Zed FM vs Phantom FM (1 Viewer)

[Scientician 0.8]

Anyone read that article in The Irish Times today about the case? Does it mean Phantom's gonna start broadcasting properly soon? I can't link to the article cos I don't have an ireland.com account.

 

[clonan attack]

hang on this is goof news then?

 

[Anthony]

I wish Phantom all the best, well done etc.. but I just downloaded and listened to their Music News podcast and I have to say, it's pretty poor. They'd do well to avoid any station ID in the 2fm/fm104 style (ie: they make you want to puke)

 

[pete]

Anyone read that article in The Irish Times today about the case? Does it mean Phantom's gonna start broadcasting properly soon? I can't link to the article cos I don't have an ireland.com account.

it's not on the site. don't think they put the supplement up there.

 

[RED(tape)MENACE]

What's the gist of it??

 

[Scientician 0.8]

it's not on the site. don't think they put the supplement up there.

I searched the term "Phantom FM" on ireland.com and got it but don't have an account. It wasn't in the supplement. Twas in court news.

 

[Yurn!]

Looks like its gonna drag on past the summer. Dog Geldog. Homey don't play dat...

 

[pete]

Anyone read that article in The Irish Times today about the case? Does it mean Phantom's gonna start broadcasting properly soon? I can't link to the article cos I don't have an ireland.com account.

i would have found it quicker if you'd said it was in YESTERDAY'S paper.

The new Dublin rock station, Phantom FM, effectively "bullied" its way into getting a licence after years of illegal broadcasting, it was claimed before the Supreme Court yesterday.

John Gordon SC, for Zed FM, a consortium backed by artist and campaigner Bob Geldof and Niall Stokes of Hot Press, was making closing submissions in an appeal by Zed against the High Court's upholding of a decision of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) of November 2004 awarding the FM licence to Dublin Rock, trading as Phantom FM.

The appeal hearing concluded yesterday and Ms Justice Susan Denham, presiding over the three-judge court, said it would reserve judgment.

Phantom is backed by a wide range of individuals and companies, including U2 manager Paul McGuinness's Principle Management and promoter Denis Desmond's Gaiety Investments. The station was awarded an FM licence by the BCI on November 8th, 2004, but was forced to delay its start-up date after legal proceedings challenging that decision were brought by Zed FM.

Zed challenged the granting of the licence to Phantom FM on a number of grounds, including a claim that the BCI was unfairly biased towards Phantom FM and and that members of the consortium had wrongly benefited from illegal broadcasting in the past as a pirate station.

When dismissing the Zed challenge last November, the High Court found the involvement in illegal broadcasting of some individuals with Dublin Rock was known to the BCI and that those persons had ceased their illegal broadcasting prior to the licence application being made.

The High Court also held that it was for the commission, not the courts, to consider what weight would attach to the illegal broadcasting matter when the commission was considering the character of Phantom. Zed FM had "not established in any way" that the BCI gave an advantage to Phantom arising out of its illegal broadcasting experience, it ruled.

Closing Zed FM's appeal yesterday, Mr Gordon said Phantom's entire licence application was grounded on seven years of operation, largely as an illegal broadcaster. His side could see no evidence that the BCI had asked Phantom to break down its experience into the period when it was temporarily licensed and when it was an illegal operator. The High Court was told the BCI had not considered the illegal broadcasting history of Phantom.

In granting Phantom the licence, the BCI had, inadvertently, he was sure, drawn up a charter for illegal broadcasting, counsel submitted. The staff who run the new station are those who repeatedly broke the law, apparently with impunity, until they eventually got their way, he argued. It was his case they effectively "bullied their way" into getting the licence.

Earlier, opposing the appeal, Michael Cush SC, for the BCI, said the debate in the High Court case had centred on what was the correct definition of "character" in the context of a licence application. Zed was now advancing a case that relevant considerations were not taken into account, but that case had not been made in the High Court.

The BCI, Mr Cush argued, had not misdirected itself in relation to the matter of "character" when considering the Phantom application. The BCI knew about the involvement of some individuals in Dublin Rock with illegal broadcasting and there was uncontradicted evidence they had discussed the piracy issue generally, counsel said.

The High Court took the view it was not for the court to assign weight to this issue and also found no evidence of bias or prejudgment on the part of the BCI.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

i would have found it quicker if you'd said it was in YESTERDAY'S paper.

Oops sorry bout that. I posted at 4 minutes past midnight. Thanks for finding the article.

 

[Anthony]

So who is doing the bullying again?

 

[thickaspigshit]

Doesnt mention the fact that Zeds application was like a really big easter egg. Once opened theres absolutely nothing of interest inside.

 

[IFF]

The General Manager gave a good kicking today on the letters pages to the arguments made by Fintan O'Toole collumn that featured on tuesday

 

[Rogue]

The General Manager gave a good kicking today on the letters pages to the arguments made by Fintan O'Toole collumn that featured on tuesday

General manager of what? and what arguments by O' Toole? Sorry, out of the loop here.

 

[pete]

The General Manager gave a good kicking today on the letters pages to the arguments made by Fintan O'Toole collumn that featured on tuesday

What, apart from the Government itself, is the most powerful public body in Ireland? Arguably at least, it is the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It licenses 54 independent radio and TV services. Its decisions are relatively unaccountable, writes Fintan O'Toole.
Both the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Broadcasting and an independent report for the Department of Communications have in recent years expressed concerns about the transparency of its decision-making processes.

