Congress Considering More Low Power FM Stations

Skapare writes "According to this ReclaimTheMedia article, the Local Community Radio Act of 2007 (PDF) would remove the artificial restrictions imposed on LPFM by a 2000 law passed at the urging of corporate radio giants and NPR, claiming that small community stations would interfere with the signals of larger stations. If passed, this bill will pave the way for educational groups, nonprofits, unions, schools and local governments to launch new local radio stations across the country."

Comments

Radio?

[MyLongNickName]

With other more cost-effective media like the internet, why would non-profits CARE about radio?

Re:Radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is public property, not the property of mega corporations. They should have a right to use the airwaves for their small businesses or nonprofits without being part of the media cartels.

Re:Radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone has internet.

Re:Radio?

[rhendershot]

I mentioned in a separate posting about our little FM station here in town. The other day they said the word "poop". God. ya gotta love a radio station that can say the word POOP.

Re:Radio?

[notque]

Because not everyone has the internet. Because listening to internet radio in your car is not an option for most people. Because radio is still a vital art form.

This law is essential to undo the injustice of the 2000 law.

Re:Radio?

[westlake]

With other more cost-effective media like the internet, why would non-profits CARE about radio?

Ramsey Electronics will sell you a 50 watt LPFM Radio Station In A Box for $4000.

The price of a single high-end laptop. The non-profit may want to reach the audience that doesn't have dial-up service, much less WiFi or broadband cable: the poor, the elderly, the disabled, etc.

Re:Radio?

[notque]

Because it is public property, not the property of mega corporations. They should have a right to use the airwaves for their small businesses or nonprofits without being part of the media cartels.

Then it must be regulated! Can't let the public get out of hand. Better that they spend their money on items to express their personality than to express their discontent in a society that abuses them.

Re:Radio?

[Frosty Piss]

Not only that, radio is fun and speaks to a lot of people the same way books do. Why bother with books when you can stare at your computer like a zombie?

Re:Radio?

[mrraven]

4000!!!!??? I am sure if you go to that pirate radio site in Berkly you could get schematics for the same radio and parts for less than 400. I agree about the reaching people without computers.

Re:Radio?

[Tuoqui]

In addition to what others have said. Perhaps these smaller organizations want to limit the range of their transmissions geographically. Putting something on the internet means its hard for people in your area to find it easily while tuning your radio to X-frequency will work better. Besides if their information is only about the local area they are broadcasting to then there should be no problems since that is all it is really meant for. On the community level not the city level.

Re:Radio?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Radios are cheaper than computers, last I checked.
Also, Soundscan collects extra fees for any internet radio station that plays music, and is about to retroactively raise the rates, so internet radio stations with music aren't cheaper than true radio stations in the long run.

Re:Radio?

[timmarhy]

compare the bandwidth cost of an internet site to a radio transmitter reaching the same number of people (say 50,000) for serveral hours per day.

RADIO WINS

Re:Radio?

[really?]

Or, go here http://www.pcs-electronics.com/pc-transmitters-c-6 4.html#Pci%20max and put your own box together for less.

Re:Radio?

[loganrapp]

The thing about internet radio/podcasting is that you have to be looking for something specific, or know in a general sense what it is you're wanting.

Sometimes, you just want to turn on a station. Maybe you'll get talk. Maybe you'll get some new music, a local band putting out something. Maybe you'll even get a radio drama (I just finished producing one this semester).

But the idea is that, with radio, you and possibly a number of others near you are listening to the same thing. And that sense of community, specifically within a physical space, is powerful.

Re:Radio?

[jshriverWVU]

A low power transmitter is A LOT cheaper than bandwidth.

Re:Radio?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man... I wonder how much I'd be fined for a pirate station or how much a license costs. This really makes me want to run a small radio station.

Re:Radio?

[westlake]

4000!!!!??? I am sure if you go to that pirate radio site in Berkly you could get schematics for the same radio and parts for less than 400

The Ramsey unit is quite literally a commercial grade - FCC certified - station in a box.

50 Watt Output. CD-Recorder. Tascom CD-Dual Cassette Deck. Audio mixers. Studio microphone. Antenna. 100 Watt Stereo Amp for local PA. The whole nine yards. Shock-mounted. Dump it in the back of a truck. Set up anywhere.

The Tascom deck alone lists at $950.

Re:Radio?

[aldousd666]

You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.

Re:Radio?

[TooMuchToDo]

Internet wins for geographic range it can cover. Most lower power FM transmitters have a short range.

Re:Radio?

[mwvdlee]

Because nowadays internet radio stations are expected to pay a LOT more to the big music corporations than airwave radio stations.

Re:Radio?

[tepples]

You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. If you find an actual case of someone's propaganda interfering with your preferred propaganda, you can always report the issue to the FCC as you find it and have the noncompliant station fixed. But this bill's findings of fact state that interference will be a problem in fewer cases than NPR initially claimed.

Re:Radio?

[vtcodger]

***With other more cost-effective media like the internet, why would non-profits CARE about radio?***

A few reasons:

• Some of us still hope against hope that drivers are not browsing the Internet in their cars ... at least not while driving.
• You must have a lot better wireless access than some of us do. Indeed, here in Vermont you're damn lucky to get reliable cellphone service if you are more than a 20 minute walk from the corner of Church and Main in Burlington. Wireless is much worse of course.
• If you have an ISP like Verison, it's no great problem to hook up to an internet radio stream. But you'll be damn lucky to hold that connection for more than 60-90 minutes.
• Not everyone can afford even the modest cost of an always on Internet connection. And that assumes that one is available -- which is not the case in an embarassing percentage of rural America -- the FCC's bad bookkeeping notwithstanding.
• Not everyone has a computer. In fact, a significant portion of the population not only doesn't HAVE one, they don't WANT one.
• Not everyone would agree with you that the Internet is more effective than radio. At least not at everything.
• Setting up and maintaining a Low Power radio transmitter is probably substantially CHEAPER than setting up and maintaining a decent web site with equivalent coverage. Non-profits are, for the most part, impoverished.
• Programming of a radio station can be done by relatively low skilled volunteers with usable results. Care to try that with a web site?

Re:Radio?

[Phreakiture]

With other more cost-effective media like the internet, why would non-profits CARE about radio?

Your comments would suggest that perhaps you are out of touch with reality just a little. Let me fill in some of the blanks for you.

Your world revolves around technology, as does mine. We are Slashdotters; it is how our world works.

Our world is not the same as the world for everyone.

Let me point out the simple fact that you can sometimes pick up an FM radio at a dollar store, and it works. Maybe it doesn't work well, in fact, it's probably shit, but it works. For ten to twenty bucks, you can get a somewhat better one at a big box. For a hundred, you can get one that is good enough for most users. Once you own the radio, the radio just works; there are no fees to pay to keep it working. FM radio disenfranchises no-one.

