Mike Steindel (CLaw7MAn@webtv.net)
Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:30:16 -0800 (PST)

Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable

Hi there did you happen to see this....I sure hope this all
happens...Have a Good one.....mike

Dear Readers, 
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 Believe it or not, Radio World Magazine has
decided to print an editorial endorsing low power broadcasting. Here it
is, the whole thing, taken from the March 3, 1999 edition... 

Proposals to create a new batch of low power FM stations have produced
an immediate rash of broadcaster criticism aimed at the FCC, and
specifically at Chairman Bill Kennard, who seems determined to push the
idea through. We don't agree with this knee-jerk reaction to LPFM. There
is much to like in the idea. 

The federal government long ago took upon itself the task of regulating
who can use this part of the spectrum. As long as that remains true, it
should also be the task of the FCC to allow the greatest number of
users, and the greatest diversity of voices, consistent with technical
quality. Consider the "traffic cop" argument, one that broadcasters
themselves bring up quickly whenever the FCC proposes to regulate them
in some new way: "The FCC should simply be a traffic cop," this argument
states, "keeping traffic moving safely and smoothly on the spectrum." We
agree. And a traffic cop is not supposed to prevent new traffic from
coming onto the road. Some broadcast supporters, including friends of
the NAB on Capitol hill, argue that new competition will damage the
economic prospects of licenseholders. Indeed it could, if existing
stations don't serve their audiences well. 

But it's not the job of congress to protect the economic interests of a
certain group of existing broadcasters. The spectrum belongs to the
public, and we sometimes forget that. Competition is healthy. If new
stations can do the job better than existing ones, let 'em rip. A new
group of stations will benefit communities, schools and other groups who
can create voices of their own on the band. It will be good for radio
employees, who can hope for more job opportunities, rather than fewer.
It will be good for suppliers, who will have more customers to serve. A
robust supplier marketplace benefits all radio buyers. 

Most important, new stations will serve listeners better. We in the
radio industry have succeeded, if that is the correct word, in wringing
a tremendous amount of profit out of a limited, government-protected
slice of the spectrum. Ad sales are at record levels. 

But dissatisfaction with our product also is increasing. Formulaic
programs with sound-alike liners make it easier for the listener to push
radio into the background of their lives. New media hunger for our
listeners. Unlicensed operators spring up, outside of the realm of
regulation or control of interference. Legitimate questions exist about
how low-power radio will affect interference protection and the future
of digital radio. the FCC must address them. But if a technical solution
can be found that allows low-power radio stations to bloom, the
commission should pursue it. -RW 

Grassroots News Network
Pueblos Unidos
2211 Hidalgo St
Austin, Texas

Grassroots News Network
Grassroots Film & Video Festival
Grassroots Media Links Page 

Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Forum: www.libertyjournal.com/liberty_forums/index.cfm?cfapp=10"