3/5/99
Hello,
My name is Jenny Toomey and I
’m writing to you on the suggestion of Vicky
Wheeler of Autotonic.
Now, for the reason...I’m a musician (Tsunami/Grenadine/Liquorice) and ex
record label owner (Simple Machines).
who has recently been roped into working with a coalition that is
lobbying the FCC and now the government to open up the bandwidth to new low
power licensees.
Have you been following this Low Power Radio stuff with FCC Commissioner
Kennard?
Several weeks ago the FCC voted 4 to 1 to look into the possibility of
opening up the FM dial to thousands of new low-power licenses.
We're talking about licenses for between $2,500 and 100,000 thousand based
on range... as compared to the 11 & 13 million dollar price tags on two
stations that sold in DC in the last year. Anyway... my role in this
coalition is to try to raise grassroots support for this cause so that the
Broadcast lobby (the second most powerful lobby in Washington) cannot
squash it when it gets to congress.
Mostly this means that I end up speaking to the entrepreneurial/artist
issues. I.E.. "It's easier to sell records if you can get on the radio" and
"It's impossible to get on the radio as an independent artist."
What I'm doing now, besides giving interview sound bites... is trying to
find articulate artists and journalists who can speak to/write about the
importance of college radio. So far artists such as Lenny Kaye, Steve
Albini, Gerard Cosloy, Ian MacKaye & I have been answering questions and
giving quotes to articles about the importance of community based radio
and low power radio. To date there will be stories in Boston, New York,
Norleans, Tulsa, San Diego, Nashville, Colorado & Athens...with (hopefully)
more to come Chicago, Seattle & DC etc. These articles focus on effects
specific to their communities and thus cover a wide range of subjects from
pirate radio, to community based radio to the ever narrowing radio
diversity due to increasing radio ownership consolidation.
We've had a lot of luck getting the Daily papers and the arts-weeklies to
do local stories on community radio issues but a huge base of our support
should be music fans so that is our focus now. And it's particularly
important that we raise awareness quickly as...
The FCC currently is in a period of comment on the
microradio proposals, and is soliciting responses by April
12. The FCC will reply by May 12, and will have three
options: it may adopt a rule or rules (i.e., grant
licenses), issue a notice of further proposed rulemaking, or
deny issuing any new licenses.
if the telecommunications committee votes down the FCC's proposal, we will
have lost our first chance in 20 years to access the possibility of
thousands of new radio stations
So...Are you interested in writing something about Low Power FM?
Feel free to e-mail if you like... I can answer further questions, forward
information or get you in touch with artists for quotes.
Either way, Here is some back up to let you know more about what is
happening.
Thanks for your time,
Jenny
I'm including several articles that sum up the basic info.
1) One is Jon Pareles piece from the NYTimes
2) The next ran in CMJ (College Music Journal)and was written by Wendy
Mitchell
3) The third is a piece from the Boston Phoenix.
4) The AP articles about Congressman Tauzin are next. He is the first
congressman to actively protest the FCC's work.
5)Finally there is an article out today in the Gambit (the Norleans arts
weekly which addresses the Tauzin angle)
6) Is a piece that just ran in the Minneapolis City Pages
That's it for now...
If you want more information about the Low Power Radio Coallition you can
check out our website at Lowpowerradio.org
1)CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK
Fracturing the Formula: A Hope for the Offbeat on Small FM
By JON PARELES
commercial radio stations weren't happy when the Federal Communications
Commission announced recently that it might allow low-power radio stations
-- up to 1,000 watts, reaching an area up to 18 miles in diameter -- to
share the FM band. The final decision will be made this
summer or fall, and if the proposed rules are approved, the corporate radio
chains of generic Lite FM's and Q92's and Hit 105's will share the dial
with very local stations dispensing anything from avant-rock to city
council meetings. The broadcasters warn that more stations sharing the band
could lead to more interference. But what they would interfere
with most is the numbing predictability of professional radio.
The great divide comes at 92 on the FM dial, with noncommercial public and
college radio stations below 92 and the big-time commercial outlets above.
Commercial radio has never seemed more organized and less invigorating.
Down below 92, there are still strange sounds and surprises, mostly thanks
to college students who see radio as a calling
rather than a routine. But drive across the United States punching the
"seek" button on the car radio, and you'll hear the same hits, the same
selected oldies, even the same slogans: "More music, less talk" or "10 in a
row."
Since 1996, when the Federal Communications Commission removed limits on
the number of stations a single corporation could own, the regimentation
has increased. Broadcasting chains spend huge sums to buy new stations,
incurring hefty debts, then press program directors to deliver ratings
and advertising dollars immediately, before the next quarterly
reckoning. (Squeezing more stations onto the band could also lower the
scarcity, and thus the value, of major broadcasters' licenses the next
time they're sold.)
