Consider a New Way to Combat Pirate Radio Stations
Everyone should agree that pirate radio stations – by any definition – are completely illegal. Given other responsibilities and obligations, however, the Commission’s resources are stretched, and it seems that stopping pirate radio is not at the top of the priority list. While this reality is not surprising, we need to consider other ways to remove the scourge that is pirate radio. One approach would be to give broadcasters a new right to use the legal process to go after such stations, letting loose broadcasters’ legal bloodhounds to root out the violators. This isn’t a new idea as it has been done in other circumstances outside of spectrum policy, such as to combat email spam, and we should consider it here, too.
It is important to start by recognizing the truth about pirate radio stations. They are not cute; they are not filling a niche; they are not innovation test beds; and they are not training grounds for future broadcasters. If broadcasting were a garden, pirate radio would be poisonous crabgrass. Put another way, pirate radio participants are similar to outlaws who rob a retail store and then sell the stolen inventory online. In practice, pirate radio causes unacceptable economic harm to legitimate and licensed American broadcasters by stealing listeners. Pirate operators also cause “harmful interference” that inhibits the ability of real broadcasters to transmit their signals and programming, which provide such vital services as emergency alerts, critical weather updates, political information and news. And, pirate radio can disproportionately impact minority-owned stations as they undercut their financials and can cause harmful interference to legitimate stations serving minority populations.
Let’s also dispel another myth: pirate radio does not increase media diversity. From time to time, arguments have been made that we should look the other way because some pirate radio operators may be minorities, or the stations’ content appeals to minority listeners. To be clear, the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or any characteristic of a pirate radio operator should be completely irrelevant to the discussion. Their operations are illegal – end of story. Just imagine if we allowed this argument to be persuasive in other spectrum enforcement decisions: Commission spectrum and licensing policies would be thrown into complete chaos and wireless systems would cease to operate.
Instead of embracing pirate radio, approaches like the NAB’s Broadcast Leadership Training Program should be encouraged to prepare underrepresented populations for leadership and ownership positions in broadcasting. Alternatively, those truly interested in operating a legal broadcast station can seek to participate in the Commission’s July 2015 auction, in which 131 FM construction permits will be available, many in smaller and less expensive markets.
If there are unmet needs or underserved populations, the solution is not to condone an illegal station, but to convince the applicable existing broadcaster to be more responsive. Collectively, broadcasters are uniquely attuned to the needs of their communities and promoting localism because the success of their stations and ultimately, their livelihoods depend on it. Moreover, there are other technologies available to target broadcasts to a distinct group within a community, such as low power FM stations or Internet radio stations, which are free, easy to establish and not regulated by the Commission.
To combat pirate radio, I am suggesting that we replicate a concept contained in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Specifically, section 7(g) authorizes an Internet Service Provider to “bring a civil action in any district of the United States with jurisdiction” against (1) false or misleading header information; (2) aggravated violations relating to commercial electronic mail; (3) failure to place warning labels on commercial electronic mail containing sexually oriented materials; or (4) a pattern or practice involving deceptive subject headings, failure to include return address, or continuing to transmit after a recipient objection.[1] This provision provides a mechanism for ISPs to enjoin further violations and recover actual and aggravated damages and attorney fees. In other words, it authorizes ISPs to seek out the bad actors for a host of illegal activity and recoup their losses. The framework serves as a good model to provide additional options – outside of the FCC process – for eliminating and deterring pirate radio.
There is no doubt that pirate radio stations are often highly mobile, making tracking and finding such stations tedious and sometimes futile. But with the right technology to pinpoint signal strength and a little luck, the origination point of the pirate radio broadcast can be located, often leading to some back office or mobile van. In fact, broadcasters have told me of instances where they were able to accurately detect and locate pirate radio stations, meaning it can be done. And locating mobile pirate operators, while difficult, is no more so than trying to locate the purveyors of unwanted spam who can be stationed anywhere in the world with Internet access and a server. If it can help in the case of spam, or even if it acts as a further deterrent, why not give it a try here? Who do you think would cause more concern to a pirate station: the busy FCC or a broadcaster seeking to protect its station’s rights and revenues?
In all fairness, the CAN-SPAM’s private right of action for ISPs hasn’t been used all that often and hasn’t magically eliminated spam. No one who worked on the law ever expected it to do so. Instead, the private right of action was meant to be one more tool in the toolbox. In practice, the provision has been used by a select number of companies determined to be ISPs by the courts, including Yahoo!, Facebook, and My Space. Facebook has been of the more frequent users of the provision, using it to obtain judgments in no fewer than three cases leading to statutory damages and injunctive relief.
