• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Is This Guy For Real?

I'd love some of whatever this guy is smoking. Are all regulators as clueless as this one?

Yes. While we're at it, the US should sue terrorists and ISIS.

This is typical. The government decides it doesn't want to do it's job, so it tells the licensees to do it instead.

Does that also mean that stations receiving IBOC interference can sue other broadcasters? That'll open a nice can of worms.

As I often say, what one commissioner says means nothing. He's one guy. Michael Copps used to say all kinds of things, and nothing ever happened.
 
Last edited:
The hypocrisy of the FCC never ceases to amaze me. Michael O'Rielly insists on stamping out the scourge of pirate radio while the agency bends over backwards to give spectrum to unlicensed users at the expense of licensed TV broadcasters. "There may not be any channels left for your TV stations after the auction, but we'll make sure unlicensed users get a channel or two."

His suggestion that, “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,” is unrealistic. Those CPs are the bottom of the barrel. With many of them, you would be broadcasting to lizards and coyotes instead of humans. And look at what has been happening to CP winners in the last FM auction. They file their applications and immediately all manner of creatures crawl out of the woodwork (including competing broadcasters) filing informal objections, necessitating that the CP holder hire a communications lawyer to address them. The same has been true for many LPFM CP holders. The whole process is a sick joke.

I would suggest the FCC consider an LPAM service but since the Commission can't seem to make a decision on the Revitalize AM Broadcast Radio Service NPRM a year and half after its publication and comment period, what good would it do? Is it any wonder that ordinary citizens, tired of waiting on a sclerotic FCC to open filing windows or to suffer through an excruciating and expensive auction process, decide to pick up a cheap transmitter and antenna and start broadcasting? To be sure, pirate broadcasting is a problem that needs to be addressed but not in the way O'Rielly imagines.
 
To be sure, pirate broadcasting is a problem that needs to be addressed but not in the way O'Rielly imagines.

One thing to think about is that this board is filled with comments from people who claim that OTA radio is dying. They say no one listens, and nobody wants to work in broadcasting any more. Yet in many cities, there are people who are willing to defy the law and start illegal radio stations, and those illegal stations have listeners. In some places like Boston, they have lots of listeners. To me, this isn't a dying medium. It's very much alive. What's hurting it is the inability of government to do its job, and instead come up with excuses like this one.

I think the right solution here is to allow radio companies to OWN their frequencies. Then they can sue pirates, they can improve technical quality, and they can operate just like cell phone companies. Forget about licenses. Perhaps that would better suit the FCC.
 
The license holders would be much more efficient at going after pirates than the FCC would. Instead of expecting the government to do everything for us, maybe it's time for license holders to have a little more say in what they can do to protect themselves.
 
No. The FCC has the responsibility to enforce the Rules and Regulations.
Congress should step up to the plate and give the FCC enough money to do the job for which the agency was created.
Sadly, the FCC can close down a pirate and fine him. They don't have the authority to collect the fine.
It goes to the Justice department for collection. They won't be bothered.
It's a sad state of affairs which has existed for decades.
 
No. The FCC has the responsibility to enforce the Rules and Regulations.
Congress should step up to the plate and give the FCC enough money to do the job for which the agency was created.
Sadly, the FCC can close down a pirate and fine him. They don't have the authority to collect the fine.
It goes to the Justice department for collection. They won't be bothered.
It's a sad state of affairs which has existed for decades.

The FCC gets plenty of money. They've given up on radio. If they want to take over the Internet like they've done and not worry about anything else, let the radio owners at least protect their licenses.

It's not the ideal situation, but better than what we have now.
 
The FCC gets plenty of money. They've given up on radio.

Keep in mind that the millions they get from Congress is basically a loan. The government expects to get every dollar back, and then some, in fines, fees, and spectrum sales.

The FCC is the for-profit side of the government. Not unlike other resource agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. Radio is losing money for them. There aren't as many fines as there used to be, the haven't been able to come up with new fees, and the AM & FM spectrum isn't as valuable as the higher parts of the spectrum.
 
Too many cabinets with too much junk in them. Start emptying them out.
 
The FCC gets plenty of money.

In your dreams.

The FCC is getting so little money these days that there's a serious proposal on the table to essentially gut the Enforcement Bureau, which is part of the reason I started this thread. The proposal would close about two-thirds of the FCC field offices and automate the rest. The NAB, for once in their lives actually taking a stand on an issue related to radio, is warning of the consequences of having basically no enforcement agents in the field.

