Slashdot Mirror


Microbroadcasting Summer Camp

ScottGant writes "Wired has this story about Steven Dunifer and his four-day Radio Summer Camps sponsored by Free Radio Berkeley that offers how-tos for building transmitters and antennas, along with advice on handling any FCC agents that might come knocking. Imagine this: A thousand little stations send radio programming across cities and towns from senior centers, dorm rooms and attics. The understaffed FCC would be powerless to shut them down. Audiences would have substantive content choices. No one would tune into Top-40 radio. And the media moguls would slink back into their caves. The FCC and Big Radio are obviously paying attention to the microbroadcasters -- it was pressure from independent broadcasters that forced the FCC to grant a limited number of low-power, or LPFM, radio licenses to community organizations, a decision that the NAB resisted. Are these Pirates or Patriots?"

36 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. MicroBroadcasters by mpost4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this will not be popular, but there is a reason for the FCC to be around and to control the spectrum. Think about it, if the FCC did not exist I could drive around with a 2kilowatt spread spectrum transmitter on 2.4Ghz, good by WiFi, or I could jam all cell phones anywhere. The FCC may not be perfect but we need it. Also with these vandals (yes I use the word vandals) it would be nice if they were low power and such, but they get their kicks from broadcasting over another station. That is one reason for the FCC to protect peoples right to their freq. If one wants something on the air there is always the public access stations. Or you could do a net stream, there are many other options, the FCC is not there just to hurt the little guy, they are there to protect the bands, they are not always good at it, and they make mistakes

    1. Re:MicroBroadcasters by MisterJones · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I agree. Aren't these microbroadcasters on the same level as spammers? By broadcasting whatever they please over top of the expected/indended brodcasts, they interfere with the regular reception on my radio. Maybe I don't want to listen to their band's demo tape for 60 hours in a row. What if I prefer 'top-40' drivel?

      Does the fact that larger radio stations are owned by a company and have a license make them evil?

    2. Re:MicroBroadcasters by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why they need to be regulated, and probably given a few channels where they are allowed to broadcast at low power.

      Freedom of speech is good, freedom to make yourself heard even better. I'd really like to see a way for microbroadcasters to get on the air without disturbing the current users of the spectrum.

    3. Re:MicroBroadcasters by warpSpeed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While agree with you that the FCC is there to protect the spectrum from abuses, they are also crushing any kind of innovation by not accepting simple low power transmitters, used responsibly, as a legitimate use of the spectrum. If they were to allow low power transmitters, and provide specs as two what make said transmitter, you would see something happen akin to the WiFi market. There would be lots of people that would be interested in legal hardware that could provide the low power broadcasting. Simplify the process for applying for a licens for one of these low power transmitters, and you would have a vibrant market.

      The FCC says that only pirates are doing this, but until they sanction low power transmitters with legitimate rules, the hardware manufactures will not produce the product the "average joe" use...

      The FCC it self is the problem, because they are in the pockets of the Big Radio corps...

    4. Re:MicroBroadcasters by mpost4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      sorry it is 1/distance^2 not sqrt, the number is about right, I just missed typed.

    5. Re:MicroBroadcasters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know this will not be popular, but there is a reason for the FCC to be around and to control the spectrum.

      The popularity of your statements is irrelevant. Their logic and basis is the issue.

      Also with these vandals (yes I use the word vandals) it would be nice if they were low power and such, but they get their kicks from broadcasting over another station.

      First, you've already made up your mind. Do you know any of "these vandals"? Have you met them?

      In my experience (and I have LONG experience in both ham radio and microbroadcasting) most of the people you're talking about will NOT broadcast over another station because doing so is contrary to their own goals.

      The goal of micropower radio is to HAVE A RADIO STATION OF YOUR OWN. It's a little counterproductive to go around vandalizing other stations. You tend to last longer the more you control your signal and keep it from interfering.

      That is one reason for the FCC to protect peoples right to their freq. If one wants something on the air there is always the public access stations.

      The peoples' right to their freq? Nobody has a RIGHT to a frequency under the FCC. The use of a frequency is a PRIVILEGE doled out to those who can either pass a test (ham radio) or pay enough cash (spectrum auctions, license fees).

      Under the FCC, the PEOPLE have NO RIGHT to broadcast anything. And that's the problem. The spectrum belongs to EVERYONE but the FCC will only allow broadcasting to those who have deep, deep pockets.