On a side note, pirate radio has been mentioned recently in conjunction with the Commission’s proposal to reorganize and close certain FCC field offices. To be clear, I am not taking a stance on that matter at this time, and my proposal should not be seen in any way related. Few details have been made available to me regarding the field offices, and I was not a party to the plan’s development. The field office discussion should remain completely separate because the problem with pirate radio and lack of attention exists today under the current enforcement structure. Whether altering the field offices would further denigrate our enforcement efforts against pirate radio is a debate for another time.
Private enforcement of spectrum license rights in court should remain limited in any event. I am in no way suggesting that the Commission transfer its spectrum enforcement authority to the court system, and any private right here would be in addition to, not supplanting, the Commission’s responsibilities, nor undermining any common law rights of broadcasters. And to allow for some private action in this specific case should not be interpreted as my support for more lawsuits and certainly not more class-action suits. As in the case of spam, I would not recommend allowing consumers (e.g., a station’s listeners) to file lawsuits. But if we can narrowly permit a limited and targeted private right of action here to be used only by broadcasters, it could provide a valuable tool to tackle a persistent problem in some radio markets. To the extent that this idea garners consideration, it may require a change in current law, which is solely within the purview of Congress. At such a point, I would leave the discussion in the capable hands of our elected representatives.
Though I know commissioner O’Rielly is mostly focusing on local FM and AM pirates, I can say that I’ve never heard shortwave pirates interfere with commercial stations; they occupy rather unoccupied parts of the bands.
That was a nice rant you were on there! I don't agree that this is such a big issue that you are making it out to be. And what's illegal in the U.S. is not illegal in other places like here in Canada for example and many other countries. Here in Canada the rules for AM for example don't include anything like 100mW into final, 3 meter antennas and feedlines. I can set up a transmitter with a 500ft antenna, any feedline I want and any power transmitter as long as the radiated signal is no more than 250uV/M at 30 meters(2500uV/M @3 meters). And for FM I can legally have enough signal strength to nicely cover a neighbourhood, a small one but still..... am I a pirate? In my backyard this is not illegal, but if I say on this forum, this is what I am doing, I can be accused of encouraging illegal operation and get posts edited or cancelled from the forum. There is another forum member from New Zealand and there you are allowed a watt of power for a unlicenced hobby station and you can cover all the ground you want as long as you inform the government agency responsible your location and frequency and you don't cause interference and keep with community standards. If that forum member operates this way is he a pirate? Why is the FCC the center of the universe? I wish this forum included more people from other countries so there would be more diversity on what's legal or pirate. 99.9% of this forum is based on the FCC and their rules and I can't contribute very much because none of this applies to me. Wish I could get into more discussions but I can't.
Maybe if the U.S. relaxed the rules a bit, after all Canada and New Zealand and many other places aren't falling apart, there would be a lot less pirates.
Another post(won't mention names) stated that anyone that complains about someone with a hobby station that is in no way being adversely affected by it has no life and is just a S....T disturber. Same as someone who calls the police because someone was smoking a joint on their front porch.
I don't consider someone who is a "little" over the 250uV/M @3 meters a criminal. The rules in the U.S. are so restrictive it's like having speed limits on the roads 15 miles an hour!
I'm not saying that anyone should be able to do what they want on the airwaves, but if the rules were a bit more lenient there would be few pirates and a lot more compliance, and this hobby would be better with the rights of commercial broadcasters still respected and still no interference to other communication bands.
Well, I'm done now!...I'm sure to get comments good and bad but diversity of opinion makes for good discussion!
Mark
I am a fan of pirate radio but I do not encourage it nor practice it. It is disappointing that I never hear pirates on local radio, I think they're all on the coasts for some reason.
If I found a pirate on the dial, I would listen to it until I understood what they were trying to accomplish. Some of them only want to accomplish the technical feat of sending a signal as far as possible. Sporting.
Some pirates are obsessed with some kind of music, like all the Perry Como 78 RPM records from the 40s and 50s.
Perhaps most patriotic are radio pirates who want to send political messages in defense of the flag and Constitution, although I think they'd do better by printing a newsletter and handing it out.
My next listener fascination would be to see how long it lasted.
Unlike more righteous people that infect society, I would not file a complaint.
