Low Power Radio Setback by Congress 138
akb writes "Congress hobbled the FCC's innovative proposal to license thousands of low power radio stations via a rider on the session ending omnibus appropiations bill. Instead of having thousands of licenses available nation-wide 200 will be available in 9 states (for info on how to sign up go to the FCC's LPFM page). Its unusual for Congress to second guess the FCC, there was intense lobbying by the National Association of Broadcasters to keep the airwaves out of the hands of community groups. For news on the legislation see the story on Indymedia, for background on Low Power Radio see the Media Access Project's LPFM info."
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:2)
swing left, swing right, screw you (Score:2)
NPR's view (Score:1)
Here's [npr.org] NPR's legal petition against LPFM. While competition for listeners makes a better conspiracy theory, they claim it's competition for spectrum.
Forget NPR (Score:2)
A recent e-mail forward to me read:
"Please sign this petition so we don't lose an irreplaceable resource....NPR On NPR's Morning Edition last week, Nina Tottenberg said that if the Supreme Court supports Congress, it is in effect the end of the National Public Radio (NPR), NEA & the Public Broadcasting System(PBS). PBS, NPR and the arts are facing major cutbacks in funding. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and stream line their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as not worthwhile."
My response? NPR [npr.org] is not an irreplacable resource.
Twenty one years ago, National Public Radio petitioned the FCC to stop accepting applications for the low-power Educational License class. WMUC [umd.edu] in College Park [umd.edu] was one of the last stations to get a ten watt FM radio license under this plan, but this was a year before the UMBC campus [umbc.edu] (my school) even established a radio station [umbc.edu].
Because of these rules that NPR brought about, UMBC [umbc.edu] cannot get a license under 1000 watts, and due to the large amount of high-power corporate radio saturation in this area, no higher-powered licenses are available.
National Public Radio has only their own interests in mind, not the interests of smaller communities and people who still want localized, non-corporate free radio.
Forget about NPR. Support your local communities and your universities by advocating for LPFM.
For more information, see the following sites:
Pirate/Free Radio on About.Com [about.com]
Prometheus Radio Project [prometheus.tao.ca]
Media Democracy Now [mediademocracynow.org]
And my own letters to the Senators, here [epistolary.org] and here [epistolary.org].
PS: In the interests of full disclosure, this is a revised version of something I posted earlier [epistolary.org] to my my own web page [epistolary.org].
--
Re:What you do... (Score:2)
Re:No more funding!!! (Score:2)
Re:Come on people... Quit whining! (Score:2)
LPFM wasn't aimed at the netheads of the world, anyway. See the thread above.
Re:i'm sorry (Score:2)
My favorite example from the Simpsons: Springfield is menaced by an approaching comet. Congress is debating the "Save Springfield" act.
Speaker of the House: "All in favor of the Save Springfield..."
Congressman: "Excuse me, I'd like to amend that bill to include 100 million dollars of funding for pornographic arts".
Speaker: "OK, all in favor of the Save Springfield and Pornography bill..."
(No hands go up).
Speaker: "The motion has failed."
or something like that
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re: no, not trade groups -- NPR (Score:1)
Thing is, the FCC plan was already a compromise that was designed to respond to any actual interference with the services NPR was concerned about.
If you are unhappy about NPR's involement in this, here are some folks at NPR you could contact:
Kevin Klose, President and CEO -- KKlose@npr.org
Kenneth P. Stern, Executive Vice President -- KStern@npr.org
Neal Jackson, VP for Legal Affairs (including legislation) -- NJackson@npr.org
Who to contact (Score:1)
Contact your local NPR member station, tell them what you think, and if you donate tell them that too. (And perhaps retract your support.) They will respond to their listeners, whereas these guys on top already have proven they couldn't care less.
It's the head of NPR that's diseased, not the body (Score:1)
The national leadership of NPR has been coopted by propagandists. That sounds inflammatory and paranoid, but it's true. From the NPR web site's bios:
Kevin Klose, President and CEO:
"Prior to joining NPR in December 1998, Klose served successively as Director of U.S. International Broadcasting, overseeing the U.S. Government's global radio and television news services (1997-98); and President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), broadcasting to Central Europe and the former Soviet Union (1994-97). Klose first joined RFE/RL in 1992 as Director of Radio Liberty, broadcasting to the former Soviet Union in its national languages"
(http://npr.org/inside/bios/kklose.html)
This guy was running the US's overseas propaganda arms for years before he graduated to the domestic arena.
IMHO, there is still much fine programming on NPR; But the quantity of quality shows is on the decline, and local coverage is certainly suffering. (All Things Considered, All the Time.) Get in touch with your local NPR affiliate and LET THEM KNOW.
Re:radio ga ga... (Score:2)
Re:i'm sorry (Score:2)
"via a rider on the session ending omnibus appropiations bill."
via a rider
A rider gets latched on to larger bills that everyone wants to sign, but the rider itself is usually either pork or in the benefit of some idiot trade group (RIAA, MPAA, NAB).
session ending
Congress wants to get out of town. Only problem is that they never got the appropriations passed (see next item). So this is the last thing they have to clear up before going home.
omnibus appropriations bill
If everyone agrees, you'll usually see one large bill that provides funding to a large number of departments. So one bill may fund Treasury and Justice, and another may fund Interior and Defense.
Re:i'm sorry (Score:3)
kindof like how they passed the censorware provision in a funding bill... its absolutely insane, and if your a congresscritter, you cant vote against it because you'lll be seen as voting against funding public libraries...
damnit, i liked the line item veto...
tagline
Re:i'm sorry (Score:2)
Basically, it means attaching an unrelated clause to an enormous bill that covers a huge array of topics already, all right before the holidays so no one wants to take the time to read it before going home.
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:5)
It's the presence of NPR. Yes, National Public Radio -- public broadcasting. In an effort to justify their existence and keep a stranglehold on what they consider "community" broadcasting, they have done a deal with the devil and allied themselves with the major radio station congolmerates which have sprung up over the past few years.
Remember that next time you consider pledging. Some of your dollars are being used to lobby congress to keep you out of the game!
Re:i'm sorry (Score:1)
You essentially put the other members of Congress into a bind: either vote against legislation they have to vote for to get reelected, or vote for a section they disagree with.