      Precisely whose interests do you suppose they are protecting?

      Or you could do a net stream, there are many other options, the FCC is not there just to hurt the little guy, they are there to protect the bands, they are not always good at it, and they make mistakes

      You COULD do lots of things. You could publish a book or you could distribute tapes or you could stand on a box in a park with a bullhorn.

      The problem with this argument is that it's fallacious. It says, "You don't need to do A because you can always do B." Fine, there are always alternatives.

      Why do you need to use the internet? I mean really...you could use the telephone or send a letter or distribute your data on floppies or cds. When you use the internet, you're risking interference to others. How do we know that your machine won't become infected with a virus and trojan and send out spam or attack our networks? We'd better regulate the Internet and make so that only the wealthy can use it! Oh, we'll give little 14.4k connections to those who can pass a test...that way if they get infected then they can only send a little spam.

      The fallacy is about convenience. Why do 3 to 6 megacorporate conglomerates get to control ALL public discourse in the United States via the most powerful media? They clearly don't do a good job and they clearly have a vested interest in keeping certain information from us (like when their other products are faulty or their CEO commits a crime).

      Why can't WE THE PEOPLE, by whose authority public resources are SUPPOSED to be available fairly (if not equally), use broadcast media for our own purposes?

      Cost? Anyone can now buy or build a transmitter that will comply with regulations for little money.

      Scarcity of spectrum? Maybe in New York or LA but in a town like Des Moines, Iowa there's PLENTY of specturm available...and a town like that NEEDS the diversity of voice.

      Standards? BULLSHIT! America has no standards but the dollar.

      The issue is competition. Understand this concept and everything else makes sense. People who have money and power will DO ANYTHING (lie, cheat, steal and kill) to keep others from getting money and power. Win lose mentality. The FCC are merely their buttboys.

      The problem with this is that microbroadcasting isn't about money and power. It's about freedom and it's about choice and it's about diversity and it's about art and it's about expression. But the big corps can't fathom this. How could something not be about our one right true and only God MONEY????

      Top 40 and talk radio are a disease. Micropowerbroadcasting is the cure.

    6. Re:MicroBroadcasters by hackman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't make the larger radio stations evil directly, they ended up that way because they are under control of a very few companies. (Basically 2 to my knowledge).

      They are trying to gain some audience so they can change the way the FCC operations, the fact that significant resources beyond the technical gear is required to communicate over the airwaves could be interpreted as limiting freedom of speech.

      I'm not saying it should be wide open to anyone, it certainly needs some regulation. I'm saying the existing restrictions on frequency use have gone beyond just protecting the frequences and moved into the realm of monopoly-like power over a critical resource.

      --
      __ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
    7. Re:MicroBroadcasters by dasmegabyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, one of the rules of microbroadcasting is that you're not supposed to use a channel occupied by, or within .3 MHz of, an existing station.

      And it's more than just gentleman's advice...if you try to piggyback your local 50,000W clearchannel station with your 10W community station, you will never be heard, not even in your own house. Your radio will ignore your broadcast as static.

      When I do "pirate" broadcasts, I generally use a piece of the spectrum in between our local NPR station and a "dance party" college radio station. Both are low powered, relatively, so I get a good signal. I can broadcast almost all the way down the street! It was a lot more useful in college...where a good, low-powered-but-legal signal could reach the 9000 students or whatever in the dorms.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    8. Re:MicroBroadcasters by pjrc · · Score: 3, Informative
      I agree. Aren't these microbroadcasters on the same level as spammers?

      No. Well, not usually.

      By broadcasting whatever they please over top of the expected/indended brodcasts, they interfere with the regular reception on my radio.

      Like many other's posting today, you're stuck in the paradigm that microbroadcasters are going to intentionally broadcast "on top" of some already in-use band... and that if it weren't for the FCC's enforcement of the licensed allocation the FM and AM bands would be utter chaos. I've got some news for you...

      Broadcasting in the same band as an established station with a strong signal isn't going to get you any significant coverage or audience (no matter how compelling your program material may be). A low power transmitter's field strength is going to be overwhelmed after only a short distance if there's a powerful transmitter within the same city... especially if it has the tremendous advantage of transmitting from a tower on top of a hill. This is especially true for FM, where the radio will track the higher amplitude frequency and effectively ignore your smaller signal. Even on AM, where you have a chance of superimposing your audio, it doesn't take much signal from the strong source before your voice/music is not intelligable.

