Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

66 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe. by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Dupe. by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    2. Re:Dupe. by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 :)

    3. Re:Dupe. by letxa2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    4. Re:Dupe. by weierstrass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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

      --
      my password really is 'stinkypants'
    5. Re:Dupe. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Rights? by Jaruzel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    1. Re:Rights? by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Rights? by Zapd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The imp hits!
    3. Re:Rights? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      I think that's kinda their point.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    4. Re:Rights? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:Rights? by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    6. Re:Rights? by figment · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Rights? by z0idberg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Rights? by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    9. Re:Rights? by Crasoum · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:Rights? by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, time to build a fence around Texas!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Rights? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Rights? by fatboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      Yes, he did.

      --
      --fatboy
    13. Re:Rights? by sbrown123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    14. Re:Rights? by shawngarringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:Rights? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:Rights? by Zigurd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    17. Re:Rights? by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Last time I checked one needed only a transmitter.

      KFG

    18. Re:Rights? by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "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

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    19. Re:Rights? by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:Rights? by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:Rights? by iceph03nix · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
    22. Re:Rights? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  3. why by mikesd81 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    1. Re:why by tsq · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      This sig is Y2K compliant.
    2. Re:why by sandman_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Master of Peng Shui.Ancient oriental art of Penguin Arranging)
    3. Re:why by josecanuc · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:why by Zigurd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Everyone love pirates! by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. I think for us, especially... by demondawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  6. Solution is easy... by minsk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Solution is easy... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.
  7. It is ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Oh noes! They've got connectors! by AWeishaupt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors! by BasharTeg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Viva la resistance!

    2. Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  9. Re:addendum by mikesd81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  10. Yeah, what an awesome idea by tetromino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  11. There is a legal route for these people by GomezAdams · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Too lazy to create a sig...
    1. Re:There is a legal route for these people by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  12. MOD PARENT UP by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

  13. Or just don't interfere with people... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  14. Sure, just like CB... by dtmos · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.
  15. I think I've heard of it... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:I think I've heard of it... by dattaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  16. Why federal? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  17. somewhat true, but... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:somewhat true, but... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:somewhat true, but... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  18. Too bad the American Public seems to disagree. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree. by stealie72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
  19. Re:Pump up the Volume by SenatorTreason · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  20. FCC Mandate by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  21. Monopoly by turbofisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  22. The FCC? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Unfortunately.... by N8F8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  24. I like local, non National by thorkyl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  25. I think you have confused... by gillbates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  26. We have a pirate radio station here... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  27. Re:It's called "Harmful Interference" and is rude. by faedle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.