Re:i'm sorry (Score:3)
Translation: The people in the appropriations committee bowed to the pressure NAB and attatched the unrelated restriction of micropower stations to the budget. Now, this happens to be the last thing that was done before congress gets out for the year. The only reason they did it is because they NAB knew that there would be a lot of justifiable pissing and moaning, so they decided to slip it in the back door
I agree. However, free broadcast... (Score:2)
This was necessary. (Score:1)
One word... (Score:1)
In any large city you have a huge population of folks who spend 1-2 hours a day commuting. During this time they can't watch TV (eyes on road, puh-leeze), can't surf the net (damn, forgot that extra-long extension cord, plus eyes on the road puh-leeze) but they can and will listen to the radio.
And while it is possible to hook your PC up to your stereo and listen through the net this really doesn't work too well unless you have broadband access, which most net users don't have either because it isn't available or they don't want to spend $50 a month. And most of the people who could do it don't realize what the possibilities are. I have quite a few acquaintances who have broadband access, but only one (other than me) has hooked his PC up to his stereo -- and he uses it for sound effects in the games he plays, not listening to streaming audio.
For the time being, and probably for at least 5-10 years, and longer in poor communities, radio will be an important medium. BTW, how long do you think it will be before dagummint decides net bandwidth is a limited resource which must be doled out selectively for our own benefit, eh?
cost? (Score:1)
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:2)
Setting aside the specifics of NPR, this is missing the point of public broadcasting.
The utility of a market is dependent on the consumer-producer interaction, right? In the commercial TV market, the network is the producer and the advertiser is the consumer. The product is not TV shows, it is advertisement delivery. I don't think most people who talk about the media really get that basic fact. Viewers are part of the equation in that they are who the advertisements are being delivered to, but they are not direct inputs into the market system.
In practice, this means that network content is tailored more toward what will please the advertiser than what will please the viewer--networks want to please viewers, of course, but only because that increases their ratings, and thus increases the money they can command for advertisements. The problem here is that there is nothing inherent in the system which supports broadcasts which are not deemed commercial. This doesn't mean "unpopular": it can simply mean controversial.
The way around that is to have the audience support the broadcast directly. Virtually all industrialized countries have some mechanism by which government money is given to a broadcasting institution, ideally with a "firewall" of some sort to prevent government interference (a critical piece that American public broadcasting lacks).
Personally, I'm neutral on the subject; if public broadcasting can get by without any money from government, that's fine. But to me--crazy liberal that I am--the function of government is to reflect the core values of the people it governs. Being informed is, I would submit, a worthy core value.
Of course, being a really crazy liberal, I'd have that government funding come from FCC license fees to commercial broadcast stations. The public owns the airwaves, and the FCC is ostensibly our property manager; I think it's high time they started charging rent. A very minimal license fee could bring enough revenue to not only keep PBS and NPR gonig, but probably enough to sweep away all need for corporate sponsorship (something that largely defeats the purpose of having public broadcasting to start with).
Trade Groups (Score:1)
--K
---
Re:Free radio US (Score:1)
But you decided to take the flamebait. So, now, your comments about the election:
I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining had a certain other candidate won
There are a few of us out here that don't mind so much that fact that Bush won as the way he won. Blocking hand recounts and having a republican legislature and your bro name a slate of electors is a bit shady. Yes, Gore's not Mr. purity, but that's no excuse for Bush's behavior.
(and NO, he did not win the popular vote, no one can accurately tell who did due to millions of uncounted ballots that wouldn't matter due to the current system).
If you beleive that, then you must have seen the merit of the idea of a hand recount in Florida. I commend you.
The supreme court did not pick the next president, the people of florida did
The people of Florida arguably didn't pick anyone conclusively, for much the same reason that you argue Gore did not win the popular vote. The supreme court clarified details of election law and proceedings that were in question, which had the result that hand recounts didn't matter. They were at the end of a long string of events, starting with the actual razor thin vote margin and going to suits brought and Florida court decisions. To say they "picked" the president is ludicrous, true, if you mean that they were the sole deciders. But to say they didn't influence the outcome -- to even say they didn't have a large role in deciding the outcome -- is equally ludicrous.
(in fact, they picked him three times
Two and a half, max. And not even that. Gore focused on a few Democratic counties (offered Bush a recount of the whole state when taking flak for this, Bush refused, IIRC), so maybe 2.1 counts, max. Some of those hand recounts were never completed. And the hand recounts were not accepted as certified. So two times, max. Both times, Bush's lead was well within accepted margin of error for machine counts, so we'll never know if he really won. The stat analysis I read says his chances were favorable -- 2-1 -- so I'm not really that upset that he won. I am sometimes upset that we couldn't get it together enough as a nation to figure out a way to do a hand recount and find out, and that it looked as if that was part of Bush's tactics (not to mention that it looked as if the GOP was set to try to name its own set of electors while decrying the Florida Supreme Court for retroactively changing election law).
Still, the close margin politically forces Bush to stay close to the center, and carefully live up to his campaign promises. He shows every sign of keeping them, so far.
Shame on NPR (Score:2)
And I've always been a huge fan of NPR and PBS subsidies...hmmmm. Mebbe it's time to put pen to paper and let them know they've turned off at least one loyal listener.
A different way of looking at it (Score:1)
This seems a safe way for the government to actually govern something with out overpowering the little guys.
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
There has to be something that oversees what's going on, the FCC might not be the best, but it's the best we got right now
And remeber, it was the FCC that wanted to grant the licenses, and congress that shot them down.
--
Power Grab (Score:1)
Something else happened along with the emasculation of low-power radio: Congress gutted a 1996 FCC rule that gave candidates free airtime on NPR. Stations are now under no obligation to do this. Score one more for the corporate establishment!
The current FCC chairman did his best to offset corporate control over the airwaves. He seems to be one of the few in government who wants to protect public ownership of the airwaves. This is a sad day, boys and girls.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Free radio US (Score:2)
Right now, any independent public radio is only available at the extreme left of the dial, with a few good college stations for those lucky enough to live near one. And I wouldn't count on those stations, because the public and private universities are shifting increasingly more to corporate-style management in which accounting, not relevance, is the crucial basis of judgement for funding. Humanities departments are feeling the pressure to justify small but relevant classes, so I expect these college radio stations to be in trouble soon.
