1Remarks of Michael O’Rielly, Federal Communications Commission
2015 Radio Show Panel “FCC Experts Talk Radio” 
October 1, 2015
It’s great to be here in Atlanta in the midst of such an impressive community of local broadcasters.  I 
thank you for having me here as a part of the show – although some might be eager to move along to 
the real “FCC Experts” to come.  The following panel should certainly have a lot to discuss, since 
broadcasting in general, and radio in particular, are on everyone’s mind at the Commission.  Topics like 
pirate radio enforcement, AM revitalization, and other reforms to lighten regulatory burdens on the 
industry are finally on their way to receiving proper attention.  
Pirate Radio
As many of you know, my thoughts on the subject of pirate radio are pretty clear cut.  I view the 
protection of licensed spectrum from harmful interference as one of the fundamental obligations of the 
FCC.  Far from being cute, harmless, or even somehow useful, pirate radio represents an attack on the 
integrity of our airwaves.  Broadcasters from many states have been working hard this year to bring 
much needed attention to this serious problem and provoke a stronger enforcement campaign by the 
Commission. And, as a result, we recently committed to develop a comprehensive policy and 
enforcement approach to pirate radio in collaboration with outside stakeholders.  
Such a commitment is all well and good, but without continuing pressure the promised document will 
remain “in development” and enhanced enforcement efforts in a holding pattern for a long time to 
come.  That’s why, last week, I published my own draft policy statement to get the ball rolling and 
hopefully inspire others to join the dialogue.  As summer has turned into fall, we need to make it a 
priority to come to an agreement before Halloween, or at the latest, Thanksgiving.  It’s time to put 
together a game plan and start executing.  
The Commission should make clear that any unauthorized operation within the FM and AM bands is 
strictly prohibited, and put into action an enforcement plan designed to disrupt and terminate all pirate 
radio stations. In order to do this most effectively, the Commission will need to attack these operations 
at their core, through limitations on funding and housing, until no one wants to work with them again.   
Today, pirate operators are being enabled by building owners and managers, product advertisers and 
political campaigns, concert promoters and venue operators, and many other entities.  The vast majority 
of legitimate companies and associations, however, want nothing to do with facilitating illegal activities.  
So, we need an education component to make it less likely that anyone in the chain knowingly or 
unknowingly assists pirate radio operations in any capacity.  
Moreover, within the realm of our authority, there is a lot we can do to bust-up pirate radio stations, 
including collaborating with federal, state, and local law enforcement, and other local authorities.  For 
instance, I doubt most buildings are zoned for broadcasting purposes, certainly not in residential areas 
with children, so let’s work with local building inspection officials.  In most instances, these stations are 
not hiding; we know the exact locations of their operations.  Heck, the NYSBA mapped out the illegal 
stations in New York and New Jersey and all the Commission needs to do is show up at those addresses
to serve the papers.               
Critics have argued that this approach is naïve, and it will not have any impact on pirate radio stations.  
Until someone puts out a better plan, beyond appeasement or huge increases in enforcement 
2personnel, I suggest we pursue these actions with a willingness to adapt as necessary.  At the same time, 
we need to explore targeted and narrow changes in Federal law to expand the Commission’s authority 
in this area.       
AM Radio Revitalization
Switching topics, let me turn to the state of AM radio and the Commission's efforts to revitalize the 
band. I know this is of great interest to many of you, especially since it has been a long time coming. 
The good news is that the wait is almost over and the Commission is preparing to make some decisions; 
the bad news -- and I am only referencing press reports because I am prohibited from sharing the 
contents of any circulating item -- is that not all of the previously proposed fixes are in play.  If these
reports are accurate, certain people at the Commission oppose an AM-only translator window through
which AM stations could obtain translators to operate in the FM band.  
Before I get too far into substance, it is only appropriate to acknowledge the work of others on this issue
since I came to the Commission in the middle of the debate.  Specifically, we would be nowhere without 
the leadership of my colleague, Ajit Pai. I like to say that Commissioner Pai knows more about AM radio 
than I ever will. In addition, I should recognize the work of my other colleague, Commissioner Mignon
Clyburn, during her time as acting-chair, to get us to this point.
Fundamentally, the question of opening an AM translator window comes down to whether one 
supports the concept of AM radio and its revitalization as necessary in order to serve as a 
communications medium for the American people.  In other words, should the Commission try to 
ensure a future for AM radio or should we let nature take its course as this band continues to decline in 
many markets?  Are AM stations financially struggling to the point of threatening their existence?  
Differing minds could have different opinions, but if AM radio deserves help and revitalization via FCC 
policy changes, then broadcasters have always been clear: the AM translator issue is the number one
solution and everything else is a far distant second. So, the question is how can it be left out of any 
package of reforms?  
This audience certainly knows the value and benefits of translators.  In this case, an AM translator 
window could help solve the nighttime shutdowns or reductions in power required of some AM stations.  
It also would allow some stations to serve a greater portion of their communities. And greater market 
reach and longer service times mean increased likelihood of achieving financial viability. 
The arguments against this proposal have been interesting, to say the least. It's been described by some 
as a spectrum giveaway, which seems quite ironic given the Commission’s creation of a spectrum 
“reserve” to tilt the broadcast incentive auction outcome in favor of certain companies.  But in order to 
figure out whether an AM translator window would be fair, all you have to do is talk to potential 
competitors.  If this were an unwarranted action not needed to save AM radio, outside parties that 
could be harmed would be expected to complain.  Instead, I’ve talked to a number of radio owners that 
own FM-only stations and those that own both AM and FM stations. These are the most likely to 
oppose AM radio getting translators over FM stations or anyone else. Yet, to a person, those owners 
support an AM-only window. It may not be in their financial interest to do so, but they see the value of 
AM radio and want to see AM stations succeed.  This shouldmean something to the Commission. 
The bottom line: if there is agreement that it is important to revitalize and maintain an AM broadcast 
band, and set this as a public policy goal, we should take efficient and effective action.  I am not sure it is 
3helpful to implement a list of smaller measures that will have only so much value in the scheme of 
things, while rejecting an idea that many argue is really necessary.  
Regulatory Reform
Some of you may have heard me speak at other broadcaster events this year about a shift in emphasis 
that has the potential to supercharge your efforts to improve the regulatory environment for your 
businesses.  In a vast, abundant marketplace with ever-expanding options for audio and video content, 
broadcasters must constantly change to compete, and as this process plays out it is only fair that your
obligations be constantly revisited as well.  With this strategic adjustment, it will be possible to move 
beyond calls for regulatory parity based on more burdens for various players, and center instead on a 
model of fewer burdens for all.  
There are so many elements of the regulatory landscape that have completely outlived their utility in 
today’s hypercompetitive entertainment world, and you shouldn’t have to take them as given.  Recent 
success in modernizing the contest disclosure rules shows what can be accomplished with the right 
focus.  We have seen that common sense really can eventually win the day, and by sticking with this 
approach I think it will be possible to catalyze many more badly-needed reforms in areas such as 
sponsorship ID, EEO compliance in recruiting, and – who knows? – maybe even the positively archaic 
media ownership rules.  
* * *
As always, I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with me, and I welcome your thoughts and input 
on the challenges you are facing and ways I can help.  As the Commission moves forward on these and 
other policy initiatives, your continued engagement will help shape the outcome in important ways.  
And now I’d like to turn it over to our distinguished panel, who hopefully found many ideas of merit in 
my comments to take back and find some common ground in the Media Bureau.