By contrast, computers cost several hundred dollars for entry-level. Once you have that, you must pay for internet access. If you are in a rural area, your best bet for internet access at a reasonable price is dial-up, because there is no cable, there is no DSL, there sure the fuck is no FIOS, and you have little-to-nothing for cellular coverage, meaning EVDO is out. Podcasts and streams are inaccessible to the poor, the rural, and especially the rural poor.

FM radio is already installed in most vehicles. It's already there, already working.

You cannot listen to streams in a vehicle without paying for mobile data, and podcasts will require you to find a way to dock your MP3 player. It is doable, but a hassle that you have to be willing to undertake. Non-technophiles (without even reaching into technophobes) aren't interested.

These are the reasons why LPFM is relevant as a community broadcasting medium.

Re:Radio?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

None of those cards are FCC certified for broadcast use, and wouldn't be usable by a licensed LPFM station. They might be a good start toward a pirate station for someone without RF knowledge/experience.

Re:Radio?

[curlynoodle]

When was the last time you could (safely) browse the Internet while driving? Or how about while working your shift at a manufacturing or service job? Radio allows for passive reception of information while allowing people to focus on other tasks.

Much unlike Slashdot that distracts me from work ;-)

Re:Radio?

[mrbluze]

With other more cost-effective media like the internet, why would non-profits CARE about radio?

Things change and, whilst the Internet provides a plethora of information and news, at the end of the day, people are busy. They commute to and from work and many of them will simply tune into the radio. Workplaces everywhere have the radio on. Radio is hands-free, eyes-free.

The Internet doesn't have a captive audience, but in many respects, radio still does.

Re:Radio?

[notque]

You might be right, but all I need is one more local Christian 'holier than thou, we're all going to hell in a handbasket' radio station blotting out my daily dose of NPR on the way to work in the morning. Nothing more annoying than a niche station from ANOTHER STATE interfering with your daily news update.

I listen to it too, but it's heavily biased. Might as well be named National Corporate Radio!

Yes, it would be damned annoying.

Re:Radio?

[ChrisA90278]

The Internet is "cost effective?". For eMail maybe. But not if you want to stream audio to a few hundred or thousand people. A low power transmitters costs very little. Just a few thosand dolars to get on the air and then after that you don't pay for bandwidth. We are talking about 50 watt stations so thebasic transmitters is in the low four digit price range. If you stream audio over the internet you will need an Internet connection that will set you back at least $1,000 a month. And then how to reach people in their cars with the Internet. FM radio is still very usful.

Re:Radio?

[cayenne8]

I'm wondering.

If you get a non-profit running a LPFM station....again, making NO money off it, can you play any song you want without having to pay performance fees and what have you? I'm curious, if you're broadcasting for no profit, can you broadcast stuff for free?

Re:Radio?

[Paracelcus]

So, I spend thousands of dollars on a low power FM rig, so people in my county (unless it's hilly) can hear me bitch and moan about what a shitpile (fill in the blank) is, or I can start an Internet Radio station for nothing (just the junk laying around) and open source/free software and my high speed internet access.

Then anybody in the whole world can hear me bitch and moan about what a shitpile (fill in the blank) is!

Such a deal!

Re:Radio?

[mrraven]

If you aren't afraid of a soldering gun (and you ought not to be if you are going to run a radio station, deal with the FCC etc) here is a link to Stephen Dunifer's web site in Berkeley that will show you how to build a radio station with the same capabilities for about 1/4th that 4000 dollar price.

http://www.freeradio.org/documents/index.html?view as=list&
http://www.freeradio.org/tech/images/primer.pdf

Re:Radio?

[mrraven]

Afterall this slashdot newz for NERDS remember. If you want newz for yuppies stuff from a can go to the Sharper Image catalog, shrug.

one example

[rhendershot]

Our town recently became the beneficiary of a LPFM station and it carries interviews, rock, country, jazz, hiphop, news, talk... has over a dozen jocks. I can listen to it in the car and streamed online. It's, in a word, GREAT. I listen to a local AM station for about 1/10 the time I used to. No other FM around here appeals to me. I'm not associated with the station in any way.

yet.

Without reading the article I can conclusively state I'm behind every effort to expand private and low-power penetration of the airwaves.

Re:one example

[Anonymous Coward]

I listen to a local AM station for about 1/10 the time I used to

...and I always have my trusty broadbandified C64 if'n I need inythin else

Re:one example

[auto99809]

My town has a low power FM station. The experience has been terrible. 1. They provide no contact info of any kind and don't take requests. The operator plays soft jazz and only soft jazz. LPFM is his ego project and the fact that he is using public airwaves doesn't bother him. 2. Commercial radio stations are more responsive than LPFM. I can request a song. I can request a format change. I can buy the station if I want to change it myself. Commercial radio has to please listeners to keep them and sell ads. LPFM people can do whatever they want without any recourse from the public. 3. The jamming impact is very real. There is a station I've listened to for years that is jammed by the LPFM station. The LPFM wipes out the station I like within 20 miles introduces distortions within 40 miles. Again, there is no recourse.

Re:one example

[Anonymous Coward]

1. They provide no contact info of any kind They are legally required to transmit a legal ID every hour as close to on the hour as possible. This legal ID has three parts, frequency, call sign, and area served. That's more than enough information to get on the FCC database and find the guy's home address and probably a phone number too. It's easy, just go to the FCC website.

3. The jamming impact is very real. There is a station I've listened to for years that is jammed by the LPFM station. The LPFM wipes out the station I like within 20 miles introduces distortions within 40 miles. Again, there is no recourse. You're telling me a station operating at a max of 100 watts is affecting a commercial station with a max of 100,000 watts from 40 miles away? Bullshit. There is no way a 100 watt FM signal is propagating 40 miles. I'd be surprised if it's making it a quarter that at a strength needed to jam a commercial station. Anyway, it's a moot point because LPFM are required to not interfere with existing stations. If you're at the very fringe of said commercial station's range, the interference is probably not something that would be acted on. If this LPFM is using equipment of such low quality or transmitting on an improper frequency for the area such that it is jamming a nearby commercial station then inform the FCC and have them clean up his signal. They probably will fine him or shut down the station until he can show that he can continue transmitting within the proper guidelines. It's not like LPFM stations are completely unregulated. They have to follow almost all the rules the big boys do.

Like the last translator invasion?

[Average]

Another 5000 religious satellite-based repeater stations and just about zero actual local stations. Just like the last time.

Re:Like the last translator invasion?

[notque]

Not true, I listen to pirate radio around here that used to operate legally. I know of many other stations, and am in solidarity with their right to express themselves. The law was killed by corporate radio before not wanting additional options. I expect the law will be killed again, so we must contact our representatives and let them know this is important to us.