The only alternatives to radio now are internet radio, cable radio, and music channels. Of course, not only do you have to have a broadband connection for internet radio, which effectively limits access to a very few, the internet radio stations have been recently burdened with the ruling that they would have to pay additional fees for certain types of content (that the transistor radio licenses didn't cover broadband radio, basically). This promises to limit the number of valuable internet stations to an already very limited audience. Cable radio is no real comparison (also must be paid for, more expensive equipment), and music television is a joke, providing corporate sponsorship with some affiliated music.
You know, with a new president-elect installed through a very undemocratic power grab, and a Republican congress, I'm afraid that any effective means of independent media will be curtailed at every pass. Radio is the most accessible medium for most people in the U.S., and it's a shame the Congress didn't seem fit to allow a little room for small, community-based groups in the ranks of the big boys.
National Ass. of Broadcasters (Score:2)
You'd think they had a patent on the idea of radio broadcasting. IIRC radio and television stations are granted license to broadcast in the service of the public. If it can be demonstrated, upon FCC review, that they have failed to meet their obligations (has this ever actually happened?) that license may be revoked. IMHO the lobbying group believes that gives them exclusive access. (unless you are running something in the milliwatts, which you can do legally)
--
Re:i'm sorry (Score:1)
National People's Radio (Score:1)
I suspect they want to block LPFM so that they can retain their claim to being the "voice of the people" (which in fact means "voice of the people who donate a LOT of money to tax-deductable causes".) and keep any potential LPFM from sucking at their funding sources.
Actually, people who live in Minot have it easy since you can usually get decent AM reception of CBC once you get into the nothern half of North Dakota. It's saved me from death by boredom many times when I've been driving the prarie.
Forget FM. Longwave is the answer! (Score:1)
The Longwave Club of America is probably the best resource to learn more about longwave. They have a section on the ANARC website that includes a great frequency chart! It's at http://www.anarc.org/lwca/ . Their own site is at http://www.lwca.org/ .
In terms of receivers, let's start at the bottom. A portable 12 band radio that covers LW can be ordered from Universal Radio for $25.00. See it at http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/portable/41 72.html . I have a great Telefunken LW/MW/FM cassette tabletop I got in Germany two years ago that covers 148 kHz to 284 kHz. Grundig http://www.grundig.com/ is a well-known European manufacturer, with portable radios, CD radio/recorders, a clock/radio, multiband radios, mini home stereo systems and ALL their car audio products that receive longwave signals. All the Asian manufacturers, of course, make and sell LW receivers globally.
The ITU bandplan for LW specifies 9 kHz spacing, but the ONLY receiver on the American market to take advantage of the 10 kHz bandplan for MW (AM) here is the GE Superadio. This includes hi fi and car receivers! The bandwidth currently specified for LW produces great audio with the typical receiver sold in Europe!
There is no reason to assume, however, that the ITU would not accept a 10kHz bandplan for whatever portion of the spectrum below the MW (AM) band that engineering studies might find to be viable for adding to the broadcast bands in the Americas.
If the bandwidth could be secured, you wouldn't have to worry about receivers! Every manufacturer in the world has amortized the development cost of including LW coverage in their products decades ago. The economies of scale to be realized from adding the American market would likely REDUCE the global cost of producing LW receivers. From a marketing standpoint, opening up this band would be the consumer electronics manufacturers most fabulous dream come true. Imagine adding a feature to your existing product line that costs nothing, and makes everything else in existence obsolete! Imagine having excitement in the commodity AM radio consumer space again!
Re:Free radio US (Score:1)
The issue in the case that the Democratic legal team brought up in court, that richer counties has better equipment (optical scans) and less roadblocks in the voting process than poorer and blacker counties, seems to me to be a crucial point. But rather than question and resolve these matters in a democratic manner, Republicans wanted to certify the votes because they favored Bush. They certainly would've done the same thing as Gore in his position.
Gore certainly is not a shining knight for democracy, but don't be a flamebait who actually believes a fair election occurred.
They say Interference, We say Public Access... (Score:1)
Listeners from around the Twin Cities simply visited our homepage at 2000flushes.com [2000flushes.com], uploaded their programming in MP3 form, and listened as it was automatically broadcast over 94.1 FM just minutes later. It was a blast!
We got more than just music. We got original programming, from mock political ads making George Bush out to be a whiny coke fiend, to people shouting out their own rants, to people making up their own station IDs.
If the NAB says there's no room for microstations on the dial, then we think they must mean they want to turn over airtime on THEIR stations for the public to use. It's the only other way to address the fact that the airwaves BELONG to the public, and yet the public has absolutely NO access to them.
(We believe automated public access would be great for Low Power Radio stations, too, but if the NAB doesn't... well, they had their chance!:)
For more info: Check out the article about us at pirateradio.about.com [about.com], the press release we sent out below, or our own website at 2000flushes.com [2000flushes.com] (before corporate america tries to steal it back!).
-- Dan ZAP!
2000 Flushes Pirate Radio 94.1 FM [2000flushes.com]
& Apocatopia Magazine [apocatopia.com] (coming soon!)
Thanks to everyone who uploaded, and we'll be back on the air soon!
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:1)
Webcasting requires: a) a computer of enough power to webcast. Let's call it $500, which may be on the low end. b) a broadband connection ($50 a month), unless you're casting to 1 (one) person at a time, which would seem to defeat the purpose. So, $500 to start, plus $50 a month.
LPFM equipment costs. One piece FM limiter/exciter/transmitter, 150W, $1500. Now. Let's compare.
I'm not including common costs - music, CD players, and mixer, because those will be needed for either (unless you plan on broadcasting MP3 only - which is possible.) A mic is also not included for the same reason, although computer mics are completely unacceptable in terms of fidelity.
They'll both sound about the same, depending on how close to the antenna you are.
Costs? At $50 a month broadband fees, it'll only take 20 months to recoup equipment differences. And as these licenses are issued for 8 year periods, this isn't that long.
