. The House of Representatives was intended to represent "you". For the most part they do a good job of it, actually. They are very responsive to public pressure and sentiment. Unfortunately extensive gerrymandering has so rigged the system that there is a small amount of turnover within the structure, reducing democratic influence.

Rights?

[Jaruzel]

We're claiming something that's rightfully ours

How so ? Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.

-Jar.

Re:Rights?

[B3ryllium]

That is an artificiality, implemented and enforced by a government agency. FM frequencies are merely a collective decision of a bunch of eletromagnetic energy to exist in a cohesive waveform for a period of time, and over a certain distance.

Re:Rights?

[Zapd]

Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.

Exactly. And it's not that the FCC likes to go after the pirate stations, TFA stated that FCC is complaint-driven, i.e. licensed stations are being pushed off the airwaves. Not polite.

The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.

Re:Rights?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.

I think that's kinda their point.

Re:Rights?

[ben there...]

TFA stated that FCC is complaint-driven, i.e. licensed stations are being pushed off the airwaves. Not polite.

Oh, no! Clear Channel might get knocked off the air! What a shame that would be.

Re:Rights?

[BiggerIsBetter]

FM frequencies are merely a collective decision of a bunch of eletromagnetic energy to exist in a cohesive waveform for a period of time, and over a certain distance.

And that have commercial value.

Millions of consumers have receivers in their homes/works/cars that operate with transmissions on those frequencies, so the realist in me says the FCC is chasing them because commercial radio pushes them to.

Meanwhile, the tinfoil in my hat says it's about Big Brother restricting public broadcast and free communication... oh, and keeping the little guy down, man.

Re:Rights?

[Raul654]

The United States in unique in that the law explicitely states that the EM spectrum is the property of the American public. (This has been the law for almost a century, infact -- I think it goes all the way back to the 1912 Radio Act) Because it is a shared resource, however, the government issues licenses to use the spectrum. However, "moneyed interests" (corporations - especially clearchannel) dominate the landscape and the FCC does whatever the want, typically shafting the consumer in te process. The Communications Act of 1996 exacerbated the situation, because it removed rules governing how much of the spectrum one company could gobble up. So if these radio pirates are going to challenge the extremely corrupt FCC establishment, I say more power to them.

Re:Rights?

[Rogerborg]

Did Edwin Armstrong need a license?

I don't think that need means what you think it means.

Re:Rights?

[martinussen]

Whether or not it is anyone's fundamental right to broadcast stuff depends on the nature of humanity and the universe. If it is such that the "ether" is by nature meant for us to use, and we by nature have the right to use it as we please, we certainly have been denied our rights so far. If, on the other hand, we assume that we from the start have no rights and can only do that which we have later gained the right to, the whole thing changes dramatically. We must ask ourselves if freedoms are an inalienable part of humanity or a collection of fleeting concepts that can be removed from us. The logical extremes here are, of course, anarcy and fascism.

Re:Rights?

[figment]

While it is artificial there is a really good reason on why FM licensing is there.

There's only a fixed amount of spectrum out there, and the licensing allows it to be allocated in a fairly efficient manner. If you do not do this, then anybody can blowup anybody else's transmission, and you're left with no reasonable programming (or cellphones for that matter, or satellite tv) at all.

Now while the barriers to creating a ratio station are quite expensive, the fact is that just about everyone would rather have some mediocre programming (what we have currently) over unabashed chaos that would happen otherwise. There are open bands of spectrum where you can do whatever you want with it, so it's not like it's a massive government conspiracy to keep the man down.

Re:Rights?

[z0idberg]

Aren't property boundaries artificially created and implemented and enforced by a government agency as well? A block of land is merely a lump of dirt in a certain area of space/time, but putting up a fence around it and saying I am using it and that I have a right to it doesn't make it mine. Who owns it and where its boundaries lie is looked after by a central body just as the FM frequecies are.

Re:Rights?

[FormOfActionBanana]

the realist in me says the FCC is chasing them because commercial radio pushes them to.

The FCC does exist for a good reason. The radio space within the US is something that is owned by the people of the United States. The rules that are in place are to protect the masses from having that resource rendered unusuable to them. Citizens' Band ("CB") was established so that individuals could express whatever they wanted on their spectrum.

The commercial radio stations that play music we don't like, and shove commercials down the ears of listeners, AND screw payola out of artists... also do pay their licensing fees to the people of the United States.

What you let your government spend the money on is another matter entirely.

Re:Rights?

[EndlessNameless]

The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.

Google HAM Radio. The problem has been solved.

Re:Rights?

[Crasoum]

Actually in Texas (and a few other palces, but I live in Texas) putting a fence around a piece of property and saying it is yours does make it yours, after 7 years.

Re:Rights?

[KDR_11k]

Well, time to build a fence around Texas!

Re:Rights?

[jrmcferren]

WRONG! Broadcasting is prohibited and most people don't have receivers in that range of spectrum.

Re:Rights?

[AndroidCat]

And Amateur radio operators are most definitely licenced.

Re:Rights?

[EndlessNameless]

Yes, but it's relatively easy to be licensed for broadcast, there are no hard-and-fast rules about "acceptable" content, and the spectrum isn't carved up and sold the way FM is. It's about as free as you can get without stepping on other people's toes.

The licensing is required because it possible (although rare) for one goon to screw up and render a chunk of spectrum unusable for a while or otherwise cause problems for other people. Radio broadcasting is like driving in this respect; it is an activity that is inherently public in some way and may therefore cause problems if it isn't done properly. Unlike... say, masturbation... which can be done in complete privacy.

You can get all the study materials you need for the FCC test and a set of ham radio equipment for a couple hundred dollars. Take a look at what's required for FM broadcasting and then tell me ham radio isn't the radio equivalent of the television "public access" channel.

Good FAQ available at http://www.hello-radio.org/whatis.html

Re:Rights?

[DNS-and-BIND]

As long as it's on the Southern border, you've got me convinced.

Re:Rights?

[fatboy]

Did Edwin Armstrong [wikipedia.org] need a license?

Yes, he did.

Re:Rights?

[Bing Tsher E]

Look out, though. Illegal immigrants might be the ones to build the fence.

Re:Rights?

[sbrown123]

How so ? Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.

I have a license for the air around you. By chance, does that sound silly and absurd?

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

Except ham radio requires two-way communication. You cannot broadcast on ham radio, except instructional ham radio training material (example; morse code training exercises). You also cannot transmit music (even background) with one exception, it accidently gets on the air if you're rebroadcasting a transmission from the space shuttle.

So one way communication (IE: broadcasting) is not an option through ham radio.

Re:Rights?

[PhotoGuy]

The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.

Great idea. Although what about using existing bands which don't require licensing. The Citizen's Band and 2.4ghz/5.8ghz spread spectrum band are two options. The biggest drawback would be specialized gear required to even listen, I suppose, to get the quality required on CB, or the spread-spectrum transmission/reception of the 2.4ghz band. (2.4ghz has limitations on broadcast power, though; maybe a C.B. approach would be better, maybe combining channels for higher quality?) It would be cool if portable receivers came out that could receive a growing number of pirate bands in a public frequency range.

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

There are restrictions on power and bandwidth on the CB band. You cant transmit more than 4W (this may now be measured in ERP, I don't recall) and you also cant use anything higher than the (250 khz??) bandwidth allotted to a channel.

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

Technically, its a license to put "stuff" (in this case electromagnetism) into the air around you. I think of it more like polution, which can be regulated.

I understand the need to regulate broadcast band also, because if you don't it just becomes one huge mess of people transmitting and effectively becomes useless... but the license fees should be a scale that rewards community ownership and local "stuff" as opposed to saying, it costs 10,000$ to apply. That prices out all but the big-boys from playing.

Now, don't get me started on how DirecTV / Dish Network saturate my house with their signal, but if I decide to try to pick that up (IE: breathe it in), they can sue me.

Re:Rights?

[Andy Somnifac]

You just tell them they need to make sure the other side looks alright and lock the gate once they go through.

Credit for the above goes to Carlos Mencia.

Re:Rights?

[Andy Somnifac]

Damnit, I replied to the wrong post.

Re:Rights?

[belligerent0001]

Under Part 15 of the FCC rules, you can legally broadcast on the FM band if you broadcast using less that 100 milliwatts of output power and an antenna less than 3' long.

Re:Rights?

[Lumpy]

Problem is that most "pirate" stations are put together by insane nutknobs that do not take a few minutes and dollars to make it right.

Here are some tips if you want your pirare radio station to not get turned in.

1 - plop the station on top of another one... Retarted. the megawatt station will kick you hard, so you get to annoy only a 5 block radius if you are lucky and far away from the station.

2 - use that $29.99 10 watt transmitter kit off ebay. Can you say splatter? your signal sucks and is splattering all over the band and probably into the avaiation bands. Nothing like that to get the FCC and FAA attention.

3 - do the transmitter right but overdeviate all over the place. Limiter and compressor is REQUIRED. as you scream your rants into the microphone you gotta make sure to not over deviate.

4 - spew hard profanity 24-7. Nothing will get you off the air faster than playing all the fowl mouthed 13 year old boy music out there, or screaming FUCK over and over and over again in the microphone. Someone will hear you, not like it and report you. Profanity on the airwaves is more of an issue to the FCC than you not being licensed.

sadly most pirate radio violates every one of those points.

Re:Rights?

[silentounce]

FM frequencies are merely a collective decision of a bunch of eletromagnetic energy to exist in a cohesive waveform for a period of time, and over a certain distance.

and they take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...

Re:Rights?

[yourpusher]

Actually, very little value is returned to the US Treasury from the license holders for AM and FM stations (commercial or not). The vast majority of licensees paid nothing for their licenses, and the yearly fees (called "reg fees") are directed back to fund the FCC's operating budget (i.e., there's no net positive flow of cash to the public). There have been some auctions of licenses that would create smaller stations (mostly in the middle of nowhere) in recent years, but the net take on those auctions has been neglible.

Station owners would argue that they pay "rent" to the public in terms of public interest programming requirements, but then I'd point out that that's all that crap you hear on Sunday morning at 7am, and you'd realize what a joke it was. Wish I could have got in while the getting was good . . .

Re:Rights?

[amishdisco]

Like the huge swath of real estate that's supposed to open up in the VHF bands.
Unfortunately most of that is earmarked for corporate interests (without public discussion, really?).

At this point the FCC is so far gone from its original purpose, I say bring on the pirates.

Re:Rights?

[Zigurd]

Is there any actual evidence that pirate FM broadcasters cause chaos?

Or are they more like squatters, living in the otherwise unoccupied parts of the spectrum? And if they are like squatters, how do you measure the harm they cause? Do they, in fact, cause any harm at all?

Re:Rights?

[kfg]

Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.

Last time I checked one needed only a transmitter.

KFG

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a really good reason up until recently for the FCC. Now not so much. If we all used UWB then there would be no need for the FCC or a very limited roll.

Re:Rights?

[a.d.trick]

I don't see it as being any weirder than saying that I own a particular chunk of dirt and the pile of sticks (house) on top of it.

I don't actually own any land or a house, but if I did.

Re:Rights?

[drsquare]

Physical property is an artificiality, implemented and enforced by a government agency. Maybe I should just come and take your car?

Re:Rights?

[Penguinisto]

"Is there any actual evidence that pirate FM broadcasters cause chaos?"

In FM, probably, but it'd be minor. OTOH, in 1912 there was ample evidence, which is why the FCC was established in the first place: It was said that distress signals from RMS Titanic were stepped-on, garbled, and the transmission of events surrounding the ship's sinking were tough to pass around via radio because there were so many people stepping all over the frequencies. Not sure of the whole story though, so take it as you will.

/P

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...The radio space within the US is something that is owned by the people of the United States...."

This USED to be true. And license holders only held their licenses with the stipulation that they be operated in the public interest.(Ever notice those public service announcements at 1AM?) However, a fair bit of spectrum has been sold to corporations in recent years, in pertetuity. One guesses this is to cover up the massive amount of debt we've been amassing. IF the government wanted to purchase them back, so that more citizens could use them, they'd cost a pretty penny, as free RF spectrum is rare in populated areas of the country.

Also, I think, contrary to the original poster's thought(that if everyone ran a pirate radio, the FCC wouldn't be able to shut them down) that there wouldn't be a need to shut them down, as they would all drown each other out. Many otherwise intelligent people, for some reason, think that the rules of physics don't apply to the radio frequency spectrum. My guess is because it isn't something we physically see, and most folks never studied physics.

Re:Rights?

[Guppy06]

"The radio space within the US is something that is owned by the people of the United States."

This assumes that Congress is acting out the will of and at the behest of the people of the United States.

Re:Rights?

[badasscat]

he realist in me says the FCC is chasing them because commercial radio pushes them to.

No, the FCC is chasing them because radio is and has always been the primary means of conveying emergency information. Television is a lot less reliable on both ends (though that's one of the main reasons the FCC regulates the television spectrum too).

Commercial radio stations have legal requirements for broadcasting emergency signals. Pirate radio stations obviously do not. It is literally a matter of public safety.

And if you don't believe it, ask any New Yorker that lived through 9/11 and the blackout 2 years ago. Most local TV stations were initially knocked off the air on 9/11, and during the blackout there was no TV at all. Everybody got their info by radio. (It's not just information, either - the Emergency Alert System is an automated system triggered by the signals sent over radio and TV.)

There are good reasons why these frequencies are regulated, and they have nothing to do with money. I hope the FCC continues to diligently go after pirate radio - in this case, regulation is a necessary thing.

If people want to set up their own radio station, it's easy enough to do it on the internet without running afoul of any laws. Heck, they'd probably get a lot more listeners that way, and reach a global audience. That they continue to try to flout the law in the face of a legal and better alternative suggests to me that they are intentionally breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law. As such, when they're caught I would hope they have that law thrown back in their faces to the fullest extent possible.

Re:Rights?

[bigpat]

The commercial radio stations that play music we don't like, and shove commercials down the ears of listeners, AND screw payola out of artists... also do pay their licensing fees to the people of the United States.

I would rather they didn't pay a licensing fee. Having a FCC license has become just another type of property, rather than the temporary right to exclusive use of a public space that it should be seen as. Having this become yet another government slush fund has skewed and corrupted the system with government more concerned about getting its license fees than other considerations. If there was no fee, then the FCC would be more likely to consider the service that station was providing to the community rather than just whether or not the company could write a big check.

Spectrum is too valuable to sell.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens' Band ("CB") was established so that individuals could express whatever they wanted on their spectrum.

False fact. Citizens Band is not intended for broadcast, and there are restrictions as to what can be transmitted (e.g., no music). The bandwidth also sucks, which makes for poor audio quality even if you were to try to broadcast music or something like that.

Re:Rights?

[Rich0]

Squatters are a good example.

One guy who sleeps on a park bench - no big deal.

Ten guys sleeping on benches all day - public nuisence.

15 guys in a race to build 4-bedroom colonial homes on the park - tell me again what the park was there for?

Pirate radio is not a problem only because it is rare. Once there are 50 in every town there will be a mess. Sure, that won't happen overnight, but if you give public blessing to this use of the airwaves it WILL happen (especially when Walmart starts selling FM transmitters for $200).

Re:Rights?

[Surt]

I'm sure you were joking, but in no way is a license required to broadcast on the FM frequencies. Pretty much all you need is a small batch of electronics, and I'm sure there are alternatives I don't know about there too.

Or perhaps you meant 'legally', but that would be the point of taking back something rightfully ours from an overly restrictive government that has sold out to big business interests, sort of like how this country got started in the first place.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

A license to broadcast is no different than a permit to have a party in a public park. Both are civilized ways of sharing common resources. Just grabbing a frequency is anarchy in its purest form where the strongest transmitter will win.

These people should figure out a shared spectrum protocol if they're so concerned about taking what's theirs. They can take without taking from everyone else.

Re:Rights?

[soft_guy]

I couldn't care less about Clear Channel, but if I don't get my NPR fix, I'll be totally pissed.

Re:Rights?

[Zigurd]

What I'm looking for is actual data. You can suppose that the availability of 1000 horsepower engines will lead to "chaos" on the road, but there is no data to support that view - only theories and anecdotes.

The same pattern applies to other supposed ills due to extreme behavior: Will people turn in massive numbers to BASE jumping due to the availability of parachutes? No. Will model rocketry lead to homebrew terrorist missiles? No.

So, without actual statistically significant numbers that say "pirate FM causes actual harm," you are left with just theories and anecdotes to justify a status quo that has done well-documented harm in terms of creating an exception to the First Amendment, among other bad effects.

Re:Rights?

[cayenne8]

"Citizens Band is not intended for broadcast, and there are restrictions as to what can be transmitted (e.g., no music). The bandwidth also sucks, which makes for poor audio quality "

Yeah...I just got a CB installed in my car the other day...mostly for when my car club goes on long cruises to keep in touch. I've been trying to use it while on the road just in general...and reception sucks. I've learned I need to look more into a better antenna possibly, but, at this point, unless the person I'm talking to is within 5 car lengths...I can't seem to communicate with any clarity at all.

Re:Rights?

[cayenne8]

It seems there IS an interest in amateur radio programs like this. Perhaps the FCC should free up some of the 'public' airwaves for people to do their own thing?

Sure, no matter what they do, some people will always break the law, but, if they gave a part of the spectrum to be the 'wild west' of radio...why not let people play there?

The reasons you mentioned about having radio would apply to why people would want their own rather than on the internet. You can't listen to the internet away from your computer...you can take a radio with you around the city.

If it isn't all about money...and I'll grant you , the original reasons for the FCC were not and were valid...then, lets free up some of the good frequencies for the public to get on and use as they please without all the drudge work and testing that is needed for radio today.

At the very least...does anyone REALLY need to know morse code and pass a speed test on it to get a license? Most other countries have done away with this, but, not the US....

Free up some frequencies, and keep it simple to be able to use if you can get the equipment together.

Re:Rights?

[Dravik]

If property rights are just artifical constructs of the government, why don't I just stop by and take your computer? I need a new one. Of course there might be a good argumet behind the conclusion that man has an inherent right to life, liberty, and property. It might also help to note that you can draw a direct correlation between the strength of property rights and prosperity.

Re:Rights?

[cayenne8]

"You can get all the study materials you need for the FCC test and a set of ham radio equipment for a couple hundred dollars."

It might be better if they'd get rid of the archaic requirement for a speed test for morse code. I mean if you're wanting to broadcast voices only...why bother with morse code?

Hell, most other countries have done away with the requirement.

Re:Rights?

[ncc74656]

Yeah...I just got a CB installed in my car the other day...mostly for when my car club goes on long cruises to keep in touch. I've been trying to use it while on the road just in general...and reception sucks. I've learned I need to look more into a better antenna possibly, but, at this point, unless the person I'm talking to is within 5 car lengths...I can't seem to communicate with any clarity at all.

Something's not right with that. Back in 1988, my father bought a couple of handheld CBs at Radio Shack, along with a couple of "rubber-duck" antennas so they could be used inside the cars on a cross-country trip without sticking antennas on the outside. We got better range than that out of them, and I'm fairly sure our setup was less optimal than yours. Maybe it's your transceiver that's not working right, or the cabling between it and the antenna.

Re:Rights?

[rizzo320]

And who is to say that a pirate radio operator doesn't want to connect to the Emergency Alert System? Have you talked to any pirate radio operators? Most want to serve the community they broadcast to, and many of them give more local news and information than any commercial outlet. I have spoken with a few of them, and many of them would love to officially become part of the EAS, but of course that means risking being shut down.

