Ever wondered how the FCC tracks down and busts pirate radio operators? Anyone familiar with the subject has heard about radio tracking equipment that helps agents triangulate a signal, but what other tools are in their arsenal?

Google is a big one. Another tool? Taking pictures of the buildings where they find signals, and photographing the license plates of cars parked in front.

That’s what we learn thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Lumberjack, the student-run newspaper of California’s Humboldt State University. The paper filed the request regard the FCC’s investigation of the Humboldt Free Radio Alliance last year which led to the station shutting down.

Amongst the notes revealed in the case file obtained by the paper are an agent’s “investigation” of a MySpace page:

“The webpage shows a number of people who are dj’s. Printed out the myspace web pages and placed them in the case folder,” FCC documents said.

The Commission apparently learned that the station had shut down from a Google search, too, which brought up a post to an Indymedia site:

“Googled ‘Humboldt Free Radio Alliance’ an (Internet publication) IndyMedia article related to our shutdown,” stated the FCC documents.

“Since information indicates station off the air and may be trying to find a new location, will close the case based on the certified mail receipt. A new location will require a new case.”

What’s interesting about this is the sheer mundaneness of it all. Aside from being able to use signal finding equipment, there’s very little cleverness about finding pirate operators. And you really don’t even need the fancy equipment in the first place. A relatively sensitive radio can help you track down a pirate signal to within a block or so. Then you can look around for an antenna, which needs to be mounted high and away from other blockages, and so is likely to be somewhat conspicuous if you know what you’re looking for.

Indeed, the way most pirates evade the FCC is through simply keeping things on the down-low and common sense. Not broadcasting 24-7, and keeping a more erratic schedule are two very simple ways of minimizing detection and making it a little more difficult for the FCC to track you down, since agents have lots of other things to do besides hunt down pirates.

It’s also good to see some confirmation of the fact that agents do use the internet. Ever since I started following the pirate radio underground on the ‘net some 14 years ago, the most common admonition you’d read–whether on usenet, listservs or bulletin boards–is not to post too much identifying information about your station and its broadcasts.

Of course, the problem with not using the internet to publicize a station is that it makes it more difficult to attract listeners who might be interested.

Although I haven’t seen the case file, my guess is that the FCC only starts its Google searches once it’s opened an investigation. That is, I doubt that the Commission spends a lot of time trolling the internet to find pirate radio websites and posting–though I also would believe that agents do peruse pirate-related sites like the Free Radio Network. The Commission after all is truly a complaint-driven bureaucracy.

More likely is that the searches start once the Commission has received complaints from listeners or other broadcasters.

So, keep that in mind if you want to publicize your unlicensed station online. Publicity comes with a price, so a little caution goes a long way.

Matthew Lasar continues his excellent reporting for Ars Technica with an article on a recent letter from House Energy and Commerce Chair John Dingell (D-MI) and Internet subcommittee Chair Edward J. Markey (D-MA) to the FCC urging an open platform for satellite radio if the Commission approves the Sirius/XM deal. What they’re calling for is the ability for any manufacturer to make Sirius/XM compatible satellite radios, without the ability for the merged company to prevent things like iPod docks or HD Radio capability.

Lasar also notes the gathering steam in support for setting aside some of the merged company’s channel capacity for noncommercial programming, similar to what has been required for direct-broadcast satellite TV. Apparently even Clear Channel wants 5% of capacity set aside for “public interest” programming, whatever Cheap Channel means by that.

I oppose the merger on the principled basis of the fact that such a merger was specifically prohibited as a provision of the original authorization of the service. Nevertheless, I recognize that principle rarely rules the day in DC. Therefore I very much support setting aside channel capacity for non-commercial broadcasters as a necessary condition if the FCC chooses to approve the merger.

Obtaining a non-commercial channel on Dish Network was vitally important for Free Speech TV and has allowed that organization to distribute its radically critical grassroots programming in a way that it simply could not before, feeding public access TV stations around the country.

Although internet distribution is still more practical for radio programming than for TV programming, having several nation-wide progressive and grassroots radio channels nonetheless would be a great opportunity, and could be of great service to community radio stations.

A channel I’d love to see is one built on an Indymedia type of model, mixed with Current TV. It would be fed by programming from independent producers and community stations, like the programs you find at the A-Info Radio Project and Radio Indymedia. But, like Current, it should be edited and curated. That is, I’d like to see things selected and knit together into a coherent program flow. Maybe a whole show would be carried, or just a particularly good segment. And then combine these shows and segments with regular hosts and other original content related to particular themes and topics.

