Being KIND

This letter was posted to the editor of NewsStreamz.com in San Marcos, Texas by Joe Ptak, one of the founders of KIND Radio, on July 24, 2008

Dear Editor, I would like to correct the record concerning the recent news release about the City of San Marcos’ new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Low Power FM (LPFM) Radio Permit and give y’all a little bit of history on the issue as well as make a suggestion on the matter.

The first thing I need to correct was San Marcos Spokesman Ken Bell saying that there is no commercial radio station in San Marcos. I can understand his ignorance because the San Marcos FCC Commercial Radio Permit is held by 103.5 BOB-FM and Bob is an absentee landlord who talks at our community not with us. Unfortunately, Bob is more concerned with his image and Austin advertising dollars rather than the state of the San Marcos River.

That is one of the reasons that in March, 1997, the Hays County Guardian reclaimed the LPFM airwaves for the benefit of the citizens of San Marcos and ran a non-commercial, bilingual, public access community radio station relying on donations and volunteers to broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with a new show starting every two hours for 3 1/2 years.

The mission of Kind Radio was to defend the liberty of San Marcos residents by providing local community access to speech about matters of the highest public concern, political and economic reform, cultural and historical perspectives and information about local and international environmental issues.

The second correction I need to make is the City’s claim to have applied for the permit in 1999. That would have been impossible because the FCC only accepted LPFM applications from Texas between June 11-15, 2001. During that week the City was joined by the Hays County Guardian, Earth First! Texas State (SWT at the time) Federation, Nosotros La Gente, Dave Newman, and a kid from Wimberley who’s name I can’t remember right now in filing applications seeking the San Marcos LPFM permit.

I found it ironic that Mr. Bell came up with the bright idea of an emergency radio station during the 1998 flood because for thousands of San Marcians that flood crystallized the arguments in favor of LPFM.

I would also like to note for Mr. Bell that even though no radio station with commercials like KTSW and BOB-FM helped out in the flood, there was fortunately non-commercial Kind Radio operating to provide a lifeline to those stranded and a way for families to account for each other. For hour after hour citizens called Kind Radio through the night and days that followed to share information regarding the conditions in their area, alert emergency personnel to people who needed to be rescued, report road and school closings, shelter locations, phone numbers for emergency and disaster relief agencies, and to share the tale of the “floating pumpkins.”

That San Marcians were able to share a little bit of comical relief even in the most distressing of times showed the true heart and character of our community.

The reason Kind was so effective during the flood was because the community had become accustomed to tuning in regularly to find out what was going on that day socially, culturally and politically, so for many San Marcians when the flood hit and they turned on the radio, Kind Radio was already tuned in.

Kind Radio allowed our community to talk to each other during good times as well as bad and allowed the diverse segments of our community to share their experiences and argue over their differences of opinion in an open forum without time constraints. We were also blessed to be exposed to the immense wealth of talent which resides in our neighbors and we all take for granted.

From live musical performances by Blue October, Shelly King and Ray Wiley Hubbard to Heads Up! news alerts, ravings from “the Rock” with Pappy, children’s tales of Bones, rhyming and Rolling with Dough, amazing prophesies of Captain Conspiracy, cautionary tales of Ripple and Colonel Forbin, acerbic ranting of the Village Idiot, musica exotica del mundo, even the expletive deleted on Jodi’s World, I could go on and on to most importantly live open phone interviews with candidates for public office, Kind Radio expressed the passions of our community without commercial interruption.

Can anyone who heard it live forget the “Greatest Mayoral Debate of the 20th Century”?

I believe that the thousands of people who fought for the right to broadcast on LPFM in San Marcos should be respected and represented.

I request that the City set up a Radio Board to coordinate public access programming. The Board should consist of one representative from each group which competed with the City for the LPFM permit, the Hays County Guardian, Nosotros La Gente, Earth First! Texas State Federation and Dave Newman and one member appointed by the Mayor and each City Councilman. If that kid from Wimberley is still around and interested he should get a seat on the Board too.

While the City decides the type of radio station San Marcians will have , please don’t be like Bob. Be Kind.
Yours in Free Speech,

Joe Ptak

NOW I'M PISSED OFF AT THE FUCKING FCC EVEN MORE

This email was recently received.  The senders name was removed by request:

When I sat down at my computer a few minutes ago, I was looking for an FM
Radio transmitter that would satisfy a yearning to hear my music whilst I
mowed my 2-acre lawn.  Since I visited your website, It has turned into a
very emotional “NOW I’M PISSED OFF AT THE FUCKING FCC EVEN MORE” attitude.
NOW I want 500 watts, and fuck the license. 