Re:Like the last translator invasion?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it. One started up around here. They managed to step all over NPR until I would assume they got enough complaints.

"Praise Jesus, PRAISE JESUS, and the angels fly...blah blah blah"

STFU

Re:Like the last translator invasion?

[Adult film producer]

I want you to take both hands off the steering wheel, place them on the dashboard speaker.. pray with me, Jesus is with you, CAN I HAVE A WITNESS? Step out of your wheel chair, you can walk! YOU CAN WALK!

Re:Like the last translator invasion?

[Anonymous Coward]

From this, she took her stage name. Upgrading to Windows Vista: Is Your hardware ready?
The long-time leader from Martinez is among those in Congress calling for an oversight hearing on the situation in the Delta. Grace Period In an ideal world, all students land high paying jobs before they even graduate.
Ya know, if we indeed are going to settle things on the west side, why not sooner rather than later? Selecting a lender is a key decision in the financial aid process.
Her massive ego and burning ambition presaged Madonna. Get access to the best portfolio of product solutions for your customers. Many lenders that charge origination fees offer better rebates and other perks during the repayment period than the zero-fee loans. These changes transformed the way we work and are critical pieces of ergonomic history. Stafford lenders are free to set policies on when and how often interest is capitalized. " She describes how, in a pinch, she would inject herself right through her skirt and stockings, moments before going on stage.
in recent days, DWR writes to USFWS. "I tried four times to make her take a cure, but each time she slipped back into her vice again. That interest will cost him almost as much as the amount of his original debt!
She handed the reins of her career over to him, and under his management, her star ascended. citizens, a rate on par with the rest of California. Debt consolidation is usually not it.
You get the credit card bill. Card issuers that offer rewards make a bet that you will give them more money than they return to you. Corporations structure the cards this way to ensure that every charge is justified and to discourage employees from abusing company credit cards.
That man's just nothing. If you stop and think about it, all sides have an interest in compromising right now, because from the warped perspective of the Waterlog, no one holds a very strong hand. Look for a lender that capitalizes interest after the grace period. The bill for her corporate card is now overdue.
These charts compare apples to oranges. We have also investigated ways to reoperate New Melones Reservoir to add more flow in the Stanislaus River now. Sign up for a free membership today and get instant and unlimited access to one of the largest databases of white papers, webcasts, and casestudies anywhere. " Not long after, Lamboukas took his ailing wife to the Cote d' Azur, hoping to restore her health. Soon after joining the company, her company handed her an American Express Corporate charge card to pay for company travel expenses.
Under the zero-fee option, every penny you borrow goes toward your education. Stafford lenders are free to set policies on when and how often interest is capitalized.
But soon I would sink down once more until I was practically out of my mind.

Great...

[tinrobot]

Now my iPod FM trasmitter will suck even more.

Re:Great...

[notque]

Now my iPod FM trasmitter will suck even more.

Eh, it's not like it worked well anyway. Might as well listen to small radio stations instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, it's not like it worked well anyway. Might as well listen to small radio stations instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.
Might as well go down to the local gay cocaine strip bar instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.

Re:Great...

[notque]

Might as well go down to the local gay cocaine strip bar instead of being isolated within your own personal preferences.

Good illustration of your point, however the value of a large mass communicating over public airwaves is more important in my mind than a person's use of those same public airwaves for their own individual use. This is certainly open to interpretation and discussion.

Re:Great...

[alanshot]

Try this on for size. (Scosche FM-MOD01 Modulator, $30)
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-PA0p6u2g1Jg/cgi-bin/P rodView.asp?g=771&I=142FMMOD01
This bad boy connects to your antenna connection behind the dash, and as soon as you power it up to use it, it "disconnects" the aerial antenna, eliminating that interference.

I am buying one because I have exactly TWO usable freqencies in my area that I can use... one for the east side of town where I work, and the other on the south side where I live... And both of those still get stepped on a bit.

Re:Great...

[42Penguins]

Can't they co-exist?
I use an FM transmitter for a CD player in my car because I'm too cheap to buy a new stereo. Anyone who happens to be within its range, which is maybe 20 feet, is perfectly welcome to have a listen.

I would like to see a little bit reserved for such non-licensed radios. I've gone through the presets on my transmitter, and the only interference-free setting in this town is 87.7MHz. When I travel, that changes. I know the only real way to get spectrum is to shell out, but it would be nice to have a small frequency range for low-power, low-range personal radios.

Re:Great...

[notque]

Sounds completely reasonable to me. I'm all for it.

Re:Great...

[BUL2294]

Umm, there are better options. Get a line-in adapter that plugs into your car's CD-changer port for like $130 installed. Fools your car's head unit into thinking there's a factory CD-changer connected but gives you a way to connect your MP3 player, hands-free phone, etc. Almost every car manufactured since '95 has a CD-changer port, since dealers would like to sell you the $500 trunk-mounted CD-changer as an option... CD-quality sound as opposed to FM Stereo that could still get interference. (Pie and Blitzsafe are two such manufacturers).

And yes, with your swtichy-thingy, you still can get interference. Think about it--you can still make out a picture from a strong analog TV channel even if the TV doesn't have an antenna plugged-in... Same concept.

Re:Great...

[scottrocket]

yeah, but now they can squirt tunes to your zune!

Re:Great...

[stud9920]

Hint: retract your antenna before using it in your car. My iTrip has been working very well since I do that.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple frequency groups set aside for low power, low range personal radios. Just none that your car radio can receive. Personally I'm firmly against having small transmitters that people can freely use on the broadcast band. I'm an avid NPR listener and I don't know how many times their transmissions have been stepped on by people blaring their iPods all over the bands.

Extending the range of frequencies received by car radios would be nice, so we could move all these personal transmitters to a space not occupied by the commercial stations. Not sure if that would be possible since the FM broadcast band is bordered by heavily used aviation frequencies above it. And television channel 6 is below it. Maybe you could go way below it to 45-50MHz, used by old cordless phones that nobody uses anymore.

Love mine

[DogDude]

I'm smart enough to live in a town cool enough to have our own local radio station, and I agree with the other posters. It's great. It's run by local people, often playing local music. The only other radio worth listening to is NPR.

Fuck Clear Channel.

Re:Love mine

[notque]

I agree, excellent points. Fuck Clear Channel

Re:Love mine

[kabz]

Can I second that?

Oh, what the hell, Fsck Clear Channel !

Actually, I have a friend at Clear Channel, though he may not be after this. ;-)

Here in Houston we have KPFT Pacific Radio and KUHF NPR.

Re:Love mine

[Anonymous Coward]

And to think all these years I thought it stood for Federal Communications Commission.

Radio Libre!

