Posted on

Microradio Comments Due Aug. 2

Write the FCC – they do not want to hear from you.

In the last issue of Slingshot, we reported extensively on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to 65legalize65 forms of micro-powered radio broadcasting. The FCC action came after 10 years of civil disobedience by thousands of micro-powered broadcasters around the country, who started free radio stations to protest the FCC’s current ban on accessible community radio access. The FCC’s deadline for public comment has now been extended to August 2, so there is still time for your or your organization to file a comment!

Public comment on the FCC proposal is essential since the proposal is a series of questions about how the 65legalized65 radio service should be organized. One set of answers to these questions would make the new Low Power FM service an extension of corporate control, and another set of answers could make low power FM available to communities and individuals who are currently excluded from the public airwaves.

Powerful corporate radio stations, represented by their trade group the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and other entrenched powers like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, have been working hard to make sure that the FCC’s proposal is either an impotent failure or unavailable to excluded people. The NAB requested, and was granted by the FCC, two extensions of the deadline to file comments, so the NAB could rally corporate support for the status quo and finish their 65scientific65 research on how LPFM would cause chaos on the airwaves. While these extensions are a dangerous opportunity for the powers of corporate control, they also give free radio supporters and all those who favor democratic communication additional time to file comments with the FCC.

A full description of the FCC’s proposal (known as the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)) and an analysis of the points to include in comments you might file is far beyond the scope of this update. For details, write Slingshot (see page 2 for address) for a copy of issue #64 and a copy of the National Lawyer’s Guild’s Committee for Democratic Communications (CDC) newsletter on the subject. Last issues article is at our website too, www.tao.ca/~slingshot. Or, check out the materials at the CDC’s website: www.nlgcdc.org. The CDC has a detailed response to the FCC’s proposal, and you and/or any organization you are associated with can sign on in support of the CDC’s detailed comments, while adding your own supplemental comments. The CDC is actively working to get unions, churches, and other civic groups to file comments. Contact them if you have access to any union, church etc. decision making bodies: Committee on Democratic Communications, 558 Capp Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 522-9814.

To file a comment directly, do it by computer at www.fcc.gov. Head for the Electronic Comment Filing System where you can make your comment in only a few minutes. The number of the proceeding is MM Docket No. 99-25. Electronic filing is almost required. You can also see the hundreds of the pro and con comments already filed at the FCC’s website (Some of the comments already filed, by the way, recite word by word the 10 points for comment printed in the last issue of Slingshot!)

The groundswell of support for democratic access to the radio dial is growing, and a number of important groups, including numerous unions and churches, have already signed on in support the CDC comments. Check this stuff out!

Posted on

Epicenter Closes

Punk lives elsewhere

That’s right. It wasn’t a rumor. Epicenter Zone is going under at the end of June. Hats off to all the volunteers who kept it sailin’ for nine years. Thanks to Tim Yohannan and Maximum Rock n’ Roll (MRR) radio show and magazine staff for starting the much needed space which served the community of punx, activists, artists, pirates, bikers, losers, vagrants, and outcasts.

Epicenter Zone was more than just an all-volunteer collective record store. It was the closest we had to an infoshop in this windy city by the bay. It also housed many projects, such as a community switchboard, a Food Not Bombs meeting place, Prisoner Literature Project meeting and library space, a punk zine library, artist studios and displays, musical performances, zine fests, a free box, community bulletin boards, Black-list punk record distribution mail order (which also folded a few years ago) and a general gathering space.

I last saw co-founder Tim YoMama at Epicenter Zone, with his usual smile and greetings, before his death by cancer over a year ago. He and the MRR staff put money down to help the space get started, after also helping start the Gilman Street Project in 1987 ” a much needed all ages venue in Berkeley (which is also threatened and needs our support).

Why the Ship Sank

Basically, we were in a big hole and couldn’t pay rent anymore. Why we got to that point has many reasons, but one thing is certain it is a great loss to the community (or what is left of the community since rents are now so high in central locations close to subway and bus lines).

Although I’d been involved with the Prisoner Literature Project for a while, I only got involved with the record store the past year. As with many collectives, there were a few people doing most of the work. There was a new wave of volunteers, but we weren’t being trained too well and tasks were not being distributed. A lot of the people who had run the store burnt out and left without spreading that knowledge. The few who had it running, were too busy, really, to train others.

New volunteers seemed too overwhelmed, apathetic, or nervous to always seek out answers. If you wanted to know how to do something you had to ask around. We weren’t being spoon-fed, and that was good, but there was definitely a lack of communication even though we were trying to have regular monthly meetings. Most volunteers knew we were in trouble, for example, but not how deep. The few dedicated volunteers who knew the seriousness of the situation decided to fold so they could go out with some respect and try to pay people back, because that’s how Epicenter started ” with dignity.

A lot of people had been expressing the need to reach out beyond the punk ghetto. Many feel that punk ideology has become stagnant and narrow-minded, contradicting what it originally stood for, and bringing only a limited sector of society into the store (those with the right patches and tattoos). That, coupled with competition in the record business and higher bills, were also reasons for folding.

So go out there before it goes under and buy some cheap records and CDs at 475 Valencia (at 16th), 2nd floor. Hours are 3-8 p.m. weekdays and noon-8 p.m. on weekends.

Mission Records, on Mission between 19th and 20th, is still around for shows and benefits. Cell-Space is also a huge community-oriented center, with many projx going on, and is worth checking out. (On Bryant St., between 18th and 19th.)

