DAB Thread

Well which law is being broken? The Wireless Telegraphy Act(s) I think - so the person in charge of the unlicensed transmitter is culpable.

Whatever audio is being carried is surely irrelevant. I could put an illegal FM transmitter on and relay BBC Radio 1, but the BBC would not be breaking the law.

The Broadcasting Act doesn't apply as that refers to licensed stations.

Declan A Walsh wrote: »

The type of pirates on FM are relatively limited in variety, i.e. dance pirates and some oldies-oriented pirates. I'm suggesting that the same might apply if using an unlicensed DAB platform.

That is an interesting point. This is where we are into a grey area that does not happen with pirates on FM.

I see your point for sure. There is a bit of choice on there as it is though. As for dance music stations, I think as long as the BAI's strict rules stay in place we will always have dance pirates whether it be FM, Online or now FreeDAB.

To be honest DAB never interested me until recently. I knew about it alright. But now I can totally see the logic behind it this. It costs sfa compared to running a pirate. Run multiple stations from the one Mux, very cost effective indeed.

OK so it's illegal, but it's the first of it's kind in the country. Look at the UK, almost every town is covered by DAB. We have 9 state broadcast stations which are absolutely crap and only in select areas. I've no doubt when the power goes up on the Mux, other people will notice.

It may change the future of DAB in Ireland who knows but for now let's just enjoy it. Something never done before and it's different. Hat's off to the owner!

radioguru02

hustlergraham wrote: »

I see your point for sure. There is a bit of choice on there as it is though. As for dance music stations, I think as long as the BAI's strict rules stay in place we will always have dance pirates whether it be FM, Online or now FreeDAB.

To be honest DAB never interested me until recently. I knew about it alright. But now I can totally see the logic behind it this. It costs sfa compared to running a pirate. Run multiple stations from the one Mux, very cost effective indeed.

OK so it's illegal, but it's the first of it's kind in the country. Look at the UK, almost every town is covered by DAB. We have 9 state broadcast stations which are absolutely crap and only in select areas. I've no doubt when the power goes up on the Mux, other people will notice.

It may change the future of DAB in Ireland who knows but for now let's just enjoy it. Something never done before and it's different. Hat's off to the owner!

I’m converted too, let’s just hope others will be are as well

ITV2

Noticed FreeDab off at the moment.

ITV2 wrote: »

Noticed FreeDab off at the moment.

Let's hope it's a power increase

Looks like I was right. Power seems to have increased on the Mux. May be still tuning it though. My DAB receiver tells me I've 85% quality here in West Dublin.

radioguru02

Interesting that EirDAB are back on. Maybe they’re taking a leaf out of FreeDAB’s book and piratint?

pirateradiohed wrote: »

Interesting that EirDAB are back on. Maybe they’re taking a leaf out of FreeDAB’s book and piratint?

Yes it's a weird one alright. Is it the same stations that were on before?

Freedab have definitely increased power. All sounding good!

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

Well which law is being broken? The Wireless Telegraphy Act(s) I think - so the person in charge of the unlicensed transmitter is culpable.

Whatever audio is being carried is surely irrelevant. I could put an illegal FM transmitter on and relay BBC Radio 1, but the BBC would not be breaking the law.

The Broadcasting Act doesn't apply as that refers to licensed stations.

The mux operator is in breach of the WTA and any station without a section 71 licence is in breach of the BA. Advertisers/sponsors are also liable for aiding and abetting a criminal act. Equipment confiscated, fines levied and mux/station operators banned from holding a BA licence.

I don't believe the stations who's programmes are being carried are in breach of S71 of the BA, since the BA covers licensed stations.

In my example above, say for example an illegal FM transmitter relays a station's web stream without their permission. How could that station be culpable if they had no control over the illegal relay?

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

I don't believe the stations who's programmes are being carried are in breach of S71 of the BA, since the BA covers licensed stations.

In my example above, say for example an illegal FM transmitter relays a station's web stream without their permission. How could that station be culpable if they had no control over the illegal relay?