[spun]

I was involved in the pirate radio scene in San Francisco and Santa Cruz. Down in Santa Cruz they had this micro-power radio station set up in the local anarchist house, which was also the main Food not Bombs house. The FCC found out about it and came to try to bust them, but somehow they got word and skedaddled. No lie, they loaded up the station in a Food not Bombs bike cart and pedaled that sucker from hill to hill for a week, always one step ahead of the FCC snoops. Then the anarchist house started to sink into a sinkhole and got condemned, so the anarchists all had bigger things to worry about.

They had a stand off with the authorities for a month before the cops finally got a court order and raided the house. Funny story, they had this weird guy who lived in the attic and saved all his pee in jars, so they booby trapped the place with jars of pee. Those were not happy cops that day, I'll tell you what. But the spirit of the place was broken, and Santa Cruz lost its pirate radio.

In San Francisco, the station I knew had an actual studio in the Labor Temple right next to my IWW union office, and no one bothered them much. Heh, if you lived within five blocks of Mission and 16th, you might even have heard them. Woot! 30 whole watts of AWESOME POWER! Ah, good times, good times.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

I was involved in the pirate radio scene in San Francisco and Santa Cruz.

That's awesome. Glad to hear it.

Down in Santa Cruz they had this micro-power radio station set up in the local anarchist house, which was also the main Food not Bombs house.

It seems anarchist houses are where many of the current pirate stations are run out of. All the more reason to donate money to them.

The FCC found out about it and came to try to bust them, but somehow they got word and skedaddled. No lie, they loaded up the station in a Food not Bombs bike cart and pedaled that sucker from hill to hill for a week, always one step ahead of the FCC snoops. Then the anarchist house started to sink into a sinkhole and got condemned, so the anarchists all had bigger things to worry about.

Sorry to hear that.

They had a stand off with the authorities for a month before the cops finally got a court order and raided the house. Funny story, they had this weird guy who lived in the attic and saved all his pee in jars, so they booby trapped the place with jars of pee. Those were not happy cops that day, I'll tell you what. But the spirit of the place was broken, and Santa Cruz lost its pirate radio.

Sorry to hear that as well.

In San Francisco, the station I knew had an actual studio in the Labor Temple right next to my IWW union office, and no one bothered them much. Heh, if you lived within five blocks of Mission and 16th, you might even have heard them. Woot! 30 whole watts of AWESOME POWER! Ah, good times, good times.

Good times, fellow Wobblie. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GgYjVOFZZFc

Re:Radio Libre!

[Anonymous Cowpat]

An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

An anarchist house? well, good luck to them. We tried to set up an anarchist house a few years ago; but it never worked - nobody would follow the rules.

There are several I know of, and they work quite well. They let homeless people sleep there, have a library, racks of free clothes for people who need them. Give people a place out of the elements.

There are some problems, like theft from drifters, but the value outweighs the issues in my mind.

Re:Radio Libre!

[DeepHurtn!]

Hey, the One Big Union lives on. Thanks for your story!

Re:Radio Libre!

[rueger]

There are some problems, like theft from drifters, but the value outweighs the issues in my mind.

Um, by definition if you eschew the concept of property, then there cannot be "theft."

Reminds me of a student anarchist I met at one campus or another who explained earnestly that they hoped to dismantle the government and replace it with a better one.

Re:Radio Libre!

[Rakishi]

Um, by definition if you eschew the concept of property, then there cannot be "theft."

An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

Who says anarchists don't believe in property? In fact, that is the issue that sets apart the different anarchist groups. Most anarchists, as opposed to communists, believe in personal property rights, such as the right to own houses and clothes. Anarcho-capitalists such as libertarians are staunch defenders of all property rights. Lefty-anarchists like anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists believe in collective governance of real property. And anarchists do believe in governance. Just not the use of coercion or force to back things up.

Anarchism is not all safety-pinned punks with a circle-A sign.

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

Oh man, I've sung those songs. While striking, even! That was the Borders Books campaign, if you remember that one. It was pretty big, and I helped set up the world's first cyber-picket. Pretty much any search for Border's Books in '95 would have returned our site first. And I can tell you, at least as of '96 when I was heavily involved, there were still some very awesome women involved.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

An anarchist does not want a government to exist, a communist does not want property to exist (as a concept). So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it. So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim.

Excellent response that was well put.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

Oh man, I've sung those songs. While striking, even! That was the Borders Books campaign, if you remember that one. It was pretty big, and I helped set up the world's first cyber-picket. Pretty much any search for Border's Books in '95 would have returned our site first. And I can tell you, at least as of '96 when I was heavily involved, there were still some very awesome women involved.

That's great to hear! We need to do a better job of coordinating and communicating because I'm sure many of us would love to hear tales about your experiences, and well as share our own.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

Anarcho-capitalists such as libertarians are staunch defenders of all property rights.

Awww, come on. Don't enable them to steal our word! At least label us lefty-anarchists as Classical Libertarianism! :)

It's not a lost cause, it's only in America that they've managed to steal it. We can take it back! :)

Re:Radio Libre!

[Rakishi]

That should have read "there would simply not be a large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it."

Re:Radio Libre!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way well put and if your going to label something people should at least get it right.
Ala wiki...

"Anarchy, has a popular meaning of disorder[1]. However it has a more precise meaning in political philosophy to describe any human society which exists without a state" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Sure beats voting for the cool guy you'd wanna drink beer with if modern history is prooving itself.

Re:Radio Libre!

[timmarhy]

"So in anarchism someone can very well claim that X is theirs but it simply falls on them to defend their own claim."

ahh bullshit, what you are discribing is exactly what our government does with police and military, only not on your small minded scale.

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

I've been trying for a rapprochement with the American "Libertarians." I feel the same as you, and if you've been here any amount of time you know that I usually show it. It's just that, you know, most of them probably could be real Anarchists if things were explained to them right.

Originally, what I would call classical Liberalism embraced property rights for the common man. It was a defense against the power of kings and nobles. This was way back, before Anarchism even existed as such. Even looking at the early Anarchists of the 19th century, Proudhon's Property is Theft! certainly upholds its title's point, but Proudhon also admits that private property is inherently anarchistic, saying "The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner." So to be fair, their side has its history, too.

I've been looking into the roots of what is more properly termed Individualist Anarchism here in the US. You and I belong to the Socialist Anarchist branch. I have always had a bad gut reaction to the Individualist Anarchists. They always seem like apologists for the status quo. You never find a poor Individualist Anarchist, lets put it that way. But their theories have some merit, and of course, there are things that all Anarchists, even Libertarians, agree on.

So I've been trying to find some common ground, and understand their side. I still think they just don't get it, but I'm not going to go around saying "they are all chuckle-headed morons who want to take us back to some kind of techno-feudalism with themselves as the landed gentry," quite as often as I used to. And maybe, like now, I'll throw them a bone once in a while.

Re:Radio Libre!

[Rakishi]

First of I never claimed to be an anarchist. In the current system the government decides how to protect people's property and defines what their property is. In anarchism each person does this themselves, possibly by forming or joining/paying larger groups to help them defend their definition. Essentially every person is their own country with all the fun that entails.

Or in other words right now you get no choice in what military or police protection you get (unless you move) while in anarchism you get a choice.

No, I don't believe it is a stable system in any traditional meaning of the word (ie: not counting sci-fi stories that require almost perpetually drugged alien "judges" to keep feudalism from forming).

Re:Radio Libre!

[ricree]

So in anarchism there can very well be theft there would simply be large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it.

Great idea, but I think we're going to need some sort of name for groups like that.

I know, we could call them governments.

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

You may want to explore the difference between Individualist Anarchism and Social Anarchism, the two main "umbrella groups" for the other schools of Anarchism, if you could call it that. We Social Anarchists have at least one of the same criticisms of Individualist Anarchism that you do. In fact, I just used the term "techno-feudalism" to describe what it would devolve into, in a post not far from here.

Re:Radio Libre!

[Rakishi]

That should have read:
"there would simply not be a large group that defines what it is or tries to stop it."

In other words there is no government, you define theft however you want but it also falls on you to enforce your own definition. As I understand one way to think about it is if everything the government did (police, military, firefighting, printing money, legal system, etc.) was done by "private" companies/groups (of which there may be 0 or they may have a size of 1).

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

It should be, he'd be perfect. He could play the old guy in the attic! Did I mention that some of those jars of pee were really, really old?

The funniest thing was the toilet, though, because the house had sunk about a foot. The pipes hadn't. The toilet stood up on its pipes, rocking precariously when you sat down. The scariest thing was when the gas line broke. That was really what set the whole chain of events off. The owners of the house were actually a married couple of ex-cops, so they had managed to get the fact that it was sinking into a sinkhole kept hush hush while still managing to extract rent from the poor anarchists. Until the gas line broke. It could have turned into an anarchist barbeque, and not the vegan kind, either.

Yeah, the whole thing would actually make an excellent movie. Santa Cruz is actually very California-lefty-fascist, if you know what I mean, so these characters had some interesting stories beyond the whole house-sinking-into-a-sinkhole thing.

Re:Radio Libre!

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like it would be better categorized as libertarianism (without a state). It could be anarchism, but it's lacking any of the organization that would hopefully go with it. Then again, the terms are much more rich and varied than my sense of them is.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

I'd like to continue discussions offline if this is fine, I will add to this and only ask so I'm not looking for a topic we both happen to be on to discuss. my slashdot username @ gmail should suffice if you're interested. I appreciate your response, and will respond in kind once I reach my first destination (work) that I am really late for by reading all of my inbox first :)

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

Absolutely! My email is listed here, feel free to email me.

Re:Radio Libre!

[notque]

I've been trying for a rapprochement with the American "Libertarians." I feel the same as you, and if you've been here any amount of time you know that I usually show it. It's just that, you know, most of them probably could be real Anarchists if things were explained to them right.

I agree with you, however even if it was impeccably explained their basic system of where values lie make them incompatible with anarchism as we know it. Overcoming those selfish desires, and focusing on where power lies within that system seems like the basic goal, but I have yet to make any real headway with them even when they articulate the very things I want, but for much different reasons. Any suggestions would be helpful if you've had more success.

Originally, what I would call classical Liberalism embraced property rights for the common man. It was a defense against the power of kings and nobles. This was way back, before Anarchism even existed as such. Even looking at the early Anarchists of the 19th century, Proudhon's Property is Theft! certainly upholds its title's point, but Proudhon also admits that private property is inherently anarchistic, saying "The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner." So to be fair, their side has its history, too.

I agree with you until you call it there side. I see no conflict with what Proudhon, Adam Smith, and classical liberalism expresses. I don't see how they follow into an anarcho-capitalist outlook. I do see conflict with Proudhon and Murray Rothbard, or Mises. Otherwise I agree with you, maybe you could clarify?

I've been looking into the roots of what is more properly termed Individualist Anarchism here in the US. You and I belong to the Socialist Anarchist branch. I have always had a bad gut reaction to the Individualist Anarchists. They always seem like apologists for the status quo. You never find a poor Individualist Anarchist, lets put it that way. But their theories have some merit, and of course, there are things that all Anarchists, even Libertarians, agree on.

My understanding from listening to Murray Rothbard, and other anarcho-capitalists is that we agree on why the current system is bad. Concerning what to do about it we deviate wildly. They are more similar to Leninists than Socialist Anarchists in my mind because what they are pushing for is just another place where power lies. Instead of in a Leninist society (the coordinator class), and a Capitalist society (the very very rich), they intend on putting power in a larger group of rich. The general idea being that because they've proved themselves as useful men to be only moderately powerful in the current society, they have faith that if the rich class was much larger that they would lead, and control within that larger class as well.

It's a mistake. It's just another place where power lies, that instead of being excluded (currently) they are included in.

This is the principal problem as I see it.

So I've been trying to find some common ground, and understand their side. I still think they just don't get it, but I'm not going to go around saying "they are all chuckle-headed morons who want to take us back to some kind of techno-feudalism with themselves as the landed gentry," quite as often as I used to. And maybe, like now, I'll throw them a bone once in a while.

They are certainly not chuckle-headed morons. Their analog would be Leninists who saw themselves in the coordinator class. They see an opportunity to increase their individual power within the system by a particular set of changes. Why should the uber-rich control things when the larger class of rich should control them.

The uber-rich allow American Libertarianism to be vocalized much more because it can be used to undermine workers rights, and generally assist them in more control. They would never allow Libertarians to actually gain a lot of power, as that would marginalize their role, although they are certainly willing

Re:Radio Libre!

[xappax]

Even looking at the early Anarchists of the 19th century, Proudhon's Property is Theft! certainly upholds its title's point, but Proudhon also admits that private property is inherently anarchistic, saying "The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner."

I love you guys, but come on. Anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, crypto-eco-anarcho-socialist... who cares? Are they fighting for the power or against it? Your politics are boring as fuck.

Re:Radio Libre!

[spun]

That's the problem. We tend to think the other guys are fighting FOR the power. And they tend to think we don't know what we're doing, and will enact some sort of soviet style communist regime. Nice piece, by the way, but I had that figured out ten years ago. How old is that piece? It seems more geared towards audiences of the 90s.

Re:Radio Libre!