There's a strong incentive to go for the trite and true, to aim for a
niche of the market -- like 18-to-25-year-old men -- and program only
sure-fire material to reach them. The idea is not to play something they
might be thrilled to discover; it's to play what they won't dislike, so
they won't tune out.
Nearly without exception, commercial radio stations are formatted radio
stations, aiming to dispense a consistent sound day and night. They may
play classical music, rhythm-and-blues, jazz or so-called alternative
rock, but they play it nonstop. Although there are commercial stations
offering anything from Arabic programming to gospel, the greatest number
- more than 1500 in each category -- play rock, country or "adult
contemporary" (also known as "lite") music.
They announce what they're selling -- "Young country!" "No rap, no
metal!" "All the hits!" -- and they hire consultants and commission
research to make sure listeners get it. Gut reactions to music from disk
jockeys have been all but replaced by chart analyses and surveys.
There's some business logic behind such decisions. Most people don't
want to pay attention to the radio; they want a station to be
dependable. The block programming used by some public and collage>stations
-- four hours of classical music, say, followed by a political
discussion, followed by four hours of jazz -- does reach people who are
willing to think about the schedule. But it baffles casual listeners who
have grown used to thinking of call letters as brand names, who expect
the Top 40 on WHTZ (Z-100, at 100.3 in New York City) and Latin pop on
WSKQ (La Mega, at 97.9). Commercial stations pound home their identities
with their endlessly repeated slogans, partly in the hope that when a
ratings representative calls a listener, the listener will parrot the
slogan. The higher the rating, the more advertising revenue comes in.
On commercial radio, the days of the trusted disk jockey -- the Symphony
Sid or Wolfman Jack, the one whose enthusiasm made listeners pay
attention to something they hadn't heard before -- are just about over.
New York City has Vin Scelsa, still chasing down smart
singer-songwriters in his format-free refuge on WNEW (102.7); there are
also the disk jockeys, like Stretch Armstrong and D.J. Enuff, who take
over the turntables for hip-hop mix shows on weekend nights on Hot 97
WQHT (97.1). Most current disk jockeys don't expect to choose music;
their job is to disguise the mechanical nature of the format. As they
play a preordained list of hits, they try to add some personality to the
100th spin this week of a song in heavy rotation.
To choose those songs, focus groups sit in rooms or listeners answer
phone polls to rate current hits and potential new ones. Usually they
don't hear the whole song; they're responding to the 10-second "call-out
hook" that recording companies have conveniently begun adding to
promotional singles. No one has to take a chance on making an esthetic
decision; the numbers do it for them. And while research can gauge
people's reaction to the familiar, it won't ever tell a programmer to
take a chance.
The human attention span being what it is, radio stations have to
provide a certain amount of variety and a certain amount of novelty. And
since formats allow only a few songs to reach the airwaves, those songs
that do get played are soon played to death. That's O.K.: when research
reveals that one song is burned out, there are always more.
In their symbiotic relationship, recording companies and radio stations
reinforce each others' search for one-hit wonders, each new song working
minute variations on the formula for last week's hit. Formats are about
shutting out possibilities; listen to any commercial station long enough
and music starts to seem constricted and stale. Perhaps it's a law of
nature that niches keep growing narrower.
And then here come those upstart low-power stations, no longer staying
in their place on the bottom end of the FM band but scattered across it
like shanties among the skyscrapers. The necessary investment is modest:
hundreds of dollars (or a few thousand) rather than millions. And thus
the need to draw a mass listenership disappears; a radio station could be a
hobby or a subscription business or a public service.
The FM band in New York City is so crowded that low-power stations may
not get much of a chance here, but imagine the possibilities of
neighborhood radio from all the city's ethnic and cultural clusters.
There could be a record-collectors' station playing rarities all day
long; talk radio in Haitian Creole or Korean; a classical-guitar station
and one broadcasting Chinese operas; a station devoted to free
improvisation or an open-mike station for singer-songwriters and
comedians, 24 hours a day.
Big broadcasters, with some justification, see their exclusive territory
turning into something like cable television, which has caused network
television ratings to slide. It's not that any single cable channel has
drawn the mass television audience away; it's that all the possibilities
splinter an audience that once had less than a dozen choices. Radio
stations are already facing the beginnings of new competition from
Internet broadcasters, which range from out-of-town radio stations to
Internet services that allow people to choose their own formats.