In the USA, I can also choose to use any combination of transmitter power and antenna system on the AM BCB so long as the field strength does not exceed 24,000/F(kHz) microvolts per meter at 30 meters. This per Part 15.209.
As such I would be permitted 16 microvolts/mtr at 30 meters operating at 1500 kHz.
Most choose to operate under Part 15.219 do to the difficulty (read expense) of accurately measuring field strength. Also, typically the field strength is higher than allowed by Part 15.209.
Allowing private action against pirates would be a very slippery slope. Many licensed broadcasters consider ALL Part 15 operators to be pirates, either because they don't understand the rules, or they don't want to understand them (and it's a way to get rid of legal, albeit limited, competition).
I would worry about financial bullying. These kinds of actions would likely result in the automatic shutdown of any Part 15 operator, as most would not have the financial means (or desire) to fight it.
I don't condone piracy. However, the article is just plain wrong when it talks about pirates in general. Pirate stations tend to exist for a reason. Anyone running a legal radio station, either licensed or unlicensed, knows that they are a lot of work - you're not going to do it for a lark, or if you do, you won't be doing it for long. Most pirates genuinely want to serve their community, usually because there is something lacking with what is already there. They're just doing it the wrong way.
Shut down the few that are just plain malicious and causing interference. Surely the FCC will have to have some enforcement left, even after slimming down.
But for the rest, why not channel their desire to serve the community? Build a better unlicensed broadcasting model, maybe something akin to New Zealand, where a certain number of frequencies are set aside for that use (with higher power allowed to make it useable over a wider area). Yes, there are lots of potential problems there, but at least you're focusing those problems away from the licensed broadcasters.
Agree fully Artisan with all you said.........also allowing vigilantism....making that legal, is just to scary to even think about and should never be considered. What certain individuals think is right or wrong should never decide what goes or doesn't and to decide punishment.
Mark
There are tales of self appointed radio vigilantes who've even video taped themselves tracking down unlicensed signals, you may find some on Youtube.
Some of them do not differentiate between part 15 and illegal operators.
I've heard of criminal behavior wherein vigilantes pose as FCC agents and confiscate equipment using fear.
If the FCC plans to deputize such righteous lynch-mobs it may be time to consider piracy to run them around a little bit until it jeapordizes their jobs and marriages.
Chairman Tom Wheeler of the FCC talked about sending "Tiger Teams" in the wake of a reduced field force. Tigers are predatory killers.
Our polite lawful conduct in part 15 dreamland may be under assault.
Upon closely re-reading Commissioner Michael O'Reilly's "Anti Pirate Plan," I am wondering if he's related to Bill O'Reilly. The clue is the loud position taken with mis-informed facts.
Look at just this one section:
Collectively, broadcasters are uniquely attuned to the needs of their communities and promoting localism because the success of their stations and ultimately, their livelihoods depend on it. Moreover, there are other technologies available to target broadcasts to a distinct group within a community, such as low power FM stations or Internet radio stations, which are free, easy to establish and not regulated by the Commission."
Count the erroneous statements:
1. "...broadcasters are uniquely attuned to the needs of their communities and promoting localism because the success of their stations...depend on it."
Correction: Very few stations provide service to their local audience. We have penned thousands of examples here in the forums;
2. "...other technologies available to target broadcasts to a distinct group within a community, such as low power FM stations, which are free, easy to establish and not regulated by the Commission."
Corrections: False, false and false. Plus the contradiction that earlier O'Reilly claimed that pirates do not serve the community, so why would he point out a way of doing it (which would not be possible as he describes it).
Somebody is napping in Washington DC.
The utter bold faced lying that crock o' (s**t) reily has spewed out here is fascinating. LPFM is not free, and is highly regulated by the FCC (HAAT, tx power etc..).
This is only speculation on my part but I have seen this before. Could this statement be a ploy by a Commissioner to create a crisis to secure either continued or increased funding for the FCC? Could it be to divert attention away form the "net neutrality" debate?
Is the strategy is to pick an unpopular by association (i.e. "pirate") enemy, demonize them, and state the harm they cause and leave it to the readers to conclude that this threat must be stopped by more funding? Perhaps this will soften the push for budget cutting. Observe the timing of this.
When doing this it is advantageous to choose a demon consisting of a small, unorganized, and politically weak group which will offer no counter arguments or opposition.
I think the shoe fits.
Neil
Not one to stereotype anyone, but....
Government bureaucrat, attorney, name O'Reilly...
Drinking and blogging would explain the rash of mistakes.
I retract my remarks.
The whole thing will blow over by Monday.