Let me tell you why it’s odd.

I spent almost half my life in the Air Force, taking orders, giving
orders, but specifically OBEYING orders.  I felt that this was best for my
country.  Now I am A TELEVISION ENGINEER.  Since I got this job, I thought
that the FCC was NOT quite all there.  i.e a few cards short of a deck.
With the Digital transition, I believe even more that they are raging dolts.
They just refuse to think things out before making decisions.  They have not
addressed LPTV or Translator stations AT ALL, and refuse to comment when
asked.  This really pisses me off, as I personally assume responsibility for
one translator, and the community it serves. 

Now do you think it’s odd that a law abiding television engineer would be so
mad at the organization that keeps him employed?

So you’ll know for future reference, I’m on your side.  I will always be a
supporter of free speech, provided it does not interfere with someone else’s
freedom, even if they have lots of money and own many radio or television
stations.  That’s the beauty of the whole idea.  If nobody gets stepped on,
then nobody complains.  Or at least they shouldn’t have the right to
complain.

For the record: I still intend to obey the FCC’s regulations with my
television station, even if I think they’re stupid.  I will do this because
I’m not the only employee.  My translator will continue on transmitting on
Channel Eleven with a Digital to Analog adapter on it’s input.  I will not
let the people of the community it serves down.  They cannot see our digital
or analog transmitter as they are in a deep valley, and the translator is
their only connection to the rest of the state.

Thank you for being there today, and I extend my best wishes that you
continue.  Right now I’m going to continue looking for an FM transmitter,
but my requirements have now changed.  I WAS looking for a small 1/4 watt
Stereo unit.  Now I want at least 2 watts.

NPR's war on Low Power FM: the laws of physics vs. politics

NPR’s war on Low Power FM: the laws of physics vs. politics

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080427-nprs-war-on-low-power-fm-the-laws-of-physics-vs-politics.html

By Matthew Lasar
Published: April 27, 2008 

National Public Radio continues to move aggressively against Federal Communications Commission proposals that would, if not allow nonprofits to build more Low Power FM stations (LPFM), at least let existing ones survive the intrusion of new full power neighbors. NPR is quite plain about the matter in its FCC filings: it stands opposed to the Low Power exceptions, even though they might help keep FM offerings diverse. NPR charges that the FCC is putting feel-good policies ahead of the laws of physics.

“The laws of physics have not changed, and a system of full power broadcast stations serves many more listeners with less interference compared to low power broadcasting,” NPR told the FCC this month. “While LPFM stations may advance the interests of localism and diversity, the Commission cannot assume that LPFM is inherently better than full power service.”

NPR opposes proposals to strengthen rules allowing LPFMs to obtain channel interference waivers when an “encroaching” full power station arrives on the scene. And the broadcaster decidedly dislikes measures that would require new full power signals to offer technical and even financial help to an LPFM that they’ve suddenly squatted on (or squatted next to).

This is a serious issue, because over the last decade the NPR service has expanded from 635 to 800 affiliated stations. Public radio’s stance on this puts it at odds with practically every media reform group in the country. But first, let’s recap the history of this bitter struggle, which goes back almost a decade.

A victory deferred

After years of highly-publicized battles between pirate radio stations and the FCC, agency Chair William Kennard’s Commission in 2000 set up some rules to establish two classes of LFPMs: an LP100 class with a maximum of 100 watts of power and an LP10 class with a limit of ten watts. License applicants for this new service had to honor various limits: nonprofit status and a “second adjacent” rule which meant that an LPFM could not set itself up within two channel notches of a full power station.

The FCC established that restraint in defiance of National Public Radio and the National Association of Broadcasters. Both entities demanded that a three notch No Man’s Land be thrown up around a full power signal. NPR pursued this goal with particular vigor, going so far as to suggest that the FCC disregarded laboratory tests that showed that LPFM stations without third adjacent restrictions would interfere with its member stations. Nonetheless, the agency stood these accusations down. It concluded that “imposition of a third-adjacent channel separation requirement would restrict unnecessarily the number of LPFM stations that could be authorized.”