But more people have radios than Internet hookups. With low-power
stations on the FM band, people casually twirling a knob might happen
onto some 20-watt outlet playing vintage rhythm-and-blues tunes and
forget about the pop Top 40; they might be able to find traffic and
weather information that's not riddled with commercials. They might be
seduced by a Brazilian pop song; they might tune in a ranting conspiracy
theorist instead of syndicated news. It would be a triumph of public
access -- closer, at best, to the Internet, with all its wacky and
diverse and unfiltered content, than to the limited zone of
public-access cable.
Simply allowing low-power stations to broadcast is the easy part of the
choice for the Federal Communications Commission. The hard part will be
making sure that low-power stations don't turn into smaller copies of
their high-powered neighbors.
When licenses become available, organized broadcast interests will
probably try to snap up as many as possible, both to provide programming
and to shut out the competition. Having seen the results of
concentration of ownership of big radio stations since 1996, the
commission would do well to find ways to keep low-power station licenses
out of corporate hands and out of the mass-audience sweepstakes.
Instead, it should keep low-power stations as down-home and diverse as
possible, close to the grass roots. That might mean assigning the
frequencies by examining programming ideas rather than simply auctioning
off licenses; it might also mean leasing the frequencies for a few years
and making the leases nonrenewable.
The commission could stipulate that license owners be local residents,
or set a ceiling on the revenue a low-power station can bring in. It
might require low-power stations to create their own programs instead of
relaying others'; a similar requirement, after all, spurred the
development of FM radio in the 1960's. The commission could also make
competing applicants share a low-power frequency, since none would have
to raise a huge financial stake.
And instead of seeing low-power stations as a threat, big broadcasters
could learn to treat them the way major recording companies treat
independent labels. As the major labels have been consolidated into ever
larger corporate monoliths -- lately through the merger of Polygram and
Universal -- the indies have become laboratories for new ideas, scouts
for new talent and outlets for specialized material that's not
profitable for bigger companies. If the big broadcasters are really
giving the people what they want, they have nothing to fear. And if
they're not -- well, let a thousand transmitters boom.
FCC's Low-Power FM Proposals Could Diversify Airwaves, But Existing
Broadcasters Worry About Interference
2)By Wendy Mitchell
The FCC's new proposed rules for licensing low-power FM radio
stations (see cover story in issue #605) could drastically change the
world of radio, both commercial and non-commercial. According to the FCC
and advocates of low-power radio, a number of parties could benefit from
the proposals. The listening public would benefit from more diversity on
the airwaves. High schools and colleges without stations, or with only
carrier current or cable broadcasts, could secure a spot on the FM dial
thanks to newly available space on the FM spectrum, relaxed guidelines
and lower start-up costs. Local governments could broadcast to the
public, churches could broadcast to their congregations and would-be
radio entrepreneurs could afford to break into commercial radio. Instead
of a radio industry dominated by the big players that have benefited
from the wave of consolidation that followed the Telecommunications
Reform Act of 1996, minority voices would enjoy a more equal share of
the airwaves.
For WSUM at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the proposals
could mean a chance to finally get on the air. The FCC granted WSUM a
broadcast license in October 1996, but due to FCC requirements about
avoiding interference with other stations' signals, WSUM would have had
to build a large tower in the neighboring town of Montrose, Wisconsin,
to meet regulations. Montrose residents have blocked the tower's
construction, so the station currently broadcasts only via the Internet.
If the FCC passes more relaxed rules, station General Manager Dave Black
says that WSUM could probably build a rooftop antenna on a campus
building, ending the feud over, and reducing the costs of, building a
larger tower.
In its Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC proposes three
classes of stations: 1,000 watts (covering a diameter of 18 miles), 100
watts (covering about 7 miles) and 1-10 watt "microradio" stations
(covering 2-4 miles). The FCC's current proposals say that the
1,000-watt stations may be viable only for commercial stations due to
higher operating costs. But the FCC is also asking for comment about
whether the LPFM stations should be strictly non-commercial.
As a former college radio DJ, a musician and a co-founder of the
now-defunct independent label Simple Machines, Jenny Toomey sees the FCC
proposals as a great opportunity for artists and mu
sic fans. Toomey
bemoans the lack of quality radio programming in her hometown of
Washington, DC. "I have ears and a mind, and I am bored stiff with what
passes as 'variety' on the radio dial," she says. Toomey has aided the
fight for low-power radio by joining the Low Power Radio Coalition, an
advocacy group.
Toomey speculates that starting a low-power station could cost
between $2,500 and $100,000, far below the six and seven-figures
currently needed to start most commercial FM stations.
The lower cost of entry could open the airwaves to more music
lovers, such as college radio veterans who want to continue their
careers in radio without working at major commercial stations.
