Barriers to Establishing Low Power FM Radio in the U S.

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Oklahoma State University]On: 16 January 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 784375623]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Professional GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615

Barriers to Establishing Low-Power FM Radio in the United StatesThomas A. Wikle a; Jonathan C. Comer a

a Oklahoma State University,

To cite this Article Wikle, Thomas A. and Comer, Jonathan C.(2009) 'Barriers to Establishing Low-Power FM Radio in theUnited States', The Professional Geographer, 61: 3, 366 — 381To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00330120902941670URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120902941670

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330120902941670

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ARTICLES

Barriers to Establishing Low-Power FM Radio in the United

States

Thomas A. Wikle and Jonathan C. ComerOklahoma State University

Deregulation introduced by the 1996 Telecommunications Act brought unprecedented change to broad-casting, including the consolidation of independent radio stations within mega-networks. Acting in responseto decreasing diversity in station ownership, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launchedlow-power FM (LPFM) radio in 2000. In the FCC’s vision, thousands of community-based radio stationswould serve local needs and increase diversity in programming and station ownership. However, despite itspotential for serving urban minorities and improving connections between stations and local communities,fewer than 1,200 LPFM radio stations were established between February 2000 and July 2007. In this articlewe examine the distribution of LPFM stations, efforts by full-power broadcasters to limit LPFM expansion,and groups that have benefited most from the LPFM initiative. Our findings reveal that few LPFM stationshave been established in densely populated urban areas that are subject to spectrum crowding. In lieu ofhelping inner-city minorities, the main beneficiaries of LPFM have been white Americans living in ruralareas. Although civic and community organizations have been successful in establishing stations, the greatestnumber of LPFM stations are operated by religious organizations. This study can be viewed within a broaderframework involving diverging interests of national corporations and small communities. Key Words: 1996Telecommunications Act, localism, radio.

La liberalizacion ordenada por la Ley de Telecomunicaciones de 1996 introdujo cambios sin precedentes ala radiodifusion, incluso la consolidacion de estaciones de radio independientes dentro de mega-cadenas. Alactuar frente a la baja diversidad de propiedad de las estaciones, la Comision Federal de Comunicaciones(FCC, por la sigla en ingles) empezo desde el 2000 a promover la radio FM de bajo poder (LPFM, low powerFM). De acuerdo con la vision que tenıa la FCC, miles de estaciones de radio comunitarias servirıan lasnecesidades locales e incrementarıan la variedad en programacion y propiedad de las estaciones. No obstante,a pesar de su potencial de servicio para minorıas urbanas y para mejorar las conexiones entre las estacionesy las comunidades locales, entre febrero del 2000 y julio del 2007 apenas se establecieron menos de 1.200estaciones de radio LPFM. En este artıculo examinamos la distribucion de estaciones LPFM, los esfuerzos deradiodifusoras de pleno poder por limitar la expansion de las LPFM, y los grupos que mas se han beneficiado

The Professional Geographer, 61(3) 2009, pages 366–381 C© Copyright 2009 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, October 2007; revised submission, July 2008; final acceptance, September 2008.

Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Downloaded By: [Oklahoma State University] At: 16:51 16 January 2010

Barriers to Establishing Low-Power FM Radio in the United States 367

de la iniciativa LPFM. Nuestros descubrimientos indican que muy pocas estaciones LPFM fueron establecidasen las areas urbanas densamente pobladas, sometidas a gran congestion del espectro. En vez de ayudar a lasminorıas del interior de las ciudades, los principales beneficiarios de las LPFM han sido los americanos blancosque viven en las areas rurales. Si bien las organizaciones cıvicas y comunitarias han tenido exito en la fundacionde estaciones, el mayor numero de estaciones LPFM son operadas por organizaciones religiosas. Este estudiopuede mirarse en un marco mucho mas amplio que involucre los intereses divergentes de corporacionesnacionales y comunidades pequenas. Palabras clave: Ley de Telecomunicaciones de 1996, localismo,radio.

D espite the emergence of advanced com-munications technologies such as satel-

lite and Internet radio, terrestrial (AM/FM)radio has remained a popular source of in-formation and entertainment. A 2006 surveyfound that nearly three quarters of persons inthe United States listen to AM/FM broadcastsat least once a day (American Media Services2006). However, unknown to most Ameri-cans, the relationship between stations andtheir listener communities experienced pro-found change beginning in the mid-1990s. The1996 Telecommunications Act (Telecom Act)lifted regulations on radio broadcasting duringa wave of deregulation impacting other indus-tries such as air travel (Fairchild 1999). A keyprovision of the Telecom Act was the removalof most limits on broadcast station ownershipleading to hundreds of independent stations,many minority owned, being purchased in mas-sive consolidations. Within a short time, lo-cal programming was replaced with centrallycontrolled play lists, syndicated talk shows, andnational news reports. Local stations that pre-viously served community needs were subjectto control by national corporations seeking tomaximize profit margins.

In an effort to address declining num-bers of minority-owned stations and losses incommunity-based programming, the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) createda new class of noncommercial radio in 2000with power levels limiting reception to a fewsquare miles. The FCC’s vision for low-powerFM (LPFM) radio was a licensing class thatwould create thousands of community-basedradio stations serving local needs and increas-ing diversity in programming and station own-ership (FCC 2000b). However, despite thepotential for improving accessibility to broad-casting, relatively few LPFM stations have beenestablished in urban areas. Through an analy-sis of station locations and the socioeconomiccharacteristics of potential listeners, this arti-cle identifies barriers to the establishment of

new LPFM stations and demonstrates that theLPFM initiative has fallen short of fulfilling itsintended purpose.

Background

The Radio and Geographic ResearchTerrestrial radio has retained its influence overthe last eighty years because of its ubiquityand low cost. An inexpensive radio receiverprovides nearly anyone with access to news,music, and other entertainment. In terms ofserving listeners, radio stations operate withinfixed geographic regions controlled by trans-mitter power, antenna height, local terrain, andcompetition from other stations on the samefrequency.

Geographic research examining radio is rel-atively limited in scope. A few studies havelooked at the distribution of radio stations(Innis 1954, 1972; Bell 1965; Doucet 1983;Greve 1996; Dimmick and Wang 2005),decentralization associated with broadcast-ing (Hagerstrand 1986), ethnic programming(Carlson 1997; Garner 2006), and radio’s rolein the context of other communications systems(Abler 1974; Hillis 1998). Studies have also ex-amined the impact of radio on the formation ofcultural boundaries (Morley and Robbins 1995;Hangen 2002). Research focused on LPFM islimited to Schiller’s (2006) examination of com-munity radio’s role in the public sphere andGreve, Pozner, and Rao’s (2006) investigationof LPFM and social movements. In the sectionthat follows we briefly review the history of ra-dio to provide a context for examining barriersto the establishment of LPFM in the UnitedStates.

