|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 99 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 31 of 99:
| 
Apr 15 03:46 UTC 2001 |
800 watts is not a micropower station. There are international
shortwave broadcasters that run less.
|
scg
|
|
response 32 of 99:
|
Apr 15 04:40 UTC 2001 |
re 30:
Given that radio frequency is a limited resource, how would you decide
who does and does not get it?
From the beginning, freedom of the press (which is probably more relevant to
this case than freedom of speech) has been limited in that it applies only
to those who have presses. If you have the capability to print a newspaper
or pamphlet (a capability that's rather easy to obtain now, but certianly
wasn't 200 years ago), freedom of the press means that you can print almost
anything you want. It does not, however, give you the right to walk into your
local newspaper's printing plant and print your own paper without permission
on their equipment, nor does it give you the right to demand that the
newspaper include articles you have submitted.
Having a radio frequency is somewhat like having a printing press. It costs
money, and there are a finite amount of them. The difference is that the
finite number of radio frequencies is considerably smaller than the finite
number of printing presses, and that printing presses are easier to make more
of if the deman exceeds the supply.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 99:
|
Apr 15 05:09 UTC 2001 |
Micropower FN transmitters are permitted - you can buy them at Radio
Shack, and no license is required. Now, *mini* power stations are
something else. One problem that must underlie the refusal to license
them is conflict with other stations. With the required frequency
spacing (0.1 MHz), there are not a lot of free channels at any given
spot. There is also not very much spatial separation between stations
operating on the same frequency. Properly locating them and regulating
them will be more work than regulating the current big stations.
Then, since they would cost a lot less to set up and operate than a
regular station, there will be many more conflicts between different
groups wanting mini stations in the same area - how will that be
resolved? These are all NOT simple problems to resolve.
Re #22: I am also not in favor of "shutting stations with unpopular opinions",
but I am in favor of regulating the resource - radio bands - that are
required. Your "freedom of speech" is already heavy regulated by requirements
concerning using related resources: you must have a license to drive
to the spot where you will speak; you must schedule and/or obtain a
permit for some forms of speech (parades, rallies, etc) any place where
the use of public spaces must be available to all; you may be required
to clean up your own litter and remove your soap box, etc. The speech is
free, but not the infrastructure to support it.
|
raven
|
|
response 34 of 99:
|
Apr 15 05:32 UTC 2001 |
Yes but why isn't the FCC attempting to address these problems rather than
just shutting down micro power broadcasters? The only reason a liscense
to broadcast costs 10,000+ dollars is to limit access to the radio as a
medium to diseminate information to the rich, period. If we can liscense
cars which are far more dangerous than radio transmitters for less than
200 dollars than then we should be able to do the same with radio
transmitter for a similar amount of money. There is spectrum to spare
and it ought it be distributed
on a first come first served baises to anyone who is properly trained in
running a radio transmitter that does not bleed over into adjacent
frequencies.
I imagine most Grexers would be pretty upset if running a Unix based BBs
required a 10,000 dollar liscense. Why should we be any less upset that
this sort of restriction is being placed on the micro radio community, a
community I might add that serves low income people far better than a BBs
as far more people have access to radios than have access to computers.
Have we really come to a point in this country where our right of free
speech is contingent on ponying up beucoup bucks to the government? If so
we are in a sad state of decline indeed.
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 99:
|
Apr 15 05:40 UTC 2001 |
The reason your analogy in the last paragraph of #34 fails is because
radio is broadcast technology while bbs/internet is narrowcast
technology.
Anything you want to publish/post on the internet is inherently incapable
of directly interfering with someone else's legitimate rights to do the
same, short of intentional sabotage.
Radio broadcasts necessarily impinge on other radio broadcasts -- not
even necessarily in the same frequency range -- depending on signal
strength.
*That* is why microradio regulation is necessary to a degree not required
for any internet technology.
|
raven
|
|
response 36 of 99:
|
Apr 15 07:04 UTC 2001 |
Sure regulation may be required by the liscenses do NOT need to be so
expensive, and there is free spectrum in many areas so the FCC needs to
get in gear and open up this spectrum to those who would use it. After all
the airwaves are public space, why should they be reserved for a few
private corporate individuals? Even if the research neccesary to do dole
out this spectrum in a fair and techinacally correct fashion costs a few
million dollars isn't this a better use of goverment money than the say 60
BILLION that is mandated for a national missle defense system that is
proven not to work?
|
scg
|
|
response 37 of 99:
|
Apr 15 08:37 UTC 2001 |
It's not true that "interference" isn't possible on the Internet. The proper
Internet analogy to radio frequencies is probably IP addresses. IP addresses
are the numeric addresses that identify all hosts on the Internet, and each
IP address hs to be unique so that data headed to it will get to the right
place. IP addresses are allocated in large blocks by some central registries
to medium to large ISPs, which then assign smaller blocks of addresses to
their customers. Every Internet connected network (generally on the ISP or
large company level) uses a protocol called BGP to announce what blocks of
IP addresses they have or can reach. While the registries control who owns
the IP addresses, they have no technical control over who is actually
announcing the address blocks, so it happens from time to time that somebody
announces a route to a block of IP addresses that they shouldn't be
announcing, and if other networks listen to the announcements this creates
problems reaching whoever is supposed to have that address block.