      Low power radio transmission also doesn't reach enough people to be effecive at selling the scams and questionable products that most spammers push.

      What if I prefer 'top-40' drivel?

      In the extreemly unlikely case some low power transmitter spewing an unlicensed signal on top of your pop music station... you'll probably only have to move a short distance or just orient your antenna a little differently to pick up the extreemly strong signal these stations transmit.

      Even if you're deprived of Top-40 for a little while, take comfort in the likelyhood that it won't last long. Sure, someone may be having a good laugh somewhere... but they're probably going to shut it off soon, partly for fear of getting caught, but also because it won't be long until they realize turning to an unused band or one with a very weak signal is going to buy them a lot more coverage.

    9. Re:MicroBroadcasters by Otto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like many other's posting today, you're stuck in the paradigm that microbroadcasters are going to intentionally broadcast "on top" of some already in-use band... and that if it weren't for the FCC's enforcement of the licensed allocation the FM and AM bands would be utter chaos. I've got some news for you...

      I've got some news for you too. Transmitters "leak". A homemade transmitter tends to leak a lot. They don't stay confined to one and only one section, they spread across a chunk of spectrum. They have to, in fact, because that's how frequency modulation works. But when it goes a lot further than it's supposed to, it causes interference on neighboring channels.

      Few here are concerns about jackasses who try to steal bandspace from some other station. That's a self solving problem. But poorly made transmitters that knock out a whole MHz of the spectrum at a time is not unheard of, or indeed, uncommon in pirate radio.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  2. Are these Pirates or Patriots? by Gr33nNight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are these Pirates or Patriots?

    Can they be both?

    1. Re:Are these Pirates or Patriots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      well he said Are these Pirates or Patriots not Are these Pirates xor Patriots so I guess yes they can be both.

  3. Everyone wins...mostly by erick99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not only is this is a good idea in terms of some diversity over the radio waves, but it might get kids interested in electronics again like ham radio and a few other hobbies used to do:

    "...offer how-tos for building transmitters and antennas..."

    I also like what it can do for neighborhoods where it might enhance a sense of community which is sorely lacking these days. Either way, I think everyone wins and that doesn't happen very often (well, the NAB doesn't think that they win but anything that promotes radio eventually helps the NAB).

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
  4. Top 40 by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one would tune into Top-40 radio.

    Aaahhh .. yeah. Never underestimate the banality of the common man. Even in areas where there is substantial choice, Top-40 pulls 'em in. Like it or not, it's there because it makes money.

    1. Re:Top 40 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      aw, c'mon... don't you know that once we fire up this "Internet" it will be wonderful because anybody will be able to have their own "website" that they can fill with their own content for all of us to see.

      It will be great. I also envision these "websites" having a feature that allows people to write down their fascinating thoughts on everyday life. These daily logs on the "websites" ( I coined the term "weblog", but it might be too wordy) will be a fascinating addition to the body of human literature.

      Maybe some day we can do the same thing with radio stations.

      It will be great.

    2. Re:Top 40 by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention the fact that a majority of people who listen to the radio do so when they're driving, in my experience. I don't think Microbroadcasting's going to really work (unless you like retuning your dial every 20-30 seconds.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. Pirates or Patriots? How about idiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine this: A thousand little stations send radio programming across cities and towns from senior centers, dorm rooms and attics. The understaffed FCC would be powerless to shut them down. Audiences would have substantive content choices. No one would tune into Top-40 radio.... Are these Pirates or Patriots?

    Try "idiots". There's only so much radio band out there. If there were 1000 little stations then result would not be 1000 choices of content, it would be ZERO choices of content, because there'd be so much mishmash and overlap that nobody'd be able to tune in shit without interference.

    If you want to kill off FM Radio, this'd be a good way to do it. But it wouldn't be a good way to help out the people who just want to hear tunes. Want to broadcast your selection of tunes? Go get a license like everybody else.

    1. Re:Pirates or Patriots? How about idiots? by akb · · Score: 4, Informative

      The FCC proposed doing just what you have said is impossible, that is, licensing thousands of low power FM stations. However, the broadcast industry purchased a vote in Congress to override the FCC's technical findings. They cut the number of stations from thousands to a few hundred by requiring overly strict and told the FCC to study it a second time. The FCC study came back recently with the same results as the first one, thousands of stations can be licensed w/o causing interference.