So the big guys raised hell and asked Congress to stomp the FCC’s 2000 Order. Capitol Hill complied with a rider to a District of Columbia appropriations bill that instructed the FCC to put that third adjacent rule in there, despite the FCC’s own conclusions.

This was a big setback for LPFM, because it meant that significantly fewer such stations could be licensed in more densely-populated areas. As the FCC later conceded, various “otherwise technically grantable applications” became “short spaced,” prompting “the eventual dismissal of those applications.” The agency subsequently canceled 17 licenses and almost 100 construction permits “for failure of the holder to satisfy certain procedural and/or technical requirements.”

The DC Congressional rider did contain one silver lining. It authorized the FCC to commission an engineering study on the third adjacent problem, which the government did. The wheels of agency process moved slowly, but they moved. A little over two years later the Mitre Corporation submitted a report on the second/third adjacent problem, from which the FCC once again drew the conclusion that the third adjacent rule was not necessary.

Then, on December 11th of last year, the FCC enacted an Order and Proposed Rulemaking asking Congress to permit it to re-establish that second adjacent guideline. Mike Doyle (D-PA) in the House has sponsored such a bill, as has Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in the Senate.

While we wait for Congress …

The Commission’s December 11th Order also asked for comment on other proposals to help keep afloat the estimated 809 LPFMs broadcasting in the United States. These include more firmly establishing procedures for second adjacent waivers. At present, if a new full power station shows up too close to an LPFM, agency practice has been to consider a waiver if the smaller signal suddenly finds itself afoul of the second adjacent limit. The FCC now wants to turn that occasional practice into a rule, but it also wants guidance on under what circumstances it should grant such leeway. And the Commission wants public wisdom on whether its waiver procedures should be expanded to first and even co-adjacent situations.

Second (and NPR truly hates this idea), the FCC wants to know if the “encroaching” full-service station should be required to offer technical assistance and even financial help to an LPFM that can demonstrate full power interference. This might include paying for filtering technology and other interference aides. And the agency thinks that a full power station should give an LPFM advance notice if the former anticipates interference with the latter.

“It should also be required to cooperate in good faith with the LPFM station in developing the best technical approach,” the Commission contends, “including a possible LPFM site relocation, to ameliorate the interference and/or displacement impact of its proposal.” In addition, the FCC proposes to raise standards for the kinds of LPFMs that get this sort of help, and seems to be leaning towards codifying these new policies only for stations that provide eight hours of local programming on a daily basis.

Finally, the FCC proposes to use contouring methodology to license new LPFM stations. Contour measurement is a more flexible way of assessing the possible interference of a broadcast signal. It takes into account mountainous and watery areas, therefore offering station applicants a wider range of “new licensing opportunities,” as the FCC puts it.

Defense and offense

On April 7th, a medium-sized platoon of public interest groups and radio stations filed a 23-page statement on behalf of these proposals. They included the usual suspects: Prometheus Radio, Free Press, Benton, Future of Music, and Reclaim the Media, plus quite a few parties you don’t come across very often, such as the Forest Hills School District of Cincinnati, Ohio. These 46 groups enthusiastically endorsed the FCC’s suggestions.

“Low power radio stations are governed and operated by community based organizations with limited resources,” they wrote. “It is only fair, then, that full-power stations that choose to move into the low power radio’s community must provide technical and financial assistance to assist the low power station in resolving interference or in its move to a new channel.”

In addition, the filing took on the delicate issue of FM translators, which NPR affiliated stations rely on heavily to expand their audience reach. Prometheus wants to limit the number of translators. No entity, Prometheus et al says , should be able to own more than ten translators in the biggest 303 Arbitron measured markets “on a basis that is primary to an LPFM station that pledges to provide local originated programming.” In addition, LPFMs should not be able to convert to translators.

Needless to say, NPR sees these matters very differently, and was not afraid to be blunt about its perspective in its filing, submitted the same day as Prometheus. When Congress created the Low Power FM service, NPR’s comment argues, it intended these stations to broadcast “where full power stations could not.” Thus the Commission should understand LPFM stations as “secondary to full power stations,” NPR writes.