For all its supporters, the LPFM plans have some powerful
opponents. The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents
more than 5,000 FM stations, has expressed concern that new LPFM
stations would impede the current transition to digital radio, and that
the new stations would also interfere with existing broadcast signals.
"Until we reach that point that we're transmitting digitally in radio,
there's no way we can support this," says John Earnhardt, the NAB's
Director of Media Relations. "At the end of the transition, it could be
a different story." During this transition, digital radio companies
propose to simulcast digital signals on the channels adjacent to a
station's analog signal (which would eventually be eliminated). But now
the new LPFM proposals could make the adjacent channels unavailable. In
addition, Earnhardt says, the NAB is concerned with "interference,
interference, interference...we want to make sure our signals aren't
infringed upon."
FCC Commissioner Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, the only one of five
commissioners who didn't support the LPFM proposal, echoed similar
thoughts in his dissenting opinion. Furchtgott-Roth said he was not
opposed to starting a LPFM service, but that he would not support
creating new stations at the expense of current interference protection
standards. "Under existing interference rules the Commission can
authorize so few new stations that the results would hardly warrant the
effort," he wrote.
Paul Gordan in the FCC's Policy And Rules Division declined to
even speculate about the possible number of stations that could be
created, saying that it would depend on "a whole lot of factors." In an
initial study, the FCC found that no matter what level of interference
protection the FCC adopts, there would be no spectrum space available
for new 1,000- or 100-watt stations in the New York City area. In Los
Angeles, using the most relaxed interference protection standards, there
would still only be enough air space for one 1,000-watt station and six
100-watt stations. Smaller towns fared better in the study. For example,
Richmond, Virginia (population 200,700), could have from 7 to 59
100-watt stations and from 3 to 18 1,000-watt stations.
Mike Bracy, Executive Director of the Low Power Radio Coalition,
says that he thinks that the NAB and the FCC can find an agreeable
solution. "We don't want to do anything that's going to mess up the
current FM band. We look forward to the NAB and the FCC's engineers
working
Low Power FM (continued from page 8)
>together to come up with a plan that maximizes the use of spectrum
without creating unacceptable interference."
The FCC will be accepting comments regarding the proposals
through April 12 (see the Web address below), and it will then accept
reply comments through May 12. Gordan predicts that the FCC won't make
its final ruling any earlier than late summer. "It's impossible to tell
when stations could be up-and-running," he says. If the proposal does
pass, the FCC is expecting a deluge of applications -- similar to the
tens of thousands of applications it received when it started low-power
television initiatives. "There is a lot of interest in this," Gordan
says. "We expect to get a lot of applications." The FCC said that it had
received about 13,000 inquiries in 1998 from individuals and groups
hoping to start LPFM stations. Under the proposed rules, the FCC plans
to adopt strict ownership restrictions for the LPFM stations. Existing
broadcasters may not be eligible to apply for LPFM licenses.
or More Information, visit:
The FCC's low-power FM page
www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm/
The Low Power Radio Coalition
www.lowpowerradio.org
The National Association Of Broadcasters www.nab.org
3
Of all the truisms in the rock world, few are more universally accepted
than "radio sucks"-just ask anybody waiting to hear their favorite
underground band, or their own underground band, on the airwaves. By now
the structure of commercial radio is so ingrained that one could never
imagine it being shaken up, unless something radical happened.
The news, however, is that something radical may be about to happen.
Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission broached the
possibility of low-power radio- meaning that it would grant licenses to
small commercial stations, ranging from 100 to 1000 watts; and allow
those stations to share airwaves with the multiwatt megaliths. The
content and quality of these stations would depend on their owners, but
it means that literally anything could happen, whether it's
non-formatted music radio or uncensored political content. At the very
least, it means that radio could now suck in all sorts of adventurous
ways-but it could also mean the return of radio with a truly local slant
>(it would have to, since FCC restrictions are for an 18-mile broadcast
>diameter). Particularly in cities that don't have Boston's college radio
>circuit-and don't even have locally programmed commercial stations-there
are now creative possibilities that didn't exist before.
DC musician Jenny Toomey is lately emerging as a low-power radio
activist. Having fought the good fight as the frontwoman of Tsunami, and
co-owner of the great pop label Simple Machines (which was quietly laid
to rest last year), Toomey well knows how lack of radio possibilities
can affect a label or band. "Running the label, I could see the moments
that we had radio play or large scale press, it would immediately have a
bump on record sales. But it became impossible to get the amount of
radio play that we needed to survive."
But her interest is as much as a fan as an artist. "I'm a little bit
self-interested, in that I would like to hear better music on the radio.
