Table of Contents The Joint Statement on Micro Radio
Annotated Web Links
Micro Radio Art Gallery Chapter 1: Introduction |
Sailing the Spectrum from Pirates to Micro Broadcasters:
CHAPTER 5Summary, Conclusions, and ImplicationsThe primary purpose of this study was to examine the development of the micro broadcasting movement in the San Francisco Bay Area. This necessitated pursuing three interrelated avenues of research: (1) The history of Free Radio Berkeley and its founder Stephen Dunifer; (2) Dunifer's legal interaction with the Federal Communications Commission; and (3) an examination of other micro radio operations in the Greater Bay Area with a focus on Free Radio Santa Cruz. Unlicensed broadcasting in the United States has taken many forms since the advent of federal broadcast regulation in the late 1920s. Starting with commercial and private broadcasters seeking ways to circumvent the new federal broadcast regulations, unlicensed broadcasting quickly moved into the amateur sector. After the end of World War II, short-wave radio pirates came to the forefront of unlicensed radio activity. This was occasionally interrupted by high-profile pirates who grabbed the attention of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the press, including off-shore pirate stations such as Radio Free America and Radio New York International (RNI). Although these cases drew much attention, they were more the exception than the rule. With the rise of social unrest in the late 1960s, more unlicensed broadcasters moved to the normal AM and FM bands, although short-wave pirates still dominated unlicensed activity. This began to change in the mid-1980s as a new type of unlicensed broadcaster emerged: the micro broadcaster. Usually operating on the FM band in the 10-watt range, the micro broadcasters embraced a social agenda and presented themselves as a people's alternative to commercial and corporate-sponsored public radio. Unlike their predecessors, these unlicensed broadcasters moved into the open and began to defy the FCC's regulatory scheme that made such low-power stations illegal. At the forefront of this challenge was Stephen Dunifer, the founder of Free Radio Berkeley in Berkeley, CA. Dunifer's challenge to the FCC began with the agency citing him for unlicensed broadcasting. With the help of the Committee for Democratic Communication (CDC), a part of the National Lawyers Guild, Dunifer moved to make a direct challenge to the FCC's regulatory scheme in federal court. In the findings section of this thesis, Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley were investigated from their onset and followed as the case, United States v. Dunifer, developed in federal court. At the heart of his challenge was the notion that only the wealthy could participate in electronic discourse because this inexpensive form of broadcasting was illegal. The FCC moved to request a preliminary injunction to stop Dunifer from broadcasting. In an unprecedented decision, the federal court judge denied the FCC request and called into question the FCC's prohibition on micro radio. This set the stage for hearings on the validity of Dunifer's arguments. As this case developed, other activists became involved in micro broadcasting and a growing number of micro radio stations began operating throughout Northern California. The FCC, facing this high level of unlicensed radio proliferation, was confronted with a number of difficulties in trying to shut down these stations. These difficulties had to do with the activist nature of the broadcasters and the FCC's lack of financial resources. This made fining them, the primary tool of FCC enforcement, problematic. At the time of this writing, the Dunifer case is awaiting the next series of hearings and micro radio stations are spreading out across Northern California. Since this story is in progress, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the findings in this thesis. However, with Dunifer's and the FCC's arguments presented, and all available data collected, aspects of these phenomena can be explored. The micro broadcasting movement is a significant deviation from past unlicensed activities and the normal commercially-based corporate environment to which the FCC is accustomed. Louis Hiken, Dunifer's attorney, contended in his interview with this researcher on February 15, 1995 that the Commission "absolutely" knew what the micro broadcasting movement meant and was taking steps to stifle it. However, the preponderance of information gathered in the present study indicates that the FCC's rank and file either failed to grasp the primary differences between past pirate activity and present micro radio or chose to ignore the issues Dunifer's case raised. These factors may have been compounded by the FCC's limited economic and personnel resources. Previous unlicensed broadcasters sought to broadcast on their own terms for reasons ranging from profit, as with the off-shore pirate Radio New York International (RNI) (Bender, 1988), to political ferment, as in the Reverend McIntire case (Radio Free America) (Boyd, 1983). In contrast, the present micro broadcasting movement, generally embraced by dedicated activists, is grounded in the fundamental principle of legitimate access to a means of communication. The primary proponents of this movement have already committed their lives to pursuing their definition of social justice, and they view micro radio as an important tool in attaining their goals. Thus, the use of radio is not an end to itself, nor is the right of a particular person, Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley or Richard Edmonson of San Francisco Liberation Radio, to broadcast. Rather, micro radio is a means to achieving the principle of democratic communication (Ewell, 1995; Fine, 1994). As Hiken explained in his