LONG RANGE FM TRANSMITTER CIRCUIT

[upand_at_them]

I vaguely knew a guy years back who got prosecuted three times to my knowledge, first two times he went to court and was rather bolsie - and got a big fine, then an even bigger fine. Third time he went in to court very apologetic, explained that he realised he'd done wrong, and that we was attending college as a radio/media student, and was trying to find work at a radio station. This time the judge let him off with a warning, and even ordered the authorities to return his record collection (but obviously not the equipment).

Who did he think he was, using the public airwaves like they're public or something?!

 

[audioguru]

Do you still have "pirate" radio stations off the coast?

 

[gophert]

This


QUOTE="Nigel Goodwin, post: 1382494, member: 10131"]
first two times he went to court and was rather bolsie - and got a big fine, then an even bigger fine. Third time he went in to court very apologetic, explained that he realised he'd done wrong, and that we was attending college as a radio/media student, and was trying to find work at a radio station. This time the judge let him off with a warning,
[/QUOTE]

...is not evidence that this is true:

Certainly in the UK there can be substantial penalties,

You either need to learn what the word "Substantial" means, or you need to formulate better supporting arguments for your thesis statement. The only evidence you presented proves the penalties do not change anybody behaviors and "warnings" are not penalties. After reading your story, I assume you likely lost touch with this individual and that person continued to make unlicensed transmissions and was hauled into Night Court on a regular basis for some snappy dialog with Harry Anderson and John Larroquette.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Do you still have "pirate" radio stations off the coast?

They were shut down in the 60's.

 

[upand_at_them]

You either need to learn what the word "Substantial" means, or you need to formulate better supporting arguments for your thesis statement. The only evidence you presented proves the penalties do not change anybody behaviors and "warnings" are not penalties.

And you need to learn what the word "proves" means. One instance doesn't prove a general rule. Many pirate stations shutdown over fines and threats of imprisonment, never to return.

 

[gophert]

One instance doesn't prove a general rule. Many pirate stations shutdown over fines and threats of imprisonment, never to return.

If someone bothers going to make a claim AND give evidence, why on earth would one give evidence that directly contradicts the claim? Foolish.

 

[Visitor]

Two pages of off-topic grossing and finger-pointing with the original poster having not been back since the day the message was posted and Nigel's bombastic reply. Good show guys.

 

[gophert]

Two pages of off-topic grossing and finger-pointing with the original poster having not been back since the day the message was posted and Nigel's bombastic reply. Good show guys.

Also possible that the OP posted his question on 3 or 4 sites and then engaged with the first site where his question was addressed. Free market, competition, capitalism, personal choice, ... (pick one). Or, he may have used Google to discover that his plan for an unlicensed transmitter was not feasible.

Finally, please stop finger-pointing unless you know for sure why the OP did not return. How was that show? Good?

 

[Visitor]

If he did return, he didn't log in when he did so.

But excellent job missing the point entirely.

 

[gophert]

If he did return, he didn't log in when he did so.

Ah, thank you for confirming that the second page of Pickering DIDN'T scare him away and the only person pointing fingers was YOU over unfounded nothingness. Good show, guy!

 

[audioguru]

His "about" says that he wants to make an FM transmitter for a town in Nigeria.

 

[upand_at_them]

And whatever the regulations are there, it's unlikely they're heavily enforced like in other countries. If he could afford it, I would suggest the kits from Radio Free Berkeley, if they still operate.

 

[ronsimpson]

10km is not far. I have built 10 watt stations for schools that will almost do that. The antenna is more important than anything. I had 10 watts on top of a 8 story building, high gain antenna, week signal at 10km.
**broken link removed**
ebay 2
Markertek

 

[gophert]

And whatever the regulations are there, it's unlikely they're heavily enforced like in other countries.

Umm, why do you suppose that? Unauthorized communications may be viewed by authorities more severe than the slap on the wrist enforcement that "warning" Nigel described occurs in the UK.

 

[upand_at_them]

Go to a small town in a third world country and find out. Try Somalia, you might like it there.

 

[gophert]

Go to a small town in a third world country and find out. Try Somalia, you might like it there.

Now you seem to have changed your mind, you think the penalties are severe there?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Umm, why do you suppose that? Unauthorized communications may be viewed by authorities more severe than the slap on the wrist enforcement that "warning" Nigel described occurs in the UK.

I understand the FCC are pretty strict as well?.

 

[gophert]

I understand the FCC are pretty strict as well?.

"strict" is a relative term. There are "pirate" stations in certain areas of the country that have been operating but use various loopholes in non-fcc related laws that contradict the fcc regulations. The pirate stations openly sell advertising or hourly sponsorships to local businesses and even politicians seeking re-election. Boston, Patterson NJ are two stations I am familiar with. So, the FCC would like to be strict but some smart lawyers know other laws that essentially allow broadcasts. The $10,000 fines are single fines, not per day or per hour of broadcast and only one $10k fine can be before the courts at a time so pleading not guilty, postponing hearing dates, appealing the fine and ultimately paying a fine has been part of the business model of some of these "pirate" stations for years.

In the last year or so, a new law was passed to make FCC enforcement easier and these stations were shuttered... for a few weeks. Shortly after Trump signed the law, he signed an executive order that removed certain regulatory burdens on small businesses. So... stations claiming the right reasons for avoiding regulatory burdens essentially get consent degrees from the FCC.


The big problem the FCC has is they claim "pirate" stations interfere with other licensed broadcasters but they are never able to prove that wild claim at the trial.

Also, strict, means someone filed an online complaint of interference with their tv signal and the FCC investigates and finds some guy with a soldering iron attempting to build something that causes interference. The FCC says, hey, stop doing that. They may take it away if it was designed to broadcast - but I have not heard of anyone EVER paying a fine for stupid, unintended interference.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

"strict" is a relative term. There are "pirate" stations in certain areas of the country that have been operating but use various loopholes in non-fcc related laws that contradict the fcc regulations. The pirate stations openly sell advertising or hourly sponsorships to local businesses and even politicians seeking re-election. Boston, Patterson NJ are two stations I am familiar with. So, the FCC would like to be strict but some smart lawyers know other laws that essentially allow broadcasts. The $10,000 fines are single fines, not per day or per hour of broadcast and only one $10k fine can be before the courts at a time so pleading not guilty, postponing hearing dates, appealing the fine and ultimately paying a fine has been part of the business model of some of these "pirate" stations for years.

In the last year or so, a new law was passed to make FCC enforcement easier and these stations were shuttered... for a few weeks. Shortly after Trump signed the law, he signed an executive order that removed certain regulatory burdens on small businesses. So... stations claiming the right reasons for avoiding regulatory burdens essentially get consent degrees from the FCC.


The big problem the FCC has is they claim "pirate" stations interfere with other licensed broadcasters but they are never able to prove that wild claim at the trial.

Also, strict, means someone filed an online complaint of interference with their tv signal and the FCC investigates and finds some guy with a soldering iron attempting to build something that causes interference. The FCC says, hey, stop doing that. They may take it away if it was designed to broadcast - but I have not heard of anyone EVER paying a fine for stupid, unintended interference.

Wow, I never knew all of that - presumably it's not something that makes the news round the world?.

 

[gophert]

It barely makes the news in the US.