From this point of departure, practically everything that the FCC recommended in its December 2007 Order becomes illegitimate in NPR’s eyes, ignoring “longstanding policy determination that full power service is the most efficient use of broadcast spectrum.” If an LPFM wants a second adjacent waiver, it must first “resolve all actual interference complaints,” NPR insists, and prove that “other factors” have not caused the problem. But it should get no help from the encroaching full power station in question: “The Commission has no place demanding that one NCE [Non-Commercial Educational] station reallocate its scarce resources to another, unrelated one, no matter how deserving the Commission believes the latter to be.”

And as for notifying an LPFM of impending signal interference, NPR says that’s not an All Things Considered broadcasters’ job. “If the Commission perceives a special need to alert LPFM stations to potentially significant Commission actions or provide other accommodation, the Commission itself should take on those tasks.” In a more recent filing, submitted to the FCC on April 21st, NPR also opposed the ten translator limit.

In a sense, NPR has traveled full circle on this matter. In 2000 it protested imagined signal interference from LPFMs. Now it insists that real interference from its affiliates’ signals should be someone else’s problem.

In its FCC comments, National Public Radio claims that it “continues to support the LPFM service and the Commission’s efforts to ensure that it remain true to its original ideal.” But a detailed examination of public radio’s stance on LPFM will lead some to a different impression. “To the extent the Commission is motivated by the desire to prevent the loss of LPFM stations,” NPR writes in the same statement, “we also regret the community’s loss of a valued public service, but risk is inherent in the secondary nature of the LPFM service.”

Perhaps, then, NPR sees LPFM as a lesser species that, with time, will be driven to deserved extinction. That is, if the Federal Communications Commission does not enact rules that thwart the survival of the fittest.

Further reading:

Prometheus et al’s FCC April filing
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519871520
National Public Radio’s April filing
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519871369

.

Mumbai: Community radio for slum residents

Mumbai: Community radio for slum residents

Shai Venkatraman
Wednesday, August 27, 2008, (Mumbai)
Two girls in Mumbai are leading students and residents of slums to host
shows on a radio station started by the Mumbai University.
The girls are spearheading a change through community radio.
Born in a Mumbai slum, 17-year-old Gautami Chawre, a factory worker, has
never been to school. Now her radio shows on MUST Radio have made her the
talk of her neighbourhood.

“I never thought that I could become a radio jockey. I used to listen to
other RJs and wonder if I could do this. Now I know I can. In my workplace
everyone used to stay I speak too loudly. Now they tell me at least you are
putting your voice to good use,” said Gautami.

Another girl Shenaz Shaikh is also learning to be a radio jockey.
It is an initiative by the Mumbai University community radio station, MUST
Radio to bring about a change in local slum communities by talking about
issues like health, hygiene and education.

“We decided to choose people from the slum community itself and train them
to be radio jockeys. It is a big USP because people will listen to someone
their own kith and kin. They think it is from their own basti,” said Pankaj
Athavale, consultant, MUST Radio.

“People from my neighbourhood come up to me and ask me to talk about certain
things or recite poems on air,” said Shenaz.
From school textbook lessons to vegetable prices, job opportunities for
daily wage labourers, the radio show has something for everyone. No wonder
it has got people talking.

“I never thought she could go this far that people would be talking about
her. I am really very happy,” said Gautami’s mother Lata Chawre.
“It will be good if others take to it also. Especially girls because it is
important they do well,” said a local resident.
Like Gautami, many of the residents of the slum colony have never been to
school. However, the community radio station has opened up a whole new world
for them, where they too have a chance to be heard.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080063155&ch=8/27/2008%208:27:00%20PM

NAB: the lobby that cried wolf

NAB: the lobby that cried wolf

http://reclaimthemedia.org/broadband_cable/nab_the_lobby_that_cried_wolf=6276

Submitted by jonathan
Wed, 2008-10-29 

by Michael Calabrese, New America Foundation

Over the past week, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has bombarded Congress with a flurry of doomsday pronouncements, claiming broadcast television is under attack by the FCC and advocates seeking to open unused TV channels (TV white spaces) for wireless broadband and mobile Wi-Fi devices.

If all of this sounds a bit familiar, that’s because broadcasters always scream “interference!” when faced with any new competition or use of the empty TV band spectrum they are hoarding. In 1974 broadcaster’s tried to kill off a nascent TV service called cable television, claiming it would destroy “free” TV. And in 1998, when the FCC wanted to open up the FM band to low-power community radio stations, the claim was intolerable “interference” (later proved false). In 2001, when the first DVRs came out — and now again in 2008, with TV white spaces — broadcasters are predicting the imminent destruction of broadcast television.

