Slashdot Mirror
Despite FCC's Promise To Take Aggressive Action To Stamp Out Radio Pirates, Illegal Stations Are Flourishing (newyorker.com)
Last year, when Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai chairman of the F.C.C., Pai promised to "take aggressive action" to stamp out pirates. In early May, the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement, or PIRATE, Act was introduced in Congress; it would increase fines from a maximum of a hundred and forty-four thousand dollars to two million dollars. But the stations aren't going away, The New Yorker reports. From the article: Transmission equipment has only become cheaper and more sophisticated. "The problem, as I see it, is that the technology has gone beyond what the law has been able to do," said David Goren, a local resident who works as a producer on licensed radio shows. Between 87.9 and 92.1 FM, Goren counted eleven illegal stations, whose hosts mainly spoke Creole or accented English. Pirates, he said, "offer a kind of programming that their audiences depend on. Spiritual sustenance, news, immigration information, music created at home or in the new home, here."
Pirate radio? They should make an app for that. Maybe call it Arrrrrrrdio?
Don't worry, I'll show myself out
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The public airwaves are not a free market and never have been. They've always been tightly regulated.
The reality is that the FCC is an underfunded and incompetent extension of the RF industry. They will attempt to protect broadcast spectrum, and fail. While leaving the rest of the spectrum to rot on the tree.
They rarely enforce and have been reduced, through ongoing budget reductions, to in some cases turning the enforcement over to the actual users of licensed spectrum. They've closed there local offices, fired their engineers, all while giving lip service to the job they should be doing. Heck- I'm pretty sure they do not even have the ability to triangulate to find a pirate station.
They don't even stop illegal radio equipment from being imported- then sold everywhere from big box stores to truck stops.
Good luck... They cannot even clean up problem frequencies where *everyone* knows who the offenders are.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Why not just get these people licensed? It seems less expensive than chasing these people around when there's better things the FCC could be doing.
The correct term for them is "undocumented radio stations".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
it would increase fines from a maximum of a hundred and forty-four thousand dollars to two million dollars.
That will do absolutely nothing to deter the pirate radio stations, which seldom are for-profit entities, but special interest and religious kooks.
They can't afford $144,000 either, so it doesn't matter whether you raise this. As long as people think they won't get caught, it doesn't matter how harsh the penalty is.
Too high fines even work against the intention, in that you might report your neighbor for running an illegal radio station if he was facing a $1,000 fine, but won't do so if he risks $144,000 or $2,000,000. Ruining a person's life is not something all of us are willing to do, even if they were the ones who broke the law.
(This is also why excessive prison terms for certain crimes make things worse, not better.)
Illegal Radio Abuse..... ....as opposed to the legal kind?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Do they actually have advertisers? One would think that if an ad for Bob's Discount Autos was heard on a "pirate" radio station then a visit from the FCC and a fine would encourage Bob to not advertise and thus the radio station would go away fairly quickly. If the power requirements are so low that the stations need not advertise then perhaps a more reasonable approach would be a low cost for low power broadcast license?
Most are low power and doing nothing much except be hobbyist projects.
Is that really worth a $2,000,000 Fine?
Just create a special low power license and limit it to noncommercial use.
I'm curious how their audience finds them? If you setup a pirate radio station, do you always use a specific frequency even if you're forced to abandon your transmitter or gets seized?
Is the transmission equipment so cheap that pirate stations essentially don't care if it gets seized? They're probably more worried about finding another choice rooftop location with power than the transmitter itself?
How do they manage backhaul? My guess is that you would have the "studio" and the transmitter at different locations.
'Pirates, he said, "offer a kind of programming that their audiences depend on. Spiritual sustenance, news, immigration information, music created at home or in the new home, here."' Wow! I would be delighted if pirate stations did that in London. Here they all seem to play the same sort of music and shout all over it.
Why bother with pirate radio these days?
You can stream anything you like on the internet. Unlike the FM spectrum, there is an unlimited amount of "channels" available. No risk of getting punished. 20 years ago, pirate radio was a desperate way to be heard - or make some money. But now you can do it risk free on the net. So why pirate radio?
Anything you do on the internet is recorded and logged in perpetuity. I'm not sure how Uncle Sam will use your music choice against you. Maybe blackmail you and threaten to tell your SO you listen to nickel back if you don't do as they say.
Best play it safe and listen to pirate radio. Uncle Sam can't log what you listen to over the airwaves. Listen to Nickel Back without fear of repurcussions.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Anyone else getting flashbacks of Naked Gun 2½ when reading these new stupid backward-designed acronyms?
"I'm very proud to welcome our guests from the nation's energy suppliers.
First, head of the Society of Petroleum lndustry Leaders - better known as SPIL, Mr Terence Baggett.