For years we have been talking amongst friends about the need for a new infoshop/venue/ community space. So one good thing coming out of Epicenter’s closing is that we’re forced to look.

Running a collective smoothly can be very difficult. My suggestion is to work in a small tight-knit cohesive group of friends and remember, as always, that communication is the key. It would be wise to start by talking about the meaning of a collective, how it should be run, and arrive at a common vision.

Nothing is perfect, but it is worth striving for. From my experience with collectives, it is difficult to work or live with everyone or just whoever. Some Epicenter members have started a temporary office drop-in info-center garage nearby, at the former Starcleaners on Sycamore alley (between 18th and 19th), until a new space is found.

Stay tuned. For more info, you can contact Janice Flux at PO Box 16651 S.F., CA 94116-0651, magdalene@jesusshaves.com, or call Todd at 415-776-4654. Let’s hope the new space learns from past experiences.

Another good idea is to follow the example of our European comrades by occupying an abandoned building and turning it into a social center/infoshop. SQUAT DA CASTLE!

Posted on

Homogenization and It's Discontents: Southside's New Era

Despite the coming and going of the People’s Park 30th Anniversary celebration, the situation on Southside and in the park remains dubious at best. Changes are taking place at a rapid rate and neither the park activists nor the street community seem adequately prepared to deal on the altering political landscape that is emerging. We are entering a new era.

The one-year campaign of police repression on Telegraph that has gone largely unchecked by Berkeley’s activist community has taken its toll and has recently moved into the park where it seems posed to tilt the balance of power in a fragile peace that has held since the Volleyball Wars. For the past five years or so the park has stood at a stalemate with power wielded through an amorphous triad of City, University, and activists, with the People’s Park Community Advisory Board more or less calling the shots.

While the authorities still tread lightly around the park–lest the serpent rise again–they have been bolstered in the past year by their gains on the Avenue and in the area. They may also draw confidence from the hefty coalition of reactionary forces they have built up in the last several years, largely in the form of the Telegraph Area Association but, more recently, around the formation of the up and coming Southside Plan.

Nevertheless, Southside is long known to be unpredictable waters for the powers that be to navigate, and the war and recent troubles on campus suggest a future still up for grabs. One thing’s for sure: socially conscious people need to organize anew around the area if they want the historic gains of the past to be preserved and built upon.

The Avenue

The front-line battle of by whom and for what purpose Telegraph Avenue can be used is the still contested right of people to sit on the sidewalk. Though technically legal, it has been made increasingly difficult, and, at times, for all intents and purposes illegal due to the intensity of police harassment that befalls anyone gutsy enough to drop their bag and kick it. Police will do what it takes to make people not want to be there through intimidation, “hanging out” with them, or finding excuses to run warrant checks on people, hoping to get them on something else. Some people just don’t like to be around cops all the time, and who can blame them. The police’s mere presence is a violation of a person’s basic right to a stress-free and pleasant environment.

The biggest supporters of the ongoing high police presence on Southside are merchants looking to make a bigger buck, as well as UC administrators who hope to comfort university student’s parents by making the area look more like a suburb. However, let us not forget that more than a majority of the “progressive” city council supports the current level of policing, including local council member, Kriss Worthington, who last month told the Daily Californian that the city has “made significant progress” in dealing with Telegraph’s “public safety problems.”

A new group on the scene, the Southside Freedom Network, held two pickets of Telegraph businesses in April and May, targeting Cody’s, Amoebas, and Blake’s, but called for a more general boycott of Avenue businesses until the police state is lifted. In an interesting aside,

…During a Telegraph Area Association sponsored street fair to promote shopping in the area, several stands were permitted to sell beer to event goers on Durant near Telegraph, despite the fact that in the same area poor people are cited by the police on a daily basis and given $130 fines for trying to enjoy their “open container.”

The Southside Plan

Sure to push the boundaries of the current political configuration on Southside is the up and coming Southside Plan. With a draft of the plan due out in September, the Plan is an all-encompassing piece (and process) of social engineering, dominated by UC Berkeley’s Planning Department, but with a considerable and politically astute parceling out of interests to key constituencies. Both a master plan for gentrification and a UC land grab, the plan aims to totally marginalize the poor, the street community, and those who come to Telegraph for reasons other than spending money.

In less words, the plan calls for an increased privatization of the Avenue to merchant money-making interests and a greater shift in the geo-politics of the terrain away from its traditional role as a social arena for a liberatory counter-culture. Free spirits are written out of the Southside Plan entirely–apparently slated to be taken away by the police, as is already happening, for being “quality of life” criminals if they persist with their desire to inhabit public space as non-consumers.

The Plan rather ominously calls for an improvement in the “perception” of public safety in the area. An objective worded as such seems open for abuse and this is likely no accident. For what better an excuse to remove people from the area who are “perceived” to be dangerous. A special topic area on public safety is going to be included in the draft plan, though discussion topics dealing with public safety have been suspiciously absent from the many public workshops that have been held for the plan so far. Is public safety too controversial a subject for the public to discuss?

Another main feature of the Southside Plan is–surprise, surprise–development. Almost every empty lot and surface parking lot is slated for 4-plus story housing with or without commercial space at its base. Furthermore, one and two-story buildings are targeted to be replaced with taller ones and the over-all height zoning limit for the commercial area is expected to rise from 3-4 stories at present to 5-6 stories. This part of the plan has been referred to as a “Manhattanization” of the area.