Which will have more listeners? The radio wins again. Why? Well, because anyone can listen to the radio. At a quick count, in my apartment I have 6 FM receivers, plus one in my car and one at work. At my parent's house, I would guess there at least 20 in various locations. How many webcasting receivers? Two in my apartment, none at my parents house (they have modems.) People can't listen to a webcast while they drive, which is where many people listen, especially during rush hour.
So, is this for people who want to play around with radio? Nah. The startup cost is way too high for your average student who just wants to mess around for a couple months and then forget about it. But a persistent community entity? Most of them can probably find the $1500, especially if they believe in it. Dedicated radio pirates? IF they haven't yet been caught (thereby losing any chance at a license) then they'll jump at the chance to broadcast legally. I know a few, and all of them did.
The FCC finally did something right. They want LPFM. They had good reasons why it wouldn't damage spectrum integrity. They were going to legitimize a valuable resource that had been forced to go underground (pirate radio) and thereby eliminate some of the people who had been doing real damage to the spectrum. And they were overruled by the corporate controlled Congress. Why? Because the NAB was worried. Who controls the NAB? All those major radio stations - the few innovative radio stations left (WFMU, WCBN, WXOU, WORT to name a couple off the top of my head) don't have that much of a voice in there, compared to the 300+ stations owned by Clear-Channel.
So, let's applaud the FCC, and William Kennard, for trying to do something right. The culprits in this are Congress and the NAB, for usurping the FCC's right to determine who has access to the airwaves.
I'll get off my soapbox now - it's probably too late. Do what you can, though - write, e-mail, whatever. Support good local radio if you have it. Listen to it - most of us (shameless plug alert!) broadcast online.
Re:more corporate control? (Score:1)
If you'd actually DONE YOUR HOMEWORK you would know that the RIAA makes nothing from broadcast. ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI collect broadcast fees - the RIAA is funded exclusively by two things - dues from member labels, and the money it makes in lawsuits. Royalties for the physical media (CDs, cassettes, tapes, etc.) go to the copyright holder - in most cases, unfortunately, this is the record label. Occasionally, it is the artist. Broadcast royalties are collected by the rights organizations, and eventually paid to the artists (after a significant chunk of change is deducted.) In fact, the RIAA has no financial interest in broadcast at all, other than the financial interest of its members.
However, as the RIAA is most influenced by the big 3 (it's only three these days - sad, isn't it?) they did have a interest in this. These LPFM stations likely wouldn't have played much major label music at all. The RIAA views LPFM spectrum space as unprofitable, compared to the money they could make with more bad commercial stations occupying this space.
Do your homework - just because a story doesn't mention someone doesn't mean they aren't involved.
As to NPR - they've been bad for a while. Pacifica is no better, these days - check out Savepacifica's Web Site [savepacifica.net] for some reasons. The only good public radio anymore is locally produced, non-syndicated radio, and that's rarer than an unbought PS2.
Re:Stoping (sic) Peoples Free Speech (Score:4)
Silence the People (Score:1)
Re:radio ga ga... (Score:2)
No more funding!!! (Score:5)
This time of year, Public television stations and public radio stations run a lot of "pledge drives", where they try to guilt-trip their listeners into giving them money. Why not give their waiting volunteers a friendly call, and politely explain that because NPR has chosen to prevent free and fair use of the airwaves, you would like to pledge a donation of ZERO DOLLARS to public broadcasting this year. Then follow that up with a postcard, letter, or e-mail that says the same.
NPR already enjoys the benefit of tax subsidies so they can broadcast Boston Pops concerts in Minot and "Mr. Rogers" in every remote corner of the country. If they want any further support from us, (or even if they want their current support to continue), they ought to behave in a manner that encourages more good will among us.
Re:Stoping (sic) Peoples Free Speech (Score:1)
And if you want to be on the air slip us a bribe!
Jobs (Score:3)
Re:How is this GWB's fault? (Score:1)
if and no, "they" did not select GWB, he lost the popular vote, and probably lost florida, too...
and yes, i would have posted this if Al Gore won... he sucks too...
the ONLY thing that this election demonstrated the we, as teh american public didnt want either bozo to lead this country...
tagline
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:1)
Indeed, I see your point. One of the main issues is that of access, though. People don't listen to webcasts when driving to the grocery store, they listen to the radio. etc
The other huge issue is one of public property. The FCC regulates the em band, but the broadcasting associations own it. This is a frustrating thing. There is no technical reason (signal interferance, etc.) for these stations to be prohibited, it's simply a regulatory issue: They would compete with commercial radio stations, and commercial radio stations don't wan't competition.
Re:Stopping Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
It is a very interesting problem this. To what extent is it good to restrict the mechanisms people have available to say what they want?
You can't let everyone on national TV, but given that you have the know-how, I feel it is an important right to be able to construct a TV camera and transmit broadcasts to your neighbour. You don't have the right to be heard, but you do have the right to say it.
Of course, there are practical issues that put restrictions on who can say what where. Such as bandwidth and airtime constraints. For radio, I guess bands are a scarce resource, and it must be managed in some way. Giving it all to media mega-corps is certainly not a Good Thing [tm], of course.
Next, read Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]:
(My emphasis). Through any media. What does that mean? Shouldn't it mean that any mechanisms should be available?
Can I get a bill number please? [HS].***.ENR? (Score:1)
It has to start somewhere It has to start sometime What better place than here What better time than now
-Gurilla Radio by Rage Against The Machine [ratm.com]
Knowledge is power, got some books - go read em, wisdom is ignorance, stupidity - I call freedom! - Paul Westerberg
Re:Holy fuck (WAS: Re:Hoover comes to mind...) (Score:1)
Also, No linking to their site (Score:2)
Re:Free radio US (Score:1)
Not if you just want to listen. Even though I only have a dail-up connection, can successfuly listen to internet radio over it, and I sometimes do. The quality isn't all that great, but it is listenable.
Now if you want to broadcast, you'll need a countunious internet connection with enough bandwith to run the server off of. I wouldn't try running a server off of a dial-up connection unless you're a motchoist, dail-ups arn't really ment to feed severs, a broadband connection is a much better choice for that.
10 times as many channels with Spread Spectrum.. (Score:1)
The "scarcity" and "interference" arguments just don't hold water anymore.. Europe has digital radio and it's cheaper, sounds much better, and you can fit 10 times as many channels on the band without them interfering with each other. So this whole "scarcity" argument is bunk.