Washington, DC is a uniquely barren radio town-I'm not some famous
artist, but I've never heard myself on the radio in DC, and I've heard
myself in a lot of different cities. Maybe I've heard Fugazi here once."
One of the last blows for DC radio happened when Georgetown University,
which Toomey later attended, unloaded its station in the late '70s.
"Until then WGTB was a real radical, left-of-Communist station. And of
course it embarrassed the administration of the school, which is mostly
Jesuit Catholic; they didn't want to deal with things like
planned-parenthood ads. The president wound up selling the transmitter
for a dollar. Before that happened there was a benefit to save the
station, with the Cramps playing. And if you talk to any of the DC
scenesters, like the ones who started the Dischord label, that was their
first punk rock show."
Georgetown is now applying for a low-power license. And Toomey is
working to assemble a coalition of musicians and industry types to help
make the plan a reality; and is energized by a recent talk she had with
FCC chairman William Kennard. "He's the one who proposed giving the
Presidential candidates free airtime, which all the broadcasters hated.
And he's committed to bridging the technology gap. You can understand
why this is happening: There's a narrow number of licenses to be had; in
DC two recently sold for 11 and 13 million dollars. You've got
conglomerates buying several stations, programming from one site and
sending it via satellite feeds; with the content based on surveys and
polls. So there's no actual
pleasure involved."
If low-power radio becomes a reality, one of the first local results
would likely be a revival of Radio Free Allston, the pirate station that
was shut down last year. With its mix of indie rock, foreign-language
and public-affairs programming, the station was a rare example of true
community radio. "It was there to represent the community who are
underserved by radio-which is getting to be more and more of the
population," station founder Steve Provizer said last week. "Everyone's
>agreed that something will happen-the question is, will it be something
that really gives communities access? A thousand-watt station would be
financially out of the range of most grassroots organizations. So far
the FCC hasn't put a cap on national ownership of low-power stations,
and the key is to keep it local. But you're going to have a lot of
competition for the 100-watt frequencies." Still, he points out, Radio
Free Allston was able to operate with only 20 watts, and a
thousand-dollar investment.
The FCC proposal is still under debate; things will likely heat up as
big broadcasters get into the fray. But the floor is open,a nd a good
wrapup of the basics, with links to contact the FCC, can be found at
www.lowpowerradio.org. And Proviazer's group, the Citens Media Corps, is
holding a public forum tomorrow (the 19th) at Allston's Jackson-Mann
School at 7:30. "If this gets shut down, it could take another 20 years
to come up again," Toomey notes. Addsa Provizer, "What we're about is
making people understand that they have something to say in this
process. The systam actually does allow it."
4 Rep. Tells FCC to Shelve Radio Plan
By Jeannine Aversa
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, February 11, 1999; 5:35 p.m. EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A key telecommunications lawmaker urged federal
regulators Thursday to shelve plans for a new, very local radio service
that could be used by churches, students and community groups.
``I request that you take no further actions on this agenda,'' Rep.
Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Commerce telecommunications
subcommittee, said in a letter to FCC Chairman Bill Kennard.
Tauzin is worried that Federal Communications Commission proposals for a
low-power service would create interference to existing stations and
could cut into advertising for minority and other radio stations, said
spokesman Ken Johnson.
``The policy, political, economic and budgetary ramifications of this
undertaking are potentially staggering,'' Tauzin wrote. ``I do not
believe you should proceed with this matter'' without consulting with
Congress.
FCC Chairman Bill Kennard indicated he has no intention of abandoning
the proposals. ``The radio airwaves are big enough for all of us,''
>Kennard said. ``There is enough room for the voices of churches, schools
and neighborhood groups as well as established radio companies.''
The National Association of Broadcasters opposes the FCC's proposals,
offered last month, saying they would ``likely cause devastating
interference'' to existing radio stations.
``The NAB is just like a schoolyard bully: First time someone stands up
to them they go running for their older brother,'' said Andy
Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a group that
supports the new low-power radio service.
Tauzin, for the most part, has been a friend of the broadcasting
industry. If the FCC doesn't halt its plans and consult with Congress on
the matter, then Tauzin may ``intervene legislatively,'' Johnson said.
``There is widespread grass-roots support'' for the FCC's proposals,
contends Michael Bracy, head of the Low Power Radio Coalition.
In remarks to radio broadcasters Thursday, Tauzin expressed concern that
the new service could be used by racist groups. FCC officials have said
that the licensing process wouldn't automatically disqualify a person or
group based on their political views -- even if those views are white
supremacist, for example, or offensive in some other way.
To get a higher-power license, companies generally must show they want
to serve a particular area. They must also provide information about any
past criminal record. The FCC has proposed having new low power stations
meet the same standards.