In a way, this idea is a lot like what a lot of people over the years have hoped would come of NPR or Pacifica, that they would function truly more like networks connecting up stations than as program syndicators. But I do understand how the overhead of the kind of operations they need to run make playing that networking role more difficult.

That’s the beauty of having new channels on satellite radio — the overhead is comparatively low because you don’t have to worry about physical broadcast stations, licenses or signing up affiliates. Like an internet station, but with a different kind of reach, the low overhead allows more opportunity for experimentation.

Of course the kind of channel I’m envisioning is not necessarily well suited to distributing programming in the same way that Free Speech distributes Democracy Now to stations. That’s why we need to have multiple channels set aside, so there is room for multiple models. Compared even to satellite TV channels, satellite radio channel capacity is cheap. I don’t see any reason why the FCC can’t or shouldn’t make this a condition of approving the merger. It could be like creating LPFM for the nation.

Links and notes related to the May 2 mediageek radioshow:

• FCC Proceeding on localism: http://www.fcc.gov/localism
• Public Knowledge’s Orphan Works Act page: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow
• Matthew Lasar’s Ars Technica article: NPR’s war on Low Power FM: the laws of physics vs. politics

You can read the full test of the show’s news headlines after the jump.

(more…)

It’s been eight years since the FCC voted to establish LPFM, and in that time NPR has only seen its fortunes rise, with listenership and income rising in sharp contrast to the fortunes of the Clear-Channeled commercial radio industry. Yet, as Matthew Lasar reports in Ars Technica, the nation’s largest public radio network continues to trot out the beaten dead horse of interference in arguing that the Commission should not take steps to protect LPFM stations. NPR’s especially against the proposal that full-power stations that want to relocate transmitters should assist LPFM stations in making sure the low-power signals are not degraded in the change.

I covered this on Friday’s radioshow, too, and the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am in NPR. Despite many of the criticisms of NPR’s establishment-oriented news coverage and upper-middle-class demographic focus, there’s much to like about NPR and its programming. I am a daily listener because NPR’s news programming is better than anything on the commercial radio dial, and better than commercial TV news. That said, I don’t get all my news from NPR, and think it’s also vitally important to have community radio and great international programs like Democracy Now and Free Speech Radio News, both of which merit wider distribution and better funding.

Back in 2001 when I had a little Q&A with then NPR president Kevin Klose he maintained that the network was hewing to the interference concerns of the Western NPR affiliates, using translator stations to reach mountainous and isolated regions. He tried to express sympathy for the goals of LPFM, while also criticizing the FCC for how he believed it rushed LPFM through.

But we all learned the interference concerns were unfounded when the Congressionally mandated Mitre report was released. So why does NPR insist on opposing LPFM still?

The only answer that makes sense is that the network is behaving in a very Clear Channel/NAB way, opposing any competition, regardless of the potential competitor’s merits. This is nothing new, NPR joined up with the CPB back in the 70s to kill low-power Class D radio the first time around (see my chapter in the Radio Reader). NPR’s competition anxiety is a little different than Clear Channel’s in that now, as in the 1970s, it has a lot to do with CPB grants, which are still the lifesblood of most NPR affiliate stations. These grants have been shrinking, and increasingly are based on listener ratings. Especially in medium size markets, LPFMs can pose a real threat of listener erosion.

The bigger fear, I reckon, is that beyond just posing competition, NPR fears that some stations might actually have to give way to or assist LPFMs if they want to move tower locations or increase power.

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced of NPR’s apparent fears and critical of their opposition to LPFM. I believe that public radio as a whole has more to gain from having additional noncommercial, community stations on the dial than it has to lose. In any event, NPR’s continued opposition of LPFM is short-sighted and unnecesary.

I am definitely considering halting my contributions to NPR-affiliated stations in protest of NPR’s stupid LPFM stance. I wish there were a way to make pledges to stations to continue support local programming without any of that money going to the network (maybe there is?). What do you think?

The Benton Foundation has compiled an excellent wrap-up of testimony and press coverage of yesterday’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on network neutrality.

After listening to Chairman Martin’s testimony [PDF / webcast] to the Senate Commerce Committee today, along much of his Q&A with members of the committee, I can’t help but think that Martin is really walking a tightrope. On the one hand, he asserts quite confidently that the Commission has the legal right to enforce its Internet Policy Statement [PDF], while acknowledging that Comcast and other ISPs dispute that ability. On the other hand, he also refuses to recognize the rather obvious utility of Congress enshrining these principles as law so that the FCC’s ability to protect internet freedom is no longer so easily subject to question.