A Look Back at Radio in the United StatesBekken (2000) identifies three categories ofradio broadcasting that have evolved withinthe United States: commercial, public (gov-ernment sponsored), and community. Dur-ing the early 1920s, most radio stations were


368 Volume 61, Number 3, August 2009

operated by nonprofit entities such as religiousorganizations, labor unions, civic associations,and educational institutions. Financial supportfor commercial-free broadcasts came mostlyfrom private donations or corporate spon-sors (Mooney 2006). In 1923, 500 radio sta-tions in the United States served approximately1 million listeners and by 1926 nearly two thirdsof American households had at least one radioreceiver (Liebowitz 2004). In terms of its spa-tial diffusion, radio grew unevenly across theUnited States, beginning in large cities withhigh-power “clear channel” amplitude modu-lation (AM) station frequencies.

Because there were no established criteria forbroadcasters, nearly anyone could operate a ra-dio station in the early 1920s. As a result, com-peting transmitters clogged airwaves in urbanareas, prompting calls for government over-sight (Hilliard and Keith 2005). Regulation toprevent interference began in 1927 with pas-sage of the Radio Act that charged the fed-eral government with managing the frequencyspectrum (Ruggiero 1999; Bagdikian 2004). Animportant stipulation of the Radio Act was thatlicenses were to be issued on the basis of servingthe public interest. Between 1927 and 1934 themove toward commercial radio accelerated asstation operators recognized the potential forgenerating advertising profits. Although someAM stations could be received in rural areas,especially at night, urban listeners were the pri-mary target for most radio stations.

As commercial broadcasting was becom-ing the dominant force in radio, technolog-ical changes were taking place that greatlyimproved reception quality. Introduced inthe mid-1930s, frequency modulation (FM)promised better reception over existing AMsystems. In 1947 the growing popularity of FMprompted the federal government to move theband from 42 to 50 megahertz (MHz) to 88.1 to108.1 MHz as a means of expanding the num-ber of potential stations (Stavitsky, Avery, andVanhala 2001). The automobile also played animportant role in making FM profitable, as be-tween 1970 and 1985 the number of cars soldwith FM receivers increased from 14 percentto more than 85 percent (Morton 1999).

Despite the growing dominance of commer-cial radio, nonprofit groups including colleges,community organizations, and churches con-tinued operating stations. Many smaller groups

benefited from the introduction of 10-wattClass D licenses, issued to civic and educa-tional groups beginning in 1948 (Brand 2004).1However, despite their popularity, Class D li-censes were phased out in 1978 under pressurefrom broadcasting organizations such as Na-tional Public Radio (Ruggiero 1999). Withouta low-power license category, civic organiza-tions and other nonprofit groups seeking entryinto broadcasting had no choice other than toobtain a full-power license with its associatedequipment costs, legal fees, and operating ex-penses. In the absence of legal alternatives, agrowing number of groups and individuals es-tablished unlicensed “pirate radio” stations indefiance of FCC regulations. Pirate stationswere known to their listeners for presenting ac-tivist political viewpoints and eclectic program-ming (Lewis 1984; Soley 1999; Brand 2004;Lucas 2006).

The total number of full-power radio sta-tions continued increasing through the 1990sand by 2001 the number of radio stations in theUnited States reached 11,000 (Mooney 2006).However, few new stations were added in ur-ban areas where the radio spectrum was alreadycrowded. In 2001 the FCC received 30,000 in-quiries about new station construction in urbanareas but granted only six new licenses (Mooney2006).

Radio Station ConsolidationBeginning in 1941, the FCC implementedpolicies such as the “local ownership” rulethat restricted station ownership as a means ofpreventing monopolies, encouraging compe-tition, and maintaining diversity in viewpointspresented to listeners (Arts Industries PolicyForum [AIPF] 2004). However, during the1970s, media lobbyists began pushing for re-laxation in ownership rules citing the benefitsof market forces. The year before the TelecomAct was signed into law a company or individualcould own forty radio stations nationwide andup to two AM and two FM stations in a singleradio market area. The 1996 Telecom Actremoved national ownership limits, increasingthe number of stations that could be ownedwithin a single market area to between five andeight, depending on the total number of sta-tions in the market (Drushel 1998; Shaw 2001;Bednarski 2003).



Table 1 Number of stations owned by tenlargest broadcasting networks, 2006

News TotalOwner stations stations

Clear Channel Communications 136 1,190Cumulus Broadcasting Inc. 33 303Citadel Communications Corporation 24 225Infinity Broadcasting 19 178Educational Media Foundation 0 143American Family Association Inc. 0 120Salem Communications Corporation 22 104Entercom 14 103Saga Communications Inc. 13 86Cox Broadcasting 6 78

Source: The Project For Excellence in Journalism (2006).

Despite its stated goal of increasing com-petition, the Telecom Act resulted in a sig-nificant decrease in competition (Lehman andWeisman 2000; McDowell 2000). In the firstfull year following passage, more than 20 per-cent of stations changed owners in a wave ofconsolidation (FCC 1997; Huntemann 1999).Compared to $1.5 billion the year before, thevalue of station mergers in 1996–1997 exceeded$13 billion, with a few large corporations suchas Clear Channel Communications acquiringhundreds of independent stations (Table 1). By2002, the ten largest radio conglomerates con-trolled two thirds of radio market share (AIPF2004; DiCola 2006).