February 15, 1995 interview with this researcher, "One consideration that is important to realize is that micro radio is only one prototype of the concept of democratic communication. . . . So, it's important to look at micro radio in that overall context, and not just as an end to itself." It is this view of micro radio as a tool of social change that the FCC failed to publicly acknowledge. Micro communication is clearly becoming an important area of study. The idea of democratic communication extends far beyond the initial argument concerning micro radio. Average people, as opposed to large public or private institutions, having the ability and access to communication technology, could alter the landscape of mass communication. All those interviewed who were participating in micro radio or the Free Communications Movement, a more accurate title for this phenomenon, had interests, ideas, and plans for the major means of electronic communication, including television, the Internet, and computer technology. Dunifer, as of November 1995, is designing a broadcast device that can be hooked-up to a personal computer and placed on a roof top with a small antenna. The end result is that, for a $100, people can have their own nodes or servers. He described this technology in an interview with this researcher on March 1, 1995 and in statements made during a National Lawyers Guild forum on micro radio on September 22, 1995 in Berkeley, CA. Tom Schreiner of Free Radio Santa Cruz stated in his interview with this researcher on May 31, 1995 that he has recruited help in developing plans for an FM transmitter that is sealed and integrated. The transmitter should be able to meet all FCC specifications, not require a technician, and be about the size of a cigar box. The technology exists for these and other innovations that will allow ordinary people to produce as well as consume media, to own the means of media production and communicate with others in their own language and on their own terms. This would be a distinct shift from the dominant mass communication paradigm which is dictated by traditional media sources, most of which are profit driven (Beniger, 1989). Because of the low cost, these new technologies could eliminate the restrictions that are endemic to profit-driven mass media. Even public broadcasting is restricted by the immense costs of maintaining large facilities and the need to please revenue-generating target audiences along with corporate sponsors and underwriters. Micro radio's legal battle goes beyond the abstract concepts of electronic access by the average person. Those involved made it clear that they see the media as predominantly controlled by wealthy corporations and the privileged few, the "haves," who cooperate with the government to maintain the status-quo. This is a direct threat to the survival of civil rights, as well as the physical survival of the burgeoning underclass, the "have-nots" or the "dispossessed," as Schreiner called these people (Appendix A, May 31, 1995). In the view of Schreiner, and many of the micro broadcasters, denying media access is one of several ways in which the rights of people whose only crime is being poor or not motivated by the drive to acquire property, cash, and power, are eliminated (observations of Free Radio Santa Cruz staff meeting, Santa Cruz, CA, May 13, 1995; observations of micro radio rally, Oakland CA, January 22, 1995). This alienation of the have-nots is evident on the political right as well as the left. Media as community organizing tools are apolitical, and with all likelihood, will be embraced by many people of different ethnic and political persuasions who feel threatened by the public and private powers which control these resources. This revolution of technological access is going to occur with or without official government approval. Those involved in the Bay Area micro broadcasting movement stated without reservation that their actions will continue, whether or not the FCC approves. The micro broadcasters are prepared for either eventuality. They have studied the opposition and know the FCC's limitations. This information is from interviews with Stephen Dunifer on March 1, 1995, and Tom Schreiner on May 31, 1995 with this researcher. Micro broadcasting, and micro communication more generally, benefits those who govern as well as those governed. Citing Hume and Milton, media scholar Herbert Altschull (1990) argued, "since people are likely to believe bad things about their governors one way or the other, it is safer for the ruler to have those bad things put down in writing, because then they can come to his [or her] attention more easily" (p. 64). Thus, it would seem important for the FCC to note this reason for the initial movement to provide a "free press," or in this case, a "free radio." Moreover, this notion of a free radio is concerned with owning the means of communication, then a printing press, now a transmitter, the Internet, or other emerging forms of communication technologies. In this case, free radio has nothing to do with content, but everything to do with free speech and the ability to communicate with others. Electronic discourse, held in a public forum without governmental interference, keeps dissent in the open and part of the governing process. To push those who dissent underground adds to an already-existing climate of alienation, and drives people away from any feeling of commonality that they may have with the mainstream. Once there, that deviation, unmoderated by contact with the larger body of American culture, can fester and lead to conflict that can damage the all-too-frail fabric of our society. Keeping all viewpoints in the public forum, the "market place of ideas," supports evolution instead of revolution. In this case, if access is not given, then it will be taken.