I should note that those blocks of IP addresses cost money, although not
nearly as much as radio licenses because there are a lot more avialable IP
addresses.
In raven's complaints about the license fees, he seems to be missing a basic
understanding of market economics. As things stand now, there is a very
sharply limited supply of radio frequency space that can be picked up by the
radios currently being sold to consumers, and which is being allocated to
standard radio broadcasts. Since running a radio station is very profitable,
and is something lots of companies want to be doing, and since this frequency
space is limited, there are far more companies wanting frequencies than there
are frequencies available. Prices get imposed on things for two reasons.
One is to recover costs or make money. The other, which is applicable in this
case, is to limit demand for a scarce resource. Radio licenses are expensive
becasue that's what keeps more companies from attempting to buy them than
there are licenses available. Given that companies are willing to pay that
much for them, it's likely that if they were being sold cheaper they would
be snapped up by speculators on a first come/first served basis, and then
resold to the radio stations for those high amounts.
|
raven
|
|
response 38 of 99:
|
Apr 15 09:15 UTC 2001 |
re #37 Radio frequencies, however, are a public resource somewhat like our
national parks and national forests. Why should these public resources be
handed over to corperations just so they can make a buck? Don't the
people have a right to speak on their own public airwaves that we own in
common as people of the USA? It seems to me that one of the highest roles
of a government in a constititional democracy such as ours is to encourage
diverse public debate in every forum possible.
Just as people need public parks for recreation (Steve being in
California surely you can appreciate the value of the public forests
there) so people also need non comadafied mental space in the form of
small diverse micro broadcasters, or are we are mearly a nation of shop
keepers as Samual Johnson long ago complained about England?
If we can spare billons for "defense," surely we can spare a few million
to defend our right to be able to speak in our public ariways in a fashion
that won't be disruptive to other broadcasters. Has the U.S. really become
so small minded that the right of free speech only belongs to those who
can pay a market price of millions for that right in liscensing fees,
large transmiters, etc? A right of free speech that is only available to
the rich and well connected in the "market" is pretty meaningless.
Furthur I can say from a practical point of view that having listened to a
lot of pirate radio in Humboldt county California that it's a hell of lot
more interesting than what you hear on comercial radio. Are we really
well served by yet another rebroadcast of Rush Limbaugh on frequncies that
could be used for something more interesting?
|
tpryan
|
|
response 39 of 99:
|
Apr 15 14:07 UTC 2001 |
What made that pirate radio interesting?
The talk? The personalities? The music? Because it was there?
|
bru
|
|
response 40 of 99:
|
Apr 15 15:31 UTC 2001 |
I would be in favor of micro broadcasters, If I recall correctly, my college
radio station had a power of only 5 watts, which meant it could reach out a
few blocks from the college. Ceratinly something similar could be done for
a very small fee.
|
scg
|
|
response 41 of 99:
|
Apr 15 17:28 UTC 2001 |
Once again, raven, how would you deal with demand being greater than supply?
|
danr
|
|
response 42 of 99:
|
Apr 15 19:18 UTC 2001 |
re #30: I don't think running a micropower radio station will provide
the forum you think it will. The coverage area will be so small and the
listenership so low that you'd be better off printing and distributing
pamphlets if you really wanted to get a message out. That's my point.
|
raven
|
|
response 43 of 99:
|
Apr 15 19:21 UTC 2001 |
re #39 I would say the first three. Pirate radio in Humboldt often has
political news about such things as the destruction of the Redwoods that
you don't hear anywhere else. Also these stations play ecletic music from
80s goth to world beat to free jazz that you don't hear on comercial radio.
re#41 Perhaps I would draft a radio diversity act that would stipulate
that community based radio is a fundamental right and that would set aside
perhaps a dozen frequncies in all regions of the country for non comercial,
non NPR, non college radio. I believe market fundamentalism like all
one paradigm fundamentalisms produces bad outcomes. In this case the bad
outcome of the telecom deregulation act of 1996 that allowed corporations
to own many more stations in a metro area than was true in the past was
consolidation leading to less diversity in what one hears on the air.