As noted by McChesney (2001), oligopolythat previously happened within the automo-bile and oil industries took hold of radio as me-dia firms grew into national entities. Economiesof scale resulted in surplus profits but also morelimited consumer choices and barriers to com-petition (Warf 2003). At the same time, therush to build networks pushed up the price ofstations, making it increasingly difficult for mi-norities and women to enter full-power broad-casting (Aufderheide 1999; Bekken 2000).2

Station consolidation provides an exam-ple of the global versus local struggle ob-served by McDowell (2000) and others.In lieu of community-based programming,network-affiliated stations broadcasted syndi-cated talk programs and prerecorded nationalnews (Hilliard and Keith 2005). In manycases the shifting emphasis away from localissues resulted in the downsizing or elimina-tion of news staffs. Seeking to maximize prof-its, network stations also began focusing their

programming to appeal to wealthier listeners,leaving fewer stations offering programmingpopular among minority listeners (Ofori 1999;Berry and Waldfogel 2001; Chambers 2003;Warf 2003).3

Political RepercussionsIn addition to changes in programming,station consolidation has generated concernover corporate control of entertainment andnews. McChesney (2004) argues that corporatedomination of the media can interfere with thedemocratic process. For example, the managersof networked media systems might be lesswilling to air programming that challenges thestatus quo or appears critical of issues importantto national sponsors (Murdoch and Golding1989; Herman and McChesney 1997). Theconsolidation of station ownership has alsocreated situations where corporations use theirinfluence over member stations to advancepolitical agendas (McChesney 1999). Two ofthe largest radio networks, Clear Channel andCumulus Media, have been accused of punish-ing musicians who actively campaigned againstthe Gulf War in Iraq by not playing their music(Jones 2003; Schwartz and Fabrikant 2003).Network control has also played a role in theexpansion of conservative talk radio. In a 2007survey, Halpin et al. (2007) found that among257 news and talk stations owned by networks,91 percent of their programming content wasconservative.

The FCC’s LPFM RulemakingThe FCC’s LPFM initiative was intendedto increase the accessibility to broadcastingand improve diversity in station ownershipand programming (FCC 2000a). A strongproponent of LPFM, FCC Chair WilliamKennard described the decision to create thenew licensing category as having “thrownopen the doors of opportunity to the smaller,community-oriented broadcaster” (FCC2000c, 1). An important issue for Kennardand FCC members was the decline in AfricanAmerican station owners following passage ofthe Telecom Act (McChesney 2004). Unveiledin 1999, the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rule-making outlined two types of LPFM licenses:LP100 and LP10. LP100 stations were limited



to 100 watts of power, creating a listener radiusof approximately 3.5 miles from the trans-mitting antenna, whereas LP10 stations werecapped at 10 watts with a radius of about 1.5miles. The FCC’s Notice noted that low powerenabled dozens of LPFM stations operatingon the same frequency to coexist within thecoverage area of a single full-power station.Perhaps the most controversial aspect of theproposal was separating adjacent LPFM chan-nels by only 200 kilohertz (KHz), creating thepossibility of sixty-seven new channels (Orange2001). This was a significant departure fromthe FCC’s long-standing requirement of a 600KHz separation (three channels) to preventinterference among full-power stations.4

LPFM licenses were restricted to noncom-mercial organizations such as schools, civicgroups, non-English-speaking communities,public safety associations, and churches. LPFMbrought advantages to these small organiza-tions. Compared to the hundreds of thousandsof dollars needed to establish a full-power sta-tion, an LPFM station could be set up for lessthan $10,000. Lower costs meant that LPFMstations were affordable to a larger number oforganizations. For example, an LPFM stationcould be used for local news and entertainmentbroadcasts to immigrant groups in their homelanguage (Hazlett and Viani 2005).

Although the LPFM initiative provided in-centives to small organizations, the estab-lishment and maintenance of a station is asubstantial undertaking. To ensure that sta-tions remain local, the FCC requires LPFMlicensees to reside in the community where thetransmitting antenna is located. A single orga-nization can own only one LPFM license andall stations are required to offer a minimumof eight hours of original programming eachday. Because they are prohibited from gener-ating revenue through advertisements, LPFMstations are dependent on volunteer labor andfinancial support from listener contributions.

Initial FCC estimates suggested that theLPFM initiative could lead to more than100,000 new FM stations across the UnitedStates (FCC 2000b). As noted by Stavitsky,Avery, and Vanhala (2001), a wide range ofparties lobbied in favor of the initiative, in-cluding the American Library Association, theNational League of Cities, and novelist KurtVonnegut. However, the goal of reshaping

community radio was not universally wel-comed. An FCC request for public commentissued in 1999 brought strong oppositionfrom organizations representing full-powerbroadcasters such as the National Associationof Broadcasters (NAB). Citing potential in-terference from low-power stations, NationalPublic Radio (NPR) joined NAB in opposingthe LPFM initiative (NPR 2000). However,as suggested by McChesney (2004), the NPR’sopposition might have been more closely tiedto the potential for competition from hundredsof new and independent stations.

In their arguments against LPFM, the NABand its allies claimed that low-power signalson adjacent channels (within 200 KHz) wouldcause interference with full-power stations(Hamilton 2004). To address possible interfer-ence, the NAB lobbied Congress for legislationto enforce “third channel adjacency” on LPFMstations. Third channel adjacency prohibits astation from operating within two channels ofa nearby full-power station. This means that if afull-power station is located nearby, an LPFMstation can operate only as close as the thirdadjacent channel (600 KHz separation) if thatchannel is available. As shown in Figure 1, with200 KHz separating adjacent channels, sev-eral LPFM stations transmitting on 90.5 MHzcould operate within a twenty-mile radius of afull-power station transmitting on 90.3 MHz.To force compliance with third channel adja-cency, NAB lobbyists and their Congressionalpartners inserted the rule as a rider on legisla-tion passed by Congress in 2000. A year later,Congress passed the Radio Broadcasting Pro-tection Act (RBPA), formally imposing thirdchannel adjacency. As a concession to LPFMproponents, the bill included a provision forfurther study to determine the extent to whichlow-power stations operating within 200 KHzinterfered with full-power stations. In 2003 theMITRE Corporation submitted its report oninterference with a finding that LPFM trans-missions caused no significant interference tofull-power stations operating within 200 KHz(MITRE Corporation 2003; REC Network2007). On the basis of the MITRE report, theFCC submitted a recommendation to Congressin 2004 for the elimination of third channel ad-jacency requirements for LPFM stations. How-ever, Congress has yet to act on the FCC’srecommendation.



Figure 1 FM channel separation with and without third channel adjacency. LPFM = low-power FM.

Methods and Findings

As noted by Lucas (2006), instead of thousandsof new community-based licenses forecasted bythe FCC, the LPFM initiative resulted in just1,200. Geographic information system (GIS)software is used to evaluate the influence offull-power station crowding on LPFM stations.An FCC database containing the locationsof 9,169 full-power FM stations is used toexamine station density. After plotting eachfull-power station’s antenna location usinglatitude and longitude coordinates, a circularbuffer with a twenty-mile radius is createdaround each station. It should be noted that thetwenty-mile radius introduces a slight bias into

the results because radio signals travel fartherover flat terrain or when taller antenna heightsor higher power levels are used. However, thetwenty-mile radius is determined to provide arepresentative area of reception for full-powerstations. Subsequently, station competitionis evaluated by identifying the number offull-power stations contained within eachbuffer. The number of other stations withineach buffer (N–1) ranges from zero in lesspopulated areas with a single full-power stationto more than forty in large metropolitanareas.