Tauzin also believes the FCC is overstepping its legal authority by
advancing the proposals, Johnson said. But FCC officials said the
commission clearly has authority to act in this area.
The commission's proposals would create thousands of licensed low-tech
FM radio stations from 1 watt to 1,000 watts. That would reverse a
roughly 20-year-old ban against such licenses.
The FCC's action also responds to consolidation in the radio industry,
which has made it increasingly difficult for minorities and community
groups to make their voices heard.
separately, Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, said he was ``troubled'' that
>the FCC paid an advocacy group, the Civil Rights Forum on Communications
>Policy, to conduct a study on advertising practices.
The study, released last month, said that advertisers often bypass or
pay less money to minority-owned radio stations geared to black or
Hispanic listeners.
Oxley, in a letter to Kennard, questioned whether it was appropriate for
the FCC to use the group and whether government contracting regulations
were followed.
5) Watt Up?
A proposal for new FM `micro' stations faces opposition from
Billy Tauzin and the National Association of Broadcasters.
By Scott Jordan
Is commercial radio the dinosaur of the information age?
With the Internet, cable television, CD-Roms, MP-3 players
and countless other technologies opening up new worlds of
information and entertainment daily, the FM radio band's
homogenized landscape can engender a depressing sense of
deja vu. In today's age of corporate media mergers,
companies are gobbling up radio stations, strictly
formatting music playlists, trumpeting tried and tired
slogans like "More Music, Less Talk" and "Today's Best
Country," beaming the same jingles via satellite to stations
across the country, and offering advertising discounts for
multiple-station buys. In the New Orleans market alone,
KKND, WYLD FM and AM, WQUE, WODT and WNOE are all owned by
the same Clear Channel Communications.
All this makes it more likely that the same commercials will
be repeated with numbing frequency of the latest hit single
-- chosen, of course, by a focus group, not a disc jockey.
But if the Federal Communications Commission has its way,
radio enthusiasts could have a whole new slew of listening
options. On Jan. 28, the FCC issued a proposal to open up
the FM band for "microradio," a new wave of low-power FM
(LPFM) radio stations intended for independent broadcasters
and community-service entities. The plan proposes licensing
new 1,000-watt and 100-watt LPFM stations, allowing each one
to reach an 18-mile radius.
Consider the possibilities of scanning a dial including
microradio: local poets, authors and singer/songwriters on a
24-hour open-mic station; an all-inclusive foreign language
venue serving New Orleans' multicultural community; and
wide-open educational programming on any conceivable
subject. Call it democracy on the airwaves.
The FCC currently is in a period of comment on the
microradio proposals, and is soliciting responses by April
12. The FCC will reply by May 12, and will have three
options: it may adopt a rule or rules (i.e., grant
licenses), issue a notice of further proposed rulemaking, or
deny issuing any new licenses.
Grass-roots organizations are giving the FCC considerable
support, but it faces considerable opposition from two
formidable opponents: Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin and
the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), a
considerable lobbying force.
The first salvo in the battle for expanded broadcasting
opportunities was fired by FCC Chairman William Kennard. In
a joint statement with FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani that
read somewhat like a manifesto, Kennard presented the new
world of micro-radio:
"As consolidation in the broadcast industry closes the doors
of opportunity for new entrants, we must find ways to use
the broadcast spectrum more efficiently so that we can bring
more voices to the airwaves. ... [We] cannot deny
opportunities to those who want to use the airwaves to speak
to their communities simply because it might be inconvenient
for those who already have these opportunities. In the past,
the Commission has faced incumbents raising obstacles that
might impede the development of new technology. We saw this
with the development of cable television service, low power
television, direct broadcast satellites, and the digital
audio radio service. In each instance, the Commission was
able to overcome these obstacles and bring these new
technologies to the American people, and in every case, the
American people have benefited from new services and
competition while the incumbent industry has continued to
prosper."
It took just over a week for Congressman Tauzin (who is
chairman of the Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer
Protection Committee) to take action via a letter to
Kennard. "I request that you take no further actions on this
agenda," he wrote. "The policy, political, economic and
budgetary ramifications of this undertaking are potentially
staggering." Tauzin also has threatened legislative
intervention if Congress is not consulted on the plan.
"There's been a 20-year prohibition on granting new licenses
and to reverse that is a huge policy decision," explains
Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson, speaking by phone from
Tauzin's Washington, D.C. office. "There are too many
unanswered questions for the FCC to proceed now. Will these
licenses be for commercial or non-commercial stations?
