Slashdot Mirror
FCC Supports Neighborhood Radio
RevMike writes "According to this story from the Associated Press, the FCC is recommending to Congress that restrictions on low-power FM stations be relaxed. The FCC found that low-power FM stations can be operated in the gaps of spectrum between major stations without substantially interfering with those major stations. If Congress adopts the FCC's recommendations, it will loosen the stranglehold that companies like ClearChannel have on the airwaves."
There are two types of college radio stations:
A: The NPR outlet owned by the school, and therefore expresses the views of the administration or nearly no views at all.
B: The freeform station that is a legally distinct entity from the school, which gets its funding either on its own or from the student government.
The reason there's such a thick line between these two kinds of things is liability. If the school has any ownership in the radio station, they must tightly control it because they're on the hook for any FCC fines or slander lawsuits. Because most colleges have endowments, they're the ultimate deep pockets.
If it's a distinct entity, then the school has no control over it, and if they get into trouble, then they can go bankrupt without any risk to the school.
I just wish they would do the same in Sweden. They just issued a recall of those cool JOS mp3-players with builtin FM-transmitters even tho they come disabled.
English is not my first language, so cut me some slack -: Om du kan lasa det har sa kan du Svenska
Oh, you can, you just have to pay statutory royalties based on a formula laid out in the law. Since it's a statutory license, the copyright owner doesn't get any say, that performance is authorized.
:)
And another funny little quirk. If you truely have no listners, then the statutory license is free because it'd produce a multiplication by zero in the formula.
This is scary. The student body and the community deserve the right to have such alternative voices and it is part of the FCC's mission to do so.
I have another thread here where I sing the merits of a Hawaii station - KTUH - which is college radio. On the island of Kauai, they have KKCR, Kauai Community Radio, http://www.kkcr.org/ which I had the pleasure of direct exposure to (they have an online feed as well). THIS STATION is what "community radio" is all about.
If normal people in the United States do not become politically active (like people were in the 1960s) we are going to continue to LOSE! Offshoring anyone?
shock the monkey
Just this week, the anti-monopoly watchdog in the Netherlands seized some company records of Mojo, who organise about 90% of all large gigs in this country. I was surprised to learn that ClearChannel now apparently owns a goodly chunk of Mojo, although a spokesman vehemently denied that 'America' had their fingers in the day-to-day operation of Mojo.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Silly tinfoilhead..
Clear Channel owns 1,200 radio stations.
There are 42,000 radio stations in the country.
Look at the ratings of the top 25 markets.. Clear Channel is 1 of 8-9 players in each of these markets.. they don't even have the #1,#2 stations in most...
silly tinfoilhead..
Broadcast FM can have excellent sound quality. The reason that most stations sound like shit is the management's desire to sound "louder" than every other station on the dial.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
2. What the FCC is proposing is already status quo in the U.S., albeit with a catch. Translator stations - signals of up to 250 watts that are only allowed to relay other stations and cannot originate their own programming - are governed by a different set of rules that allow them, in some cases, to nestle up as close as second-adjacent to (0.4 MHz away from) full-power signals. And the FCC recently had a filing window in which it received several thousand applications for such translators, the vast majority of them from a small handful of religious broadcasting networks that will feed them by satellite from Idaho and California. How does this benefit local listeners? You tell me...
So as much as it's cool to bash a mega-company on this site, it's not really Clear Channel who is trying to kill off LPFM, it's the religious broadcasters who are booking up all of the free slots on the dial so that LPFM can't get them.
Clear Channel really doesn't have to lift a finger. These religious groups are doing everything it takes to kill off LPFM all by themselves.
Not really. The "HD Radio" system the US is adopting (which is, in good US fashion, a completely different and incompatible system from what the rest of the world, Canada included, is using) depends on being able to use the adjacent frequency space on either side of the existing analog signal. So a signal on 94.7, let's say, that currently occupies 94.6-94.8 MHz will now spread out from 94.4-95.0 MHz, give or take. (The way the system is designed, it can recover a usable digital signal even if it can only hear one of the sidebands and suffers interference on the other.)
There's some concern - some of it legitimate, even - that loosening the spacing rules will cause problems with HD Radio. (In the very distant long term when we all have digital radios - you can stop laughing now, really - the analog signal at the center of the frequency is supposed to go away and the digital carriers will again occupy only 0.2 MHz, making this point moot. No engineer I know believes this is likely to happen any time soon.)