With 600 KHz between channels, the FMspectrum (88.1–108.1 MHz) can accommodatethirty-three full-power channels. However,



Figure 2 Full-power station density and low-power FM (LPFM), United States, 2007.

optimal station placement is almost never re-alized in urban areas because transmitters areoften positioned on tall buildings or moun-taintops. Likewise, full-power stations are fre-quently more than 600 MHz apart on the FMdial, effectively reducing the potential numberof channels.5 Given the limited range of the FMspectrum nationwide, it is important to notethat the number of radio stations is a functionof available radio spectrum rather than popula-tion density, meaning that new stations cannotbe added in proportion to population growthor overall population size.

Figure 2 reveals the distribution of areas withthe greatest amount of competition among full-power stations. Not surprisingly, areas havingten or more stations are located in large cities;a few large metropolitan areas such as LosAngeles, New York, Philadelphia, and St.Louis have more than twenty-six stations.By aggregating buffers into larger zones it ispossible to determine the number of LPFMstations established at varying levels of compe-tition with full-power stations. Figure 3 revealsthat the largest number of LPFM stations hasbeen established in areas with ten to fourteenfull-power stations. It might be assumed thatlower levels of competition from full-powerstations would encourage LPFM stations.

However, most LPFM stations rely on listenersupport, making it difficult to establish stationsin areas having low population densities, andwith increasing numbers of full-power stationsthe number of LPFM stations also decreases.Third channel adjacency has made it difficultfor new stations to be established in urban

Figure 3 Low-power FM (LPFM) versus full-power FM stations, 2007.



Table 2 Comparison of block groups with and without low-power FM stations

Census Area Density Percent Percent Percent Percent

variable (mi.2) (persons/mi.2) white black Hispanic Asian

LPFM 57.4 1,511 80.4 8.4 9.8 2.2No LPFM 16.7 4,096 73.4 12.3 13.5 4.0U.S. average 16.9 4,083 73.5 12.3 13.4 3.9

Note: LPFM = low-power FM.

areas. On a national level, fewer than 120LPFM stations have been issued licensesin areas where there are more than twentyfull-power stations.

Local and Regional Trends in LPFMTo evaluate local impacts of the LPFM ini-tiative, 1,090 LPFM stations operating in July2007 are evaluated with respect to their po-tential listeners.6 Although not an exact matchin terms of shape, U.S. Census block groupsprovide the best proxy for representing socio-economic characteristics of persons potentiallyimpacted by LPFM stations. Of the 207,800block groups used for the 2000 Census, 990(0.47 percent) contain one or more LPFMstations. To evaluate impacts on listeners,socioeconomic characteristics of persons inblock groups with LPFM stations are comparedto persons in block groups without stations us-ing 2006 population estimates (U.S. CensusBureau 2006).

A first comparison evaluates the basic char-acteristics of the block groups themselves. Interms of size and population, block groupswith LPFM stations are over three times largerthan those without stations but average onlyone third of the population density (Table 2).This suggests that, although stations do requirea minimum population threshold to captureenough listeners to remain viable, LPFM sta-tions tend to be located at the urban fringe inlower density areas. With respect to the raceor ethnicity (percentage white, black, Asian,and Hispanic) of potential listeners, blockgroups with LPFM stations have lower per-centages of black, Hispanic, and Asian persons,demonstrating that the principal beneficiariesof LPFM have been white persons, despite thestated goals of LPFM to increase diversity inradio station ownership.

To provide greater detail in evaluating howLPFM station types serve various populationgroups, socioeconomic characteristics of the990 block groups with LPFM stations areanalyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA)across four author-defined programmingcategories: religious groups (e.g., individualchurches, private religious schools, and radioministries), civic and community organizations(e.g., ethnic minority channels, special interestgroups), educational institutions (e.g., publicsecondary and higher education institutions),and government service organizations (e.g., lo-cal government, weather and road conditions).Stations are categorized based on backgroundresearch with respect to the identity of theirlicensees, published mission statements, orboth. ANOVA is used to identify differencesin socioeconomic factors by comparing blockgroups within these four categories of LPFMstations to determine if the means are equal(Warner 2008). The results (Table 3) revealhigher percentages of whites, higher per capitaincomes, and lower levels of poverty in blockgroups with religious stations (all significantto at least the 0.05 level). The situation isthe opposite in block groups with educationalstations, where median ages and per capitaincomes are significantly lower with corre-spondingly higher percentages of householdsliving in poverty, whereas community and civicstations are located in areas with significantlyless white populations. These findings suggestthat educational stations are more prevalentin younger and poorer areas that couldbenefit from educational programs and thatcommunity and civic stations are proportion-ately better represented in ethnically diverselocations.

ANOVA is also used to explore regionaldifferences by comparing the socioeconomicmilieu of station types within each of the nine



Table 3 Analysis of variance of socioeconomic variables, by station type, 2006–2007

Variable Station type n M F statistic Significance

Median age Religious 462 38.0Governmental 51 37.6Educational 147 34.8Civic 430 37.9Total 1,090 37.5 7.4 0.000

Per-capita income Religious 462 20,173Governmental 51 18,647Educational 147 17,368Civic 430 19,460Total 1,090 19,442 3.9 0.009

Percent living in poverty Religious 462 18.98Governmental 51 21.37Educational 147 22.39Civic 430 21.65Total 1,090 20.60 3.8 0.010

Percent male Religious 462 48.98Governmental 51 50.38Educational 147 48.69Civic 430 49.54Total 1,090 49.23 3.2 0.022

Percent white Religious 462 82.51Governmental 51 80.91Educational 147 80.23Civic 430 78.29Total 1,090 80.54 2.8 0.037

Percent black Religious 462 7.31Governmental 51 5.89Educational 147 9.23Civic 430 10.04Total 1,090 8.58 2.3 0.081

Percent Hispanic Religious 462 9.40Governmental 51 11.61Educational 147 7.92Civic 430 8.00Total 1,090 8.75 1.3 0.275

Population density Religious 462 1,481Governmental 51 964Educational 147 1,584Civic 430 1,595Total 1,090 1,516 1.1 0.330