Now, chairman of the Society for More Coal Energy, or SMoCE, Mr Donald Fenwick.
And president of the Key Atomic Benefits Office Of Mankind - KABOOM, Mr Arthur Dunwell."
#DeleteFacebook
Because every link is Rick Astley.
Have gnu, will travel.
From where have you bought the mask ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Well there was that time the FBI was "CERTAIN" that the Kingsmen were encoding a communist agenda into "Louie Louie" (No, I'm not kidding!).
You have joined us in the brave world of common knowledge... the knowledge that the severity of the fine is rarely a deterrent of crime.
So what if I'm listening to one of these stations with spurious emissions or exceedingly high dBm level near their broadcast area with a drifting transmitter, and an EAS message comes through on an adjacent station? Now all of a sudden, the PLL lock on the radio does the funky chicken trying to figure out what signal to lock onto and an entire area listening to the emergency message doesn't get all of it because of the pirate station. That puts lives at risk.
There's a reason we regulate spectrum. We don't want to go back to the days before the FCC when rescue ships were being sent to the middle of the North Atlantic in the winter because of fake distress calls just so we could avoid another Titanic disaster. We certainly don't want existing licensees who have paid good money and are subject to regulations and fines to be run over by unlicensed idiot operators. I have enough problems as a ham and shortwave listener dealing with RFI from poorly choked solar inverters and other garbage out there.
So while not all pirates are harmful, they most certainly can be at the wrong moment. There needs to be a crackdown and proper enforcement by the FCC.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Funny how this same organization sponsors international commercial and amateur broadcasting regulations. Whiff. Try again.
Indeed the charter doesn't limit freedom of expression. I don't advocate that at all, either. To do so in a civil way requires removing anarchy from the airwaves. Try living in SE Asia and finding out what airwave/radio madness is all about.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Well there was that time the FBI was "CERTAIN" that the Kingsmen were encoding a communist agenda into "Louie Louie" (No, I'm not kidding!).
Yes, I remember reading about that. Another theory was that the song was lewd and immoral. There was a study to see if the song was subversive and after weeks of study the end report was that the song was unintelligible. I wonder how much was spent to determine that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Why do law-enforcement agencies feel the need to come up with a cheesy acronym or smarmy rhyme for everything they do? Does some government drone feel a real sense of accomplishment every time they perpetuate this annoying practice?
I'm sure I'd care a lot more about this if I Heart Media didn't own half the spectrum, playing the same garbage across all of it. My wife and I have a game we play in the car, where we try to guess how many stations are playing the latest top 40 hit simultaneously. Highest we've seen is four. Four different stations all playing the same goddamn song at the same time. With internet and satellite radio ubiquitous, we really need to start reevaluating how we prioritize the spectrum.
And they wonder why they're not objects of respect and trust...
There's far more depth to the issue. Rationalizing incivility is a slippery slope. You don't know me, don't know what I do, but you're easy to cast judgment.
In the poster's case, he's admitted running two pirate radio stations with ostensible altruistic motives as his rationalization for doing so. I'm not a cop and don't want to be one. But I do listen avidly to radio, and know both public media and commercial broadcasters, who must deal with the problem that the poster creates.
It's not all about me. It's about everyone that tries to listen to radio. I'm no fan of the current FCC, but for a while, it did a reasonable job of protecting the airwaves. Its funding has been cut to the bone by its board, who prefers to fly on PR missions around the country, rather than protect the medium.
That said, falling into anarchy isn't going to serve anyone. Like guns, having zillions of broadcasters isn't going to help anyone.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The public airwaves are not a free market and never have been. They've always been tightly regulated.
No they haven't. They were around a long time before government decided to regulate them.
I still want first-hand accounts of these pirate stations, but from TFA it sounds like these are part of 'The Resistance' against the current administration.
Lots of that going on. There will be those that keep getting them renewed, those drivers licenses, and still have insurance.
A neighbor recently was hit by someone with neither license or insurance. Not quite two hundred grand worth of medical bills, not to mention no car, but he still has to do the payments. His uninsured motorist pays a bit, but not for the car.
Some try to keep civil, despite the incompetence of a bribed government. Some don't. Some try to work for change, others make up their own rules, or have none at all.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I'd rather they took a stab at telemarketing phone calls. 50% of my calls are from spammers at this point.
Can't be having people saying just anything over unused radio frequencies.
There are no unused radio frequencies.
What you think are "unused frequencies" are actually used by a station far enough away that YOU can't hear them, but would be interfered with if there was a station using them where you are.
The fight against the free market continues.
