Too many pirate stations

[nd2023]

Now that the DTV transition is over and the grannies will soon stop calling the FCC asking them how to use their converter box, why not use some of those 4,000 staffers to shut down the pirate stations that are springing up all over the country. In New Jersey itself, 5 large cities have at least one pirate station that goes a significant distance. In Boston, there are pirates on most blank frequencies, and a new one pops up every season. One city has pirate stations on every available FM frequency, and there are multiple pirates on some frequencies interfering with each other. A pirate popped up near me recently on a frequency that was good for DXing.
Right now, it is so understaffed that if a pirate is shut down, 5 new pirates will pop up, and the original pirate that shut down will come back in a matter of days. There have been pirates that have been on the air since the last decade, same format, same frequency, same location, same power. The pirates are running spots, taking away revenue from the commercial stations and not paying taxes on the ad revenue. Some pirates can be heard more than 30 miles away. The fines are never enforced, if they're fined at all. When was the last raid? Pirate stations can be heard in the parking lot of an FCC office, nothing is done. Pilots can hear pirate stations on their aircraft radios instead of the ATC. A small AM station had to change formats because FM pirate stations were competing with it.
Back in the day, the FCC fined people for running hundreds of watts on CB. Now, people are running thousands of watts on FM and nothing is done.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Do you want some cheese to go with that whine?

If the FCC didn't make it so expensive and such a clusterphuck of paperwork for someone to start a legal commercial station, there wouldn't be so many Pirates.

Let the posting begin!

 

[radioboy]

LowPayDJ hit the nail right on the head.

The process of establishing a new station is so expensive, the point of entry is well beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest people. And there are very few, if any, positions open at local stations these days.
I know. I did radio for 24 years. When the last gig ended, I realized that there was nowhere left to go.
Going with Part 15 and Internet streaming was the route I took.

A small AM station that has to change formats because "FM pirates are competing with it" is a station on a downward spiral, pirates or no pirates! What would they do if a commercial station began competing with them?

I'm no advocate for pirates, but this is a symptom of a much larger problem that the industry is choosing not to address or find solutions for.

 

[nd2023]

Why are most pirate stations Caribbean formatted if the reason for people starting pirate stations is the high entry cost? I'd expect to hear a variety of pirate formats if that were the case. In a city that had no pirate stations in the past, a new one popped up in May, with Caribbean music. 10 to 1 odds that it will not be shut down or fined this year. I should reasonably expect to have a radio dial free of pirate stations, I'm not whining.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Interesting discussion. I guess my life is dull because I live in an area that does not seem to be infested by pirate stations.

Now and then I read about a pirate station that comes to a very abrupt end because the FCC shuts them down with good solid legal documentation with a hefty fine piled on top like a candle on a birthday cake. All of us who have worked in radio through the years knew that a times we ran promo announcement, and sometimes even awarded weekly prized for the best tips, asking the public to call and let us know about news. A blinking light does not come on at the radio station to let us know that a wreck has occured, or that a bank has been robbed, or that a water main just broke and has disrupted traffic.

No light goes on at the FCC with a little loud speaker blaring: ATTENTION! PIRATE NOW BROADCASTING! ATTENTION!

The FCC probably most often nails a pirate because a commercial broadcaster feels his territory and audience is being poached, and the broadcaster complains. Implied in one of the posts here was the idea that maybe the FCC favors some pirates, or doesn't care about some pirate. Maybe the pattern is this: If there are no commercial broadcasters doing Carribean programming near one of those pirates, no one makes enough noise to get the FCCs attention.

If congress removes the restriction about 3rd adjacent channel protection for LPFM stations, hold onto your hat! I would be tempted to apply for one if they open a window, but I fear that so many new applications will be files that it will take 7 or 8 years before they work through them and grant CPs.

That could be too late for some of us. The folks down at Rest Haven Gardens are pretty restrictive about monuments and flower displays. They would have a fit if my children installed my LPFM antenna there! :

My point is this: if we get a lot more LICENSED LPFMs.... will all of them become bounty hunters reporting pirates to the FCC?

 

[nd2023]

The problem in New Jersey isn't that the pirates aren't being reported. Nearly every radio station is complaining to the FCC about interference from the pirate stations because there are pirate stations on every second adjacent and many first adjacent. The AM station that was forced to changed its format had a Caribbean format, but all the pirate stations were taking away its ratings and advertising revenue. There are pirate stations that have been on for over half my 21 year old life with a range similar to a class A.
At this rate, pirate stations will pop up in every city in America by 2015 once people realize that there is no risk of being shut down.
Maybe I should get my hands on a 10,000 watt transmitter and a room on top of a tall building in Manhattan, start a pirate station and make millions

I wish there was a loudspeaker at the FCC that alerted them to pirate stations, it would be on all the time.