I know a few operators who have created some home brewed EAS devices that monitor the larger commercial broadcasters for the EAS tones, and it automatically switches the feed when the EAS tones are aired. I saw it work during one of those EAS tests, it was pretty damn cool.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Morse code test is no longer required for the lowest level of amateur license, Technician Class. It is, however, required if you want a higher level license that grants you additional frequencies. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=abo ut_3&id=amateur Also, note that an amateur license does not allow you to "broadcast", i.e. transmit only.

Re:Rights?

[rizzo320]

What open spectrum is there for non-commercial, unlicenced, radio broadcasts? Sure there is CB, and some other spectrums available used for ham radio, walkie-talkies, cordless phones, wireless, etc, but nothing for the purpose of radio broadcasting. So those that want to do this are limited to broadcasting to their backyard or becomming a pirate. Unless you're speaking of some spectrum that I'm not aware of?

Re:Rights?

[iceph03nix]

I hate to break it to you but thats how most government agancies work. Any money they bring in goes into their budget so that they rely less on government tax funding. For instance, the department of wildlife and parksin most states (may be unfamiliar to this site usual traffik) earns most of their budget from the sales of hunting licenses and hip stamps. This money is used for maintanance of public lands. The public rarely sees most of this money however it helps keep taxes low. In this way hunters, fishers, adn campers pay to maintain resources they use instead of someone who lives in NYC and the closest they come to nature is the local park. The FCC uses the rental fees from the stations to enforce regulations instead of getting all of that money from taxes, keeping the financial stress on those who gain the most from the use of a resource. If public airwaves were not controled, aside from the obvious overcrowding and lack of standardization, then the FCC would have to get its money from ALL taxpayers instead of just those who take advantage of the situation.

Re:Rights?

[cayenne8]

"Something's not right with that."

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, that doesn't sound right to me either. I either get horrible static, or static with very inaudible voice....when I turn the squelch up to get to base quiet (just shutting off static)...well, I occasionally get a clear signal...but, not mucn else.

I live near I-12...and have traveled on it and i-10, and with several trucks around both sides of the hwy..I was expecting to hear lots of chatter on 19..but, not so much...and not many answers when I'd do a radio check.

Was thinking maybe I got a cheap radio from RS (was only $79)...and that it was too crappy to work.

I'd heard antenna was most important thing...read you had to tune them....also though maybe mine is too short...on a very low riding car..?

Re:Rights?

[scatalogical]

I would like to point out that spread spectrum technology has been available since the 50s and to a large extent renders interference and frequency allocation moot. This is a case of enforced scarcity since using current technology any number of moderately powered stations could transmit in any given area without interference. But if that were to be done it would cut into corporate profits.

Re:Rights?

[bubbaprog]

Modded up for spelling the word "Retarded" incorrectly? I didn't realize there was a +1 "Ironic" feature here. I'm not sure what you mean by "overdeviate." Do you mean overmodulate? If so, I agree with you -- nearly every pirate station I hear -- and living in Florida I hear a lot -- are horribly overmodulated, simply because it gets "more" out of a weak transmitter/short aerial.

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

Well, let me know when even 10 percent of broadcast radio listeners can listen to Spread Spectrum technology. In fact, not even 1% of new radios sold (not existing radios) support digital IBOC... so I'm guessing it will never happen.

Yes, it was available in the 50s but it was not easy nor was it affordable. Radio only became as popular because it was cheap to buy a reciever.

Not to mention Spread Spectrum is not very well suited for one-way communication. All that time-base sync becomes pretty complicated...

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

A you know nothing yet you post here... nice slashdot style! in FM you can't transmit louder to get more. only a complete and utter idiot thinks that. (hence lumpy's point that most pirate stations are ran by idiots.)

FM is a Frequency Modulation... maybe if you finished grade school you would have known this. Frequency modulation DEVIATES around the core frequency or CARRIER. and OVERDEVIATION means you are deviating out of your channel and into others. This is really basic stuff here.

but then if you had a clue you might have known that.... although you were busy foaming at the mouth over some silly typo, so that explains your lack of education.

Re:Rights?

[WuphonsReach]

It was said that distress signals from RMS Titanic were stepped-on, garbled, and the transmission of events surrounding the ship's sinking were tough to pass around via radio because there were so many people stepping all over the frequencies. Not sure of the whole story though, so take it as you will.

Sounds like FUD to me. The Titanic was still a long way from civilization (somewhere south of Newfoundland, which is pretty far east of any big cities). Any stepping on would've been done by the other ship operators in the nearby ocean. How chatty were ship's wireless operators back then? How many ships would've been within a few hundred miles?

Re:Rights?

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

during the blackout there was no TV at all

Not true - WNBC was up and broadcasting during the blackout. Of course, you needed a TV that has its own power source (generator, batteries, etc.) and an antenna.

Of course, most people don't have battery operated TVs - but they do have battery-operated radios.

Re:Rights?

[sbrown123]

I think of it more like polution, which can be regulated.

Polution is regulated for health reasons, not because it exists.

Now, don't get me started on how DirecTV / Dish Network saturate my house with their signal, but if I decide to try to pick that up (IE: breathe it in), they can sue me.

You can pick up their signal. They can not sue you for doing that. But if you descramble that signal, thus breaking the DMCA, they can sue you and/or put you in jail.

Re:Rights?

[sbrown123]

I don't see it as being any weirder than saying that I own a particular chunk of dirt and the pile of sticks (house) on top of it.

Land is a physical commodity that can be bought and sold.

Re:Rights?

[2short]

"If property rights are just artifical constructs of the government, why don't I just stop by and take your computer?"

Duh. Because the police will arrest you for violating our artificial societal construct.

"Of course there might be a good argumet behind the conclusion that man has an inherent right to life, liberty, and property."

If there is, I'd like to hear it. The sugestion that property, or any "right", exists independent of society seems pretty obviously ridiculous to me. I mean, "property", "liberty": these are not physical things, they are ideas. Ideas I'm fond of, to be sure, but they are not real without reference to society to make them so.

"It might also help to note that you can draw a direct correlation between the strength of property rights and prosperity."

Ah, now a correlation with a real societal benefit, like prosperity, would be an excellent reason to adopt an artificial construct like property. Best to keep straight which is which though; if you start thinking of property as somehow sacred beyond it's benefit to the society whithin which it exists, there's no end to the crazy conclusions you might reach.

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

Electromagnetic radiation can cause cancer too, although there are not enough studies to prove what levels are harmful.

Re:Rights?

[jlanthripp]

Yeah, except I stopped in a CB shop in Dickson, Tennessee the other day to get my (legal) Cobra 29 NW LTD Classic peaked and tuned, and they had Galaxy DX99V radios for sale. The "Galaxy 99" as it is called, is a 10-meter amateur radio that looks and acts a LOT like a CB radio, except it broadcasts on 10 meters instead of 11 meters, and has AM and FM functionality in addition to SSB, for a grand total of 361 "channels" capability. Of course, the CB shop will gladly modify it to work on 11 meters (CB frequencies) in addition to the 10 meter amateur freqs.

Did I mention that the Galaxy DX99V has 10 watts of power on the AM side, and is considered to be the "Ultimate Truckers' Radio"? They're illegal to sell or use in the United States, because they're over the 4 watt limit and are so easily modified to work on the 11 meter frequencies. Yet thousands of truck drivers across the USA have them. And they use whatever frequency they want on it, not just the CB channels. And very few, if any, of those drivers who have these radios and use the extra "channels" have the license required to operate on those frequencies.

Yes, I'm a truck driver. My CB radio is legal. And everybody I've talked with on it says it sounds just fine.

Re:Rights?

[Rogerborg]

>>Did Edwin Armstrong need a license?

>Yes, he did.

No, he didn't.

Your turn.

The question: did he need a license to broadcast FM transmissions?

Re:Rights?

[gnu-sucks]

It's not FUD at all.

Back in this day, distress signals were transmitted at, I believe, 500KHz. That is, EVERY distress signal was transmitted here. And not only that, but these signals were definitely capable of global range. Furthermore, it was morse code. So imagine trying to pick out details sent via morse code on an international frequency. I'll buy it.

I wasn't aware though that this had anything to do with the creation of the FCC.

Re:Rights?

[mla_anderson]

"It might be better if they'd get rid of the archaic requirement for a speed test for morse code. I mean if you're wanting to broadcast voices only...why bother with morse code?"

Odd, they let me get a license without any code...better not let the FCC know.

Re:Rights?

[mlynx]

It's not too surprising. Here's what the ARRL has to say at helloradio.org:

In those early days, every station occupied the same wavelength-or, more accurately perhaps, every station occupied the whole spectrum with its broad spark signal. Government stations, ships, coastal stations and the increasingly numerous amateur operators all competed for time and signal supremacy in each other's receivers. Many of the amateur stations were very powerful. Two amateurs, working each other across town, could effectively jam all the other operations in the area.

Re:Rights?

[theLOUDroom]

The rules that are in place are to protect the masses from having that resource rendered unusuable to them.

And what the biggest threat that might cause this?....

NIPPLES!!!!

The FCC is oput of it mind and has gone way beyond the scope of their original authority.
Reference their decision to regulate what you can do with a digital TV signal AFTER YOU'VE RECEIVED IT.

While the original purpose of the FCC makes great sense, lets not be naive and pretend that's all they do or their sole motivation.

Re:Rights?

[Gryle]

Any stepping on would've been done by the other ship operators in the nearby ocean.

Not neccesarily. In the early 20th century, radio towers were set up along the Rio Grande. These towers blasted with such intensity that, under certain weather conditions, their broadcasts could be picked up by sailors in the Artic Circle and the Baltic Sea.

Re:Rights?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I could be wrong, but as I recall Bush chose to not activatet he Emergency Broadcast System as everyone was already talking about the attacks one everyform of media possible. No one had to be threatened with legal action to braodcast news about 9/11. I'm sure even the illegal pirates were talking about that.

Re:Rights?

[evilviper]

TFA stated that FCC is complaint-driven, i.e. licensed stations are being pushed off the airwaves.

That was the implication, but it could just as well mean that companies like Clear Channel are going out of their way to find such stations, and complain about them over entirely trivial/baseless/invented issues.

The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast.

Yes, that would be a good solution, but in busy markets, who is going to willingly give-up their current spectrum to make room for unlicensed?

Go to some place like Chicago, and the FM dial is filled, end-to-end, with stations, many overlapping and interfering with each other already. Good luck making room.

Re:Rights?

[evilviper]

There are good reasons why these frequencies are regulated, and they have nothing to do with money.

The FCC existed LONG before the Emergency Broadcast System. So you're just simply wrong.

Re:Rights?

[evilviper]

There's only a fixed amount of spectrum out there, and the licensing allows it to be allocated in a fairly efficient manner.

I'm in the Southern California desert, blocked from Los Angeles area broadcasts thanks to several mountains... I just turned on the radio, and there are exactly 12 stations one the dial close or powerful enough to pick-up without some serious outdoor antennas.

Now that we've established the FM band is ridiculously vacant here...

Explain to me why the FCC is fining a small, low-power radio station running out of some guy's house in the area...

Re:Rights?

[unitron]

"The FCC uses the rental fees from the stations to enforce regulations instead of getting all of that money from taxes, keeping the financial stress on those who gain the most from the use of a resource. If public airwaves were not controled, aside from the obvious overcrowding and lack of standardization, then the FCC would have to get its money from ALL taxpayers instead of just those who take advantage of the situation."

Your use of the term "rental fees" is not really correct, and is misleading.

You do not get a license to broadcast on a specific frequency with a specific deviation above and below that center frequency with a specific modulation method from a specific location at a specific effective radiated power by "renting" the particular chunk of spectrum. You get a license to do the above "in the public interest".

Of course you can wind up spending a bundle on lawyers arguing over which applicant will do (or has been doing, in the case of renewals and challenges) the best job of operating in the public interest, and you do have to pay various administrative fees (and fines when you screw up), but once you get the license you can usually keep getting renewals if you do even a barely adequate job of serving the coverage area.

Re:Rights?

[unitron]

"I'd heard antenna was most important thing...read you had to tune them...."

Google and/or Wiki for "standing wave ratio", and then go find someone with an SWR meter who knows what they're doing.

Re:Rights?

[unitron]

"However, a fair bit of spectrum has been sold to corporations in recent years, in pertetuity."

A boneheaded move which will come back to bite us one day, but, so far at least, that spectrum is for cell phones and such, not broadcast.

Re:Rights?

[unitron]

" There are good reasons why these frequencies are regulated, and they have nothing to do with money.

The FCC existed LONG before the Emergency Broadcast System. So you're just simply wrong."

The relative dates of inception of the FCC and the EBS system have no bearing on whether or not it is correct that there are good reasons why radio frequencies are regulated, or whether they have anything to do with money.

Re:Rights?

[WuphonsReach]

Ah, that does make a lot more sense then. I forget sometimes how rudimentary things were back in the early 1900s with no frequency allocations or frequency selectivity. I now picture an early version of Ethernet 10baseT with everyone shouting their signal, noting whether it got stepped on, and then retrying their transmission after a random amount of time.

I believe that the FCC was formed to deal with the chaos, but not specifically due to a single incident. That part still seems a little contrived (or correlation vs causation). But then, if the FCC was founded soley based on a single incident, it's just more proof that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it (whipping up public sentiment to create yet another sprawling bureaucracy).

Re:Rights?

[Penguinisto]

This is the closest I could find on short notice w/o having to go dredge up the ISBNs of the relevant books I've read it from concerning RMS Titanic and its US and UK post-mortem inquiries: Quick Wiki Link.

HTH a little.

/P (an admitted Titanophile :) )

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

And so, you're suggesting that pirate radio stations go legal by broadcasting with illegal CB equipment? Honestly I have no idea what that has to do with anything... There are illegal FM transmitters out there just like there are illegal CB radios out there. So why is it better for people to broadcast their station illegally in the CB band than in the FM band?

Re:Rights?

[jlanthripp]

There is, in my mind, no ethical difference between transmitting with an illegal CB radio and an illegal FM transmitter. Both are illegal. The only real difference is that there are no multibillion dollar media corporations paying the FCC to track down and prosecute illegal CB operators. So if you run a pirate FM station, you'll probably get a visit from the FCC, probably have to pay a stiff fine, probably get your transmitter confiscated, and possibly even do some jail time. If you transmit using an illegally modified CB radio, you'll not even be a blip on the FCC's radar screen.

Re:Rights?

[shawngarringer]

Nor will you have any listeners. The point of broadcasting illegally is not to just to broadcast, its to be heard. I think people who run pirate radio stations would rather run the risk of being caught if it means being heard, than not getting caught but not getting heard.

Re:Rights?

[jlanthripp]

Them's the tradeoffs :)

If, however, you transmit on 27.185mhz (CB channel 19) and are near an interstate freeway, somebody will hear you. They may not like what they hear, but that's another matter entirely ;-)

I've listened to a pirate radio station for a few hours once while passing through Monterey, California. Frankly I can see why nobody was willing to pay the guy to transmit (or even give him a license to transmit legally). Even Clear Channel stations have more original and insightful programming than that guy did. Maybe other pirate stations are better; I certainly hope so.

Re:Rights?

[ArtStone]

Actually, it was even worse than that....

The earliest radios (like the one on the Titanic) were "spark" radios... they did not use an AM carrier to send the morse code - they merely arced an RF signal over a gap in the transmitter...

http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_wireless.html

The radio service was done by employees of the Marconi Company. In an ironic twist, Marconi was not able to operate his service on land in Europe, as it was fought by government owned postal services which controlled message delivery (not that governments would look inside the envelopes or log who got messages from what sender or anything like that - it is GW Bush who invented spying, you know)...

Having said that, I don't think there is any information to back up the original claim. The Marconi invention had a range of about 250 miles under normal conditions... the sets were operated by Marconi employees, so I think it very unlikely there was "interference" - the problem was more likely that their were not very many receivers capable of picking up the signals and doing anything about it.

Here is one interpretation of how the laws came into effect:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/scott.radio.ind ustry.history

Government regulation of radio began in 1904 when President Theodore Roosevelt organized the Interdepartmental Board of Wireless Telegraphy. In 1910 the Wireless Ship Act was passed. That radio was to be a regulated industry was decided in 1912, when Congress passed a Radio Act that required people to obtain a license from the government in order to operate a radio transmitter. In 1924, Herbert Hoover, who was secretary of the Commerce Department, said that the radio industry was probably the only industry in the nation that was unanimously in favor of having itself regulated. Presumably, this was due both to the industry's desire to put a stop to stations interfering with each others' broadcasts and to limit the number of stations to a small enough number to lock in a profit. The Radio Act of 1927 solved the problem of broadcasting stations using the same frequency and the more powerful ones drowning out less powerful ones. This Act also established that radio waves are public property; therefore, radio stations must be licensed by the government. It was decided, however, not to charge stations for the use of this property.

Re:Rights?

[ArtStone]

If the FCC didn't stop him from broadcasting on the frequency when the first complaint was filed or his signal was detected, he would start to claim that he "owned" that frequency.... and when the guy down two blocks sets up his own pirate station on the same frequency, they start slashing each other's car tires or cranking up their power output.

Then when a financially responsible owner comes along and applies for a construction permit and license to use that frequency, the pirate operator would claim that the FCC was stealing "his" frequency..

Re:Rights?

[evilviper]

That's perhaps the most irrational, nonsensical reply I've read...

Re:Rights?

[fatboy]

Mr. Armstrong started experimenting with Frequency Modulation after the Radio Act of 1927 was passed, therefore, he needed a license in order to transmit.

Your turn.

why

[mikesd81]

Some laws that are in place do make sense. The FCC rules for broadcasting are in place for safety actually. Granted, a pirate radio station probaly won't bring down an airline, but what if it does interfere with radio transmissions in the ambulance and 911 when the operator is trying to say got left on Pine and all you here is salsa music? That's a potential hazard. There are better ways to make statements now than broadcasting over a pirated radio broadcast.

Re:why

[tsq]

The idea behind Dunifer's project is to promote pirate radio that specifically addresses those types of concerns. He [or, more generally, Radio Free Berkeley] provides not only schematics and tutorials for building a setup that will not interfere with other [licensed] frequencies, but he even sells kits and hosts seminars on doing just that.

Re:why

[Rogerborg]

And that happens, does it? You'll be able to cite examples, will you? Let's say, oh, three examples. Go on, brave apologist, Google your little heart out.

Re:why

[icebike]

Granted, a pirate radio station probaly won't bring down an airline, but what if it does interfere with radio transmissions in the ambulance and 911 when the operator is trying to say got left on Pine and all you here is salsa music? That's a potential hazard.

Well if we are to list every "potential hazard" what about falling towers, tooth decay, and that demon rum?

Seriously, who would these people be talking to on emergency vehicle frequencies? Just how many households have their household FM radio's tuned to the local ambulance company?

They won't be broadcasting there. They want to be heard by someone other than the Police for crying out loud!.

You can already get a hobby AM/FM license for very small wattage for no money to speak of, and be assigned a legitimate and reserved frequency. Hobby stations are fairly common in big cities.

This story is about the last gasp of a bunch of hippies from the 60's who have not heard about the internet, where they can blog to their heart's content.

Oh, wait, no one would read them would they....

