Hacker News Reader

Comment by nimbius | Hacker News Reader

As an amateur extra I'm glad to see the enforcement. Most of these pirate stations are cobbled together from leaky baofeng trash, sizzly amps and random pot steel masquerading as antenna. They're dangerous radiation hazards at worst, and almost always a nuisance to the airwaves operating as overpowered noise across the spectrum. This is a great way to wind up sending randos to the urgent care with rf burns.

To be clear I really hope for compliance here as many amateur hams are more than willing to help a nonprofit set up a commercial radio station to further their mission. Proper grounding, signage anchoring safe operation and maintenance are all things were well versed on and can lend a hand with, oftentimes free of charge

View on HN

I get it, that there are negative consequences that are sometimes disruptive to amateur radio.

However, my counter point would be that it's really the FCC who should be blamed for what is obviously an unfair system where Clear Channel can basically "own" FM radio across the entire country. If a pirate wants to set up a micro transmitter to broadcast something cool, and doesn't interfere with anyone (obviously unlike this guy), I have a hard time seeing them as the villan.

The US Congress loosened the restrictions on station ownership, enabling the dominance of companies like Clear Channel,with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC is just enforcing the law.

The FCC could take the example of law enforcement nationwide and understand that it doesn't have to enforce the law.

The FCC, like the rest of the Executive Branch, is tasked with executing the law. Neither legislating nor judging the law is their job, nor should they engage in such behaviour.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

>Two wrongs do not make a right

On its face this looks like a neutral ethical stance, doesn't it?

Behind the mask it's just a thinly-veiled defense of powerful corporate interests. Those are the parties who (in our modern political system) decide what "right" means, when it really counts.

They make the rules. Predictably the rulebook, if read carefully (congratulations), favors their interests. They didn't leave any "holes" for us.

That teaches us about power. It doesn't make it right.

A government that doesn't even attempt to uphold its own laws is not likely to work out better in practice for the average citizen.

That's the beauty of dividing up the structures protecting corporate power: everyone has someone else to blame. "One hand washes the other."

The executive branch can blame the congress, like you just did.

Congress can blame the corporations, because they'll fund a rival candidate if they do anything to offend their interests.

Corporations can (and do) blame others, but in our system they don't really need to. Everything corporations do is moral by definition, because they always seek the economic optimum. Don't look into it, I'm sure it's fine.

Power always tries to fashion for itself a perfect suit of legitimizing armor, without any gaps. You've been describing some of the pieces. The job of dissidents (and yes hackers) is to find holes in that armor, and if necessary poke new ones.

Dissent created the modern world. Every citizen owes an enormous debt to past (and future) dissidents, even if we don't personally identify as one.

A society without dissent is not likely to work out better in practice for the average citizen. We'd better make room for it.

>The executive branch can blame the congress, like you just did.

Yes, because Congress is at fault. Dissent is fine, but it is at best unproductive and more probably counterproductive if it is misdirected. If the laws are bad, it is unequivocally the legislature's fault.

>Yes, because Congress is at fault. ... If the laws are bad, it is unequivocally the legislature's fault.

Congress is only operating under the constraints of voters and corporations. Just try to be the proverbial "good Congressperson" and see how fast you get voted out in favor of a well-funded rival appearing from nowhere.

The same is true of the CEO of Exxon, incidentally. You could magically swap the head of Greenpeace in there, but that person will still be constrained by the obligation to shareholders (among other things, via the threat of removal).

It's not the individual people at fault, the problem is the emergent behavior of the system itself. You can't fix it by swapping out "bad" people for "good" people. It doesn't work.

>Dissent is fine, but it is at best unproductive

I don't think the civil rights movement was unproductive.

Or law enforcement can enforce the law instated as the will of the people instead? Confused by this logic

> This is a great way to wind up sending randos to the urgent care with rf burns.

In my - ahem - personal experience with RF burns that would require rather close contact at those frequencies. Though I have it from a reliable source that you should always first check if there are any pigeons sitting on your antenna before powering up anything over a few hundred Watts.

> you should always first check if there are any pigeons sitting on your antenna before powering up anything over a few hundred Watts

Portland Fried Pigeons o_O

You can make fluorescent tubes light up at considerable distance with a beefy enough transmitter.

I went to a Tesla museum in Belgrade, Serbia. Towards the end they handed out fluorescent tubes and powered on a device that lit them up. I’m assuming it was a small Tesla coil but I’m no EE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com