Interesting discussion. I guess my life is dull because I live in an area that does not seem to be infested by pirate stations.

Now and then I read about a pirate station that comes to a very abrupt end because the FCC shuts them down with good solid legal documentation with a hefty fine piled on top like a candle on a birthday cake. All of us who have worked in radio through the years knew that a times we ran promo announcement, and sometimes even awarded weekly prized for the best tips, asking the public to call and let us know about news. A blinking light does not come on at the radio station to let us know that a wreck has occured, or that a bank has been robbed, or that a water main just broke and has disrupted traffic.

No light goes on at the FCC with a little loud speaker blaring: ATTENTION! PIRATE NOW BROADCASTING! ATTENTION!

The FCC probably most often nails a pirate because a commercial broadcaster feels his territory and audience is being poached, and the broadcaster complains. Implied in one of the posts here was the idea that maybe the FCC favors some pirates, or doesn't care about some pirate. Maybe the pattern is this: If there are no commercial broadcasters doing Carribean programming near one of those pirates, no one makes enough noise to get the FCCs attention.

If congress removes the restriction about 3rd adjacent channel protection for LPFM stations, hold onto your hat! I would be tempted to apply for one if they open a window, but I fear that so many new applications will be files that it will take 7 or 8 years before they work through them and grant CPs.

That could be too late for some of us. The folks down at Rest Haven Gardens are pretty restrictive about monuments and flower displays. They would have a fit if my children installed my LPFM antenna there! :

My point is this: if we get a lot more LICENSED LPFMs.... will all of them become bounty hunters reporting pirates to the FCC?

 

[FreddyE1977]

Apparently this is a problem in New York, New Jersey, Florida and a few other areas. I can only
recall one case in the past ten years where a pirate in my area was throwing out enough power
to draw any attention. It is sort of like Prohibition in that the more the government cracks down,
the more people seem to want to do it. (and if they ever pass anything like the Fairness Doctrine,
look out....the bands will be overrun with pirates who are driven by political agendas)

 

[johnbasalla]

During the 1990s in Cleveland Ohio one Hispanic pirate station popped up in the non-commerical band. The city's main daily newspaper, the Plain Dealer, comically out-of-touch with the illegal status of this facility, ran a huge, glowing front page article about this station that read like an infomercial for it. Soon many more pirates popped up. One or two migrated onto the commercial part of the FM band. It was said they all bought cheap transmitters from Canada and ran at about 20 watts. One was a religious station, ignoring the fact that by breaking the law, they were being sinful. Finally, one day they were all gone. The FCC finally showed up and did their job. Now reports are that there is one back on, using the original call letters of that first pirate. The FCC needs to take these pirates seriously as they are a threat to safety and, with enough of them powerful enough, can cause insurmountable amounts of interference.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Hogwash! As long as these so called Pirate Stations aren't on a First or Second Adjacent Freq, why the hell should anyone care. Personally I'd love to see more Pirates out there just so I can hear something different on the airwaves instead of the same old cookie cutter Hot AC & Lite FM Stations that are there now. It really sucks to hear the same crap all over the dial. As long as the FCC Fees to start a station remain as high as they are now, they will always be Pirates.

 

[TheBigA]

Hogwash! As long as these so called Pirate Stations aren't on a First or Second Adjacent Freq, why the hell should anyone care.

Not the point. The main purpose of the FCC is to maintain order in the airwaves. It's why it was formed. To get rid of the hams and hobbyists.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Hogwash! As long as these so called Pirate Stations aren't on a First or Second Adjacent Freq, why the hell should anyone care.

Not the point. The main purpose of the FCC is to maintain order in the airwaves. It's why it was formed. To get rid of the hams and hobbyists.

And if someone is using a 3rd adjacent freq, and not a first or second, then order being maintained.

 

[TheBigA]

And if someone is using a 3rd adjacent freq, and not a first or second, then order being maintained.

If someone who is not regulated is using any frequency, order is NOT being maintained. It is a black market operation. If someone wants to operate on public frequencies, they should register and obtain a license.

 

[LowPayDJ]

Then it needs to be affordable for the little guys, and not just a money grab from the Government.

 

[TheBigA]

Then it needs to be affordable for the little guys, and not just a money grab from the Government.

If you wanna play, you gotta pay. Otherwise, use the internet. No government regulations there.

 

[nd2023]

You can start a 1000 watt pirate station right on the frequency of a distant commercial station and stay on for years because the FCC doesn't seem to enforce anymore. We're lucky to have even one bust a year. Back in the day they used to actually drive around looking for pirate stations.

 

[neo11]

And if someone is using a 3rd adjacent freq, and not a first or second, then order being maintained.