Re:why

[Detritus]

The FCC rules for issuing FM broadcast licenses have nothing to do with preventing harmful interference to other licensed services. They are supposed to allow for orderly and fair access to the FM broadcast band by broadcasters and potential broadcasters. The problem is that the FM broadcast band is a limited resource and FCC deregulation has created a free market in broadcast licenses. This means that only people with large amounts of money can afford to purchase a license and put a station on the air. There are no frequencies set aside for low-power and limited-range broadcasting. Free markets may work for many things, but they have turned the FM broadcast band into a vast wasteland.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

My ex-girlfriend's father was sort of a science wonk. He ended up being a doctor, but back when he was a kid he put together a ham radio transmitter that was around 900 watts. I believe he said it was called a linear amplifier. Apparently you needed to get some sort of frequency multiplier in the circuit, and he got the x2 instead of the x3 (or vice versa). He lived 5 minutes from the LAX airport, and apparently he actually did end up on the control tower frequency. As the story goes, three vans triangulated his position within about 15 minutes. Since he was just a kid that wasn't really trying to cause trouble, I believe he ended up with a $50 fine in court.

Of course, I wasn't there to witness this (or even born yet), but I knew him pretty well and he wasn't the type to make up stories.

Hi if you're out there Dr. O, this is Nathan :)

Re:why

[FudRucker]

if a Pirate broadcaster is smart enough to build his own radio with the intention of targeting off the shelf radio recievers that consumers buy then i think they would be smart enough to select the correct frequency to broadcast on, that lamer excuse of interfearing with emergency radio transmissions is no good...

Re:why

[Ex-MislTech]

Parent Modded Insightful...right...

First and formost, if it is in the frequency range allocated so that
public FM radio receivers can pick it up, it is not in the emergency services band.

The FM radio band is set aside for just that.

When ppl uses scanners to listen in, its freq range settings
are not in the normal public FM radio band.

If they are broadcasting outside the usual band, then yeah they could
be mucking up the airways, but as this is old hat and has been around
for decades its very likely they want listeners in the usual Freq range.

Re:why

[sandman_eh]

Seriously, who would these people be talking to on emergency vehicle frequencies?

You are aware the effect of non-linear Amplifiers on a signal spectrum right?

The point is you have to be careful when you design your RF power-amp not in introduce any non-linearities as it can mean you generate noise on frequencies well outside those in the input signal.

Re:why

[deadweight]

Yes they CAN down an airliner. The ILS system that allows you to land in low visibility uses frequencies starting JUST ABOVE the FM broadcast band. You most certainly could do harm with a misadjusted transmitter. The lowest ILS freq is 108.3 MHz IIRC. If you need to play FM pirate please don't try running off the top end of the band.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Nathan! I should have known I'd see you here! OK, maybe it wasn't exactly 900 watts. And maybe it wasn't exactly the LAX control tower. And those three vans? Actually it was old man Jeffers complaining that his wife couldn't watch her stories, but the idea was the same.

-Doctor O..

Re:why

[josecanuc]

An excellent point. However, poorly designed or poorly built transmitters often have higher-than-should-be harmonic transmissions. We call them "spurious emissions" since they are unintended and do not occur on the primary/desired frequency.

A pirate station *could* transmit unintentionally on emergency or public-safety frequencies without knowing about it. This is why the FCC requires all electronic devices to be tested and cataloged by themselves (though the testing is usually done by an approved testing company and the FCC looks at the results). The FCC needs to know that a transmitter will not interfere with operations outside it's primary operating frequencies.

Of course, home-built transmitters or other electronics cannot be controlled by the FCC, but their transmissions ARE under FCC jurisdiction if emitted from the U.S.A.

Anyone participating in "civil disobedient" pirate radio should make sure that they are not causing harm to any others, otherwise their disobedience ceases to be civil.

Re:why

[Zigurd]

The "FCC as a bulwark against anarchy" argument is oversold, if only for the fact that spectrum allocation is a terribly inefficient way to share spectrum.

Then there is the fact that the FCC is an unelected bureaucratic exception to the First Amendment. Not only is the exception legally iffy, the FCC is insulated from answering to the public.

Then there is the way that spectrum has become an artificial kind of property, which leads to political favoritism in the way it is allocated, traded, paid for, and regulated.

There are a lot of reasons to think the FCC is in need of radical overhaul, and one should be very reluctant to dismiss people calling for reform without any evidence they are causing any harm.

Re:why

[Ironsides]

The FCC rules for broadcasting are in place for safety actually. Granted, a pirate radio station probaly won't bring down an airline, but what if it does interfere with radio transmissions in the ambulance and 911 when the operator is trying to say got left on Pine and all you here is salsa music?

Interesting thing for you on this. My college's cable network wasn't very well built. Apparently, they couldn't transmit on certian chanels of the cable network (around 13-18) due to it interfering with the Airport Control Tower signals.

Re:why

[sjames]

Certainly agreed that pirate radio should make every effort to avoid interferance.

If the FCC would actually do it's job and facillitate public use of the airwaves rather than silencing all but the largest, they wouldn't have to deal with pirate radio at all. Since most pirate stations have a limited range, they could acommodate many such (no longer) pirate stations by setting aside a small segment of bandwidth for low power use without regulation beyond making sure they stay in their own band and within reasonable radiated power.

I realize that would run contrary to their current objective of making sure every city gets a choice of nationally syndicated classic rock, nationally syndicated country, nationally syndicated pop, and in larger markets, nationally syndicated jazz, and a bunch of call in format talk radio (AKA 'mixed nuts') preferably nationally syndicated.

addendum

[mikesd81]

I should have alos mentioned that it's not fair if it interferes with broadcasts that stations pay for.

Re:addendum

[mr_stinky_britches]

well who are they paying for those airwaves? it certaintly isn't me...

Re:addendum

[mikesd81]

I didn't say it was a perfect system. But how would you feel if somone set up a pirate cell cervice and you couldn't call out becuase of interference? You're paying for the service to send and receive phone calls, won't you be a little upset if the peope down the street are talking for free interupting your service?

Re:addendum

[Imsdal]

well who are they paying for those airwaves? it certaintly isn't me...

It certainy is you (assuming that you are a US citizen)! The frequencies are auctioned to the highest bidder (but also subject to a bunch of restraints, most or all of which makes at least some sense), and the money goes to the government. Now, you may of course complain that that money isn't well spent, but that is a whole different issue. There is no difference between money raised from auctioning the EM spectrum and "normal" taxes.

Re:addendum

[Rix]

I should have alos mentioned that it's not fair if it interferes with broadcasts that stations pay for.

I have to disagree with this, and it's the one thing that justifies pirate radio. We need a fairer way to allocate the spectrum that doesn't rest on how much money one can raise.

Re:addendum

[TheRaven64]

A fairer way? Western capitalism is based around two ideas:

1. The fair way to ration scarce resources is to exchange them for other scarce resources.
2. Tokens called money can be exchanged as an intermediate to facilitate transactions.

If you want to use a means of rationing other than money for the spectrum, then why not for everything else too?

Re:addendum

[xophos]

Yeah why not?

Re:addendum

[StrongAxe]

If you take this premise to its logical conclusion, then shouldn't the same thing apply to elections? Your participation in elections should be weighted by the amount of money you contribute. Pay $1, receive one vote. Pay $1,000,000, receive one million votes. How do you think the government would be run then? (Then again, with all the lobbyists and thier campaign contributions, this already pretty much the case. Sigh.)

Re:addendum

[Chowderbags]

Because the spectrum isn't unlimited. Because the electromagnetic waves are passing around us at all times. Because giant corporations don't nessicarily know what's best. Because I'm tired of the FCC restricting speech. How about any of those reasons?

Re:addendum

[955301]

Wouldn't they just use walkie-talkies? Masking censorship behind protecting legitimate transmitters from interference is a ruse. If you don't believe it's a deliberate attempt, here's an example of what ends media conglomerates will go to to protect their interests from the population of a country:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545 689805144&q=venezuela

If you consider only realistic scenarios, it's possible for a dynamic, ungoverned system to exist and support the interests of everyone using the system. It's people moving in a crowd at a concert. They don't just gridlock and die, they cooperate.

Re:addendum

[miskatonic alumnus]

It's also not fair that nearly the only voice one can hear is the corporate voice.

Re:addendum

[CagedBear]

The fair way to ration scarce resources is to exchange them for other scarce resources.

This is fine for Ferrari's and caviar as they aren't a constitutional right. Free speech is a constitutional right. Giving the entire spectrum to a very small number of parties, no matter how much they pay, is in direct conflict of free speech.

Re:addendum

[Maxo-Texas]

And then someone starts a mosh pit.

Re:addendum

[TheRaven64]

What? By that logic, having books published is a constitutional right, and everyone has the right to have their book published. In reality, you have to either write something you can persuade a publisher that people want to read (in which case they will front the money to have it published), or pay. Time on printing presses is a scarce resource, in the same way that the spectrum is. If you want a piece of it, then you have to pay up.

Just because free speech is a constitutional right does not mean that equal access to any mechanism of disseminating free speech is also a constitutional right. If you believe it is, then perhaps you should also campaign for a free postal system.

Re:addendum

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't auction off FM radio spectrum. It was given away for free (actaully in exchange for them doing public service, but that's been totally forgotten). It's scarcity is mostly artificial and created by law not nature. Those laws stay that way because the companies that were giving this spectrum for far less than it is worth don't want to compete in a free and fair market. Of course as far as I can tell, that's the true basis of western capitalism. Getting the government to prevent people from competing with you.

Re:addendum

[Rix]

Those rules apply to scarce, but renewable resources. It works great for wheat and cars and things where higher demand results in more supply. It starts to fray on non-renewable resources, like oil, as more gets "produced" regardless of the looming end of supply. It only applies somewhat to land, not applying very well to urban settings. There are always rules about who can sell to who, and for what purpose.

Everyone love pirates!

[QuantumG]

Except, ya know, people at sea, but screw them.

Re:Everyone love pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, the sea is exactly where you could operate a pirate radio station with impunity. Crank up the power and make sure you stay out of the territorial bounds of the US.

Re:Everyone love pirates!

[deadweight]

This is getting OT, but actual real pirates boarding boats and ships to do real nasty pirate stuff like kill people still is a huge problem. I actually *ahem* know someone how did the pirate radio thing from a boat. Fun times "back in the day".

I think for us, especially...

[demondawn]

it is difficult to know what side (if any!) to take on this story. There's no inherent "funny" comment that pops to mind, no well-worn slashdot joke...this is about a very fundamental thing (who "owns" the airwaves) and I think a lot of people on slashdot, and even elsewhere, don't really have an opinion on it. Do we support what is basically anarchy on the airwaves (which, according to the article, could be even hazardous to our personal saftey, though I imagine that's at least a little hyperbole)? Do we support the underpaid, overworked people of the FCC? (So where did all the money from those fines go?) A lot of questions, and at least in my mind, no ready answers.

Re:I think for us, especially...

[Anonymous Coward]

well thanks for sharing the fact that you have no opinion with us. yugo girl!

Re:I think for us, especially...

[demondawn]

Oh, good, not only have you changed my gender, but I have to drive a crappy 1970s car made from old Soviet tanks? Thanks.

Re:I think for us, especially...

[chawly]

I saw this bit

no well-worn slashdot joke...this is about a very fundamental thing (who "owns" the airwaves)

and I really couldn't help wondering if the ancient "All your airwaves are belong to us" might not be fitting here. It is very well worn, and - at least for me - rather appropriate. What do you others think ?

Re:I think for us, especially...

[bangenge]

Maybe we can do the Soviet joke here...

"In Soviet Russia the airwaves broadcast you!"

But it doesn't sound too nice either.

But seriously, the FCC's _purpose_ is to regulate the airwaves to reduce the abuse of the communications channels. It's not that they own it, _anyone_ can broadcast on the available frequencies. It's just that it's gonna create a major chaos if people just started broadcasting with no regards to what is more useful. And that chaos is something that the FCC is trying to avoid.

OTOH, that's what the pirates plan to do. This looks very interesting indeed.

Re:I think for us, especially...

[DerekLyons]

Do we support the underpaid, overworked people of the FCC? (So where did all the money from those fines go?)

Generally money collected by various [Federal] goverment bodies gets tossed into a general pool to be misspent by Congress. The theory behind this is simple: If the varied and sundry agencies aren't allowed to keep monies collected in fines and judgements, they won't be tempted into increased enforcement as a means of increasing their budget (read empire building).

Re:I think for us, especially...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I don't find it hard. Anyone who tries to ram their opinion down my throat will instantly earn my rebuttal.

Solution is easy...

[minsk]

It would seem that the solution to pirate radio is very simple. Look at why they are circumventing the regulations in the first place: expenses and rules. And more the former than the latter.

The FCC's complaint is interference with licensed stations and/or emergency/critical services. So push prices down for low-wattage transmitters, and the FCC might find that they get more small radio stations following their rules... and that has got to be cheaper than crews in million dollar vans running all over the country playing whack-a-mole.

Re:Solution is easy...

[DerekLyons]

It would seem that the solution to pirate radio is very simple. Look at why they are circumventing the regulations in the first place: expenses and rules. And more the former than the latter. The FCC's complaint is interference with licensed stations and/or emergency/critical services. So push prices down for low-wattage transmitters, and the FCC might find that they get more small radio stations following their rules..

Huh? Commercial low wattage transmitters are about as cheap as they can reasonably be ($1k or less). The expense in question is the expense of complying with the rules - not that of the hardware.

Re:Solution is easy...

[DrTacos]

Yeah, its called HAM radio. I got the liscense when I was 12 for about $10. You can easily get a transmitter for less than $500.

Now to get at the meat of the matter, If you want to jabber politics to your neighbors on their fm radios then you just need to get over yourself. I can imagine some 4$$h013 transmitting their home made crap over commercial stations because they think what they have to say is that important. Most people dont know how to triangulate the violator and would essentially be out of luck, their rights infringed by the very people claiming to be protecting the rights of everyone.

Re:Solution is easy...

[Ginger Unicorn]

i think he means push down the licensing prices for low wattage transmitters. i dont imagine the fcc sell the transmitters.

Re:Solution is easy...

[QuietLagoon]

An even easier solution - significantly improve the quality of the existing commercial stations. All I listen to nowadays are college and non-commercial stations (usually below 92MHz on the FM dial). That's the only place in the airwaves that you can hear any manner of free-form radio, radio with creativity.

Re:Solution is easy...

[Lumpy]

you really dont know much about this do you...

The expenses are not that high. Until you look at the costs of greasing hands to get your paperwork through.

The biggest boon to pirate radio? not FCC or equipment costs.... The fact you are safer broadcasting RIAA music without paying the huge ASCAP and BMI fees as a pirate station than you are as a legit station.

Re:Solution is easy...

[MikeBabcock]

gp was saying to push down the price of compliance for low wattage transmitters (people, not objects). That is to say, for persons engaging in low wattage transmission.

Re:Solution is easy...

[drsquare]

It would seem that the solution to pirate radio is very simple. Look at why they are circumventing the regulations in the first place: expenses and rules.

People are circumventing the regulations because they want to be rebellious, no other reason. If they really were concerned about broadcasting to people they'd look into Internet radio or podcasts. However that's not rebellious enough, they want to put a receiver in their garage and shout 'fuck' into a microphone all day.

It is ours

[Anonymous Coward]

It is well beyond doubt that the FCC needs to be changed and the media ownership laws addressed. It is also obvious that the frequency spectrum needs to be regulated however; even a brief look at how the FCC is acting for the benefit of corporations should signal that change needs to happen.

There are numerous examples to the corrupt nature of the FCC; one of the most recent was the fact that the FCC had reports destroyed that directly contradicted the actions they have taken on behalf to their corporate masters.

The airwaves belong to the people and should be run to the benefit of the people. Obviously our government is not acting as it should in many areas, the issue is, how to affect change? With only a single political party in the US, I doubt voting helps.

Re:It is ours

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it occur to you that acting for the benefit of corporations could in very many cases also be for the benefit of the people?

It would be a quite bizarre reality where it is not in the interest of people to have corporations around and so any 'good' government would do their best to act against their interest.

Re:It is ours

[tepples]

Did it occur to you that acting for the benefit of corporations could in very many cases also be for the benefit of the people?

How does it benefit the general public when only a select few musicians can have their music played on the radio?

Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[AWeishaupt]

...connectors, resistors, microphone cords, meters, sockets and capacitors -- the stuff of illegal radio stations...

Good grief.
To think, we're rapidly approaching the point where possession of a resistor makes you { potential radio pirate | cracker | terrorist | public enemy number one} in the eyes of the media.

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[BasharTeg]

Viva la resistance!

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here in Poland we used to have resistors pinned into the clothes as the sign of resistance against the Soviet Union-sponsored government oppression. And the people caught wearing them were prosecuted.

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[Rogerborg]

Ohm my God, you went there.

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[Chowderbags]

I know, and in this Faraday and age!


*ducks*

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this surprising? That's like saying "in the 50's we used to have red stars pinned into our clothes as the sign of resistance against the McCarthy-driven government oppression. And the people caught wearing them were prosecuted!"

Sidestepping for a second the issue of political oppression in general, if you do something that under the current cicumstances is explicitly stated as being illegal, how is the prosecution that follows the act in any way, shape or form an unexpected turn of events?

Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors!

[Alsee]

Viva la capacitance!

-

Compare with Blogs

[BibelBiber]

The thing is, compared to blogs, there isn't enough bandwidth for everyone _and_ imagine all that crap broadcasted. Ther commercial/noncommercial stations around are bad enough, why bother with even more stations? Those free stations all have their agenda what they want you to hear, I'm not sure this is what I want. So shut them down. Whoever wants to listen to them, use Internet streams, these are just fine.

Illegal

[XNormal]

[...] romex connectors, resistors, microphone cords, meters, sockets and capacitors -- the stuff of illegal radio stations

No, it's just the transmitter which is illegal (but the feds will take all of it, of course).

Re:Illegal

[thomasa]

Probably more complicated then that. Owning is legal, operating illegal, selling is ???

Re:Illegal

[kf8vn]

Probably should read "coax connectors" ...

In the age of internet radio

[JWideman]

There is no need for pirate radio. The whole pirate radio thing is about "fighting the Man". The Man does not (yet) control internet radio. It's a battle you don't need to fight.

Re:In the age of internet radio

[Anonymous Coward]

... Eat pills and be happy. Everything is in order. You are happy. Everybody is happy. Proceed to the distribution points to receive your daily pills. Eating pills is necessary. Eat pills and be happy. Everything is in order. You are happy ...

Re:In the age of internet radio

[JWSmythe]

    Actually, there are several groups that put up a pretty decent fight against Internet broadcasters.

    Check out somafm.com. They have a bit of their legal history on their about page.

    http://somafm.com/about/

Re:In the age of internet radio

[iritant]

There is no need for pirate radio. The whole pirate radio thing is about "fighting the Man". The Man does not (yet) control internet radio. It's a battle you don't need to fight.

Absolutely. This article talks about a bunch of people who want to be heard. No better place for that than the Internet. Now if only someone could provide a decent organization of the cacaphony of voices out here...

On the other hand, it does bother me that somewhere along the way we forgot that the airwaves are a public trust, and that many licensed radio stations all are run from a single point, meaning I can go from one end of the country to the other, listening to the same music with little if any regional variation, or for that matter care for regional issues or concerns. I am curious about how many of those Clear Channel stations actually provided useful and timely information to the people of New Orleans last year. I wonder how well they upheld that trust. And I wonder if a pirate radio station would do better.

By the way, as I recall from my read of Part 79 (the Ham code), you have a right to broadcast on any frequency in order to save life and limb.

Re:In the age of internet radio

[MichaelSmith]

The whole pirate radio thing is about "fighting the Man"

There is nothing (or very little) to stop them from broadcasting on CB, and some people might actually listen. But as you point out, it has to be illegal to be attractive.

Re:In the age of internet radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tinfoil hat isn't needed here.

We don't read your blog, we don't listen to your podcast... why do you think we'd want to listen to you on the radio?

Re:In the age of internet radio

[curtisk]

Kinda.

With internet radio, you rely on alot of infrastructure out of your control to support your broadcast: electric power, servers, service providers, networks(aka the internet), bandwidth fees,etc.

With Radio all you need is a power source, a transmitter (or transceiver),an antennea and your voice.

Yeah, what an awesome idea

[tetromino]

But let's extend it. Pirate IP addresses! I should poison the arp cache on the router and redirect fileserver requests to my own workstation. After all, I am not stealing anything -- I have a natural right to use 172.16.20.104! And if some other users can't get their work done, well, tough luck. Haha, look at these silly network admins trying to track down the problem! They'll are overhelmed and unable to respond! Ooh, now how about pirate license plates. I like my professor's. It has a good ring to it. Yeah, he might be inconvenienced when I get caught by that red light camera -- but I am not stealing anything! And next day, I will just paint a new set of numbers on the plate! No way will they cops ever catch me! Hm, what else. Oh, let's try pirate usernames. Let's hack the forum and get a username I like. Yeah, someone else might be using it already. But who cares, it's not like I am stealing anything... And if the admin blocks me, I'll just go through to the backdoor I installed and get myself another username! They will never shut me down!

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[!the!bad!fish!]

I should poison the arp cache on the router and redirect fileserver requests to my own workstation. After all, I am not stealing anything -- I have a natural right to use 172.16.20.104!

Oh no you don't. Unless...
Keith is that you?

WHOIS Record For
72.16.20.104
Record Type: IP Address

OrgName: Valor Telecommunications Enterprises, LLC
City: Irving
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75062
Country: US

OrgTechHandle: KCA49-ARIN
OrgTechName: Caldwell, Keith

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[karnal]

Haha, look at these silly network admins trying to track down the problem! They'll are overhelmed and unable to respond!

I realize your post is somewhat in jest, but it's easier to find a rogue arp cache poisoner than it is to find a pirate radio station. At least, for those of us with more knowledge of networks than radio frequency triangulation...

Besides the fact that I'd have to turn her/him over to HR once I found that person. And they'd probably not play nice....

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[graffix_jones]

Well, where your analogy falls apart is that 'only' people on the internet within a 10-mile radius (or thereabouts) are directed to 172.16.20.104. Anybody else further out still can access the 'real' IP address.

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[nuintari]

Good luck getting that into the global routing table, even the laziest, least knowlagable network admins who don't filter any routes know better than to accept an announcement from rfc 1918 space.

You might cause a minor local disturbance, but not for long. Shit like this is pretty easy to find. Really a non-issue.

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[AK Marc]

But let's extend it. Pirate IP addresses! I should poison the arp cache on the router and redirect fileserver requests to my own workstation.

A pirate radio station that operates on the same "IP" as someone else is shooting themselves on the foot. The real analogy is looking for an unused IP, purposefully setting it to have no gateway address so only people on the local network will be able to get it, having the MOTD announcing that it is not a proper IP and if they are expecting some other service they are mistaken, and it isn't interfering with or using any other resources on the network. The pirate stations are few enough, small enough, spread out engough, and purposefully avoiding other transmitters so they can be heard better such that they aren't a problem. But don't worry, your hatred of them is certainly justified. I'm just wondering what a pirate ever did to you? Steal your parrot?

Re:Yeah, what an awesome idea

[Ramadog]

Try again and this time don't drop the leading digit on the address.

There is a legal route for these people

[GomezAdams]

As a former broadcaster and a licensed amateur radio operator I know there is a legal route these 'Freedom Fighters' could take if they weren't so busy making martyrs of themselves. There is a community broadcast for education license that can be had for next to nothing if not for free. It is for the FM broadcast band and is for limited power but that power with a decent antenna can cover a square mile or so. Equipment is cheap and you could put up a group for coverage.

The airwaves are a community resource. The FCC was created to control and parcel out the use of the radio spectrum for the best use by the community. Having said that, I know that big money is now involved in braodcast and frequency allocation - amateurs are having to fight off big money interests all the time. However the possibility to cause harm with poorly made and engineered equipment is more likely to create anger than sympathy.

If these people want a voice, take it to the internet. Streaming audio and video using the same studio equipment is possible and if the message has validity the word will spread. The technology is mature and anyone with broadband can do it. It's not as dramatic as getting arrrested and fined and your 'cause' getting press time I guess.

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[vtcodger]

***As a former broadcaster and a licensed amateur radio operator I know there is a legal route these 'Freedom Fighters' could take if they weren't so busy making martyrs of themselves***

Absolutely. An excellent point. But are you sure that the frequencies are there? There are certainly parts of the country where the FM band is nearly empty, but in areas like the Northeast, even the educational sub-band -- only 20 channels, no? already has a station on every channel. I'm located on the edge of the wilderness about 8 miles out of Burlington, Vermont -- hardly the center of the universe. A quick scan looks like two thirds of the channels in the educational sub-band here are already occupied. In Boston, Chicago, LA and New York where they actually have people an open channel to park your low-power station on is going to be a real rarity.

***If these people want a voice, take it to the internet. Streaming audio and video using the same studio equipment is possible and if the message has validity the word will spread. The technology is mature and anyone with broadband can do it.***

If this is a mature technology, I'd hate to see an immature technology. Can I tune into an Internet Radio Station? Absolutely.

Every time I set up a PC to do that I have to try two or three different programs to find one that works on any given PC. And, of course, there are three or four different formats in use. I have yet to find a program that works with all of them. Will the connection still be there if I come back in two hours? With Verizon DSL it probably won't. And don't forget the 10-20% or so of your fellow citizens in the US who have no access whatsoever to broadband. US broadband to rural users is a national embarassment. If I am to believe the Internet, Canada gets DSL to towns with 100 people 300km from the nearest movie theatre. The US often doesn't deliver broadband to towns with a couple of thousand people, 30 minutes drive from local population centers.

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[DreadfulGrape]

LPFM is not restricted to the non-comm. band (i.e. 88.1 thru 91.9). All 100 FM channels are available. The one that recently went on the air in Nashville (www.radiofreenashville.org) is on 98.9.

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[sowth]

Hmmm...that's a good idea. Lets take this to a legal computer network. I want to connect with my neighbors. They're only a few hundred feet away. Should be easy right? Let's see...I could run cables between our houses...no, would be impractical--expensive and what about across the street? How about WiFi? OH YEAH! THE FCC ONLY ALLOWS A TINY BAND AT LOW POWERS WHICH IS SHARED WITH MICROWAVE OVENS . Not only will it not travel far enough to reach even my next door neighbor, if anyone wants to cook a burrito, the connection dies.

The airwaves are a community resource.

No they're not. They were, until the FCC auctioned off almost all the airwaves. Now like the Native Americans, the public is only allowed in areas the rich people don't want.

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[AK Marc]

As a former broadcaster and a licensed amateur radio operator I know there is a legal route these 'Freedom Fighters' could take if they weren't so busy making martyrs of themselves. There is a community broadcast for education license that can be had for next to nothing if not for free. It is for the FM broadcast band and is for limited power but that power with a decent antenna can cover a square mile or so. Equipment is cheap and you could put up a group for coverage.

I'm Anchorage, Alaska. It's the 100th largest broadcast area or so. About a year ago, I contacted the FCC about this, and was told that there was no available spectrum for this. So, since the 100th largest broadcast area (less than 300,000 people) is too full of licensed users to allow this to happen, I would guess that this is something that is available on paper only. What's the point of these great legal routes open to us when they are not actually available for our use?

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[sjames]

There is a community broadcast for education license that can be had for next to nothing if not for free.

And all you have to do is form a legal entity (individuals need not apply), participate in EAS, and remain on the air for at least 5 hours a day, 6 days a week (Schools are allowed 5 day/week). While it's a lot less onerous than a commercial license, it's not sufficiently liberal to allow the desired level vibrant community participation. I suppose that's why there are still pirate stations out there.

Re:There is a legal route for these people

[amishdisco]

Since 2003, the FCC no longer accepts applications for LPFM stations. Even so, those licenses were never available to individual broadcasters.

MOD PARENT UP

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast. Problem solved.

Wow. I thought your post would be redundant, but apparently it's the only one that makes this proposal so far. All of this crap about "sticking it to the man"... the problem is that there are a bunch of people who want to set up low-power FM radio stations that anybody with an FM radio in the area will be able to listen to. Give them a chunk of the spectrum, set some reasonable power limits (perhaps based on the population density of the area) and be done with it. Problem solved, as you say.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* They tried this. It turned into LPFM with the following restrictions:

- Licensing based on distance to other stations with no exceptions for terrain
- Third-adjacent channel protection
- No individuals may hold licenses, only non-profits and government agencies
- Nobody who has ever operated a pirate station may serve on the board of the licensee

People asked for additional spectrum (e.g., unused television channels) but that was of course refused. The bigger issue, of course, which makes the FM band desirable, is the ubiquity of existing, inexpensive receivers for the band...

Or just don't interfere with people...

[Kadin2048]

Alternately, they could just pick an unused FM frequency in their area; it's not like it's terribly hard to do. With the exception of a few saturated markets, almost any major area is probably going to have some free spots on the dial where, if you wanted to set up shop as a pirate station without interfering with anyone, you could.

Or heck, why use FM? Practically any radio these days that can get FM also can receive AM, even if people rarely use it; consequently most places have vast regions of the AM broadcast band unused. (Although, you'd need to watch your power levels at night...)

Then the complaint-driven nature of the FCC would work for you: no harm, no foul. As long as you don't step on the toes of somebody who actually has a license, they're probably not going to give a crap.

Having dealt with the FCC before, I can tell you it's hard enough getting them to do anything when there's clear interference to an established, licensed radio service; if there wasn't any interference it would probably take them a long time to send out one of their investigators and track you down.

With that said, I don't advocate unlicensed radio in the FM band; there are better mediums to disseminate your message if you really have one to communicate, than FM radio. The "pirate radio" of the 60s in today's world would probably be on the Internet, where you don't have to worry about the FCC.

Re:Or just don't interfere with people...

[AB3A]

Picking an "empty" channel on the FM band is not nearly as easy as it looks. The problem with broadcasting is that you rely on your listeners to let you know you're interfering with another station.

There are lots of weather conditions which can skip your signal much further than you would have intended.

As for the Medium Wave AM band, you could probably put a signal in it during daylight hours and not get caught. However, at night Ionospheric skip turns the band in to an unlistenable morass of stations all broadcasting on top of one another.

I also think you'd have a hard time hiding a MW antenna so that you could radiate with reasonable efficiency while still remaining under cover. All it would take to find you would be some bored private pilot with an ADF receiver tuned to your station. Admittedly, there are fewer and fewer of those things in aircraft these days, though I still own and use one.

Re:Or just don't interfere with people...

[frank_adrian314159]

However, at night Ionospheric skip turns the band in to an unlistenable morass of stations all broadcasting on top of one another.

Sheesh. Some people don't have a good loop antenna to null out unwanted signals and then they complain about nighttime AM propagation. Just get the right equipment. :-).

Re:Or just don't interfere with people...

[cayenne8]

"Then the complaint-driven nature of the FCC would work for you: no harm, no foul. As long as you don't step on the toes of somebody who actually has a license, they're probably not going to give a crap."

I dunno...the licensed stations are all owned by a couple of corporations whose bottom line is the dollar. I figure they'd complain anytime they heard about a pirate station regardless of any 'stepping on toes' issues.

They'd rather not have the competion for listeners, and this is an easy way to squash the competition...a simple complaint to the FCC.

Sure, just like CB...

[dtmos]

It's always been our position that if enough people go on the air with their stations, the FCC will be overwhelmed and unable to respond.

...and what will this nice gentleman do when a second pirate interferes with his pirate station, due to ideological differences or just to get more advertising revenue? Buy a bigger transmitter? The FCC was created in 1934 specifically to bring sanity to this wild-west, most-powerful-transmitter-wins warfare.

Re:My 1000th post

[overbaud]

"After 1000 posts I've learned that language is quite possibly the most horrible invention known to man."

Yeah stupid old language, who needs it, never contributed anything to anyone. I have some advice for you before your next post...

"shut up, it is statisically likely that you will save yourself from looking like a complete ass."

I think I've heard of it...

[Kadin2048]

Great idea.

Let's see, we'll set aside a band, for random people to use. I wonder what we should call it. The Anonymous Coward Band? How about the Taxpayer Band?

I've got it -- we'll call it the Citizen's Band!

Okay, okay; I know it's slightly different. Technically the rules on C.B. prohibit broadcasting; it's supposed to be for two-way communication. But the idea is basically the same. The equipment to transmit and receive is widely available, and quite cheap.

However, I doubt that the Pirate Radio people would be happy with this, because they're not just looking for spectrum, they want an audience. Basically, they want spectrum on a band which everyone already has receivers for, because that's the only way they're ever going to get people to listen to them.

Re:I think I've heard of it...

[dattaway]

The problem with CB radio is it uses a very long wavelength, requiring long antennas for an efficient transmission. It would be nice to have the 460MHz FRS, 2.4GHz, and 5GHz spectrum much wider so communities can freely hack more uses for them. The public spaces are so crowded and freedom to explore the potential is often limited.

Re:I think I've heard of it...

[sharkman67]

Why not then get an Amateur Radio License? You can operate from 160m to a couple cm. Yes, you still can't broadcast music or do one way transmission (with exceptions) but you can experiment until your heart is content.

I think the biggest problem with pirate stations is that they have no accountability for spectrum purity. As a ham or commercial entity you are required to have a clean signal. An overdriven pirate station may have harmonics on other frequencies that could effect police/fire or other services. That is the real danger and the reason the FCC should take action. The RIAA's revenue stream is not a good reason to shut pirates down. The other issue that comes to mind is if the pirate is causing interference to a commercial station. If no one in the area transmits on 88.5 then let the pirate do so, but the pirate needs to make sure that there is a buffer around their coverage area and any commercial station within x number of miles. Just because the pirate can't hear the other station does not mean that it's not there and they are causing interference.

Re:I think I've heard of it...

[rizzo320]

However, I doubt that the Pirate Radio people would be happy with this, because they're not just looking for spectrum, they want an audience. Basically, they want spectrum on a band which everyone already has receivers for, because that's the only way they're ever going to get people to listen to them.

This is why the previous poster suggested blocking off a portion of the FM broadcast spectrum for this purpose, not creating a new band. I'm surprised the FCC didn't do this in the first place, especially considering that the FM band was very "wide open" for many years before it became as crowded as it is today.

I could definitely see them blocking of 1 MHz of spectrum (like 88MHz to 89MHz) for unlicensed, low power broadcasting, but the commercial outlets and NPR would have a fit! I could also see the block get extremely crowded, causing a mess that was similar to AM radio before the FCC was created.

What the FCC should do is extend the FM Radio spectrum as soon as VHF analog TV broadcasters go silent after the digital conversion. This could be several years down the road, but it would be worth the wait. In addition to opening up new frequencies to commercial FM broadcasters, they should also allocate more space for non-commercial/educational stations, along with a block for licensing low-power FM transmissions. I think everyone would be happy with that solution.

Re:I think I've heard of it...

[sjames]

However, I doubt that the Pirate Radio people would be happy with this, because they're not just looking for spectrum, they want an audience. Basically, they want spectrum on a band which everyone already has receivers for, because that's the only way they're ever going to get people to listen to them.

There SHOULD be enough room in both FM and AM bands to allocate some space for "citizen's radio"

Why federal?

[Ed Avis]

The story takes the angle of the little guy bravely battling against unfeeling big government. And that's surely how pirate operators and their listeners see it. But if the range of your FM transmitter is only a few miles, why is it a federal matter? These frequency bands should be left to the states to allocate as they wish.

Re:My 1000th post

[Ingolfke]

Dear Overbaud,

I can tell by your high /. # that you're relatively new here. Soon you'll realize that this isn't the Mecca for geeks and nerds... there is no library at Alexandria here... this is not Athens for Internet nerds. But... clearly by your response it's obvious you will not understand this simply by me telling you. So, young learner, continue in your ignorance and some day you will realize the truth.

Oh, and since you are relatively new here. Next time try one of these tried and true debate methods:

1. Correct my spelling and/or grammer
2. Call me an asshat or other silly name
3. Bring up Linux, GPL, or Microsoft... this could derail the debate entirely
4. Mark me as a 'foe'. This one really hurts and makes one become a bit more introspective about their behaviors and comments.

Cheers!
ingolke

No, little grass-hoppa.

[NRAdude]

I do not Trust that FCC with my precious voice above my head and within reach of my yodling or echo of word about me.

The matter is not about fighting "the Man." The matter is about fighting a portrait drawn by the Man depicting his five-horned tentacle-monster grasping onto anime-style radio waves to move above unsuspecting people. I'm not going to rub you maliciously on this, but consider that the verry nature of words uttered from a creature or the mouth of a Man; they are the living radio propogation emitted, and discernable from our ears. The FCC is unlawfully moving its officers outside of a foreign state known as Columbia and actively regulating the matters of neighboring States that have no benefit from said services.

What none comprehend is that the Man is being blessed by his fellows, while the corporation inks curse after curse onto a man by assistance of its brain-washed pastafarian followers that have accepted its Oath and concealed Bond. The FCC is profitting from the sale of radio-wave bandwidth or spectrum to corporations, and is profitting after having no improvement other than the benefit of being regulated and the Code conferred upon the assets of the corporations particular as of Certifications welcoming customers for the mere suggestion of honor. It's not the radio-waves that should be regulated, but the movement of information determined a more dynamic course. Radio-waves are nothing more than noise or sound polution that we can't hear, but effects us in subtle ways; consider that every particle in our body has a resonant frequency and can be disrupted by the harmonious transmittal of a neighboring Horn or antennae: it's the same result of a vocalist that can shatter glass when the same resonant frequency is tuned.

Federal Communication Commision is neithe federal and is neither commisioned by anyone. Who agreed to pledge their radio spectrum above them and their property to an agent/corporation of a foreign principality in a far-off country? I don't mean to rub it in still, but if a Californian has any allegiance to an entity in Columbia then he is not an American; he is a USian, as per the 14th Amendment instituted by a corporation known as (singular) "United States."

The Man is idolatrous. Corporations are created by the work of a man to paper, and the corporations exist only on paper; they are combustible. Burn it, but there will always be those strangers wanting to enforced their opinions on their neighbors, by use of mass rule (fascism, by defenition) and not love. Most of America is empty, because everyone's got their Head cut-off and stuffed deep in a baskette in Washington District of Columbia, while the trade-off is to lose everyone's Head of State in exchange for the knowledge and reasoning of that mythical 5-horned (transmitting) tentacle monster.