‘

U.S. Census divisions. Given a somewhatgreater degree of homogeneity within divisionsas compared to Census regions or the nation asa whole, differences are generally less commonor significant than in the national analysis givenin Table 3, although there are some exceptionsworth noting (statistical results are omittedfor space considerations but are available fromthe authors). The most significant differencesexist in per capita incomes in both the WestNorth Central (significance level = 0.003)and West South Central (significance level= 0.008) divisions, with higher incomes inblock groups with governmental and religiousstations and lower incomes for educational andcivic stations, mimicking the finding at the

national level. In the Middle Atlantic division,religious and governmental stations again ratesignificantly higher, although here in terms ofthe percentage of white residents (significancelevel = 0.008). Frequently, governmental andreligious stations trend together in terms ofsocioeconomic traits, and generally there arehigher incomes, lower poverty levels, andhigher percentages of whites in block groupsthat have these two types of stations. Althougheducational and civic stations appear to besomewhat serving the targeted populations ofthe LPFM initiative, governmental stationsare not and religious broadcasters have clearlyfound a niche that might not have beenanticipated by the FCC.



Table 4 Cross-tabulation of low-power FM stations by type and census division

Programming typeCensusdivision (region) Religious Governmental Educational Civic Total

New England (Northeast)Observed count 14 3 7 26 50Expected count 21.2 2.3 6.7 19.7 50.0Standard residual −1.6 0.4 0.1 1.4

Middle Atlantic (Northeast)Observed count 22 5 6 23 56Expected count 23.7 2.6 7.6 22.1 56.0Standard residual −0.4 1.5 −0.6 0.2

East North Central (Midwest)Observed count 78 3 23 71 175Expected count 74.2 8.2 23.6 69.0 175.0Standard residual 0.4 −1.8 −0.1 0.2

West North Central (Midwest)Observed count 43 4 16 18 81Expected count 34.3 3.8 10.9 32.0 81.0Standard residual 1.5 0.1 1.5 −2.5

South Atlantic (South)Observed count 100 8 32 74 214Expected count 90.7 10.0 28.9 84.4 214.0Standard residual 1.0 −0.6 0.6 −1.1

East South Central (South)Observed count 35 1 15 36 87Expected count 36.9 4.1 11.7 34.3 87.0Standard residual −0.3 −1.5 1.0 0.3

West South Central (South)Observed count 50 2 13 46 111Expected count 47.0 5.2 15.0 43.8 111.0Standard residual 0.4 −1.4 −0.5 0.3

Mountain (West)Observed count 39 18 15 48 120Expected count 50.9 5.6 16.2 47.3 120.0Standard residual −1.7 5.2 −0.3 0.1

Pacific (West)Observed count 81 7 20 88 196Expected count 83.1 9.2 26.4 77.3 196.0Standard residual −0.2 −0.7 −1.3 1.2

TotalObserved count 462 51 147 430 1090Expected count 462.0 51.0 147.0 430.0 1090.0

Evidence of this assertion can be found inTable 4, in which stations are cross-tabulatedby division and programming type. On anational basis, religious stations are most nu-merous, accounting for 42 percent of stations(462 out of 1,090), slightly ahead of civic andcommunity stations (430 total). Educationalstations lag far behind with only one third asmany stations (147) as the former two types,and only a small number (51) of LPFM stationshave been established by governmental entitiessuch as traveler information stations operatedby the Colorado Department of Transporta-tion. Table 4 reveals trends that mirrornational political and religious patterns. Reli-gious stations are most numerous in four of thefive divisions that comprise the Midwest and

South Census regions (and ranking second byjust one station in the fifth division, East SouthCentral), widely acknowledged as the moreconservative “red state” areas of the UnitedStates today. In contrast, civic stations exceedreligious stations in all four divisions that com-prise the Northeast and West Census regions,the less conservative or “blue state” regions.The largest civic-to-religious station ratio isin New England (26:14), and the smallest isin the West North Central division (18:43),comprising the upper Plains states. Although itwould be interesting to study various denomi-national patterns within the religious category,the data do not indicate denomination typeand such analysis is beyond the scope of thisarticle.



To assess the regional distribution ofLPFM station types, the significance levelsof the cross-tabulations shown in Table 4 areevaluated. A cross-tabulation statistical testcompares observed frequency counts across twodimensions (here, Census divisions and pro-gramming types) to expected values that wouldresult if there were no differences betweencategories across the two dimensions. Boththe Pearson’s chi-square test statistic (64.2)and the likelihood ratio (57.5) are significantto the 0.000 level (24 degrees of freedom foreach test), indicating that station types are notdistributed proportionally among regions. Thelargest deviations from expected counts can beidentified by the magnitudes of the standard-ized residuals. Far and away the largest (pos-itive) residual is for governmental stations inthe Mountain division, likely due to Colorado’sheavy use of LPFM for traveler information.The largest negative residual (–2.5) is for theWest North Central division, already cited ashaving the smallest civic-to-religious stationratio (18:43) and consequently having a fairlylarge positive residual (1.5) in the religion col-umn. Meanwhile, both the New England andMountain divisions have large negative residu-als (–1.6 and –1.7, respectively) for religious sta-tions, indicating a much smaller than expectedpresence of religious stations in those areas.

Ultimately, these analyses in aggregate re-veal that LPFM radio has not served minoritiesor disadvantaged populations to the extentenvisioned by the FCC. Although religiousstations tend to be located in areas that aremore white and wealthy, very few significantdifferences in socioeconomic characteristicsappear among the populations that are servedby civic and community, educational, orgovernmental stations. In other words, thesetypes of LPFM stations serve neighborhoodsand communities that are fairly representativeof the United States as a whole. Furthermore,there is a distinct regional flavor to LPFM, withreligious stations prevailing in the South andMidwest, whereas civic and community sta-tions are more common in the Northeast andWest.

LPFM in Urban AreasTo provide greater detail about the extent towhich LPFM stations have been established in

urban areas, station locations are investigatedwith respect to boundaries of 2000 CensusUrban Areas (CUAs). The U.S. Census Bureaudefines CUA boundaries using core blockgroups having population densities of at least1,000 persons per square mile together withsurrounding block groups with densities of atleast 500 persons per square mile.7 CUAs areidentified by the names of their largest cities.

Of 1,090 LPFM stations evaluated, 600 (55percent) are located in CUAs. It is noteworthythat the remaining 45 percent of LPFMstations have been established in nonurbancommunities where population densities arerelatively low; the influence of spectrumcrowding in urban areas has pushed LPFM tothe suburban fringe in many places. Of partic-ular note is that, of 11,880 CUAs in the UnitedStates, only 438 (3.6 percent) contain anLPFM station. Table 5 shows that among theten largest CUAs, LPFM stations were locatedin only the largest two, New York–Newarkand Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana. Acloser look reveals that the two stations withinNew York–Newark are located at the edge ofthe CUA, one serving the city of Ridge nearthe center of Long Island and the other PointPleasant, New Jersey, far to the south of themetropolitan area. Likewise, the three stationsin Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana arelocated on the boundary of the CUA within thewealthy Orange County suburbs of NewportBeach and Irvine. This highlights the impactof the third channel adjacency rule as a barrierto the establishment of LPFM in large urbanareas. CUAs with the largest number of LPFMstations are also shown in Table 5. The twenty-sixth ranked Cincinnati CUA has the greatestnumber of LPFM stations with thirteen,followed by Madison, Wisconsin, with seven.Some relatively small urban areas have severalLPFM stations, including Klamath Falls,Oregon, with four and Helena, Montana, withthree.

Other IssuesIn a few cases the FCC’s efforts to increaselocal control over radio have created the op-posite effect by helping some national orga-nizations expand their geographic reach andinfluence. For example, Calvary Chapel,through its Calvary Satellite Network (CSN),



Table 5 Census urban areas and number of low-power FM stations, 2007

Census urban LPFM Full-power 2000Rank area name stations stations population

Ten largest urban areas in the United States1 New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT 2 69 17,799,8612 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, CAa 3 38 11,789,4873 Chicago, IL–IN 0 62 8,307,9044 Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD 0 44 5,149,0795 Miami, FL 0 27 4,919,0366 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TXa 0 25 4,145,6597 Boston, MA–NH–RI 0 39 4,032,4848 Washington, DC–VA–MD 0 21 3,933,9209 Detroit, MI 0 30 3,903,377

10 Houston, TXa 0 24 3,822,509

Urban areas with the highest number of LPFM stations26 Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN 13 21 1,503,26296 Madison, WI 7 5 329,533

284 Eau Claire, WI 6 3 91,39334 Providence, RI–MA 6 13 1,174,54885 Des Moines, IA 5 7 370,505

182 Gainesville, FL 5 3 159,508

Note: LPFM = low-power FM.Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2006) and Federal Communications Commission (2007).aIncludes full-power stations adjacent to the census urban area boundary.

has created a national network of local churchaffiliates that rebroadcast packaged program-ming downloaded via satellite or the Internet(CSN International 2008; Sterling Communi-cations 2008). CSN was able to attract new af-filiate churches by offering station managementworkshops and assistance with the completionof the FCC’s application form for establishingan LPFM station. Affiliate churches were of-fered access to up to sixteen hours of daily pro-gramming originating from CSN headquartersin Twin Falls, Idaho.8 By forming partnershipswith local churches, CSN could distribute pro-gramming and gain influence without violat-ing the FCC’s requirement that LPFM stationsbe locally owned and managed. In addition toLPFM stations, CSN operates hundreds of re-motely operated “translator” stations that uselow-power transmitters to rebroadcast FM ra-dio programming originating in Twin Falls.

Although full-power broadcasters havefocused their objections to LPFM on thepotential frequency interference, Hamilton(2004) suggests that they have other reasonsto push for policies limiting LPFM expansion.LPFM threatens bandwidth that broadcastersview as crucial for the phasing in of advanceddigital radio services. Digital radio, also called“band on channel digital audio broadcasting,”currently provides text information about

stations and song titles on newer radio re-ceivers and may eventually utilize channelsadjacent to a station’s primary audio frequency(200 KHz on either side) to display graphicimages showing album covers, stock figures,or advertisements (File 2000; Parnis 2000).Competing with terrestrial radio are satelliteradio systems like SiriusTM and XMTM thatsupplement audio broadcasts with digitaltext and real-time weather images. Availablethrough subscription, satellite radio offershundreds of channels featuring news and en-tertainment ranging from syndicated talk radioprograms to college athletic events and urbanjazz. Unfortunately for small communities,satellite radio’s large coverage areas make itimpractical for serving local needs.

With backing from LPFM proponents likethe Prometheus Radio and the Media AccessProject, as well as bipartisan Congressionalsupport, the Local Community Radio Act(LCRA) was introduced in Congress in 2007.9The key provision of LCRA is the eliminationof third channel adjacency as recommended inthe MITRE Report (Prometheus Radio 2007;Media Access Project 2008). LCRA acknowl-edges the importance of opening LPFM li-censes to minority ownership as well as otherbenefits envisioned in the FCC’s 1999 LPFMRulemaking.



Conclusions

The 1996 Telecommunications Act restruc-tured patterns of radio station ownership and,in doing so, changed the ways communities areserved by local stations. Station consolidationenabled large corporations to increase the ef-ficiency of local stations through economies ofscale and national advertising campaigns. How-ever, at the same time radio’s long-standingrole in providing a public service becameovershadowed by a focus on corporate profits.Community-centered programming and localnews have been replaced by packaged music,syndicated talk shows, and national news.Compared to locally owned stations, corporatenetworks have less tolerance for independentviewpoints that might offend sponsors. Insome cases networks have imposed their ownpolitical agendas on affiliated stations. Consol-idation has raised the price for entering radiobroadcasting, creating barriers to station own-ership among women and minorities. Since1996, fewer stations offer ethnic programmingas corporations direct their attention towardaffluent listeners and mainstream Americanculture.

The FCC’s low-power initiative offered thepossibility of returning local voices to radio.By improving access to broadcasting the FCChoped that LPFM would restore radio’s closeties with communities and increase diversityin station ownership and programming. Theinitiative envisioned thousands of low-powerstations operating in inner-city neighborhoodsthat would provide a range of services to ethnicgroups and local communities. However, as wedemonstrate, the ability of LPFM to serve theseneeds has been far from exceptional. Supportedby most full-power broadcasters, the thirdchannel adjacency rule excludes LPFM stationsfrom large urban areas. In lieu of serving inner-city neighborhoods, LPFM has helped a dis-proportionate number of white, middle-classAmericans through church-affiliated radio sta-tions, many offering nonlocal content createdby national organizations. Seven years after thefirst low-power licenses were issued, LPFMproponents, including community leaders andgrassroots broadcasting organizations, have de-veloped support needed to challenge nationalbroadcasting groups through legislation suchas the LCRA. The LPFM struggle illustrates

opposing interests of corporate America andcommunity-based organizations where corpo-rate influence over the political process andthe goal of increasing profits has overshadowedthe radio’s traditional role in serving the publicinterest. �

Notes

1 Hilliard and Keith (2005) note that similar forms oflow-power FM stations were established across Eu-ropean and Latin American countries in the 1980sand 1990s.

2 The average cost of a radio station is now $2.5million. Although comprising 51 percent of theU.S. population, women own only 6 percent offull-power commercial radio stations. Likewise,ethnic minorities make up 33 percent of theU.S. population but account for only 7.7 percentof full-power radio stations’ ownership. Seehttp://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/off the dial.pdf(last accessed 7 July 2008).

3 The top radio formats among full-power sta-tions are adult contemporary, top forty, oldies,news/talk/sports, and country. The number of sta-tions offering ethnic programming is also decliningas networks change formatting to attract more af-fluent listening audiences (Huntemann 1999).

4 The 600 KHz spacing policy was adopted by theFCC in 1963 when analog radios were tuned bymoving the knob on a variable capacitor. ModernFM receivers utilize phase-lock loop and digital syn-thesis, enabling them to tolerate considerably closerchannel spacing.

5 Spacing may be less in some areas because 400 full-power FM stations licensed before 1964 are notrequired to meet third channel adjacency require-ments (FCC 2000a).

6 The database of operational LPFM stationswas obtained from FCC records maintained athttp://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html (last ac-cessed 7 July 2008).

7 U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua 2k.html (last accessed 7 July 2008).

8 LPFM stations may broadcast up to sixteen hoursof content that is nonlocal.

9 A copy of the LCRA can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2802(last accessed 7 July 2008).

Literature Cited

Abler, R. F. 1974. The geography of communica-tions. In Transportation geography: Comments andreadings, ed. M. E. Eliot Hurst, 327–46. New York:McGraw-Hill.



American Media Services. 2006. Strong ma-jority of Americans believes radio continuesto be important in American life. http://www.americanmediaservices.com/news/press releases/archives/000036.shtml (last accessed 7 July 2008).

Arts Industries Policy Forum (AIPF). 2004. Ra-dio deregulation and consolidation. Vanderbilt, TN:The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and PublicPolicy at Vanderbilt.

Aufderheide, P. 1999. Communications policy andthe public interest: The Telecommunications Act of1996. New York: Guilford.

Bagdikian, B. 2004.The new media monopoly.Boston:Beacon Press.

Bednarski, A. 2003. From diversity to duplication:Mega-mergers and the failure of the marketplacemodel under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Federal Communications Law Journal 55 (2): 273–95.

Bekken, J. 2000. Community radio at the cross-roads: Federal policy and the professionalizationof a grassroots medium. http://infoshop.org/texts/seizing/bekken.html (last accessed 7 July 2008).

Bell, W. H. 1965. The diffusion of radio andtelevision broadcasting stations in the UnitedStates. Unpublished masters thesis, PennsylvaniaState University, Department of Geography, StateCollege, PA.

Berry, S. T., and J. Waldfogel. 2001. Do mergers in-crease product variety? Evidence from radio broad-casting. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (3):1009–25.

Brand, K. 2004. The rebirth of low-power FM broad-casting in the U.S. Journal of Radio Studies 11 (2):153–68.

Carlson, A. W. 1997. A geographical analysis ofAmerica’s ethnic radio programming. Social Sci-ence Journal 34 (3): 285–95.

Chambers, T. 2003. Radio programming diversity inthe era of consolidation. Journal of Radio Studies10 (1): 33–45.

CSN International. 2008. Radio resources—Radio networks. http://www.christianradio.com/network.asp (last accessed 7 July 2008).

DiCola, P. 2006. Employment and wage effectsof radio consolidation. Washington, DC: Futureof Music Coalition. http://www.futureofmusic.org/research/ (last accessed 7 July 2008).

Dimmick, J., and T. Wang. 2005. Toward an eco-nomic theory of media diffusion based on the pa-rameters of the logistic growth equation. Journalof Media Economics 18 (4): 233–46.

Doucet, M. 1983. Space, sound, culture, and politics:Radio broadcasting in southern Ontario. CanadianGeographer 27 (2): 109–27.

Drushel, B. E. 1998. The Telecommunications Act of1996 and radio market structure. Journal of MediaEconomics 11 (3): 3–20.

Fairchild, C. 1999. Deterritorializing radio: Dereg-ulation and the continuing triumph of the corpo-ratist perspective in the USA. Media, Culture &Society 21 (4): 549–61.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997.Review of the radio industry, 1997. MM DocketNo. 98-35. Washington, DC: Mass Media Bureau,Policy and Rules Division.

———. 2000a. Fact sheet: Low power FM radioservice: Allegations and facts. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/ Mass Media/Factsheets/lpfmfact032900.html (last accessed 7 July 2008).

———. 2000b. FCC’s low power FM: A reviewof the FCC’s spectrum management responsibilities.Serial No. 106-118. Washington, DC: FederalCommunications Commission.

———. 2000c. Low power FM radio: An applicant’sguide. Washington, DC: Federal CommunicationsCommission.

———. 2007. FMQ FM radio database query.http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/fmq.html (last ac-cessed 7 July 2008).

File, E. M. 2000. And the “band” played on: Theimpact of low power FM. Washington, DC: Insti-tute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. http://www.wiseintern.org/journal/2000/file00.pdf (lastaccessed 7 July 2008).

Garner, A. K. 2006. Unmassing America: Eth-nic media and the new advertising marketplace.Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Greve, H. R. 1996. Patterns of competition: Thediffusion of a market position in radio broad-casting. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1):29–60.

Greve, H., J. Pozner, and H. Rao. 2006. Vox pop-uli: Resource partitioning, organizational prolif-eration, and the cultural impact of the insurgentmicroradio movement. American Journal of Soci-ology 112 (3): 802–37.

Hagerstrand, T. 1986. Decentralization and radiobroadcasting: On the “possibility space” of a com-munication technology. European Journal of Com-munication 1 (1): 7–26.

Halpin, J., J. Heidbreder, M. Lloyd, P. Woodhull,B. Scott, J. Silver, and S. D. Turner. 2007. Thestructural imbalance of political talk radio. JointReport by the Center for American Progress andFree Press, Center for American Progress. Wash-ington, DC: Free Press.

