-
Posts
-
Check out this recent remarks of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Before the New York State Broadcasters Association Summer Conference
June 23, 2015
Notice his remarks regarding pirate radio stations operating in New York’s Bronx.
Pay attention to his remarks which I’ll partially quote here:
To see the impact of New York broadcasters in Washington, you don’t need to look any further
than the letter to the FCC on the ongoing problem of pirate radio, which every single member of the
New York House delegation signed just two weeks ago. Getting all those signatures on one document is
quite an impressive feat and speaks not only of your high level of engagement and involvement with
your representatives, but also of the extremely serious nature of this problem, which I addressed in a
post on my FCC blog two months ago. Far from being cute, insignificant, or even somehow useful in the
broadcasting ecosystem, pirate radio represents a criminal attack on the integrity of our airwaves, at a
time when spectrum has become more scarce and precious than ever before.
Burdened with around 25% of the nation’s total pirate transmissions, New
York’s airwaves are a
target under continuous assault. As the Congressional letter highlighted, there appear to be 34 pirate
stations operating in Brooklyn and the Bronx alone, with more stations now spreading throughout the
state like poison ivy in a neglected garden. And where is the gardener? With enforcement actions on
the decline even as unauthorized stations proliferate, many feel that pirate radio has slipped far down
the FCC’s priority list.
Allocating spectrum and subsequently protecting license holders from interference is one of the
Commission’s original charter missions and remains our most fundamental responsibility. Without
vigilant, proactive enforcement of every license, the value of our spectrum, one of the most treasured
natural resources of the modern age, is irreparably degraded. And when the interference affects
legitimate, licensed broadcasters, Americans can be deprived of the vital and potentially life-saving
emergency alerts, weather updates, and news they need at critical moments. There can be no
justification for the Commission continuing to look the other way with everything that is at stake here,
and that is why I have called for a renewed focus on pirate radio enforcement along with consideration
of potential private remedies to give licensees more tools to defend against interference.
In addition, one idea that is worth exploring that I discussed with David is whether to put
building owners on the hot seat for hosting pirate radio stations. Most building owners wouldn’t allow
tenants to conduct an illegal gambling sites, sweatshops or drug activities, why should they be allowed
to be so passive with regards to illegal pirate radio stations? Shouldn’t there be an added burden to
make sure building owners don’t knowingly lease or rent to pirates? I don’t want to go overboard
because I strongly believe in property rights, but it seems like accepting a complete ignorance excuse is
insufficient. Such an idea may require a change in law, and therefore subject to Congress, but if it is
something that may help the cause, I’m willing to assist you in that effort.
The good news is that more help is on the way from the FCC. Thanks to all the recent efforts to
raise awareness of this problem, the Chairman has finally seen the light and committed to step up
enforcement against pirate radio operators in connection with the Commission’s initiative to reorganize
the operations of FCC field offices. My understanding is that the NY FCC Field Office is quite responsive
and capable. Our job at FCC Headquarters is to make clear to them that we place a high priority on their
efforts to eliminate pirate radio, are ready to provide resources, and expect results in the near term.
Next week, the FCC will be hosting several New York broadcasters, as well as your counterparts from
other markets, for a discussion to start formulating a plan of attack. So I am optimistic about the
chances of rapid, substantial progress on the enforcement front. I know that no one is happier to hear
this news than the community gathered in this room, and I commit to keeping the pressure up to
eradicate pirate radio for good.
The link:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0623/DOC-334063A1.pdf
With all this going on, do you really think the FCC wants to have to contend with policing part 15 VLPFM stations?
Before long even legal part 15 radio stations will be subject to cease and desist orders as the NAB and the broadcasters say enough is enough. Part 15 will be looked at as being the ground floor for future pirate operations as users get more daring and try to push the limit. Thoughts will be, geese a few more feet really wouldn’t hurt, besides “that guy up the street says he can just about hear me, so if I push it a little bit more, he’ll be able to hear me better” attitude.
One guy got an NOUO and they didn’t even mention how much above 250uV/m @ 3 meters he was above. Link to NOUO: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-333751A1.html
With this going on, I really do not see the FCC willing to listen to a bunch of hobbyists about changing the rules for the FM broadcast band.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366Absolutely MrBruce, I’ve been following the politically charged rhetoric of Commissioner Reilly, and if you want to hear some radio chatter that’s very much on this point look for my thread about the Radio Survivor Podcasts and download/ listen to Podcast # 3 where John Anderson, a media professor at Brooklyn College says he thinks this bluster from the FCC is a “Paper Tiger Team,” and he thinks the pirates in New York and anywhere will simply adapt to whatever is done.