Did you not read the Constitution of the District of Columbia, to know that is claimed all radio wave propogation and speach and transmittals above and within Columbia, without said FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISION? Get a grip on realty, to know the different between a territory and a state, an officer from a magistrate and justice.

When it comes to Anarchy

[Sycraft-fu]

You usually don't want it. Why? Because what usually ends up happening is that you don't really have it for long, you just have the strong pushing around the weak. Safety aside, we do need something that shares our radio spectrum. Otherwise people WILL step on others. I'm not saying the system we have now is necessarily the way to go, but complete deregulation isn't likely to work well.

For example: Let's say that, despite regulations, the cell companies come to an agreement to play nice and cell service continues. It even gets better because they boot power on all the devices past what they were allowed to. However you happen to live next to a guy who's an asshole. He doesn't like or use cellphones. So he decides to set up a 1000 watt wide band radio connection to another asshole buddy right in the middle of the cell bands. They use omni directional antennas and start blasting their signal. Suddenly, you can't get cell service anywhere near your house.

What do you do? You don't have the money or knowledge to build an amplifier to blot his out, never mind that it might not work with the system, you can't go and destroy his system that'd be illegal, and it's airwave anarchy so he's violating no laws. You just have to sit down and take it. While it may be a nice idea that people get along well enough to share on their own, history teaches us that's just not the case. People are greedy and self centered.

Fines

[Detritus]

All fines, fees, taxes, etc. go into the U.S. Treasury's General Fund. Only the Congress has the constitutional authority to authorize spending by the federal government. If NASA discovers a pirate's chest full of gold at the Kennedy Space Center, they don't get to keep a single doubloon.

Pump up the Volume

[dangitman]

I don't believe these pirates are really fighting for freedom of speech. They actually just want to get into Winona Ryder's pants.

Re:Pump up the Volume

[SenatorTreason]

Samantha Mathis was in Pump Up the Volume. Winona Ryder was in Heathers . Sheesh, get your Christian Slater trivia straight! ;)

somewhat true, but...

[foreverdisillusioned]

I agree that purposefully flooding the airwaves with interfering crap isn't a great idea, but someone needs to do something about the FCC. Do you realize that over-the-air broadcasts (both TV and radio) are pretty much the only forms of mass communication in the USA that are still subject to draconian censorship? I can say "fuck" out loud, in a book, in a movie, on a CD, on the internet, over the phone, but heaven forbid I say it over the airwaves! Ditto for nudity. I have Sirius satellite radio and on the hard rock stations I listen to not only do they not censor their music, but their DJs cuss regularly. It's clear that the vast majority of their fanbase does not, ahem, give a flying fuck. On TV, the situation is even more ridiculous because parents have access to the V-chip.

The FCC should not be in the business of censorship, period. The founding fathers explicitly gave us freedom of the press, and if they had known about radio waves they would have deemed those be free of censorship as well. The FCC has far overstepped its bounds (especially post-"wardrobe malfunction"), and if this is the only way to draw attention to the issue, so be it. I can only hope that these people operate their pirate radio stations in a responsible manner, on unused areas of the spectrum and at reasonable power levels. Provided they act responsibly, there's nothing wrong with breaking this law; indeed, I say that it needs breaking, it needs civil disobediance because it's a very ugly, glaring flaw splattered across one of the few freedoms the USA has actually protected quite well--better than most other Western nations, at least. (And before anyone starts ranting about how they allow nudity on British/French/German/Dutch/Australian broadcast TV, realize that more than a few movies and videogames have been outright banned in ALL of those countries. Other than child pornography and to a lesser extent beastiality, there's practically nothing you can't legally see/read/buy in America.)

Oh yeah, and the ownership rule relaxation is bullshit as well. It's not right that Clearchannel gets a government-approved (and protected) monopoly over half the fucking spectrum.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[db32]

I mostly agree but there is a bit more to it than just that. There is the whole emergency broadcast thing. Where basically every station shuts down and a few ramp up their power to unreal levels and can thus broadcast emergency information. IIRC there is a station in TX that when this system is activated can be heard clearly in the northern states. Been some years since I have heard anything about it, but one of my history teachers worked at a radio station as a kid, that whole cold war era stuff. Well the little emergency message thing came across that said shutdown...so he did...then turns out it was a mistake and it was supposed to be a test. Anyone dealing with high power broadcast systems knows that the power up/down on these monstrosities is not just an on/off switch like a TV...it takes quite a while for them to warm up/cool down for operation. His bosses weren't pleased, but the message was a mistake so he got off the hook :). So the FCC does have its purpose...but that purpose has been steadily growing and THAT needs to be stopped immediately...they need to be shoved back into regulating and managing the things they were designed for...not censorship and all of this other nonsense. A good start would be enforcing its rules about media channel ownership...but hey...how else can corporate america force feed you garbage? What gain is there for MSNBC to report MS court stuff without tremendous spin? Oh well..

Re:somewhat true, but...

[zippthorne]

If you go into a public park on a nice summer day, set up a concert quality sound system (read: very loud, but not that good...) and proceed to shout, "Fuck!" into the microphone so everyone in the park is assaulted by your curse-wording antics, I'm pretty sure you'll be asked to leave (and maybe fined or even arrested.)

Further, you should be asked to leave at the very least. You would be destroying everyone else's enjoyment of a public resource for your own personal interest.

Now, if on the other hand, you want to use your system to play live jazz music or somesuch, you probably still can't just go ahead and do it; someone else might want to play classical piano or something, the dissonance would certainly also be detrimental to others' enjoyment of the park. So you'd go and get a permit. A permit that's not a blanket permission to do whatever you want, but grants you some of the permissions you request in an attempt to satisfy as many people's interest in the space as possible.

Radio spectrum is just like that public park. It's a finite (really finite)* resource that a lot of people want to use. And that is the FCC's job: to allocate that resource in the way that best serves the public.

And anyway, it's not like you can't say your precious cussword over any part of the spectrum, you can use it as much as you want over your cell-phone, C-band television feed, "satellite radio," and a few other bands, much like you could do the same in a clearing way out in the woods, far from most of civilization. But yes, swearing loudly in a small public space should be regulated, and if the FCC doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so, then we should have a constitutional convention and create an authority which can.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Fizzlewhiff]

I disagree. While I don't mind profanity there are times when its use is unecessary. In radio, mostly unecessary. I don't mind hearing the f-word in a song, like Jeremy by Pearl Jam. But using it just to use it is overkill, like in your post and in your sig. It shows your immaturity.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[ccady]

I propose that we leave standard TV and radio as a sacrifical lamb to the people who want to censor things. That way, they could rant and rail and complain and leave the rest of us to continue saying things about naughty bits in other fora without their interference. As more of us relax, we can take bites out of the "half the fucking spectrum."

Re:somewhat true, but...

[cpt kangarooski]

If you go into a public park on a nice summer day, set up a concert quality sound system (read: very loud, but not that good...) and proceed to shout, "Fuck!" into the microphone so everyone in the park is assaulted by your curse-wording antics, I'm pretty sure you'll be asked to leave (and maybe fined or even arrested.)

At most, it's only the sound system that would be an issue here. If you just went around screaming fuck at people, you'd be well within your rights to do so. People who don't want to run the risk of being offended shouldn't leave their homes. In public, people may not act as you'd like them to, but they have a right to do that. You might want to read Cohen v. California. Also, mere speech isn't assault.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[955301]

If you go into a public park on a nice summer day, set up a concert quality sound system (read: very loud, but not that good...) and proceed to shout, "Fuck!" into the microphone so everyone in the park is assaulted by your curse-wording antics, I'm pretty sure you'll be asked to leave (and maybe fined or even arrested.)

Actually, Tori Amos did this at a concert in Georgia last year at Chastain Amphitheatre. Seems she misplaced a lyric or two during a set and said "Now if I can remember my fucking lyrics". And yet she wasn't asked to leave the stage.

Seems most people within earshot thought it was funny and those that didn't were adults about it.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Provided they act responsibly, there's nothing wrong with breaking this law; indeed, I say that it needs breaking, it needs civil disobediance because it's a very ugly, glaring flaw splattered across one of the few freedoms the USA has actually protected quite well

Great, great. Fantastic. That's your solution, huh? Take the law into your own hands?

Look, I respect where you're coming from. I love the concept of free speech as much as the next person, but this is NOT the way to fix things. "Fuck", if nothing else, has a long tradition of being offensive. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it does, and people will be offended if it loses taboo status. There are many people who cannot simply be ignored who will object strongly enough to make it political suicide. Simply, I don't think there is enough of a grass-roots movement to unseat it.

And besides, what exactly would removing the taboo on "fuck" or other expletives do? Exactly how much free speech do they stifle? As far as I can tell, there are two main purposes of these words. The first is nuance ('nuff said). However, the same nuances can be conveyed with censored language. For example, we all know what those "beeps" over certain words mean.

Secondly and more importantly, they define the limits of our language. We need language to be offended at, otherwise we lose the ability to be offensive and to be offended. You seem very keen on salvaging this fringe section of free speech, so answer me this. Which would you rather? Speech that has been bleeped out, or speech that doesn't mean anything?

So while you gather up people for the revolution, just keep in mind how much inconsiderate damage you are doing to our speech.

[Mods, I fear not your wrath]

Re:somewhat true, but...

[KC7JHO]

If you just went around screaming fuck at people, you'd be well within your rights to do so.

Actually this would be called Sexually/Verbally assaulting those people. Even if they were not offended by the words, screaming this at them would likely get you arrested for assault. See: Federal (CIVIL) Law: Sexual harassment: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, including the establishment of a hostile work or educational environment. (This is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Law of 1972, and is not defined as criminal unless an underlying criminal act was involved.)

Re:somewhat true, but...

[BKX]

No. Yelling fuck at people is never, no matter how loud you do it, a crime. It's only a crime if it creates a public disturbance. Of course, there is a standard for what constitutes a public disturbance, and I'm sure screaming fuck really loud at people might qualify, but probably only at night or if it stops traffic, or otherwise creates violence. It's only sexual harrassment if you ask yell out, "Fuck me!! Fuck me right in the ass!" (or any such similar command or request) to a specific person in such a manner as for them or others to seriously think you were asking them to have sex with you.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[BKX]

But yes, swearing loudly in a small public space should be regulated, and if the FCC doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so, then we should have a constitutional convention and create an authority which can.

Freedom, motherfucker. Love it or get the fuck out.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Dravik]

In the US it is sexual harrassment is the other person percieves it as harrassment or if it creates a hostil environment. Running around screaming Fuck will definatly be percieved by others in the area as creating a hostil environment.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[AK Marc]

In the US it is sexual harrassment is the other person percieves it as harrassment or if it creates a hostil environment.

And that is not a crime. What was posted earlier quoting the law indicates that it may be illegal (a civil matter) but is not a criminal matter. Without an order from a judge, the police shouldn't get involved in civil matters, so back to the point, the police should never stop nor arrest someone for yelling fuck in a public place.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

so in your park analogy, it's not ok for me to go and set up a sound system and play music that some people may not enjoy listening to. BUT, if I go and ask a man in a hat and suit at city hall for a permit (aka a piece of paper) that says that I can play music that some people may not enjoy listening to wether they like it or not, that's ok?

Re:somewhat true, but...

[foreverdisillusioned]

How the hell did this BS get modded up to +5? A park is a physical place, and its primary purpose is not for listening to music (or political rantings, or shock jocks, etc.) Yes, there's a good argument for laws against noise pollution in a public park. On the other hand, if you choose to tune into a very left-wing, hard rock station geared towards the younger crowd, that's your own damn choice. If you don't like the cussing then oh well, tune to something else. FM, AM and TV is FULL of (what I consider to be) hate speech--they call it "religious progamming"--but I don't complain because no one is FORCING me to listen to it. Your argument is completely absurd--different stations are by definition meant to cater to different tastes. My own tastes exclude the vast majority of programming on TV and on the radio, but that doesn't give me the right to tune to a channel I don't like and then say that we should change it because I don't like it.

And as I mentioned before, it's not like the majority of the public wants this type of censorship. If for-profit satellite radio companies like Sirius and XM thought they would lose money by airing uncensored songs, do you think they'd do it? Ditto for premium cable channels. When TV and radio stations are not FORCED to self-censor, they almost never self-censor (at best they self-censor only a portion of their channels, e.g. "family" channels), so I cannot see how you can argue that the FCC is only reflecting public desire--it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the public desires access to mature, uncensored programming.

But yes, swearing loudly in a small public space should be regulated, and if the FCC doesn't have the constitutional authority to do so, then we should have a constitutional convention and create an authority which can.

So swearing is the only thing that should be regulated, hmm? Hate speech is ok, personal attacks are ok, misinformation and logical fallacies and outright lies are ok, but god forbid I say the word "fuck"? You, sir, have one fucked-up system of priorities.

Music is art and when you censor a song like, say, Korn's Faget, you render it a shallow, laughable parody of itself... as if you took a picture of the Venus de Milo and obscured all but her face in the name of puritanism.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually this would be called Sexually/Verbally assaulting those people.

No, because there are certain elements needed for conduct to be assault, and just randomly yelling the word 'fuck' won't suffice. It's not sexual harassment either, since most of the law having to do with that is either ordinary torts like assault or battery, or is specific to certain environments like a workplace. Some random guy in a public park is not going to qualify. The best you can hope for is some kind of emotional distress tort, but again, if the language is merely foul, you're out of luck.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[brianosaurus]

But yes, swearing loudly in a small public space should be regulated

You're fucking nuts, dude! I can fucking say whatever the fuck i want, wherever the fuck I want, and the fucking Constitution totally fucking backs my ass up on that, motherfucker!

Are your eyes bleeding? No? Fuckin' A!

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but fucking works won't do jack shit!

The only reason "precious cusswords" have any...shit.. what the fuck would you call it? "power?" For lack of a better term, let's fucking use it... Where the hell was I... Oh yeah!

The only reason "precious cusswords" have any power is from simple-minded asswipes like yourself taking such offense at hearing certain phonetic patterns. Get over it already.

Fuck...

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, /. should start publishing a cpt. kangarooski RSS feed. Decent posts are getting really hard to come by, these days.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[evilviper]

A park is a physical place, and its primary purpose is not for listening to music

It's primary purpose is whatever the public feel like using it for. If people want music all the time, then that's it's primary purpose.

Besides, I could say the public airwaves' primary purpose is not for broadcasting nudity, profanity, etc.

If you don't like the cussing then oh well, tune to something else.

If you don't like seeing the naked guy running around the park, then look in another direction...

If you don't like seeing the commercial of a man being graphically disemboweled randomly poping up, then you shouldn't be watching TV...

TV is FULL of (what I consider to be) hate speech--they call it "religious progamming"

You're giving "hate speech" a bad name. There's a world of difference between religous programming saying "God is the savior" and hate speech like "All fags should be shot". Guess which one you'll hear on TV, and which one you wont...

I guess the libertarian line on broadcast is that everyone should be psychic, and know what's going to be on every TV channel, and radio station before they turn it on.

My own tastes

There's a huge difference between "taste" and obsenity. The FCC isn't taking shows off the air because they don't find them funny enough, so such arguments are just red herrings.

When TV and radio stations are not FORCED to self-censor, they almost never self-censor (at best they self-censor only a portion of their channels, e.g. "family" channels),

What the? Have you NEVER had cable TV? There are no standards, and yet all basic cable channels strictly self-censor, at least until very, very late at night.

it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the public desires access to mature, uncensored programming.

Your whole argument is that more than 50% of Americans subscribe to premium cable channels and satellite radio, which is obviously untrue.

So swearing is the only thing that should be regulated, hmm?

He never said any such thing. Just because he didn't specifically include it.

misinformation and logical fallacies and outright lies are ok,

You certainly seem to think so, since you're such a pervasive utilizer of them...

Re:somewhat true, but...

[foreverdisillusioned]

There's a huge difference between "taste" and obsenity. Not really. Trying make my kids believe in fairy tales that promote hatred and bigotry and ignorance doesn't have a damn thing to do with taste in my eyes; it's simply obscene. And I'm sure plenty of uptight Christians believe the same thing about the word "fuck."

You're giving "hate speech" a bad name. There's a world of difference between religous programming saying "God is the savior" and hate speech like "All fags should be shot". Guess which one you'll hear on TV, and which one you wont...

I don't have a problem with "Jesus is our savior", but just because dipshits like Jerry Falwell don't blatantly advocate violence doesn't make them any less obscene... on the contrary, it makes them much more insidious, much more dangerous because they cloak their hatred with pacifism and pseudo-love while preaching horseshit like '9/11 happened because of the homosexuals, feminists and abortionists.' (That's not an exaggeration--Falwell said it on national TV, and Pat Robertson publically agreed with his remarks.) I don't have a problem with positive, supportive, mind-my-own-damn-business Christianty, but I occasionally watch Christian TV or listen to Christian radio and I've yet to see/hear a single program that did not actively attack a common, positive type of non-Christian lifestyle. Usually, I don't have to listen for more than 5 minutes before I'm so sickened that I have to change the channel.

What the? Have you NEVER had cable TV? There are no standards, and yet all basic cable channels strictly self-censor, at least until very, very late at night.

My understanding is that most of the basic cable TV channels are broadcast over the air in certain parts of the country, and thus are subject to FCC nazi-ism. As I understand it, there's a provision called "safe habor" or something that allows them to air more explicit stuff at night. My argument wasn't that the majority of Americans subscribed to premium cable; it was that only premium cable was legally allowed to show completely uncensored stuff 24 hours a day, and the fact that they choose to do so proves that there's an economic incentive to do so (thus implying that the majority of the public is OK with it.) If what you say is true, then this might be flawed argument, but I rather doubt it. Late night on Cinemax and Showtime you'll see tons of softcore porn, complete with full frontal nudity (at the very least topless women.) On channels like the USA network, you see pseudo-softcore porn, where they go as far as they can without showing any actual nudity (or rather, this was the case a few years back--not sure if they're still doing it)--why would USA do this, unless they were forced to by the FCC? Surely there's a much bigger market for REAL softcore porn than pseudo-softcore porn... it's not like there are soccer moms out there letting their 9 year olds watch the corny, extremely suggestive dialog and women in microscopic bikinis who would be horrified if admist all the posing and innuendo one of them actually bared her nipples. It could conceivably be a problem with advertisers, I suppose, but I doubt it. I've yet to see a single instance of full, unobscured nudity on basic cable with a few very rare exceptions of the "special", pretentious, "artistic" type (similar to when NBC broadcast Schindler's List uncut.)

But regardless, this article is about radio and thus I'm primarily arguing about "obscene" speech, not sex/nudity ('cause god knows the FCC doesn't give a shit about violence.) Every single hard rock station I've ever listened to (across 6 states) has pushed the limits of "decency"--they most obviously are NOT trying to be a "family" station, and if the FCC restrictions were relaxed they would be cussing up a storm before you could say "fuck the fucking fuckers." Their "premium" cousins on XM and Sirius illustrate this nicely. Regardless of what you may think about "vulgar" speech, any linguist in

Re:somewhat true, but...

[BKX]

No it isn't. This came up in Michigan (my home state) a few years ago and the courts struck it down hard (Hi-rez Proof). You simply can't regulate language in the US. This argument kind of reminds me of the argument people get in over kids being able to see rated R movies. There's no law against it anywhere in the US; it's just a policy decision of theatres, but people seem to think such a law exists because the policy is so widespread. It's the same thing with swearing in public; there's no law against it but so few people do it that it seems like it must be illegal.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

>And anyway, it's not like you can't say your precious cussword over any >part of the spectrum, you can use it as much as you want over your >cell-phone, C-band television feed, "satellite radio," and a few other >bands, much like you could do the same in a clearing way out in the woods, >far from most of civilization. But yes, swearing loudly in a small public >space should be regulated, and if the FCC doesn't have the constitutional >authority to do so, then we should have a constitutional convention and >create an authority which can.