Difficulties in Communication All parties were friendly and cooperative with the researcher; all seemed to be decent people with good senses of humor. The demonizing of individuals as either "government thugs" or "anarchist socio-paths" is counter-productive to the possibility of resolving the conflict. For eventually, some resolution must be agreed upon.
Indicator Technology Once it became established, radio operated as a general entertainment and news medium. Primarily operated by a few networks, radio gradually took a narrower marketing approach, concentrating on specific audiences and age groups. Television has followed the same path. Having started with general audiences and network control by the original "big three" (NBC, CBS, and ABC), television has progressed towards a wider variety of players owning stations and networks that target more and more specific audiences . Like radio, with its dominant signal format approach, television stations that are all news, all sports, or all comedy have become the norm. Radio followed this path of specialization because of demands placed upon it by the advent of television. Television is now following a similar path because of the advent of cable, videotape, and other technologies (Beniger, 1986; Comstock, 1989). Radio was the first electronic communication device that could directly connect with people at almost any time and in almost any location. Although the equipment for receiving broadcast signals has been relatively inexpensive and easy to acquire for some time, the means to send those signals adequately have only recently emerged from the ranks of radio hobbyists and engineers and started to spread across the country. As an indicator technology, the problems associated with controlling and regulating radio are a likely preview of things to come in other communication media. Radio is an indicator technology at a philosophical level as well as a technical one. While the availability of print technology has played a crucial role in facilitating public discourse, the use of radio is the next logical step to broaden participation in such discourse and without institutional filters. The micro radio movement may be the first stage in a larger effort to bring democratic principles to electronic media as a whole. As printing presses dropped in price, and ultimately word processing and photocopying opened publishing to the majority, so could the dropping price, familiarity, and benefits of broadcasting take it into the public realm. To many people in North Central California, it already has.
Limitations Another limitation of the study stems from the motivations and perspectives of the those who participated in the study. Responses in interviews, statements made in meetings, and documents provided were undoubtedly influenced by the individuals' biases and agendas. Therefore, any information gathered must be viewed with a critical eye to its source. Finally, the United States v. Dunifer case is still in progress. Thus, any implications drawn from this case are subject to qualification pending its final outcome. Although some individuals interviewed for this study were forthcoming with their predictions for the case's future, these statements cannot be interpreted as definitive.
Opportunities for Further Research Along the lines of minority studies, the low key, but crucial participation in the micro broadcasting movement of Latino stations would make an excellent area of study. This is especially true regarding their connections with peasant movements in Mexico. These stations are organizing tools for labor, as well as playing an essential role in cultural preservation. The association of other grassroots organizations mentioned in this study, such as Food Not Bombs, the International Workers of the World (IWW), and the Green Party, with micro radio could be examined to discover where they differ or resemble each other. The possible impact of this technology as a unifying force for these organizations might prove interesting. The non-hierarchical coalition nature of most of these stations poses unique problems in a society primarily based on hierarchical structures. A comparative examination of commercial, public, and micro power radio stations to examine the decision-making process and the levels of innovation and communication among staff members and management could yield interesting data. This would especially be true in light of the trend toward the wholesale elimination of much of corporate middle management during the 1980s and 1990s, and the subsequent flattening of traditional hierarchical structures (Conrad, 1994). Finally, a more detailed study of the aspects of the broader Free Communications Movement as it relates to other technologies, especially the Internet, is warranted. The present case study of the micro broadcasting movement in the San Francisco Bay Area has only scratched the surface of a complex social movement. The instigators of such movements are easily identified and analyzed. However, the average coalition member, and her or his personal agendas in participating in micro broadcasting, could prove to be enlightening to the grassroots elements involved in the movement. Micro communication's interface with traditional mass media and culture will provide a fruitful source of research possibilities, in terms of social, legal, governmental, and cultural ramifications for years to come. As the access to the means of the production of media escalates with the "bloody edge of technology" driving the most of the costs ever downward, the impact of such movements and concepts will be felt well into the next century, providing research opportunities on which this researcher can only speculate.
|