The problem with the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement is that it is, fundamentally, just a statement. It represents the Commission’s interpretation of what it is supposed to do, but does not necessarily represent actual regulation or law. Per the statement itself, the FCC says:

In this Policy Statement, the Commission offers guidance and insight into its approach to the
Internet and broadband that is consistent with these Congressional directives.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but “guidance and insight” do not law nor regulation make.

And so it is as if Martin insists on building a straw house of network neutrality, even as prominent congresspeople offer to give him bricks. Of course, I doubt many (if any) congresspeople will be deterred from supporting Net Neutrality legislation simply because Martin refuses to ask for it. But it provides good cover for those who want to duck under it.

It would be one thing if Martin were ignoring Comcast’s blocking, or defending Comcast’s “network management” practices. Instead, he expresses forthright criticism of Comcast, especially the fact that it hid the fact of its practice. In fact, especially listening to today’s testimony, it appears that for Martin the hiding is almost the greater sin than the blocking itself.

That sounds like Martin acknowledging market failure–where consumers don’t have the proper information to make informed broadband choices–but yet he remains still faithful in so-called market solutions in lieu of actual law or regulation with teeth.

But honestly, I still can’t quite figure out where he’s coming from. He’s definitely sounds more net neutrality friendly than ever before — and likely more friendly than either the big ISPs or congressional Republicans would like. But he won’t cross that line and make any guarantees. Remember, this is the same chairman who oversaw the elimination of common carriage requirements on the Internet, sparking the whole need for network neutrality law and regulation in the first place. Is he truly acting on principle or is he just avoiding a strong position, biding his time until the election when he might have the opportunity to bail and get a cushy industry job?

Stanford law Prof. Larry Lessig apparently recorded his own testimony at the FCC hearing last week, and sync’d it up with his PowerPoint/Keynote slides into a nice little video that he’s posted to his blog.

I tuned in too late to catch his presentation last Thursday, and the hearing wasn’t even over by the time I needed to have last week’s radioshow finished, so I unfortunately wasn’t able to include any of it in last week’s show. I’m glad that I went back to hear/watch it because it’s a very succinct, yet penetrating summary of the issues at hand. I don’t have time to play the entire thing on this week’s show, but I will be sure to include an excerpt.

You can watch all 25 minutes–with not a minute wasted–after the jump.

(more…)

I didn’t even know it was happening, until I saw Free Press’ tweets this morning. They’re live-twittering it right now if you want to follow along:

Martin: Failure to disclose network management practices or tolls would be unreasonable. Actual practice of discrimination may or may not be

Dorgan is questioning Martin, trying to make a point that nondiscrimination regulation wouldn’t be heavy-handed, intensive or onerous. 7 minutes ago from web

Martin is recapping testimony FCC has received re:Comcast from previous hearings. He paints a pretty negative picture of Comcast’s practices 11 minutes ago from web

Martin concerned with ISP disclosure/transparency, and making sure consumer expectations are appropriate to the service purchased… 14 minutes ago from web

First witness is FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, fresh off the Stanford hearing, saying FCC has responsibility and authority to address problems. 16 minutes ago from web

Stevens: It’s “unfortunate” that Net Neutrality debate has become drawn out along political lines. 19 minutes ago from web

Sen. Ted “tubes” Stevens: Ne Neutrality is a solution “in search of justification” 20 minutes ago from web

For those more A/V inclined, there’s a live stream, too.

On today’s radioshow I also played a portion of Tim Robbins’ not entirely scheduled keynote speech to the National Association of Broadcasters convention on Monday, in which he excoriated the mainstream media industry saying, ““We are at an abyss as an industry and as a country.”

Robbins’ excerpt is in the first part of the show, or you can listen to some highlights compiled by AdAge.

The keynote was supposed to be a Q&A session with TV critic David Bianculli since Robbins decided not to give the speech he had prepared (and ended up giving). Bianculli had read the speech and compared it to former FCC chairman Newton Minow’s famous 1961 speech to the NAB wherein he called television a “vast wasteland.” Bianculli’s positive review prompted audience members to urge Robbins to give the speech anyway.

Much of the speech was not broadcast ready, due to Robbins’ prodigious command of the f-word. If you’re interested in hearing that part, you can listen to a bootleg recorded by Broadcasting and Cable magazine [MP3].

Bianculli gives his account of the keynote on his blog.

It’s a great speech, and all the more of a hoot because it was delivered from the belly of best (to mix my metaphors). Kudos to Robbins for taking the NAB up on the offer to deliver the keynote and, yes, some respect must be paid the NAB for welcoming Robbins and not yanking him off stage. It hardly makes up for the existence of Bill O’Reilly or Michael Savage, who are, as Edward R Murrow would call–channeled through Tim Robbins–”nazi cocksuckers.”