[xappax]

I think you may be right about it being from the 90's, but somehow it still seems relevant on Slashdot, considering the preponderance of high-brow and obviously completely theoretical (not going to result in any action) discussions about anarchism and radical politics in general. You know how people sometimes talk about politics or how much activism they've done just to score "radical points"? Well with 'karma' on Slashdot, those points are literal! :)

Anyway, the main point I wanted to get across is that almost everybody isn't down with every aspect of your (our?) platform, and they never will be, period. Therefore, it's much better to work with people on the radical issues that they are on the same page about than to distance and alienate ourselves from them because of the issues we disagree on. More broadly, when we stop waxing academic about the finer points of theory and take some actual actions, it's surprising how many people who have no clue what a "deconstructive anti-authoritarian analysis" is will join in the fight.

No reason why that has to be.

[Kadin2048]

Seems like the solution to that is obvious -- don't allow repeaters.

I think it could be a boon for colleges and small organizations that might be interested in having a radio station, but that can't afford one currently because it's so expensive to get spectrum.

All I have to say about this is...

[MilesAttacca]

Why can't we all get along?!

KGRG

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the rest of America will get access to a genuinely good independent and not-for-profit radio station like seattle has, KEXP and KGRG.

I used to live in the Midwest, where there was no good indi stations... I feel sorry for the 90% of america that doesn't know what they're missing.

Re:KGRG

[BUL2294]

Umm, Chicago has 93.1 WXRT...

Gee, thanks, guys!

[Fear the Clam]

Radio! That whoop-de-doodle technology that had the world a-twitter in 1920!? Huh-fucking-zah!

I'm sure all of the folks can't wait to broadcast their podcasts across ye olde aether.

Thanks for the effort Congress! I'm sorry that I said that you were spineless, useless sacks of emu shit.

No More Pirate Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

This would take all the fun out of pirate radio. I feel naked without my eye-patch and parrot.

LPFM does interfere

[RimfireShooter]

LPFM stations do interfere with signals of larger stations. A local high school station near my house - WPHS - is supposed to broadcast on 89.1FM.

However WPHS interferes with "large" FM 88.7 CIMX broadcasts in an ~ 2 mile radius from the location of WPHS. When tuned to 88.7 FM CIMX , the static and interference from WPHS makes it impossible to listen to CIMX in the area. The inference is not isolated to 88.7 FM but extends to adjacent channels 88.5 - 89.9 FM and can be clearly heard in this entire spectrum - so clear that you would assume that WPHS was actually broadcasting on every FM channel in this range.

WPHS http://www.wcs.k12.mi.us/cousino/WPHS%20radio/inde x.html

Coverage area.
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WPHS &service=FM&status=L&hours=U

Re:LPFM does interfere

[/dev/trash]

I find it more fun to take my FM transmitter and tune it to the country station here in town. then I plug in my iPod. Ooooo yeah.

Re:LPFM does interfere

[Detritus]

It may not be the fault of WPHS. Most reports of interference are actually the result of people using crappy FM radios with poor selectivity and front-ends that are susceptible to overload. Malfunctioning transmitters are relatively rare.

Re:LPFM does interfere

[BUL2294]

Yeah, but it's interfering with a Canadian radio station, so that doesn't count...

fox news reports

[fermion]

It annoys me that every time this issue is brought up, it has to have the fox news slant. The low power FM crisis is not only due to the lefts desire to have a single station that does not continuous play top 40 music, or contiuously droll on about how the alleged sins of certain people caused 9/11, or have five minute commercial blocks on how one can improve one sexual prowess with a natural supplement.

Before trying to create the truth by repeating a lie, get the facts. In my market, on the fm dial, we have 3 general college radio stations. We have one left radio station, and two other college stations that are leftish. We have 3 christian radio stations. The other 20+ stations are commercial, I believe mostly owned by two or three enitites. At times over the past couple years, one could find 2 pairs of stations playing the same content. I do not think these stats are atypical.

The overcrowding of the FM dial is real. There are times when, at least on an analog tuner, it is difficult to distinguish a single station. NPR is not, with it's single station, or at most two, in each market, crowding the dial. What is crowding the dial is the relaxation of the ownership rules. While the summery touched on this with putting corporate radio first, the summary also implied that the problem will be solved by simplying allowing the airwaves to become more crowded.

This will not solve the problem. And while Fox news is not going to state the obvious solution, I will. Limit ownership of bandwidth to one station per entity. If the FCC wants to a vibrant radio dial, review the rules set 10 years ago. There is not reason why a single entity should ever own more that a couple stations in any market. Period. If that means the commercials stations drop precipitately, so be it. There are evidently operators out there biting at the bit, angry that they cannot get a place to play. Ownership rules will open up that space.

Re:fox news reports

[notque]

Excellent points!

Re:fox news reports

[Myopic]

You are right about the important issue and wrong about the other important issue. You are right in saying that the current crappy state of American FM radio is due to terrible rules managing who can own stations. We can pretty much blame this on ClearChannel. Their programming sucks eggs and they own all the radio stations. That statement is a generalization which also happens to be almost totally true. ClearChannel sucks, and they own all radio, so all radio sucks.

On the other hand, shit man, people go on continuing to choose to listen to the radio. Don't they realize it sucks? I would literally (literally!) rather listen to silence than commercial/CC radio. I just turn it off. I can't stand it. But, man, if everyone else chooses to listen to shitty radio instead of silence, then who are you and I to tell them they can't do that? Also, if a business becomes successful, who are we to tell it how it can function? They aren't hurting anyone, they're just playing shitty songs. If you and I want good radio, then we should start a radio conglomerate and compete with them. Wouldn't people flock to us, if we put on good programming? Here's the thing: no. People love crappy media. The evidence is perfectly clear. Even though there are a few precious good independent radio stations, people still listen to CC. Even though there is The Economist, people still read People Magazine. People love low quality media. We should complain and boycott, but as a libertarian, I'm inclined to stop there and not legislate my will.

For several years, from about 1998 to last year, I didn't consume media (radio/tv). That was sad for me. It's not so much sad to miss out on all the shitty media, it's more sad that I know there is a little bit of good programming out there, but I can't find it because it is lost in the gigantic pile of steaming turds. Luckily, last year media over the internet became a reality for me and I started enjoying quite a few TV shows and some movies which I can download, commercial free, to watch at my convenience. Then this year I've started enjoying a lot of podcasts, which is a great replacement for crap radio. The revolution is upon us, brother, just get all your media from the internet and enjoy what you want when you want. It's sad, but you just need to give up on radio and tv.

Re:fox news reports

[Ichijo]

There are times when, at least on an analog tuner, it is difficult to distinguish a single station.

That's only with an omnidirectional antenna. With a yagi and a good radio, you can distinguish multiple stations on the same frequency.

HD radio signals are causing no end of good for FM DXers, but multicasting (actually multiplexed broadcasting) means multiple audio streams can broadcast on the same frequency.