        Oddly, my cell phone contract with Verizon Wireless does have some blurb to the effect that the FCC does officially disallow swearing in the cellphone band too. Of course, noone gives a fuck since it's encrypted.

          Ok, back on topic. Fuck off. Firstly, speech should not be regulated, period. That violates freedom of speech. Using a PA system is more of a noise ordinance issue; what the person is saying is not. Secondly, the FM band is not a small public space. It's a frequency band. In my area, I'm lucky enough to not have Clearchannel monopolize the airwaves so there's SOME variety, but still, there's maybe 15 FM radio stations receivable here, if you get a really good antenna to pull in the weak ones (i.e. ensuring non-interference if you avoid those stations.) At 0.2mhz spacing there's 100 FM channels overall; 50 if you use 0.4mhz spacing to make sure you're not spreading out into an adjacent channel.

          The FCC is not doing there job with the FM band, as evidenced by refusal to issue low-powered FM radio station permits. They did in the past. The U of Iowa has a great college radio station; the permit is grandfathered in. But, despite the virtually empty FM dial here, if they did not have the station already they would be unable to obtain a permit to start it. Oh, and Iowa City Free Radio kicks ass.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[Brianwa]

The emergency broadcast system has changed a bit since the cold war. My understandg is that instead of shutting down, all radio stations stay on air and repeat the message. A properly configured pirate station that doesn't normally create any interference would have no negative effect on this system at all. Indeed, it would be possible for the pirate station to be configured to broadcast the emergency message as well, if the creator so desired.

Re:somewhat true, but...

[db32]

I had honestly always wondered how effective it would even be really. I mean...certainly nice idea...but in the case of MAD...how many radio stations will still be operational due to being either molten slag or EMPd to death. Or really if the federal government would survive in any meaningful way to even make use of said system. I had always kind of assumed that really the only thing left would be the pirate radio stations at that point :)

Too bad the American Public seems to disagree.

[Kadin2048]

I can go from one end of the country to the other, listening to the same music with little if any regional variation, or for that matter care for regional issues or concerns.

This would be a more interesting point if not for the fact that based on the success of satellite radio, it would seem as though this is exactly what a large number of people want.

People don't want "regional variation," they want consistency. They want to be able to drive from Boston to Washington and still have the exact same palette of stations available, and they want them on all the time.

You may certainly disagree (and I'm with you), but both the current state of broadcast radio, as demonstrated by XM and Sirius (so it's not even some giant ClearChannel conspiracy), and historical indicators from other markets show that you're in the minority.

People don't want the "local roadhouse," they want McDonalds. They don't want Jack and Jill's Country Inn, they want Motel 6. They don't want the General Store, they want WalMart. Over and over the market has shunned independents -- even when they had a huge advantage to begin with -- in favor of consistent national chains; with the public only developing a nostalgia for the 'local flavor' after it was mostly gone. But regardless of their stated feelings, the public has over and over voted with their feet and their wallets.

Frankly I think it's surprising that independent radio stations have remained as long as they have, and that 'networking' (in the manner of VHF TV stations) didn't happen sooner. With more competition from consistent, branded satellite networks (and perhaps in the future, content delivered by cell network, etc.) I think in the future we can expect to see more consolidation of terrestrial FM stations into various "channels" that a person can listen to from one coast to the other. Either that, or it will lose its relevance as a mass communications channel and become more like the UHF TV band is today.

Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree.

[Zigurd]

What you are claiming is contradicted by the falling viewer numbers for broadcast media. People want what they want, not what everyone wants. The "homogenizing" is the result of consolidation in a mature and shrinking broadcast business: financial engineering of conglomerates to compensate for the fact that each transmitter reaches fewer viewers/listeners.

At some point it will become obvious that The End is Near, and that spectrum should be turned over to UWB radios or some other means of sharing it without allocating it to a fixed purpose.

Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree.

[stealie72]

You've sort of learned the wrong lesson from Satellite. People want to listen to what they like. They're not concerned about local variants or national consistency.

Unless you happen to like today's hott jams, today's hot country, your listen at work station, or the hottest RAWK in (your town here), you've got nothing to listen to on FM. Unless you like preachers, political ranters, or fools talking about sports all day, you've got nothing to listen to on AM.

Hence, satellite radio. If I lived in a place where I could get the same variety as the 30 stations that are programmed into my XM unit, I'd cancel my subscription in a second. Plus, I like to hear my DJs say fuck once in a while.

Most pirate radio that I've heard is rather uninteresting. Pirate play their favorite artist (who is disproportionately Zappa), or rant on their favorite topic. The truly insane pirates broadcast on shortwave anyways.

Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree.

[AK Marc]

They want to be able to drive from Boston to Washington and still have the exact same palette of stations available, and they want them on all the time.

They want music, talk, news, but they don't want commercials and are willing to pay to avoid them. They want variety more than what is offered on the FM stations. There is a vast amount of overlap in the music stations. Even though you'd expect to not have that much still do. "Crossover country" means that I can't avoid country be even listening to a heavy metal station. It's because the playlists are homogonized across the corporation. There are about 3 owners of all the music stations here, and no available places for new ones to start up. Some of the stations are such crap that I think they are being operated solely to prevent competition from coming in. I want stations to compete for my ear by giving me what I want to hear. Satellite does that. AM/FM does not. AM/FM strives to be as unoffenseive as possible so you won't change the station between commercials.

Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree.

[Phroggy]

People don't want the "local roadhouse," they want McDonalds. They don't want Jack and Jill's Country Inn, they want Motel 6. They don't want the General Store, they want WalMart.

In the case of McDonald's and WalMart, you're completely off-base here - people don't want consistency, but they do want low prices, and they're willing to put up with consistent crap as long as it's cheap. (In the case of Motel 6, people do want consistency, because they have nothing else by which to judge the quality of a motel in an unfamiliar town, and there are a lot of really awful motels out there).

FCC Mandate

[Kadin2048]

This is actually a fairly interesting question.

From today's perspective, where we look at the EM spectrum and see that the majority of it is really suited more for short-range communication than anything else, it seems like something that ought to be regulated at least in part by the states.

However, the authority of the FCC comes from the Communications Act of 1934, and its predecessor agency from the Radio Act of 1927, which were drafted in a time when most of the radio spectrum in use was down in the HF bands, which travel hundreds or thousands of miles and thus require widespread regulatory authority. From this authority -- which began due to a need to keep civilian transmissions from interfering with maritime wireless service -- they simply continued to regulate as frequencies grew higher and higher, and transmission distances shorter and shorter, until the FCC frequently has a say in things in which there is little or no business for Federal regulation.

Re:FCC Mandate

[Ironsides]

From this authority -- which began due to a need to keep civilian transmissions from interfering with maritime wireless service -- they simply continued to regulate as frequencies grew higher and higher, and transmission distances shorter and shorter, until the FCC frequently has a say in things in which there is little or no business for Federal regulation.

Depends on how you look at it. At least with regards to section 15(?) of the FCC code with electronic devices emmiting and tollerating EM interference. Remeber the story about a tv that accidentally emited the aircraft emergency signal? The frequency is 121.5MHz.

Re:FCC Mandate

[booch]

Theoretically, the Communications Act of 1934 cannot override the Constitution. Particularly the 10th Amendment, and Article 1 Section 8's clause allowing federal regulation only of interstate commerce. Unfortunately, Congress passes laws to "define" what is interstate commerce and what is not, despite any actual resemblence to reality.

Re:My 1000th post

[skam240]

You are truly the 133t35t of the 133t. While everyone else wallows in their own ignorance you are the shining beacon of insight.

Who are you to tell anyone that they have nothing to contribute? Since you are so more insightful and set apart from "the unwashed masses" and aren't a member of :the self-absorbed, illogical, ignorant, dumb, arrogant, fragile, and generally horrifying human mind: your opinion if far more valid than everyone else's, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming to be some sort of intellectual superiority for your self here, right?

Plus the judging of some one (as you did on another comment on this post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19749 1&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=161825 77#16182631) based on their experience on slashdot is a real class act. No one who didn't have a lengthy record of posting on slashdot could possibly have any real incite on anything....

Of course I don't have a thousand posts like you do so what do I know?

Re:My 1000th post

[cool_arrow]

I think someone needs to put Mr. Grumpy down for a nap.

Monopoly

[turbofisk]

During the sixties it brought down the state monopoly that only had old chums debating on the airwaves. It brought music to the airwaves. Not so bad for arr pirate!

Re:My 1000th post

[overbaud]

Dear 'Soon to be foe' ingolke,

I know exactly what slashdot is... it's news for nerds... although I am still searching for the news. My ignorance can be expressed as a percentage equal to the number of girls I pick up after telling them about my aforementioned, and dare i say rather large slashdot number, they go crazy. How do I know they go crazy? Because they start laughing with their friends and pointing at me, strike back for the nerds I say! I would never call you an asshat... I am to hardcore for that... I would call you an @55h47. I am uber cool because I spelt that with 83.33% numbers, thoze kinda skillz most script kiddies woudl kill for. But I digress from my argument, which is that there is no way that Bill Gates could be funding the middle east war on terror as Microsoft has invested all their money into DRM technology in an effort to circumvent Adobe from taking market share by releasing their products under GPL and intergrating it into FreeBSD (because Linux sucks and is for people who aren't smart enough to use UNIX). I know because my friends cousin works for Microsoft in the office next to Steve. Then again "I, for one, welcome our new Iranian overlords" (that get funnier everytime I hear it!). Anyway I have to go because my mum said dinner is ready.

Warmest Regards,

Overbaud

P.S. Your spelling sucks.

Mr. Universe

[bigdavesmith]

Can't stop the signal, bro.

The FCC?

[Opportunist]

Our poor overworked FCC? Don't they already have enough work keeping us save from boobies and badbadbad words on TV? Now they also gotta take up the fight over frequencies?

Hey... wait... actually, THAT would be their job, not content censoring...

Re:My 1000th post

[Ingolfke]

I would enjoy a nap... but I'm actually not grumpy at all. This place is nuts... and the idiocy is an endless source of amusement.

Re:My 1000th post

[Ingolfke]

'The force is strong with this one' - Commander Spock, Star Trak II: The Wrath of Kahn

Nope, NOT solved.

[Stormbringer]

...HAM Radio. The problem has been solved.

Not quite; sorry. Part 97, the part of the FCC rulebook governing amateur radio, forbids the following:

- broadcasting (the tolerated exception being QST's from W1AW and the like, because they're intended only for licensed amateurs)

- music-playing

- commercial programming, including commercials

Ham radio is intended primarily for point-to-point or point-to-net communications where there's a live operator at each transmitter, and the only audience is other hams (you as a shortwave listener or scanner user can listen in, but they're not supposed to be talking to you). The exceptions are tolerance for automata like FM repeaters and packet BBSes, and even then there's supposed to be a control operator on frequency or around the station who can take the transmitter off the air if someone starts misusing it for things like broadcasting.

My opinion on why they do it

[Ultra Hits Radio]

In my opinion i believe that most pirate stations are started because they hate the way fm and am radio is today. It's happening everywhere now, most fm stations have playlist that repeat most of the popular music and you would hear the same song more than 3 times a day. Also when you call in to your favorite radio station for requests most of those calls are pre recorded and saved for later until they see your song programmed for the playlist that day, then they stick your requests right before it and then the song comes on. Also there are more and more nationally syndicated morning shows and late night shows that there isnt anymore local programming as much. I hate it myself and i only listen to fm radio if i feel like it. I think internet radio and sattelite will be taking off and the terrestrial radio stations are going to suffer.

Re:My 1000th post

[Anonymous Coward]

The unwashed masses may taste like womens underwear and day old pizza.

But you, You taste like...Irony. Yes, Very very irony.

You may do well to fallow your own advice, oh great leader of the cheezehead armada.

I miss Radio Caroline

[Anonymous Coward]

- i loved to listen to the DJs, who could, in a single sentence, use English, French, and Dutch while spinning some great tunes...

- many years later, a few of the same DJs were on a Jazz station in DC, but alas, the station is now Oldies...

sigh...

Thoughts on "11 meters"

[Kadin2048]

This really isn't true. CB is only in the 11m band, which you can easily transmit on using a 1/4 or 1/8 wave vertical -- that's why it got chosen for mobile communications. If you were going to be broadcasting, using a full-wave vertical or some sort of phased array isn't that impractical: it's only 11 meters. If you're spending the money for a power amp and the rest of the gear you need to broadcast, I hope to heck you can at least get something 35 feet up in the air. (Flagpole, gutter pipe...whatever.)

The CB is adjacent to the amateur 10m band, and people work that using minimal (100W equipment) to talk hundreds or thousands of miles. Granted, usually not on AM, which is the CB standard, but the equipment isn't the limiting factor, it's generally atmospheric propagation.

Anyway; I agree that the FCC has totally ignored its mandate of public service in terms of giving spectrum in the higher frequencies to projects that would have a local focus, because there's a lot of cool stuff that can be done up there. I have somewhat controversial feelings on the issue: I think that a lot of what you're trying to motivate could be done through a revamping of the Amateur Radio service to make it a little more current with the state of the radio art and less off-putting to today's geeks. Amateurs could -- and have, in the past -- laid the groundwork for lots of useful technology. In the past, when the cutting edge was in shortwave radio, this was in global communication, but now that the cutting edge has moved upwards into the microwave and higher, it could mean things like ultrawideband data or advanced types of software defined, frequency-agnostic "radios." However, the molasses-like pace of the FCC in regards to everything that doesn't involve millions of dollars of cash is acting like a retardant on all development in the area.

Re:Thoughts on "11 meters"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

A 2.75 m antenna isn't long to you?

Re:Thoughts on "11 meters"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Erm, I meant to say 1.4 m, and you're not going to wear that jogging either.

Re:Thoughts on "11 meters"

[LWATCDR]

"Erm, I meant to say 1.4 m, and you're not going to wear that jogging either."
AM is even longer but people use it when jogging.
Actually a 1.4m wouldn't bet that bad. You could use the wire on the head phones.

Re:Thoughts on "11 meters"

[Kadin2048]

Not really; nobody says it has to be all in one straight line (although that's advantageous, usually). You could have part of that length taken up by a coil or some other shape, allowing you to pack a long antenna into a small space. Many portable scanner antennas ("rubber ducks") do this; it's nothing new.

Sometimes not even that is necessary: an AM radio receiver that you might have on your desk or in your car is capable of receiving broadcasts down to around 660kHz, using only a crummy extendable antenna and matching network; that's a wavelength of about 454 meters (which is about 1,370 feet). Portable shortwave receivers can go even lower/longer.

If you've ever used a radio-syncronized self-setting "atomic clock" (of the Sharper Image variety, not a true atomic clock), they contain radio receivers for the 60kHz longwave time signal. The antennas to do this are smaller than a large-size pack of gum, in most cases. Rather than stringing a long antenna out straight, they bundle it together. There are disadvantages to doing this obviously, but for receive-only, the tradeoffs are usually worthwhile.

In terms of antennas, more metal in the air is almost always better. However, that doesn't mean you can't get quite decent performance using compact equipment. Especially considering the poor performance of UHF signals in structures and built-up areas, there are some good arguments for using the lower-freqency bands wisely, when the higher data-carrying capacity of the VHF and UHF aren't necessary and greater distance is desired.

Re:Thoughts on "11 meters"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Thanks. Yeah, I probably should have done the calculations before spouting off like that.

reeee-spekt!

[Anonymous Coward]

big up all junglist kru!

Re:My 1000th post

[cool_arrow]

Why discourage that which amuses?

Unfortunately....

[N8F8]

It was eventually coopted and became the monolithic voice of corporate america instead of a medium of expressing thoughts, opinions and art. That applies to both FM Radio and the government itself.

Bad analogy

[xixax]

It is doubtful that any amateur will have enough power to drown out a licenced station. The teeny-weeny transmitter (compared to the commercial stations) we have for our community station still cost us over $30k (granted, it gets us a couple of hundred clicks on most days). Even a big amateur transmitter would struggle to do more than a few city blocks unless they tried filling in space between extsiting broadcasters. The IP address analogy is a lousy one.

i) any transmitter big enough to go toe-to-toe with a regular broadcaster is going to be picked up by the authorities in maybe a couple of hours; and ii) anything that big is not set up for a quick getaway. In major cities here (.au), there is *permanent* monitoring and direction finding. Oh, and iii) anything that big will also get you nailed for workplace safety for zapping people with large amounts of EM radiation.

Perhaps if you guys had more community radio, people wouldn't feel the need to set up their own stations.

Re:My 1000th post

[Zen]

Nice! That pretty well sums up the last 9 (10?) years of /. The only repetitious themes you left off are trolls and hot grits with a side of natalie portman, and an occasional vi/emacs/joe conversation capped off with a base joke.

It's been tried.

[Jbcarpen]

That has been tried before. It's called Communism/Socialism, and it failed miserably. I'm not going to go into all the problems that exist with such systems, but the biggest one is very simple and straightforward. PEOPLE ARE LAZY, and since they are lazy if you give everyone the same amount of money/resources/what-have-you regardless of how much value they produce, a large portion will stop working. The effects of lazyness have destroyed every society that has tried to allocate resources in a uniform fashion without regard to value.

Re:addendum/capitalism

[moeinvt]

"If you want to use a means of rationing other than money for the spectrum, then why not for everything else too?"

From an economics perspective, not "everything" is subject to completely inelastic supply. Normally, if demand is there, supply can react to fill that demand. Unfortunately $deity doesn't increase production based on increased consumer demand.

I'd suggest another means of rationing for any such commodity, including land, but keep capitalism around for coffee beans and widgets.

FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart pirates only use frequencies that aren't used in their surrounding areas. This way nobody complains and nobody cares for years. Only time the FCC will chase someone down is after a complaint or 40 have been filed for any sort of "public infraction". Meaning swearing, rebroadcasting someone elses programming, etc. Do nothing to get yourself in trouble, people will just think you're a new radio station in town.

OTOH, it is kinda fun to put the pirate on a very well known frequency and scare the crap out of people. Actually, there was a legal pirate (yes, i know that doesn't make sense, but hear me out) in the Twin Cities. B96 96.3 (KTTB-Glencoe) is the local hiphop/urban station in town, but barely. It's a rimshot 100kW outside minneapolis. KDWB 101.3 (Richfield 100kW) applied and won(!!) a translator on 96.3FM in the southeastern metro area. KDWB is the local top40, not so much hiphop, but they do play similar playlists... Now is this piracy? No. They played by the book.

Talk about how useful the FCC is. They don't even check for adjacent channels before issuing licenses. Also, the FCC did issue the call letters KUNT (Univ. North Texas) once upon a time. They recinded them within 24 hours. But, there is KUMM (Univ. Minnesota-Morris) is still on the air...

FCC. Go figure.

Re: DAB

[Ashe Tyrael]

DAB won't get a proper airing until the extortionate price of the recievers comes down. You can get a passable FM receiver for about £5 or less. A DAB radio is going to set you back ten times that amount, if not more.

Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy

[bcnstony]

For those who want a better understanding of the FCC's approach, this is a must read: The Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy (pdf).

My only concern is that I originally read about this on a website largely visited by wierdos, miscreants, the usual riff-raff. Original Post. (the original post's links are dead, use the one above).

One little detail.

[DaveV1.0]

It's always been our position that if enough people go on the air with their stations, the FCC will be overwhelmed and unable to respond.

If enough people go on the air with their stations, then the interference will render all the stations useless. There is a limited number of frequencies and if stations are too close together, you get interference. Interference degrages the usefullness of radio by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. You kill that which you would use.

Plain and simple, too many cooks spoil the pie.

Re:One little detail.

[thorkyl]

You got that right,
I live in what the FCC calls a "Dead Zone".

All I get is static on the left half of the dial, and if I am lucky (weather conditions just right) I can tune in a station on the right half.

I like local, non National

[thorkyl]

I do have a Sirius Radio in my truck; I only use it when I am on the road and in areas where there is poor coverage from FM stations. Other than that I listen to one of the two college radio stations or to the local Pacifica station.

The great thing about community radio stations:

1 - They don't play the same songs over and over and over and over and over and over.
              I can actually set my clock by what commercial or song plays at what time on the
              local muddy channel station

2 - Local events and news
            Does your national station tell you about the blood drive this weekend or how the
            local High School football team did?

3 - Call your local community radio station, ask them a question about anything and
              ask them to present it to the listeners. By the end of the hour you will have an answer
              Do that with your muddy channel station, if its not national, or on xyz car dealers list
              of acceptable topics then you will never even hear a mention of it.

4 - I love it when the national stations broadcast the traffic report for a different city here
            by accident and then tell you that they are your home town station.

Re: DAB

[speculatrix]

well, you don't actually get a particularly good FM radio for less than 20 quid, but I agree that DAB still has a price premium - especially for in-car radios.

A bigger problem is that there's not much convergence with say mp3 players and/or mobile phones and other media players at a reasonable price... no 60GB ipod with DAB radio for example. This is probably explained by reports I've seen which say that only UK and Denmark have a thriving DAB "ecosystem".

So 1980's

[Anonymous Coward]

So...now we are trying to institute Anarchy via FM Radio?!?!? Come on folks, use your brains for curing AIDS or some other horrid dease, quit being such a bunch of ass monkies!!

So use your off switch, or stop reading.

[Vellmont]

Why do you need a government agency to control what you don't like? Personally I hate Rush Limbaugh and never want to hear one word from his pill-popping mouth. Should I get the FCC to shut him up because I find him personally offensive?

fcc low power theory, then reality

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can already get a hobby AM/FM license for very small wattage for no money to speak of.."

Care to cite the actual regulations? Last I knew something legal in the meagre ten watt range was rather expensive, and if you want to contain comercials it gets to the insane levels. Basically any commercial station now, even extremely low power, you will be staring at around 7 figures once all is said and done at the low entry level end. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Reality is, we had a small window for a few years where it looked like small community stations would be allowed on a reasonable basis, but the big mega syndicated broadcasters got that squashed, I mean stomped flat, flipped over and stomped again. Surprisingly (or not) PBS was one of the more rabid mad dogs against community or small private radio. The government now has a VERY limited allotment of local small watt openings, and it starts at more than a grand, and they have been in no hurry to even license them, even if you have the cash. Really, if it was as easy and cheap as you say to do this legally people would be doing it legally. Right off the bat, YOU as an individal can have nothing beyond joke across your front yard range. None, zero, unobtanium. You must be a registered community non profit organization or something like a dot edu. and they have only a very limited number of slots. Next, zero commercials, you have about zero chance of being, say, a ten watt commercial station unless you buy an existing one (and that size doesn't even exist AFAIK), and go right ahead and go google and see what the cheapest am or fm existing radio station sells for, any small power. Big hint:if that is small change to you,you have your twin stacked supermodel redhead secretaries read slashdot to you. And there's more obnoxious screw the people regs with the FCC, they are a giant corporate rubber stamp agency, nothing more. They have never shut down one large corporate station and took the freq from them away for abuse or not being in the public interest. Please, try to justify something like abc/nbc/cbs in this day and age with their level of alleged programming and call that in the public interest. You can't, they are merely large corporate commercials only broadcasting venues with some mediocre designed for retarded people programming interspersed. The FCC is in the business of accepting large sums of cash for the purpose of the media giants to broadcast SPAM.

    They, the FCC, even are now ignoring great evidence over broadband over powerline interference to the HAMS and screwing them over. Go to ARRL and see all the struggles they have had with that. Why? Aren't the FCC boys supposed to be radio experts/ h wait, they AREN'T, they are appointed bureaucratic goons for the most part, at least at all the decision making levels. I repeat, the FCC is a corporate rubber stamp agency, roughly akin to the current patent office when it cokes to being "for the people".. Try to even get a license for the shortwave bands for a commercial station, see how much they want for that, and you CAN'T tell me the shortwave freqs are crowded.

    Saying people can do it legally is a joke and completely minimizes the hoop jumping and cash required and obvious "clear channeling" bias against low power.

Re:fcc low power theory, then reality

[batquux]

Absolutely correct. You can't just start a low power station legally. To go the legal route, my understanding is you actually have to start with a minimum of 6000 watts. You think a 10 watt station is expensive? Try 6000! Then you have to win your spectrum space in an FCC auction. Unless you're Clear Channel or BAS or something, that's not exactly realistic.

This is just what I ran into when I looked into starting up a station a couple weeks ago. Browse around on the FCC website and read some of the stuff at freeradio.org (it's not all completely nuts) and you'll see all these problems and probably get a headache.

I think you have confused...

[gillbates]

I think you have confused censorship with censureship. The former is the prohibition of expression, while the latter is merely removal of something the people don't want.

For example, prohibiting talk show hosts from criticizing the President would be censorship. OTOH, prohibiting a talk show host from criticizing the President using foul language is not. While you might not agree with them, the majority of the people in this country do not want to hear foul language on the radio, or see nudity on TV.

I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.

The airwaves are a public medium. They belong to the people. As such, they should be used in a way which benefits all of the public, not just a certain subset who feel that foul language and nudity are desirable. Granted, such broadcasts might not include everything you'd like to see or hear, but at least they don't offend a large portion of the viewers/listeners.

One final point for discussion: If the Left can tell us that religion should be a private thing, can't the Right tell the us that obscenity and indecency should be private as well? I mean, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "offensive" because it disturbs someone else's worldview, then wouldn't vulgar speech and nudity be just as "offensive"? After all, it too disturbs someone's worldview.

Re:I think you have confused...

[gargletheape]

Wait...I am a slashdotter and all, but what IS so outrageously awful about your child knowing how to say 'fuck'? What about that sequence of air-puffs offends you so? Why is it a problem comparable to bulimia? Since when have anorexic models been banned from the airwaves anyway?

Re:I think you have confused...

[cayenne8]

"Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv."

Considering how unhealthly overweight the majority of kids in the US are, I don't see that as being much a problem.

I wish more women would watch their weight...I hate a beer gut looking thing on girls....they at least need to go for the flat stomach.

Re:I think you have confused...

[Harry Coin]

I think you have confused censorship with censureship. The former is the prohibition of expression, while the latter is merely removal of something the people don't want.

That's an interesting way to start a discussion, make up a word, then claim that someone else has missed the distinction between it and the topic at hand. Censorship has never been justified with "we want to prohibit you from expressing this idea" it has always had the fig leaf of following "community standards" to remove "obscene materials" which "appeal to the purient interest" and "have no artistic merit" as interpreted by those most conservative in their thinking, and least tolerant of alternative viewpoints.

For example, prohibiting talk show hosts from criticizing the President would be censorship. OTOH, prohibiting a talk show host from criticizing the President using foul language is not. While you might not agree with them, the majority of the people in this country do not want to hear foul language on the radio, or see nudity on TV.

It is indeed censorship to prevent criticism of the president using "foul language", because it is impossible to accurately describe just how fucking disasterous George Bush's complete incompetence has been to this nation, and the world at large.

And while you might not agree with them, the framers of the Constitution had the foresight to enumerate our inalienable rights, one of which is Freedom of Speech. If you can point to the portion of the Constitution which authorizes the federal government to ban the use of particular words and body parts in any medium it wishes, do please point it out.

I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.

So, having a life threatening illness is "somewhat worse" than uttering one of the currently taboo Anglo-Saxon derived words? Your priorities seem dangerously out of balance. I have a little 2 year old girl and I could care less if she started throwing that word around, and she doesn't, because it doesn't get a rise out of me. Also, do you really believe that it's nudity that is driving eating disorders when images of fully clothed rail-thin models hawking everything under the sun leap from nearly every available surface? Nudity == Bulimia? Please.

The airwaves are a public medium. They belong to the people. As such, they should be used in a way which benefits all of the public, not just a certain subset who feel that foul language and nudity are desirable. Granted, such broadcasts might not include everything you'd like to see or hear, but at least they don't offend a large portion of the viewers/listeners.

If you don't think that nudity is desirable, how the hell did you have kids? You sound like a religious sort, so I know where this shame comes from. Some free advice? The naked human form is one of the most beautiful images in existence, despite what your church tells you. It was being painted on cave walls and sculpted from clay for thousands of years before this civilization thing got off the ground. Nudity is healthy, fun, and liberating. Not every body is at its peak, some are fat, some are old, some are scarred, some are broken. But seeing other people nude, in an honest unflinching manner, and accepting the forms that we inhabit, would do more to cure bulimia than any floating black bar ever could.

One final point for discussion: If the Left can tell us that religion should be a private thing, can't the Right tell the us t

Re:I think you have confused...

[foreverdisillusioned]

I consider music and (at least some) movies/television shows to be a form of art; I've never heard the term "censureship" applied to art--only "censorship."

I know its probably hard to imagine having kids, being a slashdotter and all (cue William Shatner at trekkie convention: "Have you ever kissed a girl..."). However, most people do at some point have children, and the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio. Or somewhat worse, having their daughters go bulimic on them because they're trying to look like some bare-chested floozy they saw on tv.

Not hard at all; in fact, I'll probably be a father within the next few years (after my girlfriend and I graduate from college.) I wouldn't be too bothered about the former (I'd tell my kid that using those words could bother other people, though), and the latter is just plain dumb (my daughter is going to turn bulimic because she saw a thin person naked? But not a thin person wearing clothes?) I WOULD, however, mind a great deal if my son or daughter turned into a close-minded, hateful, anti-love, anti-science, anti-gay Christian--not that all Christians are these things, mind you, just that many of them are and they have many vocal proponents on religious TV and religious radio. But I'm not arguing that we ban religious content from the airwaves--that would be censorship and it would be wrong. It's my responsibility as a parent to pay attention to what my kid watches and listens to, and it would be damned irresponsible of me to expect the government to do my job for me.

Premium cable and satellite radio have already demonstrated that the majority of people prefer uncensored music, TV and movies, so your "owned by the public" argument is unfounded--it's already quite clear that the majority of the public doesn't want censorship. Your "small subset" is actually the people who WANT censorship, not the people who are against it. (FYI: The Superbowl wardrobe malfunction "controversy" was in reality driven by a couple of very small special interest groups who organized large-scale letter writing campaigns.)

Re:I think you have confused...

[brianosaurus]

the last thing they want is to hear their toddler repeating "fuck, fuck, fuckety-fuck..." because they heard it on the radio

Its much funnier when its the parent, not the radio, who "teaches" their child to say "fuck, fuckety fuck-fuck!"

Its especially funny when they try to get the child (who has no idea what they're saying, or that its at all offensive) not to say "that word" anymore. To the child its just another word, and saying it gets a really strong response from mom & dad, so they'll keep saying it. Its probably not until several years later that they learn its a "bad word", making it even that much more enticing.

Its all so fucking stupid. Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ on a popsicle stick! Seriously, what's the harm?

On the other hand, brainwashing kids to think that Creationism has any validity and is as credible a theory as Evolution does cause actual long-term harm to their intelligence, and to our country as a whole. It may be a neat story, but if our future textbooks discount real science and promote fairy tales as the truth, the rest of the world is going to leave us far, far behind.

PS - TV stars don't have to be naked to be bad role models. To the best of my knowledge Pat Robertson has never exposed his naughty bits on TV, but he's still doing a great job of ruining this country by exploiting people's ignorance. I'll take a bare-chested floozy over that asshole any day of the week (except Thursdays at 9... CSI fucking rules!).

SSB

[sig226]

why not used the millions of channels available on single side band
radio?

We have a pirate radio station here...

[Dutchmaan]

Not sure if they're still operating, but we have a pirate radio station operating in the Quad-Cities Area on the Mississippi.

Basically their position is that federal regulations state they are able to operate a radio station without license during wartime.

Re:We have a pirate radio station here...

[fishbowl]

"Basically their position is that federal regulations state they are able to operate a radio station without license during wartime."

Do they have a chapter and verse cite for that regulation, and, is it also part of the body of law that defines what "war" is?

There is some debate as to whether the current period is genuinely called "wartime", because some requirements are not being met (e.g., gas and food rationing, limits on contractor profit-taking, that sort of thing.)

Re:We have a pirate radio station here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The following looks like the law they are trying to stand behind. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cg i?TITLE=47&PART=73&SECTION=3542&TYPE=TEXT
Authority may be granted, on a temporary basis, in extraordinary circumstances requiring emergency operation to serve the public interest. such situations include: emergencies involving danger to life and property; a national emergency proclaimed by the President or the Congress of the U.S.A and; the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged, and where such action is necessary for the national defense or security or otherwise in furtherance of the war effort.

Re:We have a pirate radio station here...

[fishbowl]

"Authority may be granted, on a temporary basis, in extraordinary circumstances requiring emergency operation to serve the public interest."

If that's their case, they lose!

It's called "Harmful Interference" and is rude. .

[ishpeck]

I want to sit down in an interview with Stephen Dunifer and every time he goes to answer one of my questions, interrupt him by screaming, or singing as loudly as I can. In fact, whenever he speaks, somebody needs to start shouting, or blowing whistles --- disrupt his communications and see how he likes it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to transmit in the commercial broadcasting bands --- if you wanna do that, you should be able to. But interfering with those who are using those bands is just plain rude. It's like interrupting people in a conversation. It really undermines the entire purpose behind radio transmissions -- which is to COMMUNICATE!

If you log into an IRC channel and flood the screen with random text you copy and paste from around your hard drive, you're going to get booted ASAP because it disrupts communications and disrupts the entire purpose of the chat server.

Maybe the FCC needs t'make it easier to get a license to broadcast -- I'm all for that. But thinking you're some kind of courageous freedom-fighter when you're really just a gigantic jerk-face with a penchant for harmful interference doesn't do much to earn my sympathy for your cause.

And it's not like the FCC is the effing red-coats out to over-tax your tea. Of all the federal institutions, they're among the least imposing -- THEY ARE THERE TO HELP MAINTAIN COMMUNICATIONAL INTEGRITY. For all their faults, they still try to do their job and they try not to be annoying dorks about it. Of all government agencies to fight, the FCC really should be on the very bottom of your list.

Yes, I believe everyone should be on the air: Radio communications is a very useful tool that has helped civilization quite a lot. Anyone who wishes to be a part of that should definitely participate. Nobody has the right to participate at the expense of another's communicative abilities, though. That's not the kind of radio anyone should want to be a part of.

So if the FCC doesn't bust into their houses and take their transmitters away, SOMEBODY should. Like their mommies and daddies or something.

The legal route!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marge, you're my wife, I love you very much, but you're living in a world of make-believe! With flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats."

Transmission range limit?

[phorm]

What is the FCC limitation on the range of a transmitter? I'm fairly sure the transmitter itself isn't illegal, because there are plenty of off-the-shelf devices out there that you can plug into your car lighter socket + ipod/mp3-player/CD-player/cellphone/etc and broadcast at XX.X frequency to be received by your AM/FM radio. For some of them, the signal is likely strong enough to hit the car(s) next to you if they happen to be on the same station.

Re:Transmission range limit?

[ArtStone]

At the risk of introducing facts into a Slashdot thread...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#UNLICENSED

Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section 15.239, and the July 24, 1991 Public Notice. On the AM broadcast band, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR Sections 15.207, 15.209, 15.219, and 15.221. These devices must accept any interference caused by any other operation, which may further limit the effective service range. For more information on Part 15 devices, please see OET Bulletin No. 63 ("Understanding the FCC Regulations for Low-Power, Non-Licensed Transmitters"). Questions not answered by this Bulletin can be directed to the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, Customer Service Branch, at the Columbia, Maryland office, phone (301) - 362 - 3000, e-mail LabHelp@fcc.gov.

Also, in 2000 the FCC created a new class of FM licenses that operate at low power (up to 100 watts with a 3.5 mile range):
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/index.html

To obtain a low power FM License, it must be owned by a non-profit educational entity. There are currently 754 of these stations in operation. Want to operate a low power FM "pirate" station? Create a non-profit entity, and hire a radio engineer to properly build the station and sign off on the FCC license so it doesn't interfere with any existing licensed stations.

But you can't make any money doing this... but your local church could fill up the FM band with "pirate" stations teaching you about Jesus - Be Healed Sinners! Happy now? :)

Load of crap

[sowth]

Holy shit. All they need to filter those out are a few resistors and capacitors. It is easy to calculate the values. Any amature electronics geek could do it. It was discussed in my first semester of electronics.

This is no different than how the Taliban says those who create normal pr0n movies will also create suff films, child pr0n, and other unsavory things. It is a load of crap.

Re:Load of crap

[unitron]

If you still believe that the problem is that trivial I'm guessing that that was your only semester of electronics.

Re:Load of crap

[sowth]

Whatever you say Mr Self-proclaimed Electronics Master.

Even if the power output of RP amp is high enough to cause interference by itself and no shielding was used, then the amature radio geek will still know there is a problem because his voltmeter will be jumping around even when he doesn't have it connected to anything.

Don't DRM my AM, please.

[mactari]

This was originally going to be a quick reply to someone talking about CB, but I haven't seen HD addressed nor the advantages of analog decoding/receiving, so here goes...

The problem with CB is that CB isn't installed in everyone's car and walkman. This is like fighting Microsoft by dumping into the ocean every copy of Microsoft Office -- for Macintosh.

Having the FCC reserve a swath of AM bandwidth for citizen broadcasts is a much better idea. Lots of open space during the day, inexpensive and very simple to construct transmitters, and you can listen to the broadcasts using radios that don't require power. And, surprisingly, 95% of drivers can listen with the radios they've already got installed in their cars. That's democracy-building (or whatever kind of society you're trying to construct).

That's also what concerns me with 'High Definition' (HD), aka digital, radio. Will we displace analog broadcast? Will we be able to continue building radios that work for free -- rather, will those radios have a signal they can decode in 70 years, or will we be digitally bound? Don't DRM my AM, please. This is a simple technology found in 95% of cars and I'd daresay 99.99% of homes (and anyone with a dime store and $5) that can pick up broadcasts from hundreds of miles away. For the sake of shoving bucks to radio manufacturers, giving a little extra income for the gov't, and a few new stations, we're willing to throw that network away. Bad news. Let them eat UHF.

How do you stop the currently fatalistic drive to HD, when every group with lobbying power (incl. the gov't) is in on the take? This is a hard sell for your typical voter, as the replies of what's generally an above-averagely tech savvy group like /. to this thread show we're not exactly well-informed about the tech behind radio. Is there really an advantage to not just consumer but citizen in moving to digital setups? I'm not sure there is.