Hamilton, J. 2004. Rationalizing dissent? Challeng-ing conditions of low-power FM radio. CriticalStudies in Media Communication 21 (1): 44–63.

Hangen, T. J. 2002. Redeeming the dial: Radio, reli-gion, and popular culture in America. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.

Hazlett, T. W., and B. E. Viani. 2005. Legislatorsv. regulators: The case of low power FM radio.Business and Politics 7 (1): 1–31.



Herman, E. S., and R. W. McChesney. 1997. Globalmedia: The new missionaries of global capitalism.London: Cassell.

Hilliard, R. L., and M. C. Keith. 2005. The quietedvoice: The rise and demise of localism in Americanradio. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress.

Hillis, K. 1998. On the margins: The invisibility ofcommunications in geography. Progress in HumanGeography 22 (4): 543–66.

Huntemann, N. 1999. Corporate interference: Thecommercialization and concentration of radio postthe 1996 Telecommunications Act. Journal ofCommunication Inquiry 23 (4): 390–407.

Innis, D. Q. 1954. The geographical characteristics ofradio. Canadian Journal of Economics and PoliticalScience 20 (1): 83–87.

———. 1972. Geography of the mass media. Geo-graphical Review 62 (4): 582–84.

Jones, T. 2003. Media giant’s rally sponsorship raisesquestions. Chicago Tribune 19 March:1.

Lehman, D. E., and D. L. Weisman. 2000. TheTelecommunications Act of 1996: The “costs” ofmanaged competition. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Lewis, P. M. 1984. Media for people in cities: A studyof community media in the urban context. Paris:UNESCO Press.

Liebowitz, S. J. 2004. The elusive symbiosis: Theimpact of radio on the record industry. Review ofEconomic Research on Copyright Issues 1 (1): 93–118.

Lucas, C. 2006. Cultural policy, the public sphere,and the struggle to define low-power FM radio.Journal of Radio Studies 13 (1): 51–67.

McChesney, R. 1999. Rich media, poor democracy:Communication politics in dubious times. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

———. 2001. Global media, neoliberalism, and im-perialism. Monthly Review 52 (10): 1–19.

———. 2004. The problem of the media: U.S. com-munications politics in the twenty-first century.NewYork: Monthly Review Press.

McDowell, S. D. 2000. Globalization, local gover-nance and the United States TelecommunicationsAct of 1996. InCities in the telecommunications age:The fracturing of geographies, ed. J. Wheeler, Y.Aoyama, and B. Warf, 112–29. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Media Access Project. 2008. Low power ra-dio. http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/lpfm/Congress.html (last accessed 7 July 2008).

MITRE Corporation. 2003. Experimental measure-ments of the third-adjacent channel impacts oflow-power FM stations, volume one: Final report.http://www.recnet.com/mitre/2.pdf (last accessed7 July 2008).

Mooney, C. T. 2006. The impacts of radio ownershipregulation on advertisers and audiences. Paper pre-

sented at the 4th Workshop on Media Economics,Washington DC.

Morley, D., and K. Robins. 1995. Spaces of iden-tity: Global media, electronic landscapes, andcultural boundaries. London and New York:Routledge.

Morton, D. 1999. The electrical century: Poweringthe electrical century. Proceedings of the IEEE 87(3): 526–29.

Murdoch, G., and P. Golding. 1989. Informationpoverty and political inequality: Citizenship in theage of privatized communications. Journal of Com-munication 39 (3): 180–95.

National Public Radio (NPR). 2000. NPR sup-ports HR 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preserva-tion Act of 2000. http://www.npr.org/about/press/000406.lpfmlegislation.html (last accessed 7 July2008).

Ofori, K. A. 1999. When being no. 1 is notenough: The impact of advertising practices onminority-owned and minority-formatted broadcaststations. Brooklyn, NY: Dubois Bunche Center forPublic Policy.

Orange, M. 2001. No power to the people. ScientificAmerican 285 (5): 20.

Parnis, D. 2000. Tuning in the future: Digitaltechnology and commercial radio broadcasting inCanada. Journal of Canadian Studies 35 (3): 231–50.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2006.State of the news media 2006: An annual report onAmerican journalism. http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative radio ownership.asp?cat=5&media=9 (last accessed 7 July 2008).

Prometheus Radio. 2007. Senate committeevotes to expand low power FM radio. http://prometheusradio.org/content/view/573/1/ (lastaccessed 7 July 2008).

REC Network. 2007. Appendix B: Listing of the top5000 communities where LPFM will be availableif third adjacent channel restrictions are removed.http://www.recnet.com/fcc/99-25mitreB.pdf (lastaccessed 7 July 2008).

Ruggiero, G. 1999. Microradio and democracy: (Low)power to the people. New York: Seven StoriesPress.

Schiller, J. Z. 2006. After the barnraising: Commu-nity radio and the reconstruction of the publicsphere. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universityof California at Davis, Davis, CA.

Schwartz, J., and G. Fabrikant. 2003. War puts ra-dio giant on the defensive. New York Times 31March:C1.

Shaw, J. K. 2001.Telecommunications deregulation andthe information economy. 2nd ed. Boston: ArtechHouse.

Soley, L. 1999. Free radio: Electronic civil disobedi-ence. Boulder, CO: Westview.



Stavitsky, A. G., R. K. Avery, and H. Vanhala.2001. From Class D to LPFM: The high-powered politics of low-power radio. Journalism& Mass Communication Quarterly 78 (2): 340–54.

Sterling Communications. 2008. Low power FM.http://www.christianradiohome.com/lpfm.asp (lastaccessed 7 July 2008).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Annual populationestimates. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet? program=PEP& sub-menuId=datasets 5 (last accessed 7 July 2008).

Warf, B. 2003. Mergers and acquisitions in thetelecommunications industry. Growth and Change34 (3): 321–44.

Warner, R. M. 2008.Applied statistics: From bivariatethrough multivariate techniques. Los Angeles: Sage.

THOMAS A. WIKLE is a Professor in the Depart-ment of Geography at Oklahoma State University,Stillwater, OK 74078. E-mail: [email protected] research interests include wireless communica-tions and volunteer organizations.

JONATHAN C. COMER is a Professor in the De-partment of Geography at Oklahoma State Uni-versity, Stillwater, OK 74078. E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include wire-less communications, rural transportation issues, andprofessional sport stadium location patterns.


Barriers to Establishing Low Power FM Radio in the U S.

Documents

Transcript of Barriers to Establishing Low Power FM Radio in the U S.