Or is that irrelevant? Oh yeah.. This is America...
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
To be a little more subtle than your point, however, they would say that controlling who broadcasts is necessary, but that the current concentration of broadcasting rights thwarts free speech. And they'd be right.
Yo, mods! Re-read this! (Score:2)
He's joking about the U.S. national security apparatus' penchant for lobbying against useful tech on the flimsy grounds that it could somehow be used in terrorism.
Witness the uphill battle for strong encryption, uncrippled GPS receivers, etc.
Don't make me come up there.
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:1)
Then who the hell controls it? You'd have tons of people broadcasting over eachother, others just trying to scramble other peopel.
Simple answer: nobody. If a station has a problem with being jammed, they simply sue the jammer.
And remeber, it was the FCC that wanted to grant the licenses, and congress that shot them down.
The thing is, none of this would ever happen if there wasn't an FCC.
One thing to remember is that most of the broadcasting regulations haven't been touched in decades. Technology has advanced far beyond the 1950's, folks. Receivers are far more advanced then they were. There could easily be two to three times the number of stations on the dial, thanks to digital tuners and other such advances. The radio is still largely ruled by obscenity laws that haven't changed since the 1960's. Stations with shock jocks routinely pay fines for breaking the obscenity laws (and they don't even use the seven dirty words). The whole body of broadcast regulation needs to be reviewed, in view of what modern tech is doing.
Just sent this email to NPR (Score:1)
"Hi, I'm not sure whether this is the right person to direct this to, but I wanted to expres the fact that I will no longer contribute ANY kind of support to npr due to your campaign against the FCC's low power FM radio station program. You're name is National PUBLIC Radio and to outright oppose a program that benefits the public as a whole is outrageous and without conscience. About the only reason that any rational person could think of as to why your organization would pursue this path is due to some kind of self preservation which ultimately amounts to pure cowardice. I will not support any organization, espcially one that gets the majority of funding from the public (and lest you forget who the public is, thats me and everyone else like me, NOT corporations), who insists on trying to tell the public what is and is not good for them. Your company uses radio stations to broadcast its message, but you are not the only ones with a message to broadcast and to back limits on how the rest of the country can broadcast their own messages is reprehensible. Someone at npr needs to remember exactly what public means."
The fact that NPR got involved in this really pisses me off, they have no business trying to limit other peoples access to the airwaves.
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:1)
Re:how the fuck is this "insightful"? (Score:1)
tagline
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:3)
I supported, and still support, cutting any government support for public broadcasting. If they can't find enough people willing to pay directly to support their views, then obviously no one wants to hear them. The government doesn't need to unnecessarily second guess the wishes of the population.
Hoover comes to mind... (Score:2)
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:2)
"Almost everyone" excludes the poor, microradio has the potential to be a tool for them. Don't get me wrong, I think webcasting is great. One of its exciting applications is in forming microradio networks, whereby a microradio transmitter rebroadcasts a web stream or archived mp3 show. Traditional networks of content providers (Pacifica, CBS, etc) use proprietary communications networks to syndicate content (satellite or fiber). Its very exciting that the Internet is being used to network grassroots media outlets (witness the problems with Pacifica [savepacfica.net]), see microradio.net [microradio.net] and radio4all [radio4all.net] for more info on webcasting and microradio networks.
Re:radio ga ga... (Score:1)
on the interference bit, I'm tempted to think that the tower is helping there be some bleed of FM onto my phone and some other cables - WLW is filtered out, but I still pick up a country station and an easy listening station, both of which are FM... it may just be a terrible coincidence, but with that tower looming, well... I'm just glad VOA isn't in operation - I've been told when it was powerd up, everything electric in your house would be effect in one way or another. I guess it used to be pretty exciting.
Re:Contact your Congressmen (Score:1)
What you do... (Score:1)
The problem is, from what do WE need to be freed?
Interrobang
Or, as the erstwhile Mr. Tesla used to say, "This is Trent Radio, coming at you at 20 watts on the horizontal and 20 watts on the vertical, or 1/3 of the lightbulb over your head." (Some radio stations are dimmer bulbs than even Congressthings.)
If the FCC gave out demonstration permits... (Score:2)
Re:radio ga ga... (Score:1)
Such "half-assed attempts" to go on the the air would not make it through the LPFM screening processs, as applicants would have to demonstrate the same technical competence as those for already existing lower class licenses (i.e. educational class d). Really the only distinction between LPFM applicants, and those for existing lower-power licenses is that LPFM applicants must demstrate some "community purpose," to be in tune with the spirit of LPFM.
As for whether this may inhibit the creation of a smaller, non-commercial radio market, let me relate my experience with the campus radio station, KWUR [wustl.edu], that I've worked at for the past two years.
KWUR has been broadcasting in some form since 1964. Until 1976 it was a carrier current AM station only available on the dorms' electrical wiring net, after which it received an educational Class D license, allowing it to broadcast FM at a whopping 10 watts (~2 mile broadcast range). This makes it older than many of the 1.21 Jigawatt commercial stations that operate in St. Louis (ok, maybe not quite a Jigawatt), made even more unique by the fact that the station has been continuously student-run since its inception (quite a feat, considering how the staff turns over wholesale every 3-4 years).
For the past 10 years, possibly longer, we have submitted multiple pettitions to the FCC for a 100Watt wattage upgrade, and on each occasion, our pettition was struck down, largely because a local, 10KWatt NPR station on the 2nd-adjactent channel has consistently fought it tooth and nail. (They claim THEIR signal would interfere with ours, were we to upgrade, so they're really just looking out for our own interests. Funny, isn't it?). Anyway, in its decades of existence, the KWUR has garnered strong support and recognition from local musicians, art communities, and especially from nationwide associations of college radio stations...all to little avail. We broadcast to more people online, outside of St. Louis, than we could ever hope to reach right here in St. Louis.
The LPFM initiative would have been a great hope for us, as we would have used it justify new programming more directed at the local comminity, rather than the current indie college radio fare. Unfortunately, this hope is no more, since the "3rd-adjacent channel" restriction that has been shoe-horned into the LPFM bill by corporate lobbyists nixes ALL LPFM channels that would have been available in St. Louis.