While there is a need for more housing, taller, more imposing building structures–in combination with the other aspects of the plan–do not bode well for those out to enjoy the streets. Like the fact that there are no benches on the Avenue, and none included in the plan, no plans for additional open space, and coupled with the already increased levels of policing, a Manhattanization will surely contribute to the enclosure of the street community, to a psychologically more hostile urban environment, and for new restrictions on the use of sidewalks as fastlanes for getting to and from places–particularly into shops and spending money. Such a scenario, the “rat-maze effect”, would detract from the streets as places of enjoyment in and of themselves and transform them into mere corridors for shuffling a psychically dismembered populace to its next economic transaction.

The Park

In People’s Park a seemingly benign effort of late by city, university, and the more conciliatory of the park activists to make “improvements” in the park showed its true colors in recent months as the police swept in to do a little weeding and seeding of their own. Chancellor Berdahl’s timely comment about building a dorm on the park, while discounted as not a serious threat and more an effort to get students off his back, did also serve as an effective smoke screen to allow the area-wide increase in police patrols to enter the park–a university offensive, as it were, to neutralize any 30th anniversary rejuvenation. When the dust cleared, the free box had been moved, the free speech bulletin board vanished, the curb where people drop off free clothes was painted red, and cops galore.

In response, a few park activists built a new bulletin board and bench during the 30th anniversary concert. UC cops tore the bulletin board out the next morning, and when people showed up a week later to replace it, the police arrived immediately and cited People’s Park founder, Mike Delacour, for building without a permit. Even the bench was removed two weeks later, apparently suggesting UC thinks the days of user-development are over. Not so say park activists who have been organizing in recent weeks for a Day of User-Develop
ment set for Sunday, June 27.

One step in the wrong direction that the Park has been going of late is towards becoming just another park, like every other park. While such a notion rests well with those who fear someday losing the park altogether and would be a historic improvement over long-standing denial by UC of its status as anything more than a future UC development site, it is not the desired outcome. It would not be People’s Park.

People’s Park is something far grander. People’s Park, as envisioned by it’s founders, was (is?) a liberated piece of land. It is not merely a park, it’s a people’s park–a park that is of the people, that is not controlled by any outside entity, and that is based on the principles of user-development. At the same time, the people in the Park are not subjects of any governing body, of any entity–are not subjects. They are free people. The land and its people are not under the United States, the State of California, the City, the University, the County, the UN, or the People’s Park Advisory Board. People’s Park was ripped-off and never given back. It was reclaimed for the people, by the people, and for the earth. It is an autonomous zone, self-determined and self-determining. That said, People’s Park cannot be a normal park.

Not-So-Hidden Agenda

It would be one thing if the police were out actually only dealing with true problematic street behavior and legitimate threats to the public’s safety. In such a case we would be talking about a handful of individuals and relatively isolated incidents that happen usually late at night and on a dark side street.

What we are seeing carried out on Telegraph proper and in the vicinity on a daily basis is something quite different. The propaganda about crime and “perceived” threats to public safety are nothing more than that, propaganda and perceptions. It is extremely rare that a person walking on Telegraph Avenue or in People’s Park in the daytime, or even at night is going to be harmed in any way. Most fights that occur in the area are between people who know each other or drug dealers. Incidences in which complete strangers are attacked are almost non-existent.

What the police do, and the campaign they are currently carrying out, is really in an entirely different arena. It is a class-cleansing, a relocation program for poor people.

>

Posted on

Carpenters Stage Wildcat Strike

Members of Carpenters Union Local 713 conducted a wildcat strike May 15 to attack a new labor contract that contained pay and benefit givebacks in a time of full employment which the union bureaucrats pushed through without a vote.

The union’s regional council was hoping to rush through the unsatisfactory contract and prevent the workers from voting on it for the first time in the union’s 110 year history. 150 rank and filers invaded the hall where this vote was to take place, chanting “No! No! No!” Days later, 150 more workers voted to go on strike and vowed to pack upcoming union meetings.

The strike lasted four work days, but it had significant impacts. The San Francisco Airport – the largest construction job in California – was shut down. Construction at Pacific Bell Park, Kaiser Hospital in San Francisco, and Microsoft was also slowed down.

“Full time union officials used to be elected and accountable. Now, decisions are increasingly made at the top and the international leadership is sending the message to members that they’ll take care of business. For the rank and file, there is a very real danger that the union will turn into an employment agency to provide labor for the contractors,” said one leaflet.

Unions are extremely important for the working class. Without them, we wouldn’t have the weekend, the 8 hour day, or OSHA standards. Union jobs pay more, are more secure, and have more benefits than non-union jobs. However, it is also important that unions remain true to their ultimate purpose – to protect the interests of the rank and file. This can only happen if unions are run democratically based on one member, one vote with bureaucrats serving the members, not vice versa. The rank and file should rise and ensure that “company unions” are quashed.

Posted on

1999 Summer Gatherings Listing

 

June 21-28

Earth First! Round River Rendezvous, San Juan Nat’l Forest Spend the week of the Summer Solstice at the Nat’l EF! Gathering. Includes opportunities to help local anti-logging campaign and threatened farming communities. Workshops including Y2K preparedness, getting back to basics and action how-tos. contact Tucson EF! pob 3412 Tucson, AZ 85722 (520)620-1839, EF! Journal for map and more info

July 1-7

National Rainbow Gathering Allegheny Nat’l Forest, PA No money allowed, free food kitchens, trade circles, music, and kind vibes. Not just for hippies, hook up with Allegheny Defense Project while you’re there. (814)764-5763 adp@envirolink.org www.enviroweb.org/adp/.

July 30-Aug 1

Southern Girls Convention Memphis, TN Workshops, performances and booths because the south is a region stifled by religious piety, radical tension, and violence and because women are still expected to be Southern Belles-quiet beauties. We believe a real change comes through a revolution of mind, body and soul. suzukibeane@hotmail.com 787 Ellsworth Memphis, TN 38111

June 25-27

Leonard Peltier Organizing Conference Lawrence, Kansas Workshops and presentations on future actions, legal strategies, support groups, network building, prison issues w/ Pam Africa, Dave Delinger and Jennifer Harbury. contact (785)842-5774 lpdc@idir.net

July 23-Aug 8

Int’l Food Not Bombs Gathering Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

 

June 28-July 11

Philly Freedom Summer for Mumia Philadelphia, PA contact Int’l Concerned Friends for Mumia Abu-Jamal (215)476-8812

July/August

Bike Summer! San Francisco Bike Summer will be a month of celebration and activism featuring bike events every day starting with the July 30 Critical Mass including politics, bike culture, rides, street theater, art, music, films, critical masses and midnight masses. The revolution will not be motorized! (415)431-2453 http://www.bikesummer.org

  
Posted on

Slingshot Organizer Memories Ad

Hey kids! Have you had any special experiences with your Slingshot brand Organizer? Has it fallen out of your pocket and embarrassed you in front of your friends and relatives? Have you thrown it through a cop’s window in some act of ill-planned revenge? Or has it reunited you with your long lost sweetheart? Well, we at Slingshot want to hear about it! Just send us your best Slingshot Organizer stories–something memorable, salacious, or just plain stupid. We’ll print the best ones in a special section in next year’s Y2K Organizer!

Hurry, now! The deadline is August 2, 1999.

Posted on

Calendar

JUNE
      
June 11-13 Zine Conference Bowling Green, OH Call 419-373-6502 ciara@bgnet.bgsu.edu July 4, noon Nude Freedom Day, B aker Beach, SF Look for rainbow flag. Bring ideas, drums, etc. to share. Free.    
June 12-13 21st Annual Health and Harmony Music and Arts Festival ’99. Sonoma County Fairgrounds. Call 707-575-9355 www.wishwell.com      
Friday, June 18, 11am Reclaim the Streets! Justin Herman Plaza. www.gn.apc.org/june18/ or call 820-3226      
Sunday, June 20, 7pm Summer Solstice Poets’ Gathering Open Reading Ecology Center Bookstore 2530 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley      
Posted on

Free Radio Movement Scores a Victory

The Free Radio movement now has an unprecedented opportunity to win its struggle to open the airwaves to low powered, community radio broadcasts in the wake of a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal issued February 3 to legalize forms of micro-radio broadcasting. Quick citizen action before an April 12 deadline is required to turn this opportunity to democratize the airwaves into reality.

The so-called Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued by the FCC is a series of questions seeking public comment on whether and how the FCC should legalize three new kinds of low power FM radio stations. Each new type of station would be more local and cheaper to set up than existing “full power” FM stations. According to the FCC, the new stations would “provide new opportunities for community-oriented radio broadcasting, foster opportunities for new radio broadcast ownership and promote additional diversity in radio voices and program services.”

The FCC is accepting answers to the questions posed in its NPRM from the public until April 12, and reply comments until May 12. Everyone interested in democratizing the airwaves is strongly encouraged to submit comments, or sign on in support of comments which will be submitted by the National Lawyer’s Guild’s Committee on Democratic Communications. The CDC, which was crucial in developing the Free Radio movement’s legal strategies which forced the FCC to take this action, is hoping that hundreds of community organizations, unions, churches, local governments, and others with an interest in democracy will join in their comments. (See end of this article for how to comment.)

The FCC’s Proposal to change the rules to permit low-power FM broadcasts comes in response to the establishment of hundreds of unlicensed, micro-powered, community FM radio stations across the country over the last 5 years, and the positive response these actions have received from the public. These stations broadcast in defiance of the FCC’s ban on affordable, community radio, which has effectively prevented non-corporate voices from being heard.

Since the inception of the FCC, but especially in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, FCC regulations have guaranteed corporate domination of the airwaves. Although the FCC is theoretically charged with regulating the radio spectrum “in the public interest” by balancing “diversity of voices” against the limited space on the radio spectrum, the FCC has mostly regulated “in the corporate interest.” The FCC has favored corporations by licensing a few centralized, high powered and very expensive to build and operate stations in each area, while prohibiting low power radio transmitters, which are cheap to build and can only be heard in a local area, serving local listeners.

The last five years of electronic civil disobedience by Free Radio stations has demonstrated how cheaply and easily normal citizens can take to the airwaves, while also avoiding the danger of radio interference. The FCC has consistently resisted licensing lower power stations, arguing that they would interfere with large stations and airplanes. In the field, however, low power stations haven’t interfered.

More importantly, the Free Radio movement has demonstrated the bankruptcy of FCC policies which restrict free speech and make the FM radio dial a vast wasteland of corporate formats, increasingly devoid of local programming and passion. People in communities across the land where unlicensed stations conducted broadcasts got a taste of what radio communication could provide: spontaneity, diversity, relevance, local information, non-corporate viewpoints, and creativity rarely heard on commercial or large, bureaucratic public stations.

People across America have welcomed the fresh voices on “illegal”, unlicensed Free Radio stations and have wondered why the FCC couldn’t permit the cheap, democratizing technology that low power radio represents. The FCC claims it received over 13,000 inquiries last year from people interested in starting a low power radio station.

