FCC Fines 15 Year-Old Pirate Radio Station In NYC $2 Million (vice.com) 68
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is using a new law to fine a pirate radio station operating in New York City for more than $2 million. For 15 years, Impacto 2, which has been operated by two brothers, has broadcast Ecuadorian news, culture, sports, and talk-radio on 105.5 FM in Queens. The feds have tried to shut it down repeatedly, but have never succeeded. The FCC announced the fine in a press release (PDF) last week. "The Commission proposed the maximum penalty allowable, $2,316,034, against brothers Cesar Ayora and Luis Angel Ayora for pirate radio broadcasting in Queens, New York," the release said. The FCC also said it was trying to seize $80,000 in equipment from a man broadcasting pirate radio in Eastern Oregon.
The FCC closely polices radio spectrums around the country, and provides licenses to companies who apply for specific frequencies. On the one hand, this makes sense, because use of radio frequencies are limited by physics and, without licenses, radio would be a free-for-all. Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website. At the same time, pirate radio has a long history of providing access to the airwaves for independent broadcasters. In this case, the targets of the fine are a pair of brothers who were providing a vital community resource. In court documents about the fine, the FCC detailed its history with the Ayoras and Impacto 2. [...]
According to the FCC, the Ayoras have admitted to operating the radio station several times during interviews. The feds even went to the trouble of totaling every day it could prove the pair had run the radio station and detailed what it would like to charge them for it. "Based on the severity of the facts underlying these factors, we propose the maximum penalty of $115,80265 for each day of the 184 days during which the Ayoras operated their pirate radio station in 2022 for a total penalty of $21,307,568," the FCC's court documents said. That is, however, not possible under the new PIRATE Act. "We reduce the proposed penalty from $21,307,568 to $2,316,034 based on the statutory limits imposed by section 511(a) of the Act," it said in court documents.
The FCC closely polices radio spectrums around the country, and provides licenses to companies who apply for specific frequencies. On the one hand, this makes sense, because use of radio frequencies are limited by physics and, without licenses, radio would be a free-for-all. Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website. At the same time, pirate radio has a long history of providing access to the airwaves for independent broadcasters. In this case, the targets of the fine are a pair of brothers who were providing a vital community resource. In court documents about the fine, the FCC detailed its history with the Ayoras and Impacto 2. [...]
According to the FCC, the Ayoras have admitted to operating the radio station several times during interviews. The feds even went to the trouble of totaling every day it could prove the pair had run the radio station and detailed what it would like to charge them for it. "Based on the severity of the facts underlying these factors, we propose the maximum penalty of $115,80265 for each day of the 184 days during which the Ayoras operated their pirate radio station in 2022 for a total penalty of $21,307,568," the FCC's court documents said. That is, however, not possible under the new PIRATE Act. "We reduce the proposed penalty from $21,307,568 to $2,316,034 based on the statutory limits imposed by section 511(a) of the Act," it said in court documents.
The FCC could do right (Score:5, Insightful)
All the FCC has to do is take serious their licensing of spectrum to non-huge companies. There was talk at one time of legalizing pirate radio up to a certain wattage but I'm not sure what ever happened with that. While we do need licensing to share a finite resource like radio spectrum, there is something very wrong about the big money auctions the FCC holds to raise millions from frequency sales.
Re:The FCC could do right (Score:4, Informative)
Protecting big money incumbents IS the mission of the FCC. They are doing exactly what their masters pay them to do.
Re: The FCC could do right (Score:3)
Today you can get a better coverage with streaming on the internet, and then the FCC isn't an issue.
Re: The FCC could do right (Score:5, Insightful)
While true in theory, if you're trying to provide a local service to a relatively poor community, radio is still heaps superior to streaming simply because your potential audience needs to invest a few dollars instead of quite a few dollars plus a few dollars per month.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also UI issues for people who can operate a radio but not a computer, and the fact that there is much less competition on broadcast AM/FM frequencies. On the internet your radio station will disappear in a sea of choices, on the air people will find it via their dial and because they are nearby.
Re: (Score:2)
On the internet your radio station will disappear in a sea of choices
While that may be true every internet radio player I've used provided a "swimming beach" at the sea to narrow down choices via displaying local content either at the top of the list or via a dedicated category.
Sure you can stray from between the flags and explore a much larger sea, but when you first show up you'll find your local stations there.
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes "guerilla marketing" by putting tags with the URL at various places is effective enough. Lamp posts at crosswalks are such spots since people having to wait there hates the wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are good up to 0.5W or 1W now. I built an FM transmitter kit in high school, I played some music for a friend that was a couple houses away. Signal didn't go very far, was 0.5W and went maybe 1000 feet.
I suppose you could build a device that combines internet with time sync and a low power legal FM transmitter. With a number of these devices spread around a dense city like NYC and all transmitting on the same frequency with the same content at the same time, you could build a local radio station
Re:The FCC could do right (Score:4, Informative)
Your high school project was almost legal by the FCCs rules. Your transmission is supposed to be limited to 200 feet, but you are allowed to transmit on the AM and FM frequency bands for short distances.
Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section 15.239, and the July 24, 1991 Public Notice (still in effect). On the AM broadcast band, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR Sections 15.207, 15.209, 15.219, and 15.221. These devices must accept any interference caused by any other operation, which may further limit the effective service range. https://www.fcc.gov/media/radi... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it is interesting that one can buy supposedly legal devices that go beyond 200 feet.
As one example:
https://www.amazon.com/Retekes... [amazon.com]
Re:The FCC could do right (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The devices would need to be cheap and putting one in your home or business would be helping the community. I think sync is hard part.
Re: (Score:2)
These would be low power devices, spread apart you'd get gaps/lack of signal rather than overlap. But you're right, and I'm not suggesting this is a good idea but might be possible.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
All the FCC has to do is take serious their licensing of spectrum to non-huge companies. There was talk at one time of legalizing pirate radio up to a certain wattage but I'm not sure what ever happened with that. While we do need licensing to share a finite resource like radio spectrum, there is something very wrong about the big money auctions the FCC holds to raise millions from frequency sales.
I believe you have failed to realize the purpose of the American government and all its agencies. There may have been a time, though looking through history it's hard to imagine, that the US government was about trying to help all of the American people. But that time, if it ever existed, is long in the past now. The purpose of modern American government is twofold. One? Protect the interest of large corporations and the multi-millionaires and billionaires that run them. Two? Gather as much money as possibl
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC's LPFM licensing program was supposed to make this sort of thing super simple starting back in the late 90's and early 2000's, but it is such an absolute pain in the ass that it has seen very very little adoption. I think they have only actually issued a few hundred licenses and even fewer stations actually ever made it on the air.
You are correct though that the FCC does essentially zero enforcement of violations unless they have a lot of visibility. Take over a TV station or satellite feed or start
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's cool to hate big companies and everything, but the license of this spectrum belongs to a real low power public interest broadcaster. It's licensed to a local catholic organization for religious programming.
Severity of Facts! (Score:4)
I respect we don't want everyone running a rogue microwave that's broken and knocking out the spectrum, but I'd rather listen to these guys than KISS 105.5 any day.
--
It's not true I had nothing on, I had the radio on. - Marilyn Monroe
Yes, but the Proles want to listen to Kiss 105.5 (Score:1)
And supposedly the USA is a democracy - or so it is believed... ;)
Is there a real problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted there is a need to regulate the use of frequencies, keeping laws in place is reasonable. But these should be directed at broadcasters who are causing a problem to others and at those who are making substantial profits. To the extent such a station is really serving a community that is marginalised and doesn't disrupt other stations, there's a good case for choosing to ignore it.
Of course this is one of those problem that will fade out in the long term as radio stations disappear onto the internet. However in the short term it is marginalised people whom these MAY be serving, who don't have the ability to access the internet (think elderly people who don't do the internet).
Re: (Score:2)
However in the short term it is marginalised people whom these MAY be serving, who don't have the ability to access the internet (think elderly people who don't do the internet).
Lots of marginalisations will affect internet access, or internet access at the point where people wish to consume this media. Poverty, unstable housing situations. Hell, even workplace rules may affect that if you can afford a personal phone and a data plan but are not allowed to take it into a workplace that's perfectly happy to leave a radio playing for all the good little drones to listen to.
Sounds like it's time for a community group at arms length from these operators to try to set up something under
But the act isn't working (Score:2)
I read:
'Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website.'
As saying potential operators can't get stations going.
Buy an existing station (Score:2)
Sounds like it's time for a community group at arms length from these operators to try to set up something under the provisions of the Local Community Radio Act, and push back hard against any obstacles they might encounter..
I read:
'Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website.'
As saying potential operators can't get stations going.
Sounds like it's time for a community group at arms length from these operators to purchase an existing licensed station from its operator and replace that station's programming with programming that meets the needs of a particular marginalized community.
Re:Is there a real problem? (Score:4, Informative)
To the extent such a station is really serving a community that is marginalised and doesn't disrupt other stations, there's a good case for choosing to ignore it.
Ignoring the pirate stations sets a bad precedent. Rather than ignore them I'd suggest working with them to get a legitimate license to transmit.
However in the short term it is marginalised people whom these MAY be serving, who don't have the ability to access the internet (think elderly people who don't do the internet).
I believe the longer term solution is getting marginalized people space on the RF spectrum for a broadcast station when and where possible. Internet service costs money so people lacking funds can be locked out of internet streams. Operating a radio station costs money too but there's an existing and working model of stations funded by advertising and/or donations. Those desiring to get this broadcast need only a cheap radio. There's an issue of getting power for the radio perhaps, that costs money over time if from disposable alkaline cells or electricity from some utility. There's crank powered radios, solar powered radios, and perhaps other options that involve a one time cost. These will wear out eventually but it is still a much lower cost than internet connected anything, especially since the internet connected device needs electricity too.