So, does this hinder the engendering of grass roots radio markets that would actually have some origin from the audience they're broadcast too? Absolutely. Do such listeners actually prefer top-40 commercial radio continuously playing Eminem/Britney/Backstreet Boys on an automated 8-hour cycle? I doubt it.
LPFM and why it will hurt radio, help the public (Score:1)
LPFM, in the first place, is a new form of license that the FCC will give out to only noncommercial entities to broadcast at 10 and 100 watts (that's about 3 and 10 city blocks, respectively-- very very small). The actual cost to set up and license a station comes to about 500-700 dollars, making it ideal for schools, community groups, churches, etc, that want a media voice of their own. FCC Chair William Kennard is an African American, and worked with programs that helped to develop radio stations in black communities before he became chairman, so he is gaga for the program, as are many community leaders who feel they aren't represented well by commercial radio.
Speaking of commercial radio, the National Association of Broadcasters is not happy at all with the program. The first problem, they say (we'll see later what they really want-- hint: $$), is that dozens of LPFM stations will interfere with their signals in large cities, as the radio spectrum is already crowded. Since one of the FCC's duties is to protect established broadcast industries, this is the main, lawful reason why Congress is so against LPFM. HOWEVER, we can all guess that the real reason the NAB doesn't like LPFM is that it will steal audiences that would normally be theirs-- originally, the FCC said to get better programming to keep their audiences, but why provide more options for the public when the ones they have now are ok? (I'll leave any operating system analogies up to Slashdot to make). The FCC also did tests already, and set up a procedure to make sure no commercial signals were interrupted, but Congress didn't think it was enough, and wants the FCC to hold off until more testing is done.
And now it looks like they want to hold the FCC off even longer. Personally, even though I am in commercial radio, I am for LPFM as a whole-- if commercial radio has to fight for audiences, so be it-- they already are in many ways due to audience fragmentation with Internet, cable, etc. Reply and let me know what you think, I am very interested in the subject. I'm actually in the process of writing another paper on the media and the First Amendment, and so I just jotted this down quickly, if I missed anything, correct me.
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:2)
As I see we should not write letters to congress concerning LPFM because if they cared at all (they only care about special interests) then this bill would never have passed in the first place.
They way we organize is to write congress concerning government support for NPR. Since they are like a big-monied special interest now, they should be treated like one.
Let's petition congress to kill all funding for NPR. It should be able to stand on it's own feet now. If it can't make it and stations go dark because of it, then there is freed up spectrum space that could be used by LPFM.
Re:Seizing the Airwaves (Score:2)
I do this, and my local pirate radio station now sounds better than almost every corporate rock station in the area- and significantly bigger and better than KVT-FM which is running such a pile of elaborate sonic processing that they sound like crap on good systems :) My local pirate station is running over 40 feet of custom handmade low-capacitance cable I made and donated to them to replace Radio Shack crap.
Audio geeks- work _with_ the low power pirate radio movement. It's great- it's so unlike trying to hype your skills commercially! People really _appreciate_ it when you can make their radio station sound better, and the whole audience notices and even mentions it. Donate gear and skills and your ear and get to work with the low power radio people- it is _so_ worth it :)
Rebroadcasting (Score:2)
My take on the whole matter is that it is relative. Let me put it this way- KVT is a big corporate rock station in my area. I think KVT has every right to protest someone setting up a kilowatt transformer one channel away and screwing up their reception all across the state. However, KVT does not have the right to guaranteed uninterfered reception in my house. If I want to set up a 0.000001 watt transmitter, tune it to a half-channel away from KVT, and disrupt KVT's ability to broadcast in my house then that is up to me. As the range increases, it becomes a community issue- if the people on my block are agreed that they want a local micro station one channel away from KVT it is _their_ business. And so on- at the point where you are broadcasting to a town, that's where you start butting heads with corporate FM. My town's local pirate station has a lot of community support, actually- Vermont has a large progressive/radical population and is into co-operatives in general, so the radio station fits right in and there are donation boxes in some of the major stores in the area. To Vermonters, it's on the level of supporting an animal shelter- you don't have to support it but you might just want to! And arguments that it is Bad And Wrong because it might interfere with KVT (if it wasn't 27 bands away and well-run) don't impress people around here.
Re:What you do... (Score:2)
I think it makes perfect sense to regulate kilowatt stations. Those are _broadcasting_ with coverage way beyond a neighborhood. This low power radio setback is basically saying, "Broadcast even to your own community and you go to hell! you go to hell and you die!". To which the proper response (warning, contains word you're not allowed to broadcast even to your own neighborhood) is "fuck you". A community has to be able to set its own standards- if the community wants to border your kilowatt signal with a micro signal that's its business.
Re:cost? (Score:2)
I'd love to see a /. Radio. I always liked 'Geeks In Space', plus I'm a serious musician and audio techie who is a longtime slashdotter and has plenty of unusual music to offer (besonic.com/chrisj [besonic.com]) and just finished recording and mixing a new album just for the love of doing the art. I am getting interest from internet radio 'streamcasters' and my answer is always 'go to it my friend! with my blessing!' It's not even about being 'discovered': that makes it sound like the point is to win the fight to be noticed by the BIG media. To me, doing the art and allowing it to flow out in natural ways like individuals doing streams of the stuff they like- that IS the point, that IS the whole purpose of the exercise. When one person listens to music I did and finds something they really like, that's what I'm doing it for...
Re: (Score:2)
Another fun thing on that bill - Mandatory filters (Score:2)
And yes, this was tacked onto the spending bill, initiated by McCain. Lovely.
What would happen if there was no FCC? (Score:3)
Seems to me that I've heard the same thing said about the Internet. Back in 1993 people were incredulous that something as complex as the Internet could self-organize out of virtual anarchy.
You'd have tons of people broadcasting over eachother, others just trying to scramble other peopel.
Would you, or wouldn't you? What would really happen if there was no powerful central authority like the FCC to dictate who was allowed to broadcast on what frequency? Would chaos rule, or would a spontaneous, distributed order arise?