Those decisions, moreover, are subject to no appeal except to the courts, and they, in turn have taken the view that so long as the BCI stays within the law and acts in good faith, its decisions are its own business. The BCI is likely to get even more powerful: Government policy is to establish a single Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which would effectively give a super-sized BCI control over RTÉ as well.
The BCI is run by decent, public-spirited people who make decisions in good faith. It is, however, shaped by a Government-led belief that it should take, to quote the hideous jargon, a "facilitory approach . . . leading to a light touch, broad principled operation".
It is expected, in plainer English, to be nice to the companies it regulates. It is expected to fulfil two potentially contradictory functions: to regulate the broadcasting industry on the one hand and to promote it on the other. That the helpfulness can get in the way of the regulation is clear from a case that is currently before the Supreme Court in which Zed FM, a consortium which failed in a bid for an alternative rock radio licence, is challenging the awarding of that licence to Phantom FM.

At one level, the outcome of this case (which the High Court has previously decided in favour of the BCI on the grounds that it acted in good faith) is of relatively little concern. Two groups of wealthy people are fighting for control of a potentially lucrative asset - who cares? But leaving aside all the rival claims, what is of real public interest is the BCI's own account of the award of the licence and the way it illustrates what a "light touch" means in practice.

In this case, it has meant a willingness to forgive and forget a history of defying regulation.
Phantom FM had functioned as a pirate radio station for five years before it applied for the alternative rock licence in 2003. Far from being a disadvantage to its application, however, this seems to have been a help. The BCI has stated that its policy is to allow pirates to apply for licences so as to "encourage the cessation of illegal activity and to encourage people into the statutory regime". The implication seems to be that if you flout the law successfully, the BCI acquires an interest in encouraging you to go legit by granting you a licence.
Phantom had previously tested the BCI's patience by twice going back on air as a pirate after it had failed to secure a licence, but the BCI proved its patience to be almost infinite, and allowed it to keep applying. In its application for the licence under dispute, moreover, Phantom put forward its illegal activities as a big argument in its favour, claiming long experience and brand recognition.
When the new licence came up, Phantom went off air again. The BCI, however, allowed the station back on air by means of so-called Special Event licences. These are normally granted in relation to short-term events like festivals - Phantom was given a licence without specifying any such event. The law is quite specific in stating that the recipient of these licences can broadcast for "no more than 30 days in any given 12-month period".

In fact, Phantom got licences for 60 days within a 12-month period. The law was circumvented by applying for the licences under the names of two different companies. The BCI, in the words of Mr Justice O'Sullivan's High Court ruling, was "aware that in effect the same people were getting the benefit of two licences and that this was contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the (Broadcasting) Act". Phantom was indulged even further. A station operating under a Special Events licence cannot accept ads - Phantom did so.
Phantom was supposed to submit sponsorship messages to the BCI for approval. In one four-day period monitored by the BCI, Phantom carried messages from five sponsors, none of which had been submitted for approval. The station was supposed to have libel insurance in order to indemnify the BCI. It actually broadcast for a period without libel insurance, and when it got the insurance, it covered only one of the two companies that held the licences.

This is what a "light touch" actually means: you can get a licence even if you've flouted the law by broadcasting illegally and even if you have a record of being rather less than punctilious about previous licences. If this is what happens before you get your licence, you might reasonably assume that the BCI will not be too hard on you after you've got it. Is it any wonder that the companies it supposedly rules have so little fear of the BCI, the regulator that likes to say "yes".

Madam, - Fintan O'Toole's column of February 14th, entitled "Regulator that likes to say yes", contained a number of damaging factual inaccuracies about Phantom FM which should be corrected.

Firstly, the article states that "when the new licence came up, Phantom went off air again". This is incorrect. Phantom ceased FM operations on May 28th 2003, almost a year before the licence was advertised in May 2004.

The article goes on to state that Phantom FM held a "special event" license without specifying a special event. The statutory provision for temporary sound broadcasting contracts is that they are limited purely by duration, and are not limited by use for special events or otherwise. Many stations, from oldies music to ethnic services and traffic information, have used these temporary contracts.

The piece then claims that Phantom FM accepted advertising during its temporary broadcasts, in contravention of Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) rules. This too is incorrect. Phantom did not take advertisements during either temporary contract. Sponsorship is, however allowed; this includes mentions of a sponsor's name, slogan and contact details.

The column then claims that "Phantom was supposed to submit sponsorship messages to BCI for approval". However, there is no requirement for sponsorship messages to be submitted to the BCI for approval in advance.

Possibly the most serious allegation is that Phantom FM broadcast for a period of time without libel insurance. Insurance cover was in place for the entire duration of the broadcasts for both temporary contracts and covered both companies concerned at all times.

Given the above clarifications, allegations of being "rather less than punctilious" about license requirements cannot be justified and could unfairly damage the reputation of Phantom FM. - Yours, etc,
SIMON MAHER, General Manager, Phantom FM, Camden Row Dublin 8.

so there now.

 

[Rogue]

Damn straight!

 

[Monkey]

Why do they always print "yours etc" ? pricks

 

[eddiespecs]

it's all over. Phantom win!

 

[eddiespecs]

They're doing podcasts at the moment (have been for a while) until they are ready to launch... worth checking out