They're not in breach of S71, they're in breach of the Broadcasting Act because broadcasting on DAB without a S71 license breaks the law.

A station that is relayed against their will would have that as their legal mitigation. However, if stations are found to be making payment for carriage and/or the mux operator is receiving payment for carriage then stations are legally liable. They better be paying in cash or saving up for the fine.

But the programme source isn't 'broadcasting' - the mux operator is.

Trick of the Tail is right. Stargas is reading a web page somewhere by the sounds of it. If the Mux gets taken out that will be it. And possibly a fine for the land owner. Just like with FM. How do you find who operates the Mux? How you find the owners of the stations being broadcast?

Stargas I'd love to know...

Dipole Keith

Stargas wrote: »

They're not in breach of S71, they're in breach of the Broadcasting Act because broadcasting on DAB without a S71 license breaks the law.

A station that is relayed against their will would have that as their legal mitigation. However, if stations are found to be making payment for carriage and/or the mux operator is receiving payment for carriage then stations are legally liable. They better be paying in cash or saving up for the fine.

No station on the Mux is getting rebroadcast against their will, I was told they pay monthly to be on it.

david23

There is a short interview with the people behind FreeDAB on the wohnort site:

http://www.wohnort.org/dab/

Franko87

Stargas your very heavy handed with your opinions in relation to freedab.we are trying to eliminate a problem sit back and think about that that might be. I'm sure comreg know egactlly what we are trying to achive .less headache from the legals complaining would be one issue to boot .

Max Power 2010

Here's the article..

From Wohnort ... September 12th ...

Free-DAB ensembles have popped up in a number of Irish cities, most recently with some low-power tests in Dublin at the weekend. The status of the broadcasts has been the subject of some comment and speculation in radio forums. Wohnort asked if FreeDAB would answer a few questions. The "interview" took place on September 10th.

Wohnort: You've been broadcasting since April 2019 in Cork, is that right? And at the weekend you began broadcasting in Dublin. Where else are you on the air? The FreeDAB website mentions Sligo and Donegal. Are these up and running?

FreeDAB: Freedab commenced its first broadcast in March on low test power. On May 22nd we launched across Cork. We have since launched our Dublin multiplex on block 5D on test power. We will launch fully tomorrow [September 11th] across Dublin. We have test multiplexes on test in Sligo town and Donegal and will full launch [them] when we are satisfied that [they] meet spectral requirements.

Wohnort: How did FreeDAB begin? At the time you started there was already a trial mux operating in Cork. How did Cork suddenly end up with two separate muxes operating at the same time?

FreeDAB: FreeDAB came about after my station NRG was refused a Section 71 licence from the BAI and requested we setup and apply for an FM licence before we can be considered for DAB. On that note with my technical background I decided to take matters into my own hands and FreeDAB was born. FreeDAB and eirdab have no connection what so ever!!

Wohnort: Is FreeDAB the producer of any of the services broadcasting on your mux?

FreeDAB: Yes, NRGradiocork

Wohnort: One of the services on FreeDAB is a Spanish radio station, is that right? How did that come about? I mean, how did they even know you were here? Is it the same programme, running in both Ireland and Spain?

FreeDAB: Yes, Coast FM, that's correct. We were approached by Coast and asked can [they] be broadcast across our network and many other stations also have approached us.

Wohnort: What's next?

FreeDAB: With the current FM pirate situation here in Ireland, FreeDAB is set up to eliminate this problem and accepting pirates to join FreeDAB on the basis they shut down FM. This is our goal and as a result there are 3 pirates on in Dublin left out of 20. This gives the legal stations back their markets.

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

But the programme source isn't 'broadcasting' - the mux operator is.

I'm reading from the Act and the wording is quite clear. Here's the relevant bit.

71.— ...a person shall not supply a compilation of programme material for ...

(a) inclusion as part of a multiplex,
(b) the purpose of its being transmitted as a broadcasting service in the State...