If Congress adopts the FCC's recommendations, it will loosen the stranglehold that companies like ClearChannel have on the airwaves.
ClearChannel has a stranglehold? If you live in the US is there a single, non public channel that isn't controlled by ClearChannel?
A list of ClearChannel stations.
Stranglehold? Nah!
My spoon is too big!
Since I work in the industry in question, for Clear Channel, of course.... I'll go ahead & clear this up some. With an actual radio station, you pay ASCAP/BMI to play music, not the RIAA.
I can't say that I've ever run crosswise of the FCC but I don't think I would want to. As an amateur radio operator (W5DCC), I read the AARL web site regularly and they run letters from the FCC on who's breaking the rules. Given the letters they publish are mostly related to the amateur bands and citizens band. I can recall one gentleman who received a rather harsh punishment (read jail time) for running large wattage (50-100 watt) transmitters in CB.
I understand that you're talking about 1 watt or there about, but you're talking about transmitting in a commercial band. I wouldn't recommend pirate transmissions in any band unless you're willing to face the consequences of messing with Uncle Sam.
I don't agree with all the FCCs regulations concerning broadcast but I wouldn't advocate pirate radio.
-- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
Considering this is slashdot, I'm sure few of you bothered to read the article, let alone go to the FCC's web site and download the pdf version of "Report to the congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program". Well, I did, so here's my chance to flaunt it..er I mean inform the community of the valuable information it contains. (this'll be a long post, so most of you will just want to read the first few paragraphs and follow the link. All the trolls out there should spend the time to read it all to the end :P)
If you want some information on exactly how the repeal of the restrictions would affect radio, try this page, linked to REC Networks, one of the public commentators on the FCC report.
The document's foundation is the Mitre report-an analysis including field tests and experimental programs conducted by the Mitre Corporation at the behest of the FCC starting in 2001. The Mitre report made several recommendations regarding LPFM (low power FM) stations and third-adjacent channel FM stations. Reduction or elimination of minimum distance separation requirements was possible without increasing interference, use of a more stringent emissions mask would limit interference because most LPFM transmitters have poor emission suppression, interference from LPFM to digital receivers is unlikely to occur beyond 130 meters from the transmitter, and the report found that the above results are so reliable listener tests and economic analysis scheduled for the second phase of the LPFM field tests were unnecessary.
Public comments on the Mitre report included 18 supporters for elimination or modification of the existing minimum didstance separation requirements, and 3 in support of the status quo.
The FCC document is essentially the FCC's opinion on the Mitre report, with the recommendations it has chosen to pass along to Congress. Page 4 of the pdf begins a list of the FCC's recommendations.
They go farther than the slashdot summary suggests, and state that existing third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between LPFM and full-service stations should be eliminated entirely. This is based on the Mitre report's finding that even in the worst case scenario no real interference would exist beyond 1.1 kilometers from the LPFM transmitter site. The FCC asks congress to modify the relevant statute to eliminate the restrictions in question.
The FCC also asks Congress to "re-evaluate the necessity of completing Phase II testing." Phase II was the economic analysis the Mitre report chose to skip over, and the FCC agrees that the conclusion they'd reach through Phase II are so obvious there's no point in doing the work. In other words, the FCC's recommendation to eliminate the restrictions is all pro and no con, and any fool can plainly see it. Except, of course, a fool whose only goal is to squash small radio stations before they start accumulating listeners.
That's all there is in the recommendations section, and the entire report to Congress contains only six pages. Six! That's nearly unheard of in the world of governmental bureaucracy, and it sends a clear signal that this FCC report is essentially a memo saying "Yo, Congress, this law is dumb so kill it." End of story, no politicking, no favors or special interests or obfuscation, simply the FCC doing it's job the way it's supposed to. Not something you see every day!
So what's going to happen? Congress will see this, start a hearing, and there's two possibilities: One, big radio doesn't do anything, and the restrictions are eliminated in a one sided vote with little fanfare or contention. Or, Clear Channel decides to abuse the little guy, and starts lobbying in favor of the restrictions. We'll see loads of bs and political favors, and all the crap people complain about in Congress. It will be interesting to watch the results as a barometer of just how gridlocked Congress has become due to special interests.
By the way, the last pag
The National Association of Broadcasters, however, went nuts over this idea. They lobbied congress hard, and circulated what they thought radio would sound like with all the added stations. The cds they pushed on uninformed congressmen wildly exagrated any problem and the idea was quickly killed.