The use of the public airwaves is not a "free market", it is a licensed market. Almost as soon as radio was invented, reasonable people realized it needed to be controlled so it would stay usable. Imagine YOUR delight when your favorite FM station playing your favorite radical hippy music was covered up by a paging system because there were no laws regulating who was licensed to do what. "You can get anything you want, at Alice's BRRRFFZZZZZZQQQQQQQQ..." Now imagine if your favorite FM station that you invested money in installing an external antenna so you could get the news and music you wanted from a distance was suddenly covered up by a pirate station two blocks away that played nothing but Devo songs interspersed with profane rants about the FCC.
but who listens to the radio anymore ?
I haven't tuned in any stations in the car for years. They're still set to whatever the factory defaults are.
The receiver in my living room has no antenna connected to it and has no stations programmed either.
Maybe they don't care about Pirate stations because so few even bother to listen any more.
Um.. if a radio is intended to be used illegally, then is using it really "abuse?"
Turning the radio off, or going behind its back and getting a legal permit, would be ways to abuse it.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Seriously, this just sounds like more Federal govt. B.S. Over-promising they're going to get tough on something that's not practical or even clearly necessary.
Pirate radio?! This is the era where terrestrial radio is a dying thing in America. I know a surprisingly number of people who upgraded factory stereos in their vehicles and didn't even bother to reattach the antenna because they "never use the radio part anyway".
If the pirate stations are really interfering with reception of legitimate ones, then I'm sure complaints will get filed and they can go after those specific offenders. But it makes no sense to turn this into a crusade? The few times I've heard a pirate station operating near where I lived, it was someone running really low wattage on a frequency between a couple legitimate ones. They had a small group of fans who would go out to certain store parking lots just to tune them in, because they were unable to hear them from their homes. We're talking maybe a 2 mile radius.....
The amendment would ban naming proposed legislation or laws in such a way as to make acronyms of the law spell out real words, because there's no reason why this proposed law has to have this as its name, other than because they thought it would be cute to call it the "PIRATE" act. We could call it the Final Universal Constitutional Knowledge Yet Amending Legal Legislation, or the "FUCK Y'ALL Amendment". Because, as this amendment points out, right there in its name, the name has little to do with the law in question, it's just there to make the acronym spell something funny.
It is important to note that this "PIRATE" Act cost us MONEY, in the form of paychecks to lawmakers to draft this shit, and they had to spend some time, (or pay someone else, out of our money) to spend some time figuring out which words to use to make the name of the law's acronym spell out whatever they want it to spell.
BETTER YET, make the law that if the acronym happens to spell out (or come really close to spelling out,) a real, actual word, that the words used to make it spell that MUST be changed to the first word in the dictionary, (whichever one they use in Congress,) starting with that letter, having at least the number of letters in the word corresponding to the position in the letter in the acronym (in alphabetical order, in case that wasn't obvious,) and skipping/excluding any word that is an abbreviation, a proper noun, (someone's or something's name,) containing punctuation, symbols, etc., or which is a contraction, or other combination, or which only meets the requirements because of the addition of an ending, (such as "-er" or "-edly",) or which is a one-word alternative form of a hyphenated word pair or group, or which is onomatopoetic, etc.
SO, since they want to call this the "PIRATE Act," The word from which we get P would be the first word starting with P that is at least one letter long. The second word in the actual name would start with I, and be the first that is at least two letters long. The third would be the first word in the dictionary starting with R that is at least three letters long, and so on.
In this case, using the New Oxford American Dictionary, the full name of the "PIRATE Act," would be the...
"The P Iamb Rabbet Abaca Tabard Earnest Act." Try saying THAT three times fast! They should have to call this the "P Iamb Rabbet Abaca Tabard Earnest Act. Maybe then they wouldn't be able to giggle to themselves so much about it, which I just KNOW they're doing. "heheheheh we made it the PIRATE act... hahahahah" They did that using OUR tax dollars, too. That's, I know, a silly thing to be upset about that they did, given all the other abominations and atrocities they've committed only in the last... oh, couple of days or so, in our name, allegedly, with our consent, (hahaha!) and with our tax dollars, (extracted effectively at gunpoint,) but it's REALLY annoying that they keep pulling this shit, and it should STOP.
Under my proposed amendment, they would be exempt from this rule, if the name of the law, when abbreviated, doesn't SPELL anything special, or anything related to the thing being regulated. For example, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (or whatever,) could still be called that, as the treaty has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALT. So calling it SALT is fine. They would be banned, however, from calling any law the "Nuclear Unification Kablooie Escape" Act, because that spells out "NUKE". Click "LIKE" if you agree with this idea. Oh, wait, there's no "LIKE" button. SHIT!
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
He's doing alright.....
Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
Doesn't matter. At a certain point, increasing the punishment isn't going to change jack shit. Hell, I couldn't pay 140k in a lifetime, you think that increasing it would have any effect on me? That's like upping the punishment from life to ten times life. It makes no fucking difference.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When you take a look at what's broadcast, you'll notice that the target audience is probably one that can't easily afford a computer but can probably scrape together the 20 bucks a radio costs.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Come on now!!! Don't be so hard on that government drone. He can't help that he will never be anything but a government drone. That cheesy acronym allows him to justify his 6 figure salary!!!!!!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
The problem is that they are not entirely unused. They are close enough to licensed broadcasts to cause interference for some listeners. To some degree the situation can be resolved by improving the receivers - DSP filtering can handle closer station spacing than traditional designs - but that would mean that the installed base would be obsolete.
On the other hand, there are community needs that are not being addressed by the current system. Entire populations are not being reached by existing legal radio stations because they are not sufficiently lucrative to justify the use of an expensive commercial radio license, and the FCC rules make the availability of low power radio licenses for community broadcasting very limited, especially in the densely populated areas that need them most.
The solution that would provide the greatest public benefit would require existing broadcasters to give up some of their signal coverage to facilitate an expansion of community broadcasting. But that's unlikely to happen, because commercial broadcasters paid millions of dollars for their licenses and are not going to allow an action that would cost them listeners. It would also require some of all of them to cease transmissions in the HD Radio format, which works by expanding the signal into adjacent channels to broadcast its digital sidebands. (HD Radio has the potential benefit of allowing a wider variety of content on FM radio, but in the real world the benefit is very limited because of low adoption of the format.)
You know... LPFM is broken and the AM band is slowly bleeding away. How about this... open the AM bands to low power ( 25 watt) transmitters. Each station pays a minor fee like $20 per year, receives a callsign and agrees to not knowingly interrupt other broadcasters. Sure, some will anyway. The 50kw clear channel stations would still be kings and might even benefit from the new low power stations by gaining some of their audience. The whole issue of music royalties should have no play in the FCC dealings. If someone wants a station on 999kHz to ramble on in Creole about the evils of the FCC, go for it IMHO.
There is some truth here. Current DSP receiver technology has MUCH more rejection of nearby signals than analog receivers had, even the storied RIMO filters in some fabulously expensive McIntosh tuners. If everybody were using DSP receivers, alternate channels could be used without restriction and even adjacent channels could be used under some circumstances. In less technical terms, that would allow us to double the number of FM broadcast stations.
But it would require replacing all the older radios because they would now receive unacceptable amounts of interference when the users tried to listen to existing stations. Aside from the fact that people would oppose the idea because of the expense of buying new radios, it would compromise the response to natural disasters for two reasons: there would be fewer radios out in the world that could receive signals during the disaster, and the new DSP radios might consume more power than the cheap old ones they replace and therefore reduce battery life. That could be mitigated by requiring some stations to leave the air during a disaster, allowing reception of the remaining ones with older radios.
Digital broadcast television now packs in channels much more densely than analog television did, and that's even before counting the existence of subchannels. But it's not because there is anything magic about digital. It's because the adoption of a new standard made all the lousy old receivers obsolete, meaning that the entire base of viewers is now using tuners with DSP filtering.
Switching to digital radio broadcasting would be a completely different path with its own pros and cons. On the plus side it's another way to increase the capacity of the band, as each existing channel could carry a number of digital subchannels. (How many depends on what level of audio quality we're willing to accept.) And it would make all the old poorly designed equipment obsolete, allowing denser packing of the band. On the other hand, it would eliminate all existing pirate operations and legal low power stations and make them much more scarce for a while, because the digital transmission equipment is currently not inexpensive - good for the big broadcasters, bad for community broadcasters. A wholesale switch to digital broadcasting would seriously impact the usefulness of FM radio for disaster response because there would be no existing base of compatible receivers, and the new digital receivers would be costly at the start.
It's slightly more complicated. In some cases those frequencies ARE unused for somebody with a state of the art radio receiver, but not for a listener with the kind of radio that most people own. State of the art in this case means DSP filtering and reception; analog technologies need not apply.
Whatever happened to the low power stations, under 5 watts, that were promised in the '90's?
In some cases those frequencies ARE unused for somebody with a state of the art radio receiver
It is not up to an owner of a "state of the art" (whatever that means) radio receiver to determine if a frequency is unused.
analog technologies need not apply.
The US FM broadcast band is, despite any rumors you might have heard to the contrary, still analog.
The FM broadcast band uses an analog modulation technique. But that doesn't mean that digital technology can't be used to receive it. Or transmit it, for that matter. The current state of the art involves both, though much of the installed base has not caught up.
The point I was making is that the definition of "unused" isn't as simple as all that. How densely you can pack signals into radio spectrum is highly dependent on the kinds of receivers that people are using. We could significantly increase the number of FM broadcast stations that would be allowed on the air if we could magically replace the entire installed base with 2018 DSP-based radios. That's not likely to happen because it would make a huge number of radios that people already own obsolete, but it is true in terms of technology.