It's being included on a multiplex. It's therefore a broadcasting service. It doesn't have a S71. It's breaking the law.

Stargas wrote: »

I'm reading from the Act and the wording is quite clear. Here's the relevant bit.

71.— ...a person shall not supply a compilation of programme material for ...

(a) inclusion as part of a multiplex,
(b) the purpose of its being transmitted as a broadcasting service in the State...

It's being included on a multiplex. It's therefore a broadcasting service. It doesn't have a S71. It's breaking the law.

Told you he was reading from a web page, legal jargon :P Pirates on FM are illegal too. Suppose you disagree with them as well?

Franko87

Graham they man haven't a clue about the real politics of radio in Ireland and why this is being done. Believe me when I say what we are doing is for the better of everyone and I mean everyone. Fm legals in particular.

overseer

Didn't IMRO or PPI look for their pound of flesh from stations during the original DAB tests? Of course they already had those stations registered for FM royalties so it might not be an issue this time (hopefully).

end of the road

i'm not seeing why people are having a go at Stargas tbh. the poster from what i can see didn't state whether he or she agreed or disagreed with pirate operations, but simply gave the facts of the law as it stands in relation to dab.
Stargas is referring to the broadcasting act of 2009, which, legal jargon or not, is still the law of the land unfortunately, and does say that in relation to dab, mux operators and the stations operating on the muxes must have licenses to operate on the dab platform.
as much as we don't care about pirates operating whether they be AM, FM or dab, we can't simply deny the existance of the laws either, they still exist, and do apply unfortunately, even if we need, and are greatful for people taking the time to go against them to bring an alternative to the forced, pretend to be funny "banter" and the same 10 songs on loop.

I accept that the wording of the BA could be used to cover an unlicensed mux, even though that could be seen to be contradictory - it's one of many contradictions that exist in broadcast (and other) law which would have to be tested in court.

However my point is the definition of 'supply' in this context. If there is no evidence that a programme originator has entered into an agreement with the unlicensed mux op to supply programme material, nor has - for example - set up a separate stream for this mux, then there would be no evidence that the mux op is not just simply relaying a web stream which is universally available. So in this case I don't see how the prog source could be held to be breaking the BA.

overseer wrote: »

Didn't IMRO or PPI look for their pound of flesh from stations during the original DAB tests? Of course they already had those stations registered for FM royalties so it might not be an issue this time (hopefully).

Yes they did, as they always do when a station has either an FM or a S71 licence from the BAI.

But AFAIK they have never sought to glean funds from a station not in some way licensed by the BAI. Indeed the legislation under which the operate specifically states that they can levy charges to BAI-licensed stations - none others.

end of the road

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

I accept that the wording of the BA could be used to cover an unlicensed mux, even though that could be seen to be contradictory - it's one of many contradictions that exist in broadcast (and other) law which would have to be tested in court.

However my point is the definition of 'supply' in this context. If there is no evidence that a programme originator has entered into an agreement with the unlicensed mux op to supply programme material, nor has - for example - set up a separate stream for this mux, then there would be no evidence that the mux op is not just simply relaying a web stream which is universally available. So in this case I don't see how the prog source could be held to be breaking the BA.

i completely understand your point and it would certainly make sense.
i wasn't refering to you within my point just for clarity.

JDxtra

JDxtra wrote: »

This seems to be more of a placeholder as there is no audio branding on it.

Non-Stop 90's on DAB now updated and is carrying the usual good audio branding.

Ger Roe

I was in the Santry area of Dublin yesterday and picked up the Freedab Mux on a quick scan. I could see all the stations listed, but I didn't hear any audio, even though the screen display said 'playing'.

Was there some audio stream issues yesterday, or was I missing something on my radio setup? I didn't have any time to do more investigation.

JDxtra

It's broadcast using DAB+ so I wonder if you're tuner supports this (most radios should, some older ones may not). Check if you can get audio on 2FM+ on DAB. If this works then there was some other issue.