IIRC, the concept of the government owning the spectrum and doling out licenses is based on the idea that it's a scarce resource and has to be rationed. What that fails to take into account is that scarcity breeds ingenuity. For example, compression was a huge deal back in the BBS days. There was serious competition among transfer protocols (ZModem, Hydra, YModem-G, etc.) and archive utilities (PKZIP, LHARC, ARJ, etc) to squeeze the absolute maximum out of the 2400-bps links of the day. Now that we have honking big fiber connections we don't worry as much with it.
So with regards to the scarcity issue, if there were no FCC the marketplace might have already evolved standards for digitizing and compressing audio broadcasts, to squeeze every possible bit of performance out of the spectrum.
Although I suspect there would be some jamming, it'd probably be on the same limited scale as the script-kiddie DOS stuff on the Internet. It simply isn't profitable or worthwhile for companies to try to jam each other (if it was, Yahoo and Excite would be sending ping floods and ICMP fragments at each other all day long.) The jammer kiddies could probably be thwarted for the most part by industrywide adoption of something like spread-spectrum in combination with public key authentication.
Perhaps packet radio (IP over ham radio - anyone else remember KA9Q?) would have taken off, and we'd have had a wireless Internet years ago.
Then again, it's also possible that the moon is made of green cheese.
--
Re:No more funding!!! (Score:2)
More info on FCC and micro-radio (Score:3)
These were written a few monthes back, and don't apply to the recent stupidity of congress. They are, however, an excellent review of issue of the FCC and their recent positions on micro-radio.
---
man sig
Screw the FCC.... (Score:2)
Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
"....after months of intensive lobbying, NPR and the NAB convinced Congress to quietly kill the service, and prevent schools, libraries, community groups and local government from operating low watt stations."
isn't that stopping free speech? And isn't that like an amendment or something?!? Maybe the First amendment? So unless you had a lot of money and were able to pay and get lots of advertisers and equipment you don't get radio. That's fair.
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:2)
In practice, this means that network content is tailored more toward what will please the advertiser than what will please the viewer--networks want to please viewers, of course, but only because that increases their ratings, and thus increases the money they can command for advertisements. The problem here is that there is nothing inherent in the system which supports broadcasts which are not deemed commercial.
So a broadcaster that chooses to broadcast what no one wishes to see/hear can not find advertisers to support its business. How is this not a controlling input, albeit indirect? I don't get out and move the front wheels of my car when I want to turn a corner, I turn the steering wheel. I've not directly moved the front tires, but I am in still in control.
This doesn't mean "unpopular": it can simply mean controversial.
And who gets to decide what is unpopular and what is controversial. The problem with NPR is that the public has less control. To turn your argument back on itself,
The way around that is to have the audience support the broadcast directly. Virtually all industrialized countries have some mechanism by which government money is given to a broadcasting institution, ideally with a "firewall" of some sort to prevent government interference (a critical piece that American public broadcasting lacks).
First of all, NPR isn't a text book case of the audience supporting the network directly. Yes, you can make a donation, but a large portion of their support comes from advertisers (oh, I'm sorry, corporate supporters who asked to be recognized during commercials, oops, I mean intermissions). Another large portion is extorted from the taxpayers using the force of the US government. NPR is a long way from being audience supported.
Second, you forget the first rule of society, and that is that someone has to rule. If you remove government interference, who gets to decide the content. Why should I trust a set of unknown administrators above someone who has been exposed to the harsh light of a political campaign? I don't know how the firewall works in other countries, but the idea of shovelling money into a broadcast system with no public control mechanism at all is a scary thought to me.
The audience controls the content in the donation and advertiser models by the degree to which they tune in/out, regardless of whether the money comes directly from the audience or from advertisers. If the content sucks, everyone tunes out, donations/advertisement dollars dry up, and the station is replaced with one that broadcast content that people prefer. The problem with NPR and systems that receive government money without direct government control, and the reason we can't [set] aside the specifics of NPR, is that they have taken the audience further out of the control loop than the other methods by inserting government into the loop. Providing NPR with government funds while removing all government input would completely remove audience control and would be blasphemous in my mind. Whoever got control of the NPR administration would have to power to broadcast whatever they pleased, the audience be damned. Furthermore, even if I completely disagreed with them and abhorred everything they stood for, there would be no way to change the content. The fact that I tuned out would have no effect on their bottom line.
So, I think we can agree on some points. True public supported broadcasting is a good thing as long as it isn't corrupted into chasing dollars by doing an end-run around the audience. NPR, however, has been corrupted and is now just another lobbying group, afraid of competition and trying to protect their own turf. But I think we disagree on government supported 'public radio'. I don't find it to be 'public controlled', only publicly funded. I put my faith more in market forces than faceless administrators...but that's just me.
more corporate control? (Score:3)
i dont get it anymore... who the hell is running this country? it isnt the people...
for christs sake, GWB got elected with about 20% of the eligible voters voting for him? does that sound like the MAJORITY of people want this guy to lead... its a minority... a very small minority is running this country, and selling the people out for the dollar...
i guess the RIAA and broadcaster associations are scared of a bunch of small radio stations that they dont own... who knows, maybe they'll play music OTHER than the crap pushed byt the big 5... my god, the horror!!! someone might listen to something else...
tagline
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:3)
--
Ian Peters
Re:Trade Groups (no, not trade groups -- NPR!!!) (Score:2)
I don't think I used the phrase "publicly controlled"--a network, regardless of funding, is going to be controlled by the people in charge of it. (I may have an anarchist streak in me, but not enough of one to suggest organizations don't need someone, or a group of someones, setting direction.)
For the most part we probably don't disagree, except perhaps on whether the government can (or should) be used as a collection and funding agency for a public broadcasting network. I don't find anything intrinsically wrong with that use--but I don't find it intrinsically better than so-called community broadcasting, where the audience does directly pay for the programming.
And, yes, NPR's sponsors are pretty much guilty of everything I accused commercial advertisers of. There's a book about that called 'Made Possible By': The Death of Public Broadcasting in America. Sure to not be a bonus gift for your contribution to your NPR station in their next fundraising drive!
Re:Pirate! (Score:2)
the FCC isn't going to grant you a license anyway if/when LPFM is killed by congress.
--K
---
Re:more corporate control? (Score:2)
I was with you until you tried to lay this off on GW. Did you not read the original post? CONGRESS (including Joe "NOT-the-Vice-President" Lieberman in the Senate, which also signed off on this bill) voted to gut the bill put forward by the FCC.