The FCC’s proposal and questions is a mixed bag, at best. While the NPRM contains many ideas popular amongst Free Radio activists (see below) and while it does not rule out permitting the kind of cheap, non-commercial radio licenses such activists have sought, it is likely that “public” comments from rich broadcasting corporations and powerful interest groups like the National Association of Broadcasters will convince the FCC to drop some of the best ideas contained in the proposal. The NPRM is meant to defuse the mass electronic civil disobedience of the last several years. It may be that ideas from the Free Radio movement were only included so that the FCC could later argue that they considered these ideas. In any case, once the FCC issues final new rules, the crackdown against any remaining unlicensed stations will surely intensify.

Nonetheless, that the FCC is now even considering revising its ban on low powered radio is unquestionably a major victory for the Free Radio movement. A rag tag, informal national network of artists, attorneys, dreamers, technical wizards and radicals numbering in the hundreds has forced the micro radio agenda to the national stage, and it looks likely that at least some new low power FM stations will be licensed as a result. Licensing new low power stations which are locally oriented is an important contribution to the struggle against corporate control of the airwaves and ultimately, corporate control of the American mind.

Citizen action during the comment period (before April 12) is crucial to getting the most out of this opportunity.

What It Says

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is a long and complex document that asks hundreds of questions about how a Low Power FM (LPFM) license system should work. Public comment is sought about every point.

First, the FCC states that it is inclined to create two new types of licenses, a 500-1000 watt (LP1000) service that could be heard about 8.8 miles from its antenna, and a 50-100 watt (LP100) service that could be heard about 3.5 miles from its antenna. The NPRM requests comment, but does not advocate, a 1-10 watt “micro-powered” service that could be heard 1-2 miles from its antenna, and no provision is made for stations broadcasting from 11-49 watts or from 101-499 watts. The NPRM proposes a simplified application process for all of the new types of stations based on distance between stations, which would avoid the need for expensive engineering studies, but which would require the same spacing between stations operating at 50 watts as those operating at 100 watts, thereby possibly eliminating opportunities for more stations.

The so-called LP100 stations would be most similar to the community radio stations operated over the last 5 years by the Free Radio movement. Free Radio Berkeley, for example, usually broadcast with either a 40 or a 60 watt transmitter.

LP1000 stations, by contrast, are much more similar to “full power” FM stations than they are to the cheap, strictly local radio service provided by smaller stations. These higher powered stations would also eat up considerably more geographical territory than would an LP100 station.

Reading between the lines, it appears that the FCC intends LP1000 stations to provide opportunities for small business persons to set up stations, while LP100 stations, probably too small to be commercially viable, would be set aside for non-commercial operation.

Unfortunately, many portions of the NPRM make it clear that LP1000 stations will be given distinct advantages in the inevitable competition between LP1000 and LP100 stations for limited space on the radio dial. For instance, the Notice favors rules under which LP1000 stations would be considered a “primary” service that could not be bumped if a high power station decided to increase its signal strength. In contrast, the FCC believes that LP100 sta
tions should be a considered a “secondary” service, subject to being put off the air if a higher power station wanted to increase their service area. For example, scores of “secondary” status low power TV stations are being forced off the air as “primary” TV stations go to digital signals.

The CDC is expected to submit comments favoring licensing for LP100 stations, but not LP1000 stations, and making LP100 stations “primary”, because LP100 licensing without LP1000 would promote more localism, and would permit far more new voices access to the airwaves. For example, in a study conducted by the FCC, only 87 new LP1000 stations could be licensed (assuming the most permissive technical standards) in 20 of the largest US cities, while 324 LP100 stations could be licensed in those same 20 cities.

Another key question posed by the Notice, therefore, is whether either LP1000 or LP100, or both, “should be restricted to non-commercial applicants” or open to both commercial and non-commercial applicants. The NPRM indicates that the channels between 88 and 92 FM would probably be reserved for non-commercial LPFM stations. These channels are already reserved for non-commercial full powered stations. The CDC is expected to comment that all new LPFM should be non-commercial only.

A related issue is how the FCC would define “non-commercial” and how difficult it would be for small, poor community organizations to establish that they were non-commercial to the FCC’s satisfaction. Current FCC requirements are strict and require a corporation, rather than the easier to establish unincorporated association. The CDC is expected to favor less formal requirements to establish a “non-commercial” entity.

How LPFM Would Operate

The FCC proposes imposing what it calls “strict local and cross-ownership restrictions” on LPFM to ensure that the new radio service would permit new voices and increased diversity on the radio dial. First, the FCC proposes that no owner of a high power FM or AM station be permitted to apply for an LPFM license. The NPRM also proposes to prohibit any person or entity from owning more than one LPFM station in a single market.

The proposed rules are not so strict with regard to owning multiple LPFM stations on a national basis. The NPRM supports permitting an individual or entity to own multiple stations in different markets, citing benefits of “national efficiencies”, and seeks comments on whether one owner should be permitted to own 5 or 10 stations nationally. Crucially, the FCC does not propose any requirement that a station owner live or have a presence in the community where it owns an LPFM.

The FCC also proposes that there be no minimum requirement for locally produced programming on LPFM stations. This could mean that a private owner or a nationally oriented non-profit entity like an evangelical church could own 10 LPFM stations across the country, none of them where the owner or church was located, and program all of them from a central location.

All of these provisions could significantly threaten LPFM’s ability to foster new voices, viewpoints and diversity on the airwaves. The CDC and other commentors are likely to oppose any multiple ownership and seek a requirement of at least some local programming, perhaps as high as 80 percent. (Local programming would mean material played by local DJ, and could include recorded music, interviews, etc.)

Technical Issues

The NPRM proposes permitting LPFM stations to broadcast on channels which would not be available to higher power stations, so-called third adjacent and second adjacent channels, which could vastly increase the number of LPFM stations which could be established if the FCC changes the rules.

The FCC rules developed decades ago to avoid radio interference which restrict how closely two stations can be on the radio dial. Under current rules, if a station is at 104.1, another station within a certain geographical distance cannot be on the same channel (so-called co-channel), 104.3 (first adjacent channel), 104.5 (second adjacent) or even 104.7 (third adjacent).

Massive technological advances both in broadcast and receiver technology have made the old FCC rules obsolete. For example Free Radio Berkeley broadcast on 104.1 FM, which was second adjacent to KFOG on 104.5, without any noticeable interference more than a few feet from the antenna. The FCC bases its proposal on the small power of LPFM stations and thus their lower potential to cause interference.

In a study conducted by the FCC, 2 to 10 times as many LPFM stations could be licensed if they were not required to protect second adjacent channels. (10 vs. 43 in Jacksonville, Florida, 4 vs. 17 in Houston, 1 vs. 8 in Philadelphia, 0 vs. 6 in San Diego and 1 vs. 18 in Kansas City, KS.) Almost no new stations in major urban areas would be permitted if LPFM stations were required to protect the third adjacent channel.

Despite the FCC’s seeming willingness to bend rules which apply to full power FM stations to permit LPFM stations more access to the airwaves, the NPRM repeatedly asks for comment about whether the rules can be bent in view of the transition to digital radio. In late 1998, USA Digital Radio Partners LP (owned by huge corporate interests) submitted a petition for rule making which suggests adopting their brand of in-band-on-channel (IBOC) digital radio technology. IBOC would allow stations to simultaneously broadcast digital and analog (normal) radio signals on the same frequency during the transition from analog to digital, permitting listeners with new or old radios to hear the signals. Corporate interests are certain to argue that the FCC cannot license LPFM radio service because it would interfere with the multi-billion dollar transition to digital. Free Radio commentors like the CDC are expected to argue that IBOC and LPFM can co-exist and that in any case, diversity on the airwaves and the ability to have alternative viewpoints discussed is vitally important to a democratic society and cannot be sacrificed to a new technological toy like IBOC.

Mutually Exclusive Licenses

A critical issue raised by the NPRM is how the FCC would resolve conflicting applications, i.e. when two individuals or entities applied for a license on the same frequency in the same area. These are called “mutually exclusive” applications. If the FCC licenses both commercial and non-commercial LPFM stations, the NPRM indicates that federal law will require the FCC to conduct an auction, giving the frequency to the highest bidder where two persons apply for the same frequency for commercial uses.

In resolving mutually exclusive applications between two non-commercial applicants (applications will be virtually free), the FCC requests comments about which of three models it should use: (1) lottery; (2) point system; and (3) first come, first served.

In a lottery system, a license would be awarded at random, perhaps with extra chances awarded to increase ethnic diversity or based on other factors. In a point system, applicants would receive points for various characteristics (ethnic diversity, local control, affiliation with an accredited school, etc.) and the applicant with the most points would be awarded the license. In a first come, first served system, the first person to get an application on file would receive the license.

his is a very important issue. Hundreds or thousands of mutually exclusive applications for LPFM stations can be expected, especially in urban areas. Religious broadcasters may often compete with community groups for access to LPFM.

In another rulemaking proceeding regarding high power non-commercial licenses, the FCC indicates that where there was a mutually exclusive application involving a commercial vs. a non-commercial applicant (on the FM band above 92 MHz) the FCC could either automatically favor the non-commercial license or perhaps decide the issue with a lottery or point system. If the non-commercial appli
cant lost in a lottery or point system, then an auction would be conducted for the commercial spot.

Some activists have suggested resolving the mutual exclusivity problem by setting up regional associations which would “register” rather than license stations. The association would negotiate compromises in the case of competing applications by working out sharing arrangements. For example, two stations could share a frequency by broadcasting at different times of day, by raising or lowering power at different times of day, or by even sharing a single transmitter and studio. The FCC would set up rules requiring all those interested in LPFM broadcasting to set up an association which would work out competing interests and monitor LPFM radio. The FCC would not issue licenses as such and would cede control to the association as long as there was no interference.

Others have proposed that each radio market should have at least one “public access” radio station where various members of the community could produce programs. Finally, some others favor expanding the radio spectrum down to 75 Mhz (by eliminating broadcasts on TV channel 6) to open up more opportunities for LPFM broadcasts and avoid or decrease mutually exclusivity problems.

The NPRM also seeks comment on how long a license should run, and on whether the licenses should be renewable or non-renewable. Having short (5-8 year) license periods which were not renewable might permit others to take their turn at the microphone and might help to solve mutual exclusivity problems, since an applicant denied a license could reapply in a few years.

What You Can Do

Anyone can submit comments to the FCC about the NPRM on or before April 12, 1999. The more people who submit comments, the better. See the sidebar to this article for a list of subjects on which to comment.

The FCC requests that people file their comments by computer if possible. This is also the easiest way to file. If you have access to the web, go to the fcc.gov site and select “comment” off the first screen you see. This will get you to the Electronic Comment Filing System where you can make your comment in only a few minutes. The number of the proceeding is MM Docket No. 99-25.