      Watch for a new bill from John McCain to allow thousands of low power FM stations to be licensed. Maybe if you become more informed about the issue you will ask your Congress critters to support this legislation since your interference concerns have been allayed. If you want more info take a look at the Free Press LPFM page

  6. No one would tune into Top-40 radio? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bullshit. That's like saying if you broadcast pirate TV shows, noone would watch Survivor or American Idol.

  7. gut reaction by moviepig.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    This sort of underground culture is such a good thing that, if the repressive laws causing it didn't already exist, we should enact them.

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  8. I find this hard to believe by caffeineboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The Underground" was a radio station broadcast from the top of one of the dorms at OSU. They tried without success to get a license to broadcast, including a low power license, for years... Finally, they just started broadcasting at a couple of watts from the dorm with no license.

    To put it in perspective, I lived about 300M away from their broadcast site and I couldn't get any reception.

    Anyway, the FCC came in and turned their power down to the legal limit. You can't get their station from 4 floors below their antenna anymore.

    "there are too many, they can't get us all" is not a valid way to go about changing things, especially when the penalties are harsh like the penalties for FCC violations.

    Plus, who wants the local idiot to set up a station and swamp out a station you actually like? I'm not saying that I like anything that is being broadcast, and I wish like hell I could get the underground on my radio, but it just isn't going to happen until we start reforming media ownership laws...

    --
    +++ ATH0 +++
  9. Ignorant snobs by Genevish · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No one would tune into Top-40 radio.
    This always annoys me. Why do you think it's top 40? Most people like that form of music. Just because YOU don't doesn't mean everyone is clamoring for other music, otherwise the "indie" labels would be much more successful.
  10. Sources... Kits... or not by Rick.C · · Score: 5, Informative

    Try this if you want to build a free-standing FM transmitter from a kit, or this if you want to drop a PCI card into your PC and be on the air instantly.

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  11. Powerless to shut them down??!!??!! by MisterLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "The understaffed FCC would be powerless to shut them down."

    Young Skywalker, do not underestimate the power of the FCC:

    When the Federal Communications Commission came calling to shut down two local pirate radio stations late last year, the pirates say they got hit with a heavy dose of law enforcement muscle - choppers, submachine guns, flak jackets and other equipment and tactics usually seen in the takedown of killers or major drug desperados. (emphasis added)

  12. Pirates by alienw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These people are definitely ordinary radio pirates. The FM band has licensing for a reason -- because there is not enough space for everyone. I cannot find an empty spot on the FM band even in a college town with less than 20,000 people. The band is crowded, and there is not enough room for everyone and their dog.

    Besides, has anybody else noticed that the reason most "microbroadcasters" are "micro" is because nobody wants to listen to them? After all, if everyone is dissatisfied with clearchannel and likes some random local broadcaster, they can always persuade the FCC to give the small station a license instead. After all, that works for college stations, NPR stations, and many local stations. So, the pirate stations have to resort to tactics like interfering with a legitimate broadcaster in order to promote their crappy and unpopular format.

  13. Stupidest. Idea. Ever. by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You're kidding, right? Analog FM bandwidth is a very limited resource. Worst case scenario you end up with so many different signals you've got nothing but noise. Only slightly better (and the best you could reasonably hope for, with this, IMHO) would be many tiny cells in each city, within which you could hear a given station.

    This isn't better. I'd rather listen to a commercial rock station and hear mediocre songs all the way through and put up with ~25% advertising than institute a model where I can't hear any song to the end in my car, because I lose reception too fast.

    Even if - maybe especially if - it's a song I love.

    The FCC, for all its flaws, serves a useful purpose. It regulates the use of a freely-accessible (technically, at least) resource which is extremely limited in supply.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  14. No more Top-40? by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one would tune into Top-40 radio

    How many of the unfeasible thousands of tiny radio stations do you figure would be playing Top-40 anyway? There really isn't enough diversity in music to support even a modest number of unique radio stations. Most of them would be playing dead-air or else experiencing wide overlaps in content.

    Beyond that, what are the chances that this technology could be used for evil instead of good? Does anyone remember the hooligans who usurped a Burger King drive through system and berated customers for being fat? Unfortunately, a tool like radio would probably inspire the worst in poorly mannered people rather than the best in mild mannered ones.

    The technical aspect is very interesting and well worth teaching. The social aspect needs a disclaimer.