Unlicensed broadcasting is a violation of the LAW (47 U.S.C. §301). Agencies of the government enforce the law. A simple concept, apparently too difficult for some to grasp. If laws are not enforced, why bother having them in the first place?

Imagine the broadcast bands with even more pirates than there are now and the FCC having ZERO ability to shut them down (at least they're making a token effort now, with what little manpower they have, as Congress continues to slice and dice the FCC's budget for political reasons), with the nearest enforcement agent situated hundreds of miles away. You think it's a free-for-all now? You'll have pirates parked right on top of licensed stations, doing so with impunity and damaging the licensed station's ability to do business...and while this commissioner-clown's proposed lawsuit wends its way through the courts, the pirate goes right on his merry way.
 
Read the story. He's not proposing the license owner be the ONLY ones able to sue. Only that they can, since the FCC isn't interested in doing its job re: radio.
 
Read the story. He's not proposing the license owner be the ONLY ones able to sue. Only that they can, since the FCC isn't interested in doing its job re: radio.

Read what I wrote. When the Enforcement Bureau goes belly-up, there will be no other recourse other than the civil courts, and this commissioner-critter's protestations to the contrary are disingenuous at best.
 
Read what I wrote. When the Enforcement Bureau goes belly-up, there will be no other recourse other than the civil courts, and this commissioner-critter's protestations to the contrary are disingenuous at best.

They're not going to enforce radio like they should. You need to accept that. The FCC has moved on to the Internet. Giving license holders SOME way to protect themselves is a must.
 
Read what I wrote. When the Enforcement Bureau goes belly-up, there will be no other recourse other than the civil courts, and this commissioner-critter's protestations to the contrary are disingenuous at best.


If you re-read the article, he specifically addressed this. He doesn't intend the courts to be the ONLY course of action.
 
If you re-read the article, he specifically addressed this. He doesn't intend the courts to be the ONLY course of action.

I'm going to guess any reading of the article stopped at the word "O'Reilly" and it was immediately dismissed as a bad idea.
 
To take care of the pirate "scourge" would require full-on militarization, and the FCC is going in the opposite direction. There's no credible legal basis on which a broadcaster can privately sue a pirate (although Massachusetts is considering creating one), and selling channels to stations outright is a non-starter as it would turn ~100 years of spectrum-management policy on its head. The FCC may not give many hoots about radio anymore, but its also not willing to cede any real ground in its regulation, either.

I'm with BigA: local radio (especially on FM, and especially in urban areas) is vibrant, but that life is in the shadows. The FCC and industry are in denial about this phenomenon, even though it's been around as long as broadcasting itself has. So instead of pursuing symbolic heavy-handedness or ridiculous thought-experiments, how about trying something more along the lines of harm reduction?
 
There's no credible legal basis on which a broadcaster can privately sue a pirate (although Massachusetts is considering creating one),

That's not the issue. The problem is FINDING the pirates to sue. As I said in my post, it's like suing a terrorist.

The FCC may not give many hoots about radio anymore, but its also not willing to cede any real ground in its regulation, either.

And not because they want to regulate, but because giving up areas of responsibility could justify Congress in further funding cuts. It's all about the money.

Here's the sad but honest truth: There's no money in shutting down pirates. In fact it COSTS money. So why not put the onus on the broadcasters. Meanwhile, the FCC would rather spend it's time FINING broadcasters. That apparently was one of the stories at this year's NAB convention, according to Tom Taylor:

"FCC’s “New Sheriff” at the Enforcement Bureau aims at “prevention, not just enforcement.”
So that’s where the eyebrow-raising $325,000 indecency fine against Roanoke TV station WDBJ came from – Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc was sending the broadcast industry a message."

So they're being selective in what rules they enforce. If they can make money on it, they'll enforce it.
 
Last edited:
Not only would it be hard to locate and sue them, but collecting would be even harder.

Especially if they're not actually citizens.

Which, by the way, is why some of them operate this way. Federal law requires licensees to be US citizens. Those folks in Union NJ aren't. But they have no shortage of money or energy.
 
Especially if they're not actually citizens.

Which, by the way, is why some of them operate this way. Federal law requires licensees to be US citizens. Those folks in Union NJ aren't. But they have no shortage of money or energy.

It's a bad situation all around. But this proposal may get 1 or 2 of them off the air. Which is better than zero.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom