Pirate Radio Stations Challenge Feds 348
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.'"
Dupe. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dupe. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
So I hope this all just concerns news and talk radio! lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dupe. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, that the govt would not allow us to make such a choice
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
How so ? Last time I checked, one needed a licence to broadcast on the FM frequencies.
-Jar.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wi
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 shi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Oh, no! Clear Channel might get knocked off the air! What a shame that would be.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
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 reaso
I think I've heard of it... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thoughts on "11 meters" (Score:2)
The
Or just don't interfere with people... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 broa
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Google HAM Radio. The problem has been solved.
Nope, NOT solved. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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 bro
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 $29.99 10 watt transmitter kit off ebay. Can you say splatter? your signal sucks and is splattering all over the band and probably into the avaiation bands. Nothing like that to get the FCC and FAA attention.
3 - do the transmitter right but overdeviate all over the place. Limiter and compressor is REQUIRED. as you scream your rants into the microphone you gotta make sure to not over deviate.
4 - spew hard profanity 24-7. Nothing will get you off the air faster than playing all the fowl mouthed 13 year old boy music out there, or screaming FUCK over and over and over again in the microphone. Someone will hear you, not like it and report you. Profanity on the airwaves is more of an issue to the FCC than you not being licensed.
sadly most pirate radio violates every one of those points.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's kinda their point.
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Did Edwin Armstrong [wikipedia.org] need a license?
I don't think that need means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, he did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a license for the air around you. By chance, does that sound silly and absurd?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I understand the need to regulate broadcast band also, because if you don't it just becomes one huge mess of people transmitting and effectively becomes useless... but the license fees should be a scale that rewards community ownership and local "stuff" as opposed to saying, it costs 10,000$ to apply. That prices out all but the big-boys from playing.
N
why (Score:5, Interesting)
addendum (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
- The fair way to ration scarce resources is to exchange them for other scarce resources.
- 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:why (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 tune
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
somewhat true, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:somewhat true, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
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) [doc.gov]* 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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I think you have confused... (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 li
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 reg
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 c
Everyone love pirates! (Score:5, Funny)
I think for us, especially... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why federal? (Score:3, Insightful)
FCC Mandate (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
When it comes to Anarchy (Score:2)
For example: Let's say that, despite regulations, the cell companies come to an agreement to play nice and cell service con
Fines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Solution is easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
It is ours (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Oh noes! They've got connectors! (Score:2, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes! They've got connectors! (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare with Blogs (Score:2)
Illegal (Score:2)
No, it's just the transmitter which is illegal (but the feds will take all of it, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what an awesome idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no you don't. Unless...
Keith is that you?
Bad analogy (Score:2)
i) any transmitter big enough to go toe-to-toe with
There is a legal route for these people (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 wild
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Anchorage, Alaska. It's the 100
Sure, just like CB... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
The FCC? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey... wait... actually, THAT would be their job, not content censoring...
We have a pirate radio station here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically their position is that federal regulations state they are able to operate a radio station without license during wartime.
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [somafm.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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 tru
Too bad the American Public seems to disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 o
Re:Too bad the American Public seems to disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's called "Harmful Interference" and is rude. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.