    --

    ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
  15. Power less by pottymouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Imagine this: A thousand little stations send radio programming across cities and towns from senior centers, dorm rooms and attics. The understaffed FCC would be powerless to shut them down. "

    Is that like the RIACC is powerless to stop the millions of downloaders and file traders from sharing music, etc... because there's just too many people doing it? All they have to do is get the interested parties (commercial radio for instance) to call their lawyers who will call their lobbyists who will pay a few judges/polititians who will write a law that includes a fine so large (you know, like up to $150,000.00 per song) that no one will take the risk of getting caught. Then they just have to arrest a few people to set an example and all the sheep run back to the barn...

    Welcome to America man, land of the Lawyer... Someday this may again be a free country but not today.

  16. Riiiiight. by CheapEngineer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "And the media moguls would slink back into their caves." Never before have I laughed so hard @ work that the Sation manager came down to the shop and asked me to pipe down, until I read this line. Stop it, *please*, yer killin' me. Cheap Engineer Somewhere in Corporate TV land

  17. Setup Data Networks not radio! by dgp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Set up a thousand little 802.11 hotspots with point-to-point links to send all sorts of data across cities and towns from senior centers, dorm rooms and attics! Its already legal! The hardware is already cheap!

    Now you've not only got local content streaming radio, you've got VoIP services, freely distributable media sharing, local news blogs, etc etc.

    This is the dream of many wireless community networking groups, including The Personal Telco Project in Portland, Oregon, USA.

  18. Already happened by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe the poster might be to young to remember the Citizen's Band phenomenon in the 1970's. And while the underlying thought might be that the FCC is powerless or understaffed, try broadcasting in Clear Channel's AM/FM bandwidth and see how fast you get slapped with a cease-and-desist order.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  19. Re:Definitely Patriots by johnkoer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The airwaves don't belong to any government, they don't belong to any private organization, they don't belong to any person.

    The FCC is a sham and should be dismantled.


    And the ozone does not belong to any government or private organization, but does that mean we should dismantle the EPA?

    While I am not a fan of the FCC, it does exist to regulate the usage of the airwaves. I think its power should be limited to protecting the airwaves from being overpopulated, however, they should not regulate the content being provided.

  20. Interference by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Informative
    I work for a major broadcast corporation, but hope this will be taken on its own merits and as my personal opinion.

    I like the idea of "hobbyist" broadcasting. The more voices, the merrier. Power to the people. There's no downside -- in theory.

    The idea, though, of turning anyone with a soldering iron and microphone loose on our already crowded broadcast bands sounds like a disaster, though. Homebrew transmitters will be filthy, interefering with services inside and outside the broadcast spectrum.

    The FCC has the legitimate purpose of regulating public airwaves for just this reason. Radio anarchy will reduce the usefulness of *all* broadcasting and many other services. Wanna surf wi-fi? Better hope your neighbor ain't running a dirty transmitter in your apartment complex.

    I wish the Commission would consider laying aside a MHz or so for hobbyist broadcasters. But they should require type-accepted transmitters and dictate minimum technical standards of operation. None of this would be expensive or an undue burden upon those who would like to air out the First Amendment.

    There's also the question of broadcast obscenity and indecency. If such broadcasts are illegal for licensed stations, the same should apply to hobbyists.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  21. Let's restore "piracy" to respectability again by wytcld · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's remember that Sir Francis Drake was a pirate, as well as the proto-feminists Mary Read and Anne Bonny. In Drake's case, the Spanish were plundering their American conquests for gold to use to arm themselves for invasion of England. Drake not only was instrumental in defeating the Armada directly, but in cutting off the funding for the Spanish terror as a licensed privateer, chartered by the Crown to seize Spanish shipping. The Crown eventually revoked the licenses to Drake and his peers, but the pirates were enabled to continue their careers awhile especially by the free trade policies of New Amsterdam, whose Dutch citizens could still remember the evils of the former Spanish dominion over Holland.

    The essential outlines of respectable piracy are these: A group seizing wealth to which it has no real moral claim, and using that wealth to further increase the scope of its power towards absolute monopoly, controlled through a close collusion of centralized wealth, power and religion (e.g. Spain /Inquisition with New World gold, or Clear Channel/Bush with the "public" airwaves) is opposed by independent, free-thinking owners of their own rigs, preserving liberty against the dark designs for ultimate consolidation of power.