The unfortunate reality is that NAB lobbyists will say just about anything to maintain their exclusive grip on the broadcast spectrum. As former New York Times reporter and author, Joel Brinkley, observed: “Above all else, [broadcasters hold] sacred the eleventh commandment: Thou Shalt Not Give Up Spectrum.”

In “The Lobby that Cried Wolf,” the New America Foundation provides a glimpse of broadcasters’ lobbying path of deception, highlighting the repeated NAB campaigns to keep others out of their spectrum and providing parallels with the current campaign against white space devices.

For the past 50 years, broadcasters and their respective lobbies have relied upon a broken record of scare tactics, gross exaggerations and underhanded attacks to oppose some of the most important communication advances of the 20th and 21st centuries including cable TV, the VCR, the DVR, FM radio, satellite television and radio, and even cellular phones.

In 2000, the FCC approved low-power FM community radio stations to operate on the third-adjacent channel after thoroughly examining interference issues. In response, the NAB told Congress “this is a prescription for chaos on the airwaves” and flooded the Hill with copies of an infamous audio disc that simulated the supposed interference from low-power stations. Three years later, an independent study for the FCC by Mitre Corp., a military contractor, found no significant interference issues with the FCC’s proposed LPFM service.

The NAB predicted similar interference nightmares in regards to low-power television stations and wireless microphones. Yet, today there are more than 836 low-power FM stations, 2,900 low-power TV stations and more than 400,000 wireless microphones operating throughout the TV band on an unlicensed basis. Despite the NAB’s pronouncements, neither chaos nor harmful interference ensued.

Download a copy of the paper here.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/lobby_cried_wolf

Permissible Viewpoints

“As a nation, we are resolute in our refusal to identify the true nature of our actions, and in our refusal to acknowledge the consequences of what we do. This may well be true of most nations throughout history. Yet there is a direct correlation between a nation’s power and influence, and its reliance on myth and other public relations ploys. As the world’s sole superpower, the United States via its ruling class saturates its subjects at home and abroad with propaganda on a scale and with an intensity that have rarely been surpassed. As is true of all propaganda, permissible viewpoints are confined within suffocatingly constricted boundaries of thought; variation of any moment from the prescribed guidelines is prohibited.”

Arthur Silber - “Regrettable Misjudgments”: The Shocking Immorality of Our Constricted Thought

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/11/regrettable-misjudgments-shocking.html

Arrrrrrrr you ready for some pirate radio?

Arrrrrrrr you ready for some pirate radio?

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/1929

Course offered through Davis People’s Free School

Written by CHRIS RUE
Published November 13, 2008 

The Davis community got a peek inside the world of local radio through the Davis People’s Free School course, pirate radio. Taught by Davis resident and radio enthusiast Mark Chang, the class will meet again to set up an antenna and broadcast a radio show throughout Davis. Contact Chang about the upcoming broadcast or future pirate radio classes at toptriode@gmail.com.

The term pirate radio, which refers to unlicensed radio transmissions, comes from the first broadcasts of music in England in the ’60s. According to Chang, a group of people boarded a ship and broadcasted music from just off shore.

“Maybe that’s where the word ‘pirate’ first comes from,” Chang said. “They were broadcasting from a boat.”

The class overviews the fundamentals of radio, including the theory of making radio waves and an explanation of the parts that go into making a radio. By the end of the course, Chang will teach his students how to set up a full time radio show and broadcast a short signal from anywhere - even a bicycle.

“People [may] have specific questions about how to make a transmitter, so they can ride a bicycle around have other bicycles play the same music,” he said.

Radio has always been an interest to Chang, a UC Davis graduate. He set up and hosted his own pirate radio show in Davis from 1993 to 1999 called Davis Live Radio. In addition to playing music, Chang would broadcast roving reports, speaking to locals such as a drunken woman at a laundromat to people at the Jack-in-the-Box drive through, all from the confines of his living room.

“It was almost like I was cruising around town meeting people, but I was just sitting in my living room just talking,” he said. “I wanted to have a sense that people out there were participating and get people excited about it.”