If someone who is not regulated is using any frequency, order is NOT being maintained. It is a black market operation. If someone wants to operate on public frequencies, they should register and obtain a license.

That argument is comical. It's next to impossible to obtain a license. And for all the bellyaching about how the dial in most cities is crowded and can't support more stations, just travel to Europe, where in many cities, stations are operating legally at full power 0.2-0.3 MHz apart from each other. Somehow, despite that, interference doesn't seem to be a problem for them over there.

The point is, once again, that if barriers to entry were lessened, the incentive to operate illegally will be greatly diminished as well.

 

[TheBigA]

That argument is comical. It's next to impossible to obtain a license.

For good reason. It is NOT in the best interest of the US government to put every moron with a mouth on the public airwaves. Someone has to be responsible. For that reason, they specifically made the content of airwaves the responsibility of the licensee.

The point is, once again, that if barriers to entry were lessened, the incentive to operate illegally will be greatly diminished as well.

That's like the argument for making drug use legal. That doesn't make it right. A crime is still a crime. You don't eliminate crime by eliminating laws.

 

[neo11]

That argument is comical. It's next to impossible to obtain a license.

For good reason. It is NOT in the best interest of the US government to put every moron with a mouth on the public airwaves. Someone has to be responsible. For that reason, they specifically made the content of airwaves the responsibility of the licensee.

Yes, as opposed to the morons that are already on the public airwaves (of all persuasions).

Your argument is flawed and deflects from the topic at hand. Just because more stations would be allowed to legally broadcast doesn't mean that every "moron with a mouth" would find their way onto a radio station. But it certainly would help eliminate the pirate radio problem, no? If nothing else, the fact that more stations are operating legally would certainly leave a lot less room out there for those pirates to even start up, if nothing else.

The point is, once again, that if barriers to entry were lessened, the incentive to operate illegally will be greatly diminished as well.

That's like the argument for making drug use legal. That doesn't make it right. A crime is still a crime. You don't eliminate crime by eliminating laws.
[/quote]

Nope, not the same at all. Unless you can prove that letting more stations broadcast legally would be a crime, or unless you can prove that allowing more stations to broadcast legally would cause the same amount of harm to society that drug use causes.

You're deflecting from the argument once again, a classic tactic when someone can't counter the argument directly. And as indicated above, allowing more stations to broadcast LEGALLY would *deter* crime...in this case, unlicensed broadcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

Just because more stations would be allowed to legally broadcast doesn't mean that every "moron with a mouth" would find their way onto a radio station.

The key word is RESPONSIBILITY. The government wants someone to be responsible. That's all. What they say becomes the licensee's problem.

Nope, not the same at all. Unless you can prove that letting more stations broadcast legally would be a crime, or unless you can prove that allowing more stations to broadcast legally would cause the same amount of harm to society that drug use causes.

There is nothing to be gained by having more stations broadcast legally. There are already too many stations on the air. The government doesn't benefit by more stations, because it costs more to regulate them. The industry doesn't benefit because it drives down station values. The purpose of the FCC is to ensure the airwaves are controlled, and too many stations hurts their ability to do their job.

 

[neo11]

Just because more stations would be allowed to legally broadcast doesn't mean that every "moron with a mouth" would find their way onto a radio station.

The key word is RESPONSIBILITY. The government wants someone to be responsible. That's all. What they say becomes the licensee's problem.

And again, how do you know that additional broadcasters won't use their license responsibly? Additionally, you also seem to be assuming that all existing licensed broadcasters *are* using their license responsibly, which is far from the truth (thanks in part to license renewals being little more than an automatic rubber-stamp nowadays).

Nope, not the same at all. Unless you can prove that letting more stations broadcast legally would be a crime, or unless you can prove that allowing more stations to broadcast legally would cause the same amount of harm to society that drug use causes.

There is nothing to be gained by having more stations broadcast legally. There are already too many stations on the air. The government doesn't benefit by more stations, because it costs more to regulate them. The industry doesn't benefit because it drives down station values. The purpose of the FCC is to ensure the airwaves are controlled, and too many stations hurts their ability to do their job.
[/quote]

You're stating opinion as fact. The reality is that there's plenty of legitimate groups that would love to have an opportunity to gain a broadcast license, but have no real way of doing so right now. Too many stations? That's a laughable assertion. Ever visited some European cities where 60, 70, 80, even 100 stations are operating on the FM dial legally? Somehow it seems to work over there.

"Too many stations hurts their ability to do their job?" Lame. The government needs to boost its staffing levels at FCC field offices anyway...adding more stations doesn't change that fact. What else would they be regulating...their programming? That's not the FCC's job, except for responding to viewer/listener complaints. And one could argue that the government certainly could make money from these new additional stations...application fees, taxes (if any of them are commercial entities) and the like.