    Pirates can be good, those opposed to them as evil as the conquistadors. Without pirates, Spain could have taken control of most all of Europe and the Americas, the Inquisition would still be ongoing, and the level of economic development and social justice would be that of a typical South American country at best. The public should find ways to directly charter pirates, in doing so aligning them with the public good as Drake was allied with the good of England. Then the FCC will be as unlikely to act decisively against them as it is to take on Opra.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  22. Some background on Steve Dunifer and FRB by Parker51 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Many of us in radio are quite familiar with Mr. Dunifer's history. Here are some of the more notorious examples:
    • Back in the early 90's, Free Radio Berkeley advertised radio transmitter kits for sale and was unable to ship them on time, leaving many paying customers hanging for months without any feedback. In response to the inevitable complaints, rather than apologize or politely explain unforeseen circumstances, Mr. Dunifer tells them to kiss my ass.

    • Around the same timeframe, FRB announces that they have been "invited" to Lollapalooza to set up booths and give demonstrations of pirate radio. I put the word invited in quotes because FRB got turned away at the gate at Lollapalooza at many tour locations. Blame it on poor planning by FRB, communications/coordination problems with Lollapalooza sponsors, or the whole thing inevitably degrading into a say-you're-with-FRB-and-you-get-into-Lollapalooza- for-free scam.

    • In 1998, after three years of tilting at windmills filing appeals in federal courts, Stephen Dunifer's own pirate radio station is shut down. The judge granted the U.S. Attorney's motion for summary judgement, and issued a permanent injunction.


    What's ironic, and maudlin about the whole affair, is if Mr. Dunifer had not blatantly violated FCC rules, he would have been eligible to submit an application for a Lower Power FM (LPFM) license, which the FCC has begun granting again. Even if Mr. Dunifer is himself ineligible, he could have used this opportunity to encourage and support others in applying for such licenses. However, you won't see Mr. Dunifer or FRB doing this. They would rather play with their own toys by their own rules, and society be damned.
  23. Civil disobedence works only if gov wants it to. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    """there are too many, they can't get us all" is not a valid way to go about changing things, especially when the penalties are harsh like the penalties for FCC violations.""

    1. actually it kind of is. it's one of the reasons civil disobedience can work.


    Civil disobedience rarely works - and when it does it's because a big section of the power structure wants it to.

    Re "too many microbroadcasters": Back in the '60s people thought that if enough people smoked dope and took other drugs it would saturate the justice system and lead to legalization of recreational pharmaceuticals. (Just as it was perceived had happened with liquor prohibition.) Four decades later we find that instead the government retooled for a self-funding "Drug War" on the model of the Spanish Inquisition and used it to debug legal tools that can be used for other forms of oppression.

    If civil disobedience by the bulk of the largest generation in US history can't prevail, what chance do the relative handfull of small-broadcast operators have?

    The poster children for Civil Disobedience are Ghandi and King.

    Ghandi gets kudos because of the perceived success of his work in India. But a major fraction of the British Parlement already wanted to dismantle the empire, and especially to unload India as a colony that cost more than it paid. Ghandi gave them good PR for portraying their opposition as monsters and thus getting their way.

    Very few people remember that, before he succeeded in India he tried the same approach in South Africa - with no success whatsoever. They also forget his prescription for what the Jews should do about the NAZIs: Commit mass suicide in protest.

    As for the good Doctor Martin: Blacks got the vote at the end of the Civil War, but had it taken away by the Jim Crow laws. The freedom rides and the other passive resistance enabled LBJ to put one over on the generally pro-segregation Democratic party by passing the Civil Rights laws - but implementation of those were mandated by the courts to occur at "All Deliberate Speed" - which meant "never". What finally did the trick was the cities burning in '68. Immediately afterward the civil rights laws acquired some teeth and the blacks got the vote for real. WHAT a coincidence!

    Then the media raised King to hero status - in order to eclipse the likes of H. Rap Brown, Malcom X, and Charlie Thomas. And the blacks have since been "helped" back into underclass status by "programs" that destroyed their family structure and educational opportunities - to the point that they actually peition the government to be futher disempowered.

    Just like veterans got the vote after Shay's and the Whiskey rebellion, women after the temperance movement started smashing bars, and 18-20 year olds after the anti-Vietnam-War riots and bombings. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun - and at the end of a club, and in a firebomb.

    Passive resistance techniques such as civil disobedience are often a useful, and sometimes necessary, early step. They let you acquire the moral high ground. But passive resistance by itself doesn't prevail.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way