Frankly in most parts of the country the radio scene is pretty bleak,
you have a choice of country, corporate "alternative" top 40, christian,
the increasgnly bland NPR, or conservative talk radio. When I drive in
most parts of the country I find the radio so bleakly uniform that I turn
it off and put on a tape. This might be different if there were
interesting radio choices of say a station that was owned by the Nation of
Islam, a Militia station, a station owned by radical envrionmentalists, a
station devoted to world bat music, etc. I think a radio dial that
offered these choices as well as comercial radio would be far more
intersting than what we have now. I think it might even lead to more
interesting political dialog than we saw in the 2000 presidential election
where the only real fundamental disagreement between the canidates was gun
control, abortion, and Gore having a slightly more prgressive position on
the environment than Bush. Perhaps Nader would have had a media forum to
use if real vibrant community radio exists. Who knows, I sure dodn't
because of the blandness that now prevails due to high liscensing fees and
"market" consolidation.
<set rant="off">
|
raven
|
|
response 44 of 99:
|
Apr 15 19:35 UTC 2001 |
#42 slipped in. Well first my def of micropower would be pretty broad up
to a 1000 watts say. Also I think a mosaic where the content of radio
prgramming changed every 5 miles or so would be interesting. The point
isn't reaching large numbers of people as far as I'm concerned that's
communist/fascist era thinking, the point is breaking the monopoly of
"clear channel" (a large radio monopoly), NPR and the few broadcasters who
now prevail so we can hear some interesting radio prgramming instead of
the same old, same old. I know people on Grex complain about a lack of
classical music prgramming in the Ann Arbor area. If we had true
community radio you could have several classical radio stations, say even
perhaps one devoted to early music, one devoted to the romantic era, and
one devoted to 20th century avant garde classical. Wouldn't that be more
interesting than yet another rebroadcast of Rush Limbaugh?
As for the limitations of the frequency spectrum, say there are only 5
clear channels left in Ann Arbor (and I bet there are far more than that)
wouldn't 5 new interesting radio stations in the Ann Arbor area be
something worth fighting for? As for rather a 1000 watt limit is too large
or too small that isn't really point that could be hashed out by the
techies and broadcasters. The point is to get the dialog going, so the
current stranglehold of the broadcast spectrum can be opened up to new
voices.
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 99:
|
Apr 15 20:23 UTC 2001 |
Re #44: I think you're overestimating the amount of radio spectrum
that goes "unused", at least in populated areas. I'd be surprised if
there were 5 truely "clear" channels left in the Ann Arbor area.
Considering our proximity to Detroit, I'd be willing to bet that all the
available channels are occupied, considering the problems of adjacent
channel interference and interference with distant stations. (Consider
that a frequency that sounds "clear" to you may actually have a station
that's just a little too far away for you to hear. If you started
broadcasting on that frequency, people between you and that station
would suddenly have trouble receiving it.) It's even worse on AM than
on FM; AM gets skywave propegation for hundreds of miles at night, and
for that reason many small AM stations are required to go off the air at
sunset, to avoid interferance problems. WKAR AM on 870 kHz, an NPR talk
station in Lansing, is an example of such a "sundowner".
1000 watts is also quite a bit more than many *licensed* stations run.
College radio stations (which can get licenses for considerably less
than commercial ones, I believe, but aren't allowed to endorse
political candidates or take paid advertising) often run 100 watts.
That'll give a listening range of maybe five or ten miles, depending on
the terrain.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 99:
|
Apr 15 20:27 UTC 2001 |
I should clarify that when I talk about "AM", I mean the "standard AM
broadcast band" from 530 to 1710 kHz. Skywave propegation after dusk is
a characteristic of that frequency range, not the modulation method.
Likewise, when I say "FM", I mean the FM broadcast band that occupies 88
to 108 MHz. I say this because I know someone will nitpick my comments
otherwise. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 47 of 99:
|
Apr 15 20:57 UTC 2001 |
I "second" the assertion that there is NOT "spectrum to spare" in any
band - where it is needed. There is "spectrum to spare" in the boonies -
where the population density is low (at least for the FM band). What
also happens on FM is that one station easily steps on another if it
has higher signal strength (on AM you hear the mix - on FM only the
stronger is heard once the difference is just a few db). This severely
limits the coverage of low power stations.
|
raven
|
|
response 48 of 99:
|
Apr 15 22:40 UTC 2001 |
Ok lets do the frequency spectrum math for FM then. Rane says that there
must be a .1 mhz separation between broadcast frequencies to prevent
interference, there is 20 mhz of spectrum available in the fm broadcast
band so at 10 stations per mhz x 20 mhz that means that any given area
could have 200 fm broadcasters without interference problems. You are
telling me there isn't room for ten independent broadcasters out of 200
available slots give me a break.