Oh, and a radio is easier to operate than anything internet connected. That is unless the device is somehow pre-programmed for picking up these streams. Maintaining that code and pushing out changes isn't free.
Re: Is there a real problem? (Score:2)
But there's no chance of legal stations (Score:2)
That's how I read the comment:
'Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try Getting Commercial Licenses if Not MNC (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
One of my friends tried to set up a station, for 10 years. If you aren't Clearchannel, forget it.
I don't have the figures but I've heard broadcast licenses are ***expensive***, that is, if there's available spectrum not owned by CC.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you try buying an existing station from its operator instead of establishing a new station?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're still going to have to outbid Clear Channel and the other big operators if you're in anything but the tiniest market.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a business that also tried to obtain a LPFM license for years. We began at the earliest opportunity in 2000 and got the runaround until late 2002 or thereabouts when we eventually had to shut down after corporate radio got scared about streaming and our revenue went away.
The FCC LPFM program is a fucking joke. It would actually have been a better and lower risk business decision to go on the air as a pirate station. The same is still true today.
It's also worth noting that the FCC is never actually abl
follow the law? (Score:2, Informative)
These guys had plenty of warnings according to the article. Just because something is serving a âoemarginalizedâ community does not make it inherently legal or right. Hispanics are particularly annoying about this sort of thing, as anybody who has lived in a majority Hispanic area knows quite well.
And hey, donâ(TM)t forget the outrageous fines the FCC charges people caught using cell phone jammers to get a little peace and quiet.
two minds. (Score:1)
No shortage of frequencies. (Score:1)
On the one hand, this makes sense, because use of radio frequencies are limited by physics and, without licenses, radio would be a free-for-all.
That's only true for channelized radio transmissions. Whlie that was good in the early 1900s for AM radio and the concept was moved to FM radio, it's not true today. Just like cable TV can carry a huge amount of data on one wire, and that can turn out to be thousands of TV channels AND high speed Internet, radio wave transmission allow many methods of multiplexing, phase shifting, modulation, trunking, and other means that don't require "one channel" for "one audio stream".
SDRs are a dime a dozen and make
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you're still limited to one transmission source
And no doubt, AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile will be more than happy to acquire the commercial broadcast bands and run that transmitter for all of you. For a monthly subscription fee, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
That's possible to some extent with HD radio.
The radio waves belong to the people (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a new owner process... First, you start with an AM or Low Power FM, then add a full power FM and break it out of simulcast of your AM. Next, you may have a Digital TV station.
Sorry, you can't just suddenly start a big station...
Re: (Score:3)
There is no 'new owner process'. Hasn't been for years. They simply refuse to issue new licenses. They sold off the existing licenses to monopolists years ago. This simply leaves the majority of the bandwidth unpopulated. The FCC's only remaining job is prosecuting anyone trying to use the empty space. They are no longer a licensing authority, they are watchdogs for oligarchs. This is what regulatory capture looks like, folks.
Isn't AM being increasingly killed off? (Score:2)
Pretty sure /. posted an article within the last week or so about new Fords not even supporting it on their new cars. Shit like that is a death knell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I, for one... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
facsimile of fascism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they left fascism to find it yet again. Do they get a third choice?
Well, this is the USA where there are the four boxes of liberty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Opportunity for constitutional challenge? (Score:2)
The audio spectrum has the same sort of "bandwidth limitation" as the radio spectrum, especially at low power levels equivalent to not using loudspeakers capable of being heard hundreds of miles away. But it has far less bandwidth and far more users - of many species. Yet free speech seems to work there. So why "must" the radio spectrum be limited to a handful of federally licensed monopoly users paying big bux for a privilege to speak and living under draconian limitations on content?
Perhaps this could
Some regulation is inevitable (Score:2)
Or at least was, and in practice still is, given the constraints of the technology. Given that, the principle of regulation can't be challenged. The only basis for a challenge would be the far harder one that the FCC is failing to regulate in the public interest. That's a far more political call, though given the way that the courts have acted in recent decades, possibly one that might appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Expected to see more comments about free speech, but that was the only.
What does this fine pay for? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were broadcasting over top of another legally licensed low power FM station that also served the interests of a faction of the local community. According to the FCC website broadcasting rights on that frequency is licensed to a catholic organization for religious programming. This is quite simply two guys who are not playing by the same rules that everyone else does. They were given multiple opportunities to stop their actions without penalties, but refused. Fuck them and their unwillingness to ope
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the days (Score:3)
when Pirate radio stations were called that because they were broadcasting from ships (or at least large boats) outside the 12 mile limit.
Technical details (Score:2)
What was the broadcast power? Was it 50,000 watts like the X? Was it 50W for a few neighborhoods?
While it would seriously limit their user base, isn't shortwave radio relatively accessible from a broadcast standpoint?
Evil guvvamint (Score:1)
Pump Up The Volume (Score:2)
Kudos to these guys for getting away with it for so long and not having their equipment seized. Christian Slater has nothing on them... 15 years???
They should really start a goFundme