Alternatively, you can submit comments by e-mailing ecfs@fcc.gov with the message “get form ” to get a form and filing instructions. To submit comments by mail, write to Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, TW-A306, FCC, 445 12th Street. S.W., Washington DC 20554. To file by mail you have to include 4 copies plus a disk with your comments, plus a cover letter with other info, so it might be better to file electronically if you possibly can.

For more information on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making or the Free Radio Movement, contact the following: Committee on Democratic Communications, 558 Capp Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 (415) 522-9814, www.nlgcdc.org. MicroRadio Empowerment Coalition, mec@tao.ca.

Suggested items for public comment

Following are suggested points persons filing comments with the FCC could make in their comments. While comments simply supporting the creation of low power FM licensing are important and necessary, it is crucial that the FCC select the best portions of its current proposal so that the legalization of community radio is more than a token gesture. The new radio service must be geared towards local, grassroots uses, and must be available even to tiny groups of people with a few hundred dollars. Most importantly, the new rules should be designed to permit the maximum number of new stations possible.

1. The FCC should only license non-commercial Low Power FM stations. Licenses should be granted to either non-profit corporations or unincorporated associations with bylaws meeting simple minimum standards.

2. The FCC should license stations between 10-100 watts, similar to LP100 stations discussed in the NPRM, but should not license 500-1000 watt (LP1000) stations.

3. LP100 stations should not be relegated to “secondary status” but should be licensed as a Primary Service. 4. No individual or entity should be permitted to own more than one LPFM station nationally or locally, and owners of high power FM or AM stations should not be permitted to own LPFM stations.

5. LPFM stations should not be required to provide 2nd or 3rd-adjacent protection to other stations.

6. LPFM stations should only be licensed to groups or individuals who reside in the community the station would serve. 7. At least 80 percent of the programming on LPFM stations should be locally originated, using live local DJ. (They could play music and interviews, etc., on their shows.)

8. The FCC should resolve mutually exclusive applications with a weighted lottery and should issue 5 year non-renewable licenses. 9. Owners of LPFM stations should not be permitted to sell or transfer their licenses. Otherwise, people will apply just to later “traffic” in licenses.

10. If the FCC decides to permit commercial LPFM stations, the FCC should give preference to a non-commercial applicant where a commercial and non-commercial applicant seek a license for the same channel in the same area.

Posted on

Stop the Invasion Of Oakland Protests set for March 15 and 20

“Urban Warrior”, the Marine Corps wargame in which 6,000 Marines will practice invading Oakland and Alameda March 15-18, followed by an exposition of military hardware and ships at Jack London Square March 19-21, is an incredibly insidious exercise in militarism and US corporate global domination. Using Harrier jets, helicopters, hovercraft, humvees, armored personnel carriers and firing thousands of rounds of blank ammunition, the wargame is ostensibly designed to test the Marines ability to fight in an “urban” context.

Marine Corps commanders reason that as globalization and US corporate domination concentrate billions of poor people world-wide into dense urban areas, the Marines have to be prepared to put down the inevitable rebellions that will develop. A 1997 press release from the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL), which is organizing the Oakland invasion, notes that by 2020, 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities and that the “many areas will have scarce resources . . . As populations grow and resources shrink even further, the chances for conflict will naturally grow. . . Tactics and doctrine must be refined and modified . . . to meet the challenges of future urban warfare.”

According to Lt. Gen. John Rhodes, commander of the US Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia, which hosts the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, “there is a good chance we are going to fight in the urban environment, whether it’s skyscrapers, a slum or urban sprawl. . . [F]uture Marines will fight in the air, in buildings, on the streets and in subways or sewers – simultaneously.”

The Marines have been the premiere arm of US imperialism for over 200 years, conducting over 400 invasions or military interventions. Most of these have been to protect US corporate interests and property, and almost all have been against third-world poor people fighting for freedom from US economic domination.

Of even more concern for domestic activists are Marine claims that Urban Warrior will practice “counter-terrorist” tactics. These may secretly be for use on US soil. During Urban Warrior, the Marines will test “non-lethal” riot control gear and in other wargames over the last two years, the Marines have tested drones that can drop smoke or pepper spray for crowd control.

In similar war games taking place in Monterey on March 13, local students will play “urban terrorists.” “We will eliminate the terrorist threat and we will simulate the release of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, in this case something like anthrax, although it will actually just be water,” said Marine Lieutenant Colonel Gary Schenkel.

It doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to realize that crowd control and “counter-terrorism” tactics designed for overseas urban areas are also highly useful to suppress political dissent or riots here at home. Perhaps it is no accident that Urban Warrior will be conducted in Oakland, where grinding poverty make future riots likely. Similar urban wargames conducted by the Marine Warfighting Lab over the last two years have been in Chicago, New York, Charleston, NC and Jacksonville, FL, all cities with large poor and non-white populations.

As to training to fight “terrorism”, one side’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Earth First! and other non-violent groups in the US have been termed “terrorist” by right-wing bureaucrats and corporations threatened by protests.

Whether the Marines are training to suppress people’s movements overseas or at home, the Marines serve a single master: US corporate capitalism. The military and the government, observing the growing problems of global poverty and urban desperation, are more interested in learning how to kill the urban masses than feed them, because US corporate interests require global urban poverty to more effectively extract cheap labor for overseas production.

Even putting aside the geo-political implications of a well-trained Marine Corps fighting “insurgents” in “dense urban neighborhoods”, Urban Warrior is terrible for the City of Oakland. In a city ravaged with street violence, the wargame teaches the “government approved” way to solve problems. As one anti-Marine flyer put it “A Marine invasion, guns ablazing, is a poor example for communities like ours struggling to rid themselves of violence.”