False Fact

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the AM band (and it's 3 meters, not 3 feet, for the antenna plus ground line). For FM, it's 250 microvolts/meter measured at 3 meters, IIRC.

Re:It's called "Harmful Interference" and is rude.

[faedle]

The vast majority of "pirate radio stations" are not interfering with licensed stations legitimately serving a particular market. In fact, a 10 watt transmitter like most of Dunifer's does not simply have the power to overpower a 100kW Class C FM station. In most of Los Angeles, where the only available slot was 104.7 MHz, it was not uncommon for a 50 watt station I was affiliated with to have problems with a station 50 miles away "interfering" on the same frequency. Were we causing "problems" for that station and their listeners? Hell, no.

Almost without exception, pirates are choosing frequencies that are not used locally, and operating stations that never exceed much more than 50 watts (most of them are in the 5-10 watt range). I can count on one hand the pirates who have even the technical competance to keep a high-power transmitter on the air, let alone actually own one.

Your analogy is not even correct. It is more likely to say that people are in a big outdoor auditorium, where the speaker is using a professional PA system, and the pirate radio operator has collected a bunch of his friends on a lawn near the back and is talking to them at a normal speaking volume.

An even better question is this. The "popularity" of unlicensed FM is only increasing. Isn't this an interesting sign to the professional broadcasters that there is a market segment they are not appealing to? Why are they not serving this market segment? Could it be that as a near-monopoly, they can ignore market forces?

There should be a broadcast spectrum that belongs to everybody. There isn't. That needs to change.

Arrg maties story is 5 days too late arrg!

[davidwr]

Arrg!

re: Citizen's Band

[King_TJ]

The problem is, giving the people "citizen's band" as the solution is akin to giving a thirsty person a glass with just a few drops of water in the bottom of it.

CB radio, for starters, isn't enough spectrum. (Look at the more expensive "single sideband" CB radios that try to squeeze additional channels between the usual 40. I remember owning one of those for a little while, and the clarity and range on sideband was awful -- not to mention being incompatible with most other people's CB radios that didn't have the same feature.)

Plus, the FCC limits the broadcasting power of CB to around 4 watts. That's not enough to be useful at all, really. That's why all the truckers who actually use CB on a daily basis run illegal power amplifiers with theirs. (That also means you're going to get drowned out if you try to operate one within the law.)

The antennas required to make one work well are huge, too. In today's world where everyone is familiar with a cellphone, it seems ridiculous by comparison.

CB is really only practical for short 2-way conversations. (The whole thing of reserving channel 9 for reporting emergencies is a good example of CB being used effectively, for example.) It's not even remotely similar to giving the common citizen a way to broadcast his/her own radio show for the enjoyment of the general listening audience.

Re:why? Why Not? It may work.

[SueAnnSueAnn]

Many of us are tired of the cooperate media; it is apparent that the free flow of information is not a priority with the suites. For the time being some of this alternative media is available on the Internet. Taking the Internet with is not cheap, so why not use the spectrum, which belongs to the people in the first place. The idea that the government owns "The Airwaves" does not set very will with many people. In reality, this tactic worked for Citizens Band Radio. (Class D CB) The FCC couldn't control 35+ million CB radio users and in 1976 dropped the licensing requirement. Now to the present... This tactic is likely to work save one catch. FM stations near the borders may put the US in violation of ITU treaties. Until this issue is resolved, it is very likely those stations near the Mexican and Canadian borders may be the ones forced off the air. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out given the Police State the US has evolved into of late. Sue

Harm

[Z34107]

Is there any actual evidence that pirate FM broadcasters cause chaos?

Yes; a previous poster noted that he (in Britain) could not pick up local BBC stations because of interference from poorly-broadcasted pirate FM.

Besides, the FCC is "complaint driven" - unless someone whines, they have little reason to do anything. And nobody will whine unless there's some amount of chaos. (Not much, mind you - people are whiny - but chaos nonetheless.

Re: Citizen's Band

[cayenne8]

Howdy!

I'd just posted above about me getting a CB. I don't know much about them...hadn't tried using one since the 70's.

Can you recommend a good antenna for me? This it being used on a miata..so, is a short, small car. I can't seem to receive with any clarity unless the truck/car is within eyesight.

I got a RS unit with weather, and one of their magnetic antennas...about 3'-4' tall.

I've just started reading about the linear amps....do you have any links or info on those? Not that I'd use anything illegal, but, for education purposes might be fun to study.

:-)

In a moving vehicle?

[tepples]

Whoever wants to listen to them, use Internet streams, these are just fine.

How do I get Internet streams on a bus?

Re:In a moving vehicle?

[BibelBiber]

Ever tried a Podcast on a bus? In Germany all major broadcasting stations offer a vast amount of podcasts, not to forget our chancellor herself offering a podcast on politics.

Re:addendum/capitalism

[Dravik]

All elastic mechanisims are able to expand and contract throught the ownership, purchase and sale of land. How can you produce more coffee beans to fill supply if you can't get more land? How can you produce more widgets when the land for your new factory has been alocated to a coffee beans maker who can't sell his beans?

Re:My 1000th post

[tepples]

how pathetic is it really that I've posted here 1000 times... what a complete waste of time!

I am more pathetic than you.

In the car?

[tepples]

There is a community broadcast for education license that can be had for next to nothing if not for free.

It may be something to consider. What is the URL of the FCC's web page that describes this process?

If these people want a voice, take it to the internet. Streaming audio and video using the same studio equipment is possible

How do I receive an Internet audio stream in a moving vehicle?

anyone with broadband can do it.

What percent of, say, rural America does broadband reach?

Re:It's called "Harmful Interference" and is rude.

[wibald]

You know, this whole thread has really surprised me. The same /. crowd that rallies around every new DRM crack and, by and large, calls FUD on every new **AA pronouncement this time seems to be totally in ClearChannel's pocket. How is this possible? Does the belief in free exchange of information end at the digital/analog divide? Even if these pirate stations were a serious threat to the signal integrity of whichever monopolitistic media entity controls the airwaves in their locale, which is very doubtful, shouldn't we be supporting their efforts to broaden the public dialogue? There may be "legal" ways to do this with educational licenses (though there are hurdles to getting these licences approved) but there are "legal" ways to do a lot of things lauded on this site (you could always buy that second copy of LOTR to give to your friend). Why are people so quick to to jump into Big Corporate's, er..., pocket on this issue?

As it should be

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Resistance is futile

You're Right!

[Aqua_boy17]

Besides, who wants to hear nothing but a bunch of boring pirate songs anyway. I mean how many times can you play "Yo, Ho, Yo, Ho, a pirate's life fer me..." without driving people absolutely nuts? oH, wait...

Re: Citizen's Band

[rhandir]

Skip the linear amps. Seriously.
If you pipe more power into a bad antenna, you'll be a little louder, sure. But it won't make anyone else louder. It won't improve reception. Only a better antenna will improve reception.

Meanwhile, as you are pumping more power into that bad antenna, you are increasing the range at which you can kinda-sorta be heard. In other words, you are creating interference for some other guy out there. Don't do that either. You don't want to be that guy annoying people in New Jersey when you live in Connecticut.

A good antenna gets you more dB's (more power in/out) for less dollars per dB than you can afford to buy in an amplifier. There's even a bunch of free antenna designs you can build out there on the net. Go look for them, and have some fun playing with radios.

Re: Citizen's Band

[cayenne8]

"If you pipe more power into a bad antenna, you'll be a little louder, sure. But it won't make anyone else louder."

Thanks for the helpful reply!!

I'm not real talented with tools (hence I have none), so building an antenna is a no go for me.

Any suggestions for a good brand antenna, or what to look for in one?

I prefer the magnetic mount ones, so I can easily remove if need be...I've heard longer ones are better...mine is about 3'-4' tall I think...would screwing a longer one in its place be better?

Complaint driven

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Are the incumbent broadcasters complaining about being interfered with, or about being competed with?

A low-power transmitter with an antenna close to the ground is not going to result in licensed stations being "pushed off the airwaves". With decent engineering (true, that's not a given) the most it could do is cause local interference to shoddy receivers.

Screwing up air traffic

[Kombat]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the "inconvenience" aspect of this, rather than the very real and much more important "safety" aspect of this. Civil aviation uses a band of frequencies just slightly above those used for commercial FM broadcasts. If a bunch of selfish, ignorant anarchists start broadcasting on the same frequency as the emergency locator beacon (121.5/243 MHz), or a local navigational beacon, or the ATIS information, or a nearby FSS... this would cause a great deal of problems for aircraft.

In this day and age, with the Internet and podcasts making it easier and cheaper than ever to reach the biggest audience ever, why is this movement surfacing with some seemingly pointless, rebellious desire to "reclaim" airwaves they never owned in the first place?

Inherently funny...?

[RMB2]

I, for one, welcome our new airwave overlords

why bother

[Anonymous Coward]

the internet is here, we don't need radio anymore. These people need to upgrade to the internet.

"Romex connectors"

[n6kuy]

WTF???

Re:"Romex connectors"

[kamakazi]

hmmm, last time I looked, Romex was normally used to describe house wiring, came in 14, 12, and 10 gauge, in eith 2 or 3 insulated conductors, plus a bare ground. Not sure exactly where in a transmitter one would use that....

Do we need new channels of information?

[doom]

Just to raise a contrarian point of view: is there really any need for new channels of information? Having some locally focused radio stations with unique content sounds like a cool idea, all right, but in point of fact there already are quite a few of them out there. There are a bunch of college radio stations, as well as some run by non-profits (e.g. the Pacifica stations). Do any of you listen to them? Do you have any idea what they do?

In practice, most people seem to be satisfied with really dumbed-down, homogenous media (clear channel and the like).

Typically a pirate broadcast will sound more interesting to me than corporate radio, but they don't usually sound like they really know very much about what they're doing. They're like beginning college radio DJs.

Re:My 1000th post

[Ingolfke]

Oh my! You have descended into the depths of hell.

Just declare them domestic terrorists

[nurb432]

Then they can sick the entire resources of the Federal and state governments, not just the small budget the FCC has.

ClearChannel

[/dev/trash]

Is only giving the people what they want.

Booyaka-Sha! $

[Anonymous Coward]

En Tee

Its about ignorance, stupid!

[gillbates]

On the other hand, brainwashing kids to think that Creationism has any validity and is as credible a theory as Evolution does cause actual long-term harm to their intelligence, and to our country as a whole. It may be a neat story, but if our future textbooks discount real science and promote fairy tales as the truth, the rest of the world is going to leave us far, far behind.

I hate to feed the trolls, but I couldn't resist replying to this. My 7th grade textbook - with no references to Creationism, mind you - described the orbit of satellites as being in a constant state of free fall. The rationale was that the satellite was moving so quickly that the Earth moved out from under it as it fell, hence, it never hit the Earth.

No, I'm not kidding. This is what was taught. Nothing about counterbalancing forces, inertia, acceleration, etc... The explanation was dumbed down and just plain wrong - ostensibly because the author felt that 7th graders just couldn't understand gravity. Perhaps the author himself didn't understand it.

Creationism has never been a threat to our collective intelligence. Rather, it is the culture of ignorance - one which says, "Let the scientific expert tell me what to believe..." which is far more detrimental. Yes, science can unlock a greater understanding of the universe. But far too many people have been taught to trust science, and comply without a shred of any logical thought or analysis whatsoever. Most people who insist Global Warming is happening couldn't answer the question: By how much? Most high school graduates could not explain Newton's laws, or even the limitations of science. (For example, would the scientific method be appropriate for studying religion? Why or why not?) Yet these same people place an unabashed trust in science - something they don't truly understand. At least the Creationist understands what he believes, and the limitations thereof. Who is more ignorant - the one who professes absolute faith in something they can't understand, or one who is aware of the limitations of their own knowledge?

Even so, science curriculum in most public schools is so poorly constructed that the world will leave us behind anyway. Even should Creationism never again be mentioned in schools, the underlying attitude of ignorance will still take its toll on future generations. It's about ignorance, not Creationism.

Re:Its about ignorance, stupid!

[brianosaurus]

Yes. Ignorance is the underlying problem. "Creationism vs Evolution" was a specific example I chose to illustrate the point.

In particular I was responding to the last paragraph in your previous post. I do not find religion offensive; I believe it is a personal choice, and that I should not impose my religious views on others. Rather I prefer religious freedom, where you are free to practice whatever you choose, so long as you don't impose your religion on me. So as religion is private, but not offensive it does not follow that swearing, while perhaps offensive to an ignorant minority, need not be private.

On the other hand, whereas swearing is pretty harmless (except perhaps if it exceeds 85db for over a minute, which could potentially cause permanent damage to ones hearing), the teaching of creationism (or "intelligent design" if you prefer that term) in schools goes beyond ignorance, and is teaching things that are untrue as a replacement for scientific fact.

I do not automatically accept the word of a supposed "Authority Figure" (ie, these "scientific experts" you mention in whom some people place their trust) as fact. For example, I believe in gravity because if I let go of something it falls, not because some guy named "Newton" observed the same thing a few centuries earlier.

I'm assuming your 7th grade text book was older than mine was. Scientific knowledge expands over time, largely due to technological progress. Before microscopes no one could see cells, or molecules, or atoms, or electrons, or quarks, so there wasn't a whole lot written about them back then. Science also builds on itself by applying new information as it is observed. Maybe your "dumbed down" text book was wrong (it happens), or maybe it is correct based on the knowledge a 7th grader should have.

The current computer science curriculum at the college I attended is entirely different from what was taught to me 15 years ago. For example, they use Java, while Java didn't exist when I was in school. That doesn't mean that what I learned was wrong, its just different. I learned what was current in the early 90's, and today's students are learning with more powerful languages than those I used. With the strong foundation I received through my education, I can apply concepts I learned back then to the languages of today.

On the other hand, the Bible hasn't changed much to reflect the differences over the last 5000 or so years, nevermind the last century. Then again, neither has Moby Dick. Or most other works of fiction. They're good stories as they are. But I wouldn't use them as a scientific reference, or teach them as factual.

high usernumbers? the number of the devil ?

[freaker_TuC]

Dear Ingolfke,


I can tell by your high /. # that you're relatively new here. Soon you'll realize that this isn't the God for geeks and nerds... there is no library at Congress here... this is not the Beetle for Internet nerds. But... clearly by your response it's obvious you will understand this simply by me telling you. So, older learner, continue in your posts and some day you will realize the truth.

1. Smile, this is meant humoristic ;)
   
2. Although I find it quite funny to post because my usernumber is way lower than yours is ;)
   
3. It's still just a number, not representing the intellect of the person behind it ...
   

Re:Rights? LPFM

[white_owl]

This article is more topical than most people think because it ties into a current legislative fight about Low Power FM (LPFM) radio.

Partly in response to a legal case in which this same Stephen Dunifer was acquitted from FCC prosecution by pointing out that the FCC had not provided a mechanism for him to get a valid licence, the FCC created a Low Power FM service in 2000. http://www.diymedia.net/feature/micro/f100901.htm describes this process in Michigan and Washington DC. Congress then rushed to gut this service by limiting the number of locations that could get these licenses (by increasing the required spacing in frequency between LPFM stations and other FM stations the third adjacent rule http://www.prometheusradio.org/low_power_radio/bac kground/some_facts_about_low_power_fm.html [at the bottom]). They did this even though FCC tests demonstrated that this was not necessary. As the above link suggests, there are also currently many radio stations that do operate at the closer frequency spacing without problems.

In 2004 a report commissioned by congress as part of the don't-allow-new-stations-we need-more-study legislation was released (Mitre report). This report suggested that the frequency specifications could be relaxed. There are now bills in congress (House Bill 3731, Senate Bill 312) to relax these restrictions. Currently two FCC commissioners (Copps and Adelstein) are traveling around taking public comments abut this and other public issues.

If either the increasing concentration media ownership or the sameness of radio programming bother you, it might be wise to let your congress people know that you care about these issues

Re: Citizen's Band

[rhandir]

First tip would be to check to make sure you've got a good bit of metal underneath your magnetic mount antenna. The roof or trunk act as a radio frequency reflector (ground), effectively doubling the length of your vertical antenna. Second tip would be to check out the threads and connections to your current antenna, and make sure that they are clean. No loc-tite, no oil, dirt, grease, etc. Sure, longer is better. But only the right kind of long. Here's a few things you should know. You can calculate how long an ideal antenna should be really easily: Length = 468/Freq, which for CB works out to be: length = 468/27.2 = 17 feet, 2-1/2 inches. That makes little difference, because a half-wavelength (half height) vertical antenna works out to have the same characteristics at about 8.8 feet long. Still pretty big, so you can "electrically" shorten it using a coil, where you trade off reception on some bands for others. (5/8's of a full wavelength is a pretty good tradeoff also, for other reasons, and 1/4 wavelength is also good enough for practical use.) Here's a good general reference from Radio Shack: http://support.radioshack.com/support_tutorials/co mmunications/67159.htm Brand makes little difference, despite people's prejudices. Obviously, don't buy generic. This guy: http://signalengineering.com/ultimate/mobile_anten nas.html has the real deal on why certain antennas work the way they do, and what to look for. (Plus some tips on how to make it work right.) He's of the opinon that all coiled antennas work about the same. (There's some difference of opinion there.) This link is okay, even though its a manufacturer's site. They make things pretty clear. http://www.firestik.com/Tech_Docs.htm

Re:My 1000th post

[IMightB]

Damn... I haven't seen that low of a UID in a long time. I've been reading slashdot since 97, and have gone through about 10-12 different ID's because I always forgot them. I think that my original one was somewhere in the low 10K area.....

just ramblin.

WFMN

[fatboy]

Edwin H. Armstrong went on the air as an FM broadcaster with as test transmitter in Alpine, NJ, April 10, 1938. Operating 600 watts of power at 43.7 MHz with callsign W2XMN.

Mod parent up

[oSand]

Oh wait, heh, I saw the words "FCC" and "ill-conceived crusade" and just assumed...

there was no content feed backbone in the 60s

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in the 1960s there was:

1. No cheap digital radio signal backbone, which there is now in Internet radio

2. No vast sources of content, pirate and free, that can be routed direct to air - if you want a station of nothing but Jello Biafra, Lewis Black and Stephen Colbert, that is no problem. Especially if you don't pay their agents and just put it all on the air!

3. No upcoming digital infrastructure ready to take over listeners in case you shut down, so you can never really truly be totally shut down.

The FCC is toast. And if you think this is fun, wait until they try to shut down all NTSC TV and force you to throw out your existing TV and watch HD crap on commercial stations. Why should you? Those existing TVs will ALL be tuned to pirate stations because there won't BE anything else allowed on those bands. HD will be forced onto other bands entirely, in part because sophisticated modern TVs are easy to shift over to them. While old TVs that could be from the 1960s to early 1990s can't switch, and will end up as the new screen base of pirate TV. Same for the old transistor radios.

FCC will end up ruling nothing: the digital FM and commercial HD stations hosted in the US. Which could be zero, because modern infrastructure doesn't require anyone to host anything in the US.

There were cypherpunks planning this assault on the FCC eight or nine years ago. They were just waiting until now. Some of the more infamous 'punks have been involved in legislative lobbying in the interim, too, learning the skills required to fight off the commercial media barons. My money's on them, not on Fox News HD...