The pirate radio class draws on Chang’s experiences and goes into the details of setting up a mini studio. He will explain how to use parts like antennas, transmitters and amplifiers - equipment that can be bought online.

While creating a broadcast signal has become increasingly straightforward, staying on the air is a more difficult task. With the Federal Communications Commission giving preference to commercial stations, there is “not much more room left on the radio dial” for a pirate radio show, according to Chang.

“The airwaves are controlled by the corporations,” he said. “The FCC isn’t really protecting the low power radio stations.”

KDRT, a volunteer-driven radio station in Davis, recently won a bout with the FCC to avoid being pushed off the air, which shifted their broadcast from 101.5 FM to 95.7 FM. According to production manager and radio host Autumn Labbe-Renault, the Davis community “stepped up” to protect local radio.

“It would not have happened without the support of the community and our elected officials,” she said. “We are here to fill a void in local content.”

The Davis People’s Free School, a non-hierarchical learning project established in the 2007, contacted Chang about teaching a pirate radio class. Marguerite Wilson, a fourth-year Ph.D. student in the School of Education and one of the founders of the free school, believes the pirate radio course falls in line with their values.

“I think that pirate radio, among many other things, is a great example of people learning how to do and know things themselves rather than relying on institutions,” she said in an e-mail interview. “I think Mark’s class is a great way to make something that is normally inaccessible to most people - i.e. radio technology - accessible to wide group of people.”

For more information about the Davis People’s Free School, check out their page on Davis Wiki or e-mail davispeoplesfreeschool@riseup.net.
—

CHRIS RUE can be reached at arts@theaggie.org.

Free Radio Santa Cruz (FRSC) is no ordinary radio station

http://www.cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=1464

2008-11-20
Devin Dunlevy
City News Reporter
City on a Hill Press

Free Radio Santa Cruz (FRSC) is no ordinary radio station.

The station headquarters is a cramped room with posters all over its walls. “Build a wall of resistance; don’t talk to the FBI,” reads one. “One percent of the U.S. owns 40 percent of the wealth ­ what’s your share?” reads another. Countless vinyl albums occupy the small number of shelves.

But the biggest eye-catcher is the prodigious “Jolly Roger” flag draped in the corner. This is fitting, as FRSC is one of a growing number of pirate radio stations popping up all over the country.

Broadcasting without a license, the station has been in open defiance of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since it began airing in 1995.

Why? Because Free Radio holds that the FCC regulates not in the public’s interest, but in the interest of corporations that dominate the airwaves.

Radio activists are concerned about the media conglomerates, like Clear Channel Communications, that have the largest market share of the radio industry. Clear Channel owns 900 stations, the biggest owner of full-power commercial radio stations in the United States.

Free Radio’s goal? To make room for radical discourse often shunned by the mainstream media, and to air other diverse programming that commercialized radio simply ignores.

FRSC is part of the larger “micro-radio movement” seeking to change licensing laws to accommodate low-power broadcasting. Low-power outlets are typically community-driven, and have smaller budgets and weaker broadcast strengths than high-power stations.
According to “Uncle Dennis,” a programmer for FRSC, the station collaborates with other independent radio outlets like Pacific Radio, the oldest public radio network in the United States.

“We use a lot of Pacifica programs and those of other alternative producers,” Uncle Dennis said. “We attend the Grassroots Broadcasting Conference when we can.”

Free Radio DJ “Augusto Cesar Sandino Segundo” has been part of the project for five years. He currently hosts his own show, “The Global Local,” which airs Monday nights from 7 to 9 p.m.

Segundo gave a voice to Flavio Santi Vargas, an Ecuadorian indigenous leader trying to raise awareness about his community’s concerns, on Nov. 3.

Ecuador’s indigenous movement is currently waging protests against the government’s support for large-scale mining activities by multinational oil giants like Arco. Vargas feels that these activities are threatening the indigenous territories.

“Radio has an incredible history of being used in people’s movements,” Segundo said. “People have broadcasted revolutionary messages in Third World countries.”

Stuart Abel is a friend who accompanied Vargas during the interview. He said that Vargas’ community is seeking to bring in spiritual tourists as a source of income.

“His community wants to raise money to protect themselves from the oil companies that are polluting their rivers,” Abel said.

“We do live in a forest, and we work together,” Vargas said. “The jungle is our pharmacy, the jungle is our supermarket, the jungle is our life.”