For-profit or non-profit stations? Will they meet public
service requirements? There are technical hurdles to be
overcome as well. We've gotten reports that technical
interference can run as much as 60 percent on the FM band,
with stations bleeding into each other. There's transistor
and tower [broadcasting] issues as well... . Would the
country be better served with more voices? Probably. But we
need to think this out carefully before we act on it."
In the rhetoric battle, both sides are bringing out the
heavy artillery. The possible interference of LPFM signals
with current operating stations is a crucial point of
contention; the FCC maintains that minimum distance
separations will make the issue moot, while Tauzin -- and
the NAB -- claim the new stations could wreak havoc with
existing signals.
Local broadcasting impresario Jerry Brock, who cofounded
WWOZ radio in 1980 (and is currently the co-owner of local
record store The Louisiana Music Factory), recognizes the
concern, but doesn't see the threat to commercial stations
with the proper safeguards in place. "Any existing station,
regardless of its power, has to be concerned with
interference," he says. "But as long as the laws are clear
for people not to interfere, it allows more ability to
people to have access for radio broadcasting."
Brock argues that microradio can have educational benefits,
and he's joined by The Low Power Radio Coalition, a
citizen's advocacy group that petitioned the FCC to pursue
microradio opportunities. To that end, the organization has
formed a college radio task force. The reaction has been
uniformly positive. "Under the current rules, there is no
way we could even consider pursuing a FM license for our
station," says Debra Carpenter, dean of the School of
Communications at St. Louis' Webster University. "If we were
able to broadcast a low-power signal, we could really
increase our station's visibility, benefiting students,
alumni, faculty, and families and business located near our
campus. We will take a hard look at low power FM."
With that kind of photo-op-ready sentiment taking root,
Tauzin may have a public relations nightmare on his hands in
the coming months. But if Tauzin is weighing in on the side
of caution before action, the National Association of
Broadcasters is moving quickly to throw up roadblocks. In
its executive summary of comments on the proposal, the NAB
wrote, "... the NAB believes that any petition requesting a
rulemaking proceeding to establish a `microradio,' low power
radio or event broadcasting service must be denied."
The NAB attacks the FCC's proposal in a 14-point response,
but the NAB position that "current radio broadcast services
serve virtually every need" rings particularly hollow. Who,
one might ask, is serving the Cuban immigrant longing for
the indigenous music of his homeland? What radio station
currently runs 24-hour health programming related to its
local community? Why does a young rock band have a
one-in-a-million shot of getting radio airplay? The NAB can
argue that existing community stations can achieve those
kinds of goals, but the sad truth is that even public radio
stations on the FM band operate under format and financial
constraints. Any New Orleans listener who's heard WWOZ, WWNO
or WGBH's regular fund drives knows that limited resources
limit programming.
The NAB's monopoly on the FM band and its anti-microradio
stance, and Tauzin's current position, hasn't fazed Kennard.
"There is enough room for the voices of churches, schools
and neighborhood groups as well as established radio
companies," Kennard said in a statement. "I'm sure that
Chairman Tauzin does not want to limit Americans' choices to
whom or what they can hear on the radio. I hope that when he
speaks with the church and community leaders who I have
spoken with, he will see the benefits of low-power FM."
To comment on microradio to the FCC, visit the
organization's Web site at fcc.gov before April 12. For
further information on low power radio, the Web site
www.lowpowerradio.org is providing regular updates on the
issue.
6)
Sound Check
· Vol 20 · Issue 952 · 3/3/99
Fight the Power
by Peter S. Scholtes · image by Christopher Henderson
Related Internet Links
A new FCC proposal creates high hopes for local low-watt
radio
Since the Federal Communications Commission's 1978 decision
to stop licensing stations below 100 watts, small
independent broadcasters have faced a tough choice: Use
listener-free cable-radio (and, lately, the Web) or go
pirate and risk a legal confrontation with the FCC. That
situation may change in the wake of the Commission's January
28 proposal to open the commercial bandwidth to FM stations
unable to broadcast at 6,000 watts. It's a groundbreaking
policy shift for the FCC, which busts an average of two
pirates a week, judging from reports on its Web site
(www.fcc.gov). And it comes at a time when the climate of
broadcast radio couldn't be more hostile to the democratic
ideals touted by its founders.
Within weeks of the announcement, a new national group
calling itself the Low Power Radio Coalition rounded up a
diverse array of representatives hoping to start stations,
from traffic cops to high school teachers. Two weeks ago the
group met at the University of Maryland in College Park with
volunteers from six college radio stations to discuss issues
surrounding the announcement. "I never thought I'd be allied
with the FCC on anything," says spokesperson Jenny Toomey,
former singer-guitarist in the indie-pop band Tsunami and
co-founder of the now-defunct Arlington, Virginia-based
indie label Simple Machines.
