Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Government Communications Politics

Congress Considering More Low Power FM Stations 133

Posted by CowboyNeal from the low-power-to-the-people dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Considering More Low Power FM Stations More

Congress Considering More Low Power FM Stations

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

    • Re:Radio? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:46PM (#19602273)
      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.
      • 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? (Score:4, Funny)

        by notque ( 636838 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:05PM (#19602479) Homepage Journal
        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.
      • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by loganrapp ( 975327 )
        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 commun

        • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aldousd666 ( 640240 )
        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: (Score:2)

          by notque ( 636838 )
          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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by westlake ( 615356 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:04PM (#19602469)
      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 [ramseyelectronics.com] 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: (Score:2)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      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.

    • Hey, guess what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zogger ( 617870 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:26PM (#19603177) Homepage Journal
      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?
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timmarhy ( 659436 )
      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

    • A low power transmitter is A LOT cheaper than bandwidth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
      Because nowadays internet radio stations are expected to pay a LOT more to the big music corporations than airwave radio stations.

    • Fallback (Score:3, Insightful)

      by briancnorton ( 586947 )
      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 t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vtcodger ( 957785 )
      ***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 yo

    • 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 does

    • 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.

    • 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 rea

  • one example (Score:3, Informative)

    by rhendershot ( 46429 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:48PM (#19602301) Journal
    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.

  • Like the last translator invasion? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Average ( 648 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:48PM (#19602303)
    Another 5000 religious satellite-based repeater stations and just about zero actual local stations. Just like the last time.
    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      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.

  • Great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:49PM (#19602317)
    Now my iPod FM trasmitter will suck even more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      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.
    • 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 [crutchfield.com]
      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 tho
      • 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 Bl
    • yeah, but now they can squirt tunes to your zune!

  • Love mine (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:51PM (#19602335)
    I'm smart enough to live in a town cool enough to have our own local radio station [communityradio.coop], 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: (Score:2)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      I agree, excellent points. Fuck Clear Channel

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kabz ( 770151 )
        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 [kpft.org] Pacific Radio and KUHF [kuhf.org] NPR.

  • Radio Libre! (Score:5, Funny)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday June 21, 2007 @06:53PM (#19602355) Journal
    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 [noehill.com] 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: (Score:2)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spun ( 1352 )
        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: (Score:2)

          by notque ( 636838 )
          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

    • Re:Radio Libre! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Cowpat ( 788193 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:09PM (#19602511) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by notque ( 636838 )
        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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rueger ( 210566 ) *
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Rakishi ( 759894 )
            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: (Score:1)

              by notque ( 636838 )
              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: (Score:2)

              by Rakishi ( 759894 )
              That should have read "there would simply not be a 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."

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

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Rakishi ( 759894 )
                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 c

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by spun ( 1352 )
                  You may want to explore the difference between Individualist Anarchism [wikipedia.org] and Social Anarchism [wikipedia.org], 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: (Score:2)

              by ricree ( 969643 )

              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: (Score:2)

                by Rakishi ( 759894 )
                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: (Score:2)

            by spun ( 1352 )
            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 c

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by notque ( 636838 )
              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: (Score:2)

                by spun ( 1352 )
                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

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by notque ( 636838 )
                  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: (Score:2)

                  by notque ( 636838 )
                  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 t

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by xappax ( 876447 )
                  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 [crimethinc.com].

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by spun ( 1352 )
                    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: (Score:2)

                      by xappax ( 876447 )
                      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 tha
    • Hey, the One Big Union lives on. Thanks for your story!
  • Why can't we all get along?!
  • 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 (Score:1, Insightful)

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

  • fox news reports (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:02PM (#19602961) Homepage Journal
    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 [fcc.gov] 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: (Score:2)

      by notque ( 636838 )
      Excellent points!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Myopic ( 18616 )
      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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      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.

    • 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
  • 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.
    • 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
  • Ha! Just a plot to put Rush Limbaugh on even
    more stations. Another Right Wing Conspiracy!
    Superheterodyne, my ass!
  • 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.
    • Are you sure this is a legally licensed low power station? It could be just pirate radio.

      Thanks,

      Mike
    • *** 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. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @09:19PM (#19603563)
    Aren't all analog transmissions going to end in a couple years?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Radon360 ( 951529 )

      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.

    • ***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 mak

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Skapare ( 16644 )

      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 close

  • 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?
  • 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.

  • Well, that's what they always say (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @07:44AM (#19606861)
    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.
  • I hope this doesn't derail the bill in progress to halt the exorbitant fees they're foisting on Internet 'radio'.

Slashdot Top Deals

Them as has, gets.

Close