Vargas will be in the United States for six more months before heading back to Ecuador.

Over 10 Years of Unlicensed Broadcasts

The affinity groups Earth First! and Food Not Bombs played a role in getting the station on its feet back in the 1990s. Food Not Bombs organizer Kim Argula was one of the founders of FRSC. The station’s transmitter was originally set up in her room.

“The airwaves really belong to us. It’s up to the people to take back that which U.S. corporate interests and government regulators monopolized,” Argula said in one of the station’s first broadcasts. “Stop for-profit brainwashing. Build revolt by networking nationally and internationally.”

Eventually, the noise of the 24-hour programming was too overwhelming for Argula. The collective tried moving the equipment elsewhere in the house, only to be caught by the landlord. After being kicked out of the house, organizers moved to a new location at 120 Campbell St.

The movement began to grow after Argula and others “bumper-stickered” the entire town.

“They were literally everywhere ­ in the bathrooms, on posts … and they were really well done,” Argula said in a 2005 interview with programmer “Skidmark Bob” about Free Radio’s history. “We got a lot of listeners that way.”

Things went smoothly until the FCC raided the station in 2004. Right after a broadcast of Democracy Now!, two dozen federal agents stormed FRSC and seized over $5,000 worth of broadcasting equipment. This was the first time the station had ever gone to static due to government intervention.

What followed was a community outcry, and nearly 150 people went to protest the raid as it was taking place. The strong showing of support made it possible to restore the online stream at freakradio.org within 48 hours, and the station was re-transmitting at 101.1 FM less than a month after the raid.

Although FRSC recovered from this fiasco, it still remains vulnerable to any future action taken by the FCC.

“There is nothing we can do to prevent a raid from the FCC and/or federal marshals,” Uncle Dennis said. “We rely on community support to keep going and to rise again if we are raided again.”

In the FRSC interview, Argula reflected that despite the struggles the station has faced, Free Radio’s programming has improved over the years.

“When we first started, it was not professional to any degree; it was very much amateur presentation,” Argula said. “But now I listen to the shows, and the quality and content is exceptional. It’s better than any of the radio stations in town.”

The Road Ahead for FRSC and Micro-Broadcasting

Free Radio currently broadcasts at an output power of 200 watts Effected Radiated Power (ERP). The signal reaches past Aptos and almost to Watsonville, but the listening area was severely disrupted after a Christian rock station recently starting transmitting on 101.1 FM from Mt. Toro.

“To counter this, we would have to increase our power to a thousand watts ERP, which would then start to interfere with the Carmel station and bring the FCC down on us for the interference,” Uncle Dennis said. “There are no current plans to increase our output power.”

Many local politicians have been strong supporters of the station. The Santa Cruz City Council has passed three resolutions embracing its presence in the community, including one issued immediately after the raid in 2004.

City Councilmember Tony Madrigal said the current system of regulations “puts the little person in an unfair position.”

“When it comes to Free Radio Santa Cruz, whether or not you disagree with their programming, it’s hard to disagree with the basic idea of local people having control over a local radio station,” Madrigal said.

FRSC is only one example of a number of unlicensed low-power FM (LPFM) stations across the country. Others include Berkeley Liberation Radio and Free Radio Olympia. Some have been shut down over the years, including San Francisco Liberation Radio, which was raided by the FCC and San Francisco Police Department in 2003.

Free Press, a media advocacy organization with over 500,000 members, is fighting to make it easier to acquire low-power licenses. It argues that low-power stations can strengthen community identity, provide opportunities for youth and empower minority groups.

But the low-power proponents face an uphill battle from the consolidated high-power stations that express concern over interference. According to National Public Radio, full-power broadcasters reach a broader audience, so they provide a greater service and should be rewarded with priority over the airwaves.

Santa Cruz Mayor Ryan Coonerty said he supports the local station.

“Free Radio Santa Cruz constantly criticizes the City Council and me for our policies, but that doesn’t mean I won’t fight for its right to broadcast,” he said. “The media is being consolidated to such an extent that I think it is important to maintain as many independent media outlets as possible.”

On the issue of further FCC intervention, Coonerty recommends that supporters remind the FCC that the community values the station. He acknowledged the need for broadcast media reform in the United States.

“We need to level the playing field,” Coonerty said, “so that small radio stations can have access to the airwaves that are owned by the public.”