Toomey has spent the past few weeks recruiting other
indie-rock luminaries--Steve Albini of Shellac, Ian MacKaye
of Fugazi, rock journalist and Patti Smith guitarist Lenny
Kaye--to speak out on the topic of corporate radio's
exclusionist attitude toward independent music. She predicts
the proposed measure would bring the cost of a starting a
radio station to as low as $2,500 for, say, 40 watts--this
compared with the tens of millions usually shelled out for
high-powered stations. "This finally addresses the imbalance
of rich and poor that makes radio safe-sounding and dull,"
Toomey says.
Predictably, the industry's response has been just as swift.
Spokespersons for the National Association of Broadcasters
warned of increased signal interference from small stations,
a line echoed by U.S. Representative Billy Tauzin of
Louisiana, who condemned the FCC as "an agency out of
control." Speaking last month before an audience of top
radio executives, he proposed that the commission be
restructured and argued that current radio and television
stations are adequate but underused. By way of illustration,
he offered Barney, which he claimed airs 15 times a day in
some public television markets.
"If that's true, it's because public television is
underfunded," argues Jeremy Wilker, co-founder of the Twin
Cities-based Americans for Radio Diversity. "And what is
commercial radio doing but playing Jewel 15 times a day?"
Wilker blames the deregulatory Telecommunications Act of
1996 for the wave of station buyouts by conglomerates and
Radioland's resultant blandness. "You can drive around the
country, and the only differences in the radio stations from
state to state are the call letters," he says. In the Twin
Cities, three corporations own 16 radio stations.
Wilker and other boosters of microbroadcasting speculate
that the NAB sees low-watt radio the way network television
saw cable a decade ago. "It wasn't that individual cable
stations were taking away that many viewers," he says. "But
the overall effect was to make the networks less relevant.
That's what could happen to the radio chains, eventually."
But why, then, has the FCC changed its tune? This is, after
all, an agency that has vigorously enforced laws
safeguarding big media from competition in a tacit alliance
with radio chains going back to the '30s, when RCA began
hiring high-level employees right out of the FCC's ranks.
Even given that history, the Telecommunications Act made a
mockery of the agency's nominal mandate to uphold the public
interest. The commission's previous chairman, Reed Hundt,
was a vocal critic of the Telecom Act, and he seems to have
passed that agenda on to his protégé-successor, William
Kennard, the first African American to head the FCC. Kennard
has served his entire term in a post-Telecom era in which
the number of minority-owned stations has plummeted. His
recent nod to low-power radio may stem in part from his
public commitment to addressing racial discrimination in the
media.
"This proposal will help minority stations overall," says
Pete Rhodes, co-owner of WRNB, a Minneapolis-based cable and
Web radio station that specializes in black pop. "Right now,
there are no Hmong stations, no Hispanic stations. They may
get time on public radio, but with a low-power station,
those kind of programs could go full-time." According to the
FCC's Web site, the agency received 13,000 inquiries about
licensing low-power stations last year. And hundreds of
stations, like WRNB, operate exclusively over cable or the
Internet. Many of these could afford the relatively small
cost of broadcasting on a low-watt FM signal.
In fact, local activists estimate that between nine and 16
new stations could be added to the dial in the Twin Cities,
where traffic is a trickle compared to the crowded radioways
of New York and Los Angeles. Perhaps the best model of how
these stations might work is Beat Radio, one of many
low-power operations to air illegally in recent years. The
Beat (97.7 FM) began broadcasting at 40 watts in July of
1996, sporting a dance-music format that immediately found
favor with local clubgoers. In November of the same year,
the FCC raided Beat Radio's offices (actually, an apartment)
and confiscated its equipment, and the station has been in a
federal court battle with the commission ever since.
"We're encouraged that they took this measure," says Beat
owner Alan Freed of the FCC announcement. But he still
expresses reservations, pointing out a proposed rule that
would disqualify any unlicensed station the agency acted to
silence from applying for new FCC services. In other words,
it amounts to punishment for civil disobedience--vindicated
civil disobedience at that. "We've been advocating this kind
of reform for two-and-a-half years, and so have many other
stations that the FCC has shut down," says Freed. "One of
the reasons that the commission has changed its mind is that
those stations took a stand. They're just now recognizing
that there's room on the dial."
To read and comment on the FCC's proposal before a final
decision is made, go to www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm on the Web.
The agency will be taking comments until April 12. Beat
Radio will present "Beatification," an 18-and-over dance
night featuring eight DJs, on Wednesday, March 3 at First
Avenue; (612) 338-8388.