Re:fox news reports

[BUL2294]

Well, maybe it's time for the FCC to "re-allocate" the FM spectrum like it's used in Europe. In North America, FM channels are 0.2 MHz apart (i.e. 99.7, 99.9, 100.1, 100.3, etc.) In Europe, they're 0.1 MHz apart. Now, to avoid interference, neighbor cities don't have stations on the same frequency. For example, Chicago has a 94.7MHz station while Milwaukee has a 94.5MHz station and the cities are ~80 miles apart (straight-line). So, if these two stations were 0.1 MHz apart, they still shouldn't interfere... Once the analysis is done and the politics of switching systems are done (not every station would need to change frequencies), we'd have MANY more potential FM stations...

The only negative would be for those with digital radios hard-coded to the US FM system... Dial FM tuners would have no problems while many radios do have a switch to support "European" FM frequencies...

Re:fox news reports

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't interference in Milwaukee and Chicago, it's interference when you are driving between those cities. FM is mostly for cars these days and we don't need a 20 mile wide zone of messed up radio between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Re:Breaking FM news:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, are you the President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications?

*me ducks* ;)

Hey, guess what?

[zogger]

Not everyone has a multihundred dollar smart pda wifi equipped cellphone thingamajig and hangs out within 50 feet of starbucks so they can get netstreams while they are out and about. A shirt pocket FM radio complete with ~quality~ 5 cent earbud costs one dollar at the buckstore. And it works, and only takes one double AA and lasts for weeks.

That's why FM radio is still a good option. And the transmitter for low power is pretty cheap, and no need to pay for expensive bandwith or whatnot, and as many people as there are locally who can tune it all get the same stream of talk or whatever, infinitely scalable, 100 to a million, as long as you are in range, you get the same thing everyone else can get.

Enough reasons?

Freedom is not why this bill is being pushed

[tjstork]

Democrats aren't pushing this bill so that people are being free. Democrats are pushing this bill because they hope the explosion of extra channels will dilute the audience for right wing radio stations. Given the right wing media's scathing rebuttal of elected Republicans on what is actually a damned good immigration bill, I would be surprised if Republicans in the Congress did not support this.

Still, pay close attention to how this bill is being written and who can actually get these stations and who can't. Democrats are going to push to make sure that their people get the stations, and Republicans need to be on their toes to make sure their people get theres. If you see things like city governments, universities, and public schools getting more stations (all traditionally liberal points), then the Democrats are playing games. If you see things like churches, local chambers of commerce, adult groups like the FreeMasons, or even gun clubs getting them, then you can bet that Republicans win.

If they compromise and everyone can get a station, then it is a good bill.

Re:Freedom is not why this bill is being pushed

[lord_mike]

Some problems with your argument...

An "explosion" of FM stations will not affect the AM dial, which is the home of the majority of right-wing talk radio... it would hardly make a dent.

The biggest proponents of this bill ARE churches... religious groups have been pushing for this ability for a long time. They want to have a bully pulpit that extends beyond the four walls of their church.

The application process is pretty much open to any and all comers... stations are not allocated by political bent... it's first come first serve... it's almost like the CB radio licenses of old... anyone can get one if they apply... space permitting, of course...

Thanks,

Mike

more talk radio - where's Hillary?

[kcokane]

Ha! Just a plot to put Rush Limbaugh on even
more stations. Another Right Wing Conspiracy!
Superheterodyne, my ass!

Low-power station disrupts NPR for me

[LiquidHAL]

I listen to NPR to and from my local university, but within a two block radius of the campus the NPR station is drowned out by the most god awful, static-filled, low-power station imaginable. Random samplings of their content include, from what I can tell, an Italian news broadcast in Italian, east-Indian music, and my personal favorite, the battle hymn of the republic on a kazoo. I can't figure out who's broadcasting it, I just wish they were taken off the air.

Re:Low-power station disrupts NPR for me

[lord_mike]

Are you sure this is a legally licensed low power station? It could be just pirate radio.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:Low-power station disrupts NPR for me

[vtcodger]

*** I can't figure out who's broadcasting it, I just wish they were taken off the air.***

If they were licensed, they probably would not be on your local NPR station's frequency. That's the rationale for licensing.

One problem.

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Aren't all analog transmissions going to end in a couple years?

Re:One problem.

[Detritus]

No. Any switch to 100% digital is many years away, if ever. Digital radio broadcasting is still in an early stage of development and deployment.

Re:One problem.

[Radon360]

You are likely thinking of television broadcasting. The FCC has slated February 17, 2009, though considering that the deadline had been pushed back several times previously, it would not surprise me if this gets pushed out again.

In band on channel (IBOC) digital radio broadcasting is already emerging in the larger markets. Basically, you can get a digital receiver and listen to your favorite radio station play all its programming, commercials and all, in CD quality audio. The only cost is the receiver. At this point, there is no firm date for phasing out FM (or AM) radio as we know it, just the addition of digital IBOC, which are usually simulcasts of the analog programming.

Re:One problem.

[vtcodger]

***Aren't all analog transmissions going to end in a couple years?***

That's TV, and it probably won't happen on schedule (in about 20 months)

Given the bandwidth requirements of digital sound and the fact that FM can deliver pretty decent audio in its primary service area, it's not easy to see why -- other than marketing -- one would want to replace it with a digital service. There are some experiments in progress with sending digital subchannels on subcarriers of FM stations, but I'm not sure that makes engineering sense.. Anyone have a reference to an engineering (rather than marketing) justification for that.

Re:One problem.

[Skapare]

No.

But it might be a good idea. Unlike TV, which in both analog and digital is confined to a specific slice of spectrum (6 MHz wide in North America), FM actually occupies much more spectrum than the 200 kHz channel spacing. And this spectrum usage is uneven. Most of the signal is near the center, but the sidebands, some as far out as +/- 800 kHz, do carry some information at a lower power. The end result is that squeezing FM signals together is trickier. It's all a matter of degree, too ... the closer they get, the more impact there is.

Analog TV had channel spacing requirements, too, but that was a filtering issue. That's basically a non-issue anymore, and new digital channels are going to be right next to each other in a lot of markets (and it works just fine).

If audio broadcasting went digital, it could also go with directly adjacent channels. If digital radio at FM quality can fit in 200 kHz (with compression it can), then you can easily have stations at 101.1, 101.3, 101.5, 101.7, and 101.9, with no major interference problems (although for another issue, you can't have more than 2 of them on the same transmitting antenna).