The professor believes that radio piracy is a democratic part of the radio ecosystem and serves a purpose.
I may not be a pirate, but I admire anyone who might be.
Total posts : 45366there always will be the ones who are careless even those Rich stations have caused Interference as well. The Licensed stations want MORE POWER just the same. Why do you think some big AM stations back in the day always wanted more power. If Radio was serving the piblic than it would not be the way it is. Now speaking of LIFE SAVING!!! Yesterday we had severe weather heading our way. NOT ONE RADIO station mentioned A tornado WARNING for our county!!!!! Not one BUT ME!!!!! Yes I had the WTKR channel 3 app and my phone went off. I Stopped my broadcast to alert folks that Severe weather was on the way and to listen to local TV Ch 3 or local Radio. I went off the air and turn into the TV and heard about it. But not one station I tuned to until 25 minutes later even mentioned the possible Tornado and worse yet when the warning was issued still no announcement from Radio. So if my station was to have been able to be heard through the town I’d have saved a life. Its not about just interference its about the rich greedy NAB wanting no competition and just like AT&T and Bell were broke up so too should these rich folks who too don’t care about lives otherwise you would hve heard about the warning on Radio as well as the smartphone and TV. So around here if you depend on your Radio to warn you, you had better think again because you’ll have the tornado come and go and probably knock down your house before anyone will tell you. Why? Because they got to get those ads in and those chart topping tunes played. Now that is a good case for VLPFM! I’m not just gonna take that and walk away with my tail between my crotch. These guys at the FCC think all commercial broadcasters care about lives??? Well that my friends is one huge example of yet more lies from the peanut galary. Now Hams would have warned long before hand or a weather Radio. But don’t depend on FM to warn you in bad weather its another thing most folks have believed.
Now I hope any troll who is against micro broadcasting and wants to end it reads this and rethinks their kill hobby Radio speach to the FCC!!!!!
Total posts : 45366My computer streams and part 15 transmitters are shut down for equipment security whenever violent weather arrives, and this morning at dawn the lightning and wind had me disconnected and listening to licensed radio.
Actually, only one station in town pretends to cover weather events, and they said over and over that heavy rain would continue all day and evening. But that never happened.
It rained for an hour, stopped, and at 4:30 in the afternoon rained for 5-minutes and the sun came out.
If it’s about public service those are only words with no action.
Total posts : 45366Maybe this is all the more reason to allow a 1 mile Micro Broadcasting station. I’m sure this paper tiger team knows that the Bronx is a very rough neighborhood. But if hey allowed 1 mile sations and to receive the main stream over the net they would simply have small cells that won’t interfere with anything. But we know the real issue with the NAB. Next all micro broadcasters will be called Terrorists (they love to pull that card when they don’t get their way).
Total posts : 45366Actually, only one station in town pretends to cover weather events, and they said over and over that heavy rain would continue all day and evening. But that never happened. … My computer streams and part 15 transmitters are shut down for equipment security whenever violent weather arrives. …
Clearly, weather forecasts are not highly reliable no matter their source. But at least that station relayed such a potential weather risk from their source to their listeners, and (most likely) stayed on the air during the period of that risk, to update their listeners.
Just wondering how any “Part 15” operator reasonably might expect to provide weather conditions/warnings to whatever listeners they might have if they shut down before, and during the period forecasted for such weather risks?
Total posts : 45366I actually think that MrBruce is right. However, that doesn’t mean that a group of individuals shouldn’t attempt to change the current Part 15 FM regulations. I just think that great care should be taken, if you want to have a chance to succeed, in what you ask for.
The work I’ve done with receiver sensitivity shows that it is possible to receive even very weak FM signals quite a distance away if you have the very best radio, are receiving in mono (or noisy stereo) and have line of sight to the transmitter.
The problem is that most potential listeners don’t have great radios. They want to listen in stereo with quieting, and they won’t all be line of sight (even if you elevate your antenna).
So if you want to broadcast to a typical portable receiver with a good signal for, say, 500 meters, that same signal could easily many, many times that distance (depending on the desired SNR at 500 meters) in ideal circumstances. I suspect that wouldn’t fly, either with the FCC or NAB.