Exactly what part did Texas Governor/Presidential Candidate Bush play in that?! Did I somehow miss his efforts, or are you just dragging him in as your target de jour?
I agree that our national turnout was pitiful. (Despite the fact that each of the candidates received more votes than the winner of the last such election.)
Personally, I'm most saddened by the fact that low-power enthusiasts were so inadequate at lobbying their respective Representatives and Senators. The only buzz I remember hearing about this issue was on NPR a couple of months ago. I got no mailings on this issue, saw no articles in other media, and saw no people trying to support the FCC in making these new frequency allocations available.
I guess the reason a few powerful (well-financed) groups & companies were able to get their way was because only a few non-powerful (poorly-financed & not connected politically) people stood in opposition.
Re:Pump Up the Volume, anyone? (Score:2)
For those that don't get it:
Pump Up The Volume was probably the coolest movie of our generation. It was this kid that had a pirate radio show he started running every night at 10pm and he ended up getting a huge following. It was really very, very cool. (Sorry, no spoilers on the ending).
Contact your Congressmen (Score:4)
--
Re:Shame on NPR (Score:2)
I too will no longer be making any donations whatsoever to PBS. Let them rot for supporting such legislation
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
Free Radio Berkeley fought a long battle through the courts against the FCC, and got shut down in 1998 after 5 years of suit and countersuit. That on its own shows the issue is hardly clear-cut-- there were plenty of decisions and overrides.
If you want to read about one of the most (in)famous low power radio stations ever, check out www.freeradio.org [freeradio.org]. It's an interesting read about a fairly ridiculous situation, although it's a little out of date.
i'm sorry (Score:3)
"via a rider on the session ending omnibus appropiations bill."
I jumble it's think a random just words of.
wray
Pirate! (Score:2)
They're pretty easy to set up if you know a bit about transmitters. We used to have a few microwave links between us and the transmitter as well just incase the DTI [dti.gov.uk] found the transmitter while we were on air. This would give us time to get our records and decks out of there before they could catch us!
----------------------------
Re:Screw the FCC.... (Score:2)
I think you're missing a couple basic points:
These people don't want to broadcast globally, they want to broadcast locally. If you can capture a million listeners over the entire world that's great, but how does that help your goal of having a local broadcast of PTA meetings?
The target audience isn't people sitting at their desks, connected to the internet. It's people listening to the radio. There are many more of the latter in any given geographical area, and saturation is important here.
Webcasts are great. They really are an amazing thing, and a vastly useful tool. They won't do what a lowpower community broadcast will, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me tell you what scared NPR and broadcasters. (Score:2)
Built a tower, got a license, hacked together an automation system, transmitter, and console. Apparently paid for it out of pocket. Went live, and practically owned the listening audience in the surrounding area in just six months, in the face of fairly heavy competition.
How? Simple. He was local program, local talent, local issues, with more music and less commercials. He went out into the community and asked people what they wanted to hear. Then he gave it to them. Instant hit.
Believe me, bloated NPR and PRI affiliates who have been sucking off the "non-profit listener-supported" tit to an annoying degree, while at the same time writing all the federal, state and local grants they can get to cover equipment, do not want the word to get around that any couple of stone-broke music freaks capable of signing a license application could do a better job than they. Even if it's true.
Radio needs this. Local is where radio had its start, and where it seems to work best. Micropower licenses would have legitimised the process of backlash already present in most good-sized communities. You need a translation? Yo Ho Ho! Just tune your FM radio to the far ends of the band any time after midnight, and see what you find. "License? We don't need no stinking license" Avast ye swabs, prepare to board...
Re:Stoping Peoples Free Speech (Score:3)
Now, the FCC is the agency charged with determining technical matters on the airwaves. They determined that the old FM interference rules, promulgated in the 1950s during an era of vacuum-tube radios, are obsolete. With considerable study, they loosened up the requirements just a smidge, but enough to let in a lot of <= 100 watt stations. (They explictly rejected their original proposal of allowing LPFMs to have 1000 watts, and rejected 2-channel spacing, but allow 3-channel spacing instead of the old rule's 4-channel requirement.)
Now the NAB et al are concerned about competition. They are making noises about interference, but there's a strong record at the FCC to show that those concerns are not realistic. So they're trying to change the law to override the FCC. Trouble is, the FCC's law interfered with freedom of press because of interference concerns. The FCC's record should be a good weapon in court to prove that the new law is a violation of the free press -- it goes beyond what has been demonstrated technically necessary.
And if that law falls, then the whole issue of broadcast licensure may even be subject to reopening. After all, Congress has demonstrated that it's based on anticompetitive theory, and thus has made the whole thing suspect. Wouldn't that be grand!
NPR Boycott - domain is free! (Score:2)
You should know that BoycottNPR.org [networksolutions.com] is free for the taking. Who wants to run this??
Two Faced. (Score:2)
Yes, comercial radio sucks but Big Brother's voice is not the only solution. Shame on them.
Re:Stoping (sic) Peoples Free Speech (Score:2)
In a more general way, control of communication channels is control of speech. This should be obvious to anyone with a mind.
The problem is this. The first ammendment forbids congress to regulate speech without qualification. The supreme court case history has qualified that prohibition, to good effect mostly, by recognizing, among other things, that the motivation behind the first ammendment is the public interest in fostering "a marketplace of ideas".
The question is: does congress has the authority to regulate channels of communication in a way that promote the actual exercise rather than the abstract right of free speech?
The concept of the marketplace of ideas and the judicial history of the first ammendment could easily lend itself to such an interpretation. But at least six justices in the present court ( the five assholes + breyer) prefer the narrower one. That is of course very convenient. If actual access to communication channels cannot be regulated (qua speech), it does not mean that everyone has access. It means that access is decided by power ( money in our society) rather than by law.
The FCC regulatory powers are thus conveniently based on the power to regulate commerce, not speech. If the FCC were to prefer "community radio" over commercial radio, it would have been very likely challenged in court too (on free speech ground!). And the present court's decision is best left to the wild imagination.
PBS and NPR are not the same. (Score:2)
NPR was supposed to be about alternative (i.e. non-corporate) voices on the radio.
-Isaac
Re:Pirate! (Score:2)