What I propose is that after all analog TV is off the air, use the 76 MHz to 88 MHz spectrum as a new digital radio starter band. This corresponds to TV channels 5 and 6 in North America. In areas where channel 5 or channel 6 is in use, only half of 76-88 MHz would be available for radio. Most TV stations are abandoning low band VHF because it doesn't do so well for TV. But it's fine for radio with the narrower signals. We'll need new radios to receive digital anyway, so we'll get new radios that can tune 76-88 Mhz as well. But they will need to be able to do digital on the rest of the FM spectrum, because eventually it should all be converted over to digital (with some kind of OFDM modulation since it will be heavily mobile). We might even want to extend digital radio to other spectrum slices like 54-72 Mhz and even 174-216 Mhz, allocated around the TV channels (since with both being digital, this can work just fine).

Congress Considering More Low Power FM Stations

[iminplaya]

Well, that's mighty white of them, isn't it? Considering who they represent, maybe we should have a bit less regard for their authority and just put the damn things up without their permission. After all, I don't request a permit for every bag of weed I buy. And the dealers aren't exactly applying for a business license either. Let's all try to wake up here...before the election comes around, okay?

I hope they finally pass this

[skeptictank]

The state of commercial and public radio is so bad that anything will be an improvement. Hell I think I will setup my own transmitter and broadcast some decent music on FM several hours per week.

Re: Anachist with a Food not Bombs house?

[skeptictank]

Anarchy just isn't what it used to be. I guess it's more politically correct now.

Fallback

[briancnorton]

Consider this. In times of natural disaster/terrorist attack/power outage the FM radio is FAR AND AWAY the best mechanism for information dissemination. The only functioning long-range systems will be generator powered amateur radio. So, a network of FCC licensed HAM operators with LPFM stations can be an extremely effective tool for spreading important information in times of crisis.

I would also suggest that the radio is FAR more effective than the internet for reaching a geographically concentrated target audience. Think of small town USA, not just the urban megalopolis.

FM's advantage is mobility

[tepples]

[Poor selectivity is] only with an omnidirectional antenna. With a yagi and a good radio, you can distinguish multiple stations on the same frequency.

Good luck getting your beam antenna to stay on a signal in a moving car, bus, or train. The whole advantage of the FM band is mobility; if you can stay still long enough to get an antenna pointed in one direction, then you can get broadband Internet access and listen to Internet radio instead.

WRIR 97.3 LPFM!

[jnelson4765]

I work with one of the larger LPFM stations - WRIR, in Richmond, VA. It has dramatically changed the radio landscape, allowing everything from bluegrass to electronica to Democracy Now to be heard on the air.

It took a lot of effort by a lot of dedicated people - a volunteer radio station is a very hard thing to do. It's still vastly preferable to the fragmented Top-40 market that Radio One and Clear Channel push.

I would recommend working with a LPFM to any geek handy with a soldering iron - they will always need engineers and hardware hackers to build the station out and keep the gear running.

Re:WRIR 97.3 LPFM!

[hey!]

Props to you. I wish everybody in America had a choice of locally managed radio stations.

The public cultural and political discourse in this country is broken. Radio is about the worst. Any place you go in the country, the radio dial is choked with identical formtas, content and viewpoints. It wouldn't hurt those viewpoints if they were restricted to two or three stations per market.

I believe that non-local corporations should be limited to one third of the spectrum, one third for local entrepreneurs, and one third for licensed amateurs broadcasting at powers capable of reaching something like ten thousand people. I believe that copyright laws should be amended to allow limited use of copyrighted audio works by these amateur broadcasting.

As an example of how this would fix the cultural discourse, look at classical music. Classical music is one of the greatest treasures of western culture, but the market for recordings has been dying slowly, year after year. One of the big reason is the corporate radio monoculture that has arisen in the last twenty years. Classical music stations were never cash cows, they were labors of love. As the stations are sold to corporations, who put in robot relays of central programming in their place, people no longer have the opportunity to be exposed to classical music.

This is why the CD market is dying. It has nothing to do with P2P. Musical culture is sick, because innovation cannot find an audience. If we accept radio limited to a handful of "formats", how many new songs does such a system need every year? Two or three hundred? A reasonable mandatory licensing scheme for low power, locally owned broadcasters would allow citizen advocates to create a grass roots market, not only for classical music, but for innovative pop music as well.

Re:WRIR 97.3 LPFM!

[LMacG]

Off topic: Please tell somebody that having children read the community calendar isn't "cute," it's annoying. Or at least train the kids in how to read copy (although that could go for some of the on-air personnel as well). Indie radio doesn't have to be amateurish radio.

Get a better radio.

[CrAlt]

Sounds like your using a radio with a crappy front end. Im sure if they where really that wide the FCC would have visited them already.

Well, that's what they always say

[smchris]

claiming that small community stations would interfere with the signals of larger stations.

Who complains when it is the other way around? I remember when the campus station came on the air at Macalester College in St. Paul, MN and I could pick it up from a few miles away if I clicked "mono". Easy to remember because seven days later our MONSTER ROCKIN' HITS! 800-lb gorilla of a station activated their gazillion watt antenna on top of a 50 story building and the overloading in my receiver splattered harmonics across the band. No more Macalester for me so I'm inclined to suspect the big players just don't want to be bothered with being good neighbors on the airwaves.

More Coverage

[TSAG]

You can learn more about this from today's DemocracyNow! broadcast: http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=2007062 2

I hope this doesn't derail the OTHER 'radio' bill.

[argent]

I hope this doesn't derail the bill in progress to halt the exorbitant fees they're foisting on Internet 'radio'.

radio for the rest of us!

[dmnic]

I was going to post about WRIR but saw your post.
I'm a Richmond resident and long time listener.

other than NPR, WRIR (and very occasionally URs 90.1) is the only radio I listen to.
my one peeve is that reception is quite poor where I live (Fulton Hill) and where I work (RIC).
at home it doesnt matter too much as I can stream online, but not at work.

thanks for the hard work and keep it up!

Venezuela - Chavez tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Expanding fm channels for thousands of small local radio stations was Chavez first media
tactic to survive the next coup. He had been frozen out of radio and TV when the
golpistas whacked the one state channel. He figured thousands of outlets would be better than
a handful of righty stations and the power cut to the state station.

A distributed system vs centralized control.

Oh I forgot, he is a commie hard line dictator that suppressed all the media.
And this bill must be a commie simp bill.

Re:Venezuela - Chavez tactic.

[micheas]

Oh I forgot, he is a commie hard line dictator that suppressed all the media.
And this bill must be a commie simp bill.

No, but he is a bit of a military strong man that has his share of human rights issues. (as opposed to the US pupet regimes that have more than their share of human rights issues.)

Venezuela could do a lot worse than Hugo Chavez, but they could do a lot better as well.

Sorry for the off topic post, but I find it a little infuriating to see all the adulation the left gives to a military strong man just because he is not a CIA supported military strong man.

The transmitter by itself is $2000

[Optic7]

Here