There is precedent for the field strength of 1000uv/m at 3 meters from Canada. Perhaps that must might be the value to shoot for, as it can be justified from experiences similar to those in the U.S. Or maybe something nominally higher, say 1500 or 2000uv/m at 3 meters. Those latter maximums could give you over a mile of range in ideal circumstances, and bring FM up to the same levels as AM (which can also be used for justification that the sky won’t fall if they aren’t approved).
Total posts : 45366Responding to Rich in Post#6 you do well to speak in defense of the licensed station I characterized somewhat poorly, that being KTRS 5kW 550 kHz, for in fact their morning program was well paced and nicely conversational. Except to say, the “rain all day and evening” forecast was pushed hard and presented as if it were an indisputable fact.
On Part 15 stations providing essential emergency information, well, some people believe prayer can alter wordly outcomes, so why not have faith in one’s well intentioned low power broadcast? Anyway, I’m not like that, I shut down when weather turns sour.
Total posts : 45366If the FCC raises the field strength to say 1500 to 2000 uV/M @3 meters and then says OK, but if you are over….zero tolorance, bigger fines the more over you are, that would be fair in my mind.
As for giving power to private companies to enforce laws like vigilantes and not have enforcement by a government agency that you vote for and not have your day in court is unconstitutional and a plain no no!
Mark
Total posts : 45366This is where things will end up. You’ll get your 2000uv/m at 3 meters, but you’ll be required to kiss the NAB’s royal ass and pay big fees like the full powered stations. The trouble with that, plus covering your music licensing fees is you’ll never be able to recoup your costs and go bankrupt. Full powered stations have tons of ad dollars coming in. Those ad dollars are something you’re not going to get because your 10 listeners are not going to get you those big ad dollars those licensed stations are getting.
Think about asking your Buick dealer to pay you $500.00 per add to reach only 10 people. Would YOU pay me $500.00 if you knew I could only reach 10 possible people when the other stations reach a minimum of 200+ listeners?
We’ll get what we want, but they will be laughing at us behind our backs as we go bully up before we even get on the air.
Bruce.
Total posts : 45366Im not a mathematic genious but I get 10,000 total listening hours per month. This is 30 listeners 24/7/month your part 15 station going 1/4 mile may get 10. Now the CRIA isn’t pushing it in Canada. The cost for them to litigate would far / away the the Pro they would get. We’re talking less than $15.00 a month for royalties. That would be the top they might and I repeat might get. I think there is a lot of paranoia along the lines of royalties. Being an Internet broadcaster I know all about royalties and what will not be tolerated and what the real keyboard won’t even look at. Part 15 is probably not going to be looked at unless you have 6270 Micro broadcasting stations in an area likes a New York. Besides ser su the mall campaigns for the internet hasn’t really gotten them anywhere.
Total posts : 4536630 listeners 24-hours a day and 7-days a week? Right.
What are the odds that that exact number of people would devote their lives to listening only to your station?
That’s all fake, generated by the royalty agencies so they can charge you for listeners that don’t exist.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say and no one seems to be comprehending.
Little operators are being robbed, picked off, fleeced and ultimately slaughtered in unmarked graves.
But it’s not personal, it’s just business.
Other than that, it’s a fun hobby.
The ALPB knows the way.
Total posts : 45366Canada has reasonable music licensing. I’m licensed for my streaming only – they told me (and I have it in writing) that they didn’t care about my over the air broadcasts as they were limited in range.
SOCAN (the licensing body in Canada – nobody else has any authority here) has reciprocal agreements with all the major licensing bodies worldwide.
We pay according to our revenue, and there are various formulas for that, based on Canadian content and other variables. To me, that seems fair – if I’m making money off of copyrighted material, then it only makes sense that the copyright holders get a cut. The minimum fee is $100 (which is what I pay, because right now I have no revenue).
If you are a non commercial station, which is another way to get licensed, you pay a percentage of your gross operating costs (1.9% I believe). That’s the way I was licensed on Bowen Island – if your Internet streaming costs are included in the calculation, then the license covers that as well.
Total posts : 45366Artisan, paying a $100 minimum for a station that earns no revenue makes no sense. Where is that $100 supposed to come from?
Equally illogical for a non-commercial station to pay 1.9% of operating cost, because that taps an amount of money that doesn’t exist.
Total posts : 45366I guess it comes from the same money that is used to purchase a transmitter, computer, hard drives, etc. to run a micro broadcasting station. Just part of the overall costs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