If we can't spare 5% of the broadcast spectrum for independent points of
view leaving 95% for commercial broadcasters and NPR, then our priorities
have become seriously warped in this country. This is all about the money
to made from a license to broadcast at a certain frequency at the expense
of diversity and freedom, it has nothing to do with technical limitations
of the amount of frequency available.
|
raven
|
|
response 49 of 99:
|
Apr 15 23:28 UTC 2001 |
Here on some interesting links for more background on the issue of micro
power broadcasting
American's for Radio Diversity petetion for rulemaking address some of the
technical issues brought up here at: http://www.radiodiversity.com
For example they propose the idea that a person should only be able to
hold one broadcast liscense and that the liscnse should not be
transferable addressing Steve's concern about liscenses being bided up in
price.
Howard Rheingold talks to Stephen Dunifer about how comercial stations
with their powerful trnsmiters often hog up to .6 mhz of spectrum space
with their broadcasts at: http://www.well.com/user/hlr/tomorrow/radio.html
This web page has some technical information on how a frequency can be
picked for a micro power boradcast so it doesn't cause interfernce iwth
other boradcasts.
|
raven
|
|
response 50 of 99:
|
Apr 16 00:07 UTC 2001 |
BTW Rane fm stations are spaced at .2 mhz not .1 that still leaves space for
100 broadcasters in an given area. Also here is an interesting article
in the Washington Post on micro power broadcasting that was written before
the liscenses for micro power broadcast were all but killed in December of
last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2125-2000May14.h
tml
|
raven
|
|
response 51 of 99:
|
Apr 16 00:44 UTC 2001 |
Here is an interesting article from the Libertarian perspective in Reason
magazine on how "spectrum scarcity" is a red herring created by the FCC.
http://www.reason.com/9510/WALKERfeat.html
|
krj
|
|
response 52 of 99:
|
Apr 16 02:36 UTC 2001 |
It's probably pointless to bring history up. The FCC was moving forward
vigorously on a proposal to license hundreds of low-power stations. The
broadcast lobby and NPR went to Congress and legislation forbidding the
FCC from working on this issue, at all, ever, was embedded in one of the
giant end-of-session omnibus bills. Clinton had promised to defend the
low power broadcasting proposal but he was unwilling to take it as far
as vetoing the omnibus bill and shutting down the government again.
(This was in late 2000.)
I do not have a technical background, but from what I've read I believe
that the broadcast lobby lied about the technical threats posed by the
low power stations in order to get Congress to roll over. Congress will
do anything for the broadcast lobby, since they need access to the
airwaves to run ads for re-election.
Anyway, the FCC worked really hard on trying to liberalize the low power
broadcast rules, one really cannot have asked them to do more.
|
gull
|
|
response 53 of 99:
|
Apr 16 03:08 UTC 2001 |
Re #51: In a world like the one the article suggests, where interference
problems were resolved via lawsuits, I think you'd see even fewer small
stations than there are now. The companies with the big pockets would
still dominate, because they'd have the money to bring and win legal
disputes.
|
russ
|
|
response 54 of 99:
|
Apr 16 03:57 UTC 2001 |
Re #36: Broadcasters can have their licenses revoked if their use
of the airwaves is "not in the public interest". If you have a
problem with a station being a clone of another station on the dial,
write letters to the FCC about their waste of spectrum not being in
the public interest. Send a copy to the station with a note that it
should go in their public file. Enough of this from enough people,
and they may change format or fail to get their license renewed.
(I *really* suggest this if you live in an area with a lot of
religious broadcasters and no jazz, classical or NPR station. The
right wing does it to everyone else, do it back to them.)
As for the crank in #0, if he has 13,000 supporters willing to
lend guns to his defense why the hell don't they all just put
$5 in an envelope and mail it to him, giving him enough money to
buy a broadcasting license and a certified transmitter?
Re #38: Clue: Just because we own the Interstate system in common
doesn't mean that we don't need rules for what you can do on it and how.
|
raven
|
|
response 55 of 99:
|
Apr 16 05:24 UTC 2001 |
re #53 Good point that actually occured to me as well. I'm not a big
fan of the livertarians but I welcome any creative constructive thought
at this point on how to break the log jam the the big radio monopolies
have on the airwaves. FYO in one of the articles I read it said Clear
Channel communication owns 1200 radio satations, clearly that shows
that the way the spectrum is being divied up is out of hand.
p.s. I'm going to leave the livertarian typo I like it :-)
|