One of the things that really angered me about this (and still does) is the fact that NPR fell in step with the NAB. The reasoning for this I can only assume is the fact that listeners of low-power fm would probably come from NPR's listener base and not from some crappy top-40 station. Realizing the possible loss of revenue (fewer pledge drive contributions) NPR acted in this reactionary manner. (I should note that I still support my local NPR stations, but not as happily as previously.)
Hopefully, congress will listen to the FCC on this instead of lobbyists for the NAB. The electro-magnetic spectrum is a public resource. If the public is not getting anything useful from the currently liscensed stations and are being blocked by these same stations when the public attempts to coexist with them, I say we take some of the spectrum back -- and now.
Broadcasting of copyrighted material is allowed as a fair-use
That's not true. Radio and TV stations have to pay royalties to play music. There are several licensing groups but the biggest are ASCAP and BMI.
Anywhere that there is a public performance of copyright music you must pay royalties to the licensing bodies for the songs that you use. This includes background music in stores, music in bars and clubs, elevators, etc.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
Erm, no.
The radio stations get media for free. You have to maintain a list of what you play and submit it to either ASCAP or BMI.
Never worked at a radio station, eh?
But you are right, you can't resell those CDs legally. (Not thats a major deterrent)
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
If you're thinking about starting your own radio station, or just curious about the issues involved check-out http://www.radio4all.org/
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
You are mistaken on several fronts here:
- you pay ASCAP / BMI for broadcast rights, RIAA if you want to sell copies
- non profit broadcast radio stations are not exempt from paying ASCAP / BMI, though the rate is lower
- non profit internet radio pays RIAA a reduced rate from commercial stations
There are no IP issues with operating a bona fide radio station. More accurately, the issues have long been worked out. Broadcast royalties for virtually all music other than your local garage bands are covered by ASCAP. A commercial station that primarily plays music and has gross revenue under $50,000 per year need only pay an annual fee of $450 for a license to broadcast ASCAP's entire portfolio. Non-commercial stations pay rates determined by the US copyright office. It is all in ASCAP's faq.
Do yourself a favor and find a copy of "FM: The Rise and Fall of Rock Radio" by Richard Neer. It'll answer the question. I'll try to summarize...
Once, due to both inertia and quirks in regulation, radio stations were cheap. Since they were cheap, a radio station owner could get a nice return by targeting a niche market. Management didn't care if they were number 1, in the middle of the pack, or at the bottom in terms of ratings. Everyone could still make a decent return on their investment.
Then, regulations were changed. Radio stations became expensive. The old owners all sold out and made huge profits. The new owners now needed to justify the huge prices they paid. No one could afford to run a station aimed at a niche market. Everyone needed to compete for the maximum ratings.
The radio station that was, for instance, fiftenth in the ratings looked at what the number one radio station was doing and thought "If we did the same thing, maybe we could be number one." Everyone started changing formats like wild. Diversity disappeared. Radio became a wasteland.
Today a commercial radio station can't afford to play anything that isn't main stream. Ownership put serious money on the line to buy the station, now they need to see profits to go with that investment. That money only comes from having a big audience.
--quote--
Probably the best known such case concerning a noncommercial station involved WXPN-FM, a Philadelphia station licensed to the University of Pennsylvania. In December, 1975, WXPN-FM was fined two thousand dollars for the broadcast of obscene material in connection with a live, weekly, call-in program, "The Vegetable Report." Notice to Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 57 F.C.C. 2d 782 (1975). During the shows in question, callers carried on sexually explicit conversations with the disc jockeys that included the words "fuck," "piss," and "titties" and discussed "beating off" and "blow jobs." During one call, a three-year old boy was asked if he could say "fuck" and the mother of the boy was told that she should let her son "screw" her so he wouldn't turn out to be a rapist.
--end quote--
http://www.prometheusradio.org/
[B]ut how do college radio stations operate? Do they get a break on pricing, etc?
Yes. Noncommercial stations (not just college) have a cheaper rate scheme.
There's another comment here suggesting that the royalties are why college radio plays more indie music. That's not true - it's a blanket rate.
Time for a snack.
NPR's news programs are pretty middle-of-the-road by world standards, although their commentators and editorials can are certainly a bit to the left in the US, is what I think you meant.