The military exercise and the exposition at Jack London Square following it appear designed as a propaganda blitz in favor of bloated military budgets. Further, at a time when the military services are having difficulty meeting their quotas with voluntarily recruiting, the wargames are designed to attract disadvantaged Oaklanders into the services.

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown and Alameda Mayor Ralph Appazzetto have welcomed the Marines with open arms (and without any public notice, discussion or democratic process), “drooling at the Marines’ bizarre promise to spend $4.5 million on shopping while they are here” according to one flyer. Each of the 6,000 Marines would have to spend $750 during their brief stay in Oakland to drop $4.5 million on the local economy, which seems unlikely given that they won’t have to pay for lodging or food.

Given the massive annual flow of money from Oakland to Washington to fund the $300 billion plus military budget, maybe Mayor Brown should try fighting to reduce useless military expenditures so a few crumbs can be sent to Oakland, not blindly supporting the 900 pound gorilla. One of the few ways a Marine might spend $750 in 4 days is on prostitution, which brings to mind Mayor Brown and his rationale for supporting “Urban Warrior”.

Oakland residents have already held one protest against the wargames, and others are planned. Some creative souls have suggested huge toddler birthday parties on the beach prior to the invasion, or topless swimming to distract the marines as they come ashore. Another idea is to assist the marines in their simulated urban warfare by creating massive traffic jams around the exercises, such as those that would surely result from any invasion. One action group plans to confront Mayor Brown at all of his public appearances and drown out his public addresses with a recording of The Marine Hymn. Other creative ideas are of course welcome during the occupation.

What You Can Do

Contact the Ad Hoc Coalition to Stop the Urban Warriors at 510-654-5628 or the Coalition Against Urban Warfare at 510-834-2630 for more information. Protests against Urban Warrior are scheduled for March 15 from 8 a.m. – noon to protest the landing of the Marines. Another protest is scheduled from Noon-3 p.m. at Jack London Square to protest the exposition of military hardware there that will follow the wargames.

Posted on

Legalized Cop Violence

“When a gang member is beaten by persons unknown in a mixed neighborhood, and the black gangs begin terrorizing whites, it is called racism, a bunch of cops can ride through black neighborhoods all day beatin’ ass, and call it law, when a bunch of blacks beat one of these cops’ ass it’s called mob violence.” John Africa (May 1967)

A young woman, engulfed in a diabetic coma while sitting in her car, is repeatedly shot by a corps of cops, who say they are threatened by the young woman. Tyesha Miller, of Riverside, California, becomes a statistic.

A young man sitting in his car in North Philly is surrounded by a phalanx of armed cops, whose guns are pointed at him from all points. He is ordered to raise his hands. When he does so, he is shot to death by one of the cops, who insists he thought he saw a gun. The 18-year old is unarmed. Dontae Dawson becomes a statistic.

An emigrant from the West African nation of Guinea comes to America, taking an apartment in New York’s Bronx Borough. When four NYPD cops approach his door, reportedly because of a suspected rape (he was not a suspect), he is shot at 41 times. Nineteen shots hit him. Amadou Diallo was unarmed, and will never return to West Africa.

In case after case after case, in city after city, from coast to coast, such cases arise with alarming regularity, worsened by the realization that, in most cases, cops who have committed these acts, that if committed by others would constitute high crimes, will face no serious prosecution, if any prosecution at all.

They are, the corporate media assures us, “just doing their jobs”, “under an awful lot of pressure”, or “in fear”, and therefore justified in what they do. In the language of the media, the very media that make their millions off of the punishment industry calling for the vilest sentences known to man, turn, in the twinkling of an eye, into paragons of mercy, who lament that the “fine young men” who “served their community” are in “trouble”, or have “suffered enough.”

The suffering of the slain, because they are young, and black, are all but forgotten in this unholy algebra that devalues Black life, while heightening the worth of the assailants because they work for the state.

The worst lie that is often trotted out when such cases occur is when politicians and media people sing the praises of such people, who are called, by virtue of their jobs, “public servants.” Since when have servants (of any kind) acted in the vile, arrogant, monstrous manner that many of these cops do in Black, Hispanic and poor communities? Since when have such servants been in the position to slaughter, shoot, humiliate and imprison the very public they are sworn to serve?

They are servants, if at all, of the political structures of which they are a part, not of the people. They are servants, if at all, of the state. They serve the interests of capital, of the wealthy, of those who run this system from their bank vaults and corporate offices.

They do not serve the poor, the powerless, nor the uninfluential. They never have.

They are an armed force organized to protect the interests of the established, and those who own capital. The history of labor in this country is splattered by the blood of trade unionists who were beaten, shot and crushed to the earth for striking against the trusts, combinations, and megacorporations of capital. Who did the beating? The shooting? The crushing? The cops, who served the interests of a state that declared, as did the Supreme Court, that unions were “criminal conspiracies”, and that “The Constitution was. . . based upon the concept that the fundamental private rights of property are anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities”.

Capital’s voice (the media) and their agents (the politicians) unite in a chorus of support for their legalized killers, who bomb babies with impunity (remember May 13, 1985 – Philadelphia), who shoot unarmed kids in their cars, and unarmed African emigrants, whose only capital crime is being Black in modern-day America.

This legalized violence that they do daily proves that violence is not a problem to the system – when it is their’s against the people. This awful crime must cease.