See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264704141

Radio's Digital Future: Preserving the Public Interest in the Age of New Media

Chapter · January 2002

CITATION READS
1 164

1 author:

Michael P. McCauley

21 PUBLICATIONS   171 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Genetics and Genomics in Clinical Practice: The Views of Wisconsin Physicians View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael P. McCauley on 24 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER 24 RADIO'S DIGITAL FUTURE
Preserving the Public Interest in the Age of
New Media
Michael P. McCauley

AB A RADIO JOURNALIST TURNED EDUCATOR, I've always been suspicious of the

media attention that typically accompanies the rollout of any new broadcasting
technology. "Content is king," I would say to myself, fearing that the business I
know and love might tum into a techno-utopian nightmare where every newsroom
had all the latest electronic toys but deployed them at the expense of good content.
Obviously, the practice of radio news has changed rapidly in the last few years, forc-
ing Luddites such as myself to embrace new technologies and harness them for the
purpose of producing even better news stories and audio documentaries.
I first got a taste of digital things to come in 1996 and 1997, while anchoring
and reporting for a large public radio system in the Midwest. The introduction of
digital audio tape (DAT), which offered a compact, convenient way to replay
archived programs that were formerly stored on large reels of conventional audio
tape, didn't raise many eyebrows. But one evening I noticed a new computer in
the studio-and also noticed our chief engineer standing nearby, smiling. I was
about to enter the world of the tapeless studio, where programs are stored on hard
drives and called up for replay with the touch of a virtual button. Shortly before I
left this position, the flagship station of this regional network positioned itself to
go completely tapeless by purchasing an expensive integrated system for digital
audio editing, word processing, and wire copy retrieval.
Upon arrival at my new academic position, I soon became acquainted-by
necessity-with other digital technologies. The student radio station, which I
helped manage, had already begun playing promos and public service announce- 505
506 Michael P. McCauley

ments from minidisc, the miniature CD format that stores up to seventy-four

minutes of content on a disc that fits comfortably into a shirt pocket. Dissatisfied
with our current technology for broadcasting live music, we beefed up the sta-
tion's DAT equipment. Indeed, recording live performances and editing them
with great precision on our new digital audio workstation made them sound
"better than live." Problems of signal interference with other electronic equip-
ment on campus forced us to relocate the station's tower and transmitter. On
the advice of our chief engineer, we installed a digital studio-to-transmitter
(STL) link to improve the quality of our signal and to help the station get ready
for a complete digital makeover. Finally, the student managers wondered if they
could stream our coverage of two regional NCAA hockey tournament games
over the Internet. Our campus technical staff gladly set up the connection and,
much to everyone's surprise, we got more than 360 hits over the period of two
evenings-with no advance publicity.
These changes happened at near mind-boggling pace over a two-year period,
and recent technical developments will lead to even more changes in the way
hands-on broadcasters practice their craft. Initial fears aside, most people agree
these new technologie" will vastly improve the production capabilities of radio
stations, streamline the delivery of audio products from the idea stage through
the actual broadcast, and deliver programs to audience members with static-free,
CD-quality sound. Positive as these developments are in the short term, it would
be unwise for radio broadcasters and interested scholars to overlook the poten-
tial long-term impacts of the digital revolution-both good and bad. Many ques-
tions remain about the future of radio as we know it-real people, broadcasting
live from local stations, with content that matters to local residents.
Digital systems inside the studio imply the eventual use of digital transmis-
sion technologies that transcend the problems of interference and degradation
from which analog signals inevitably suffer. But how will these technologies
affect the listener? More important, how far will they go toward helping
American broadcasters better approach the "public interest" standard under
which all stations ostensibly operate? This essay is an attempt to answer these
questions and others, and to demystify the array of new technologies that will
confront the radio consumer now, and in the very near future. The focus in the
paragraphs that follow will not be on the "in-studio" technologies listed above,
as they have already been deployed in a critical mass of radio stations throughout
the country. Rather, the focus will be on technologies for the transmission of dig-
ital audio signals. Terrestrial digital audio broadcasting (DAB), satellite-based
digital audio radio services (DARS), and Internet radio sites will first compete
with, and then displace, the brand of analog radio broadcasting that citizens of
industrialized nations have known since the 1920s. The stakes in this race to
open up new audio venues are quite high, and as one might imagine, the play-
ers involved are busily maneuvering behind the scenes for future primacy.
Radio's DigiJal Future

After outlining the contours of the new digital transmission systems, I will
assess how well they might perform in relation to today's form of radio broad-
casting in terms of both signal quality and service to audiences. Finally, I will
examine the possibility that these technologies might also provide space on the
electromagnetic spectrum for noncommercial content whose aim is to render
public service-to serve listeners who conceive of themselves as citizens rather
than consumers. Understanding this distinction is crucial to an understanding of
American radio broadcasting, whose stations are nominally mandated to serve
in "the public interest, convenience and necessity" (Witherspoon and Kovitz 4).
Commercial broadcasters, with their own economistic interpretation of the term
"public interest," have dominated the spectrum since the time of AT&T's first
experiment with advertising support in 1922. Nonprofit educational broadcast-
ers offered an alternative to commercially driven programming, yet these and
other radio reformers were subsequently excluded from effective participation
in the broadcast spectrum for the next fifty years. The commercial radio lobby,
working in concert with sympathetic congressmen and regulators, saw to it that
most nonprofit broadcasters were relegated to time-share arrangements on mar-
ginal frequencies. They were later moved to the FM band-well before many
Americans had FM receivers (McChesney, Telecommunications 20-27; Barnouw
122; Witherspoon and Kovitz 6-10).
In the late 1920s and early 1930s various groups of broadcast reformers agi-
tated against the growing dominance of commercial interests in American
radio. Briefly, these groups sensed that radio content backed by commercial
sponsorship would soon be dominated by the discourse of sales and marketing,
and that important normative goals such as the provision of quality news, pub-
lic affairs, and educational programs would fall by the wayside. These critics
anticipated concerns about America's dominant commercial broadcasting sys-
tem that persist today, namely, that for-profit broadcasters treat audience mem-
bers as mere consumers who might please the station's sponsors by parting with
a bit of their hard-earned cash. Stations that follow this path may well pad their
bank accounts, but in the process they also cripple their own ability to stimulate
listener involvement in community affairs-the very essence of citizenship
(Hoynes 35-37; McChesney, "Public" 10-11; Brown 103-7). With the coming
change to digital broadcast technologies, then, it is incumbent upon media
scholars to revisit the public interest standard and to see whether technical
advances in radio will be capable of providing listeners with something like an
electronic public sphere-a salon or coffeehouse of the airwaves.

Digital Transmission Technologies

The central principle for the move toward digital radio is the notion that analog
broadcasting, the traditional transmission of electromagnetic waves through the
 Michael P. McCauley

atmosphere, will give way to the encoding of audio signals in digital, or binary,
form. The radio signal of the future will be actually a series of high-speed "snap-
shots" of the original audio content, encoded, transmitted, and received as a
stream of Os and ls-much like the internal language that computers use. If dig-
ital signals are encoded and distributed in precise numerical fashion, the recep-
tion of those signals will entail a clear, unmistakable replication of the original
broadcast. The second major principle at work here is that of convergence, the
notion that once encoded, any digital content-from radio stations, computers,
video sources, and so on-is theoretically interchangeable with content pro-
duced on other platforms. Thus the digital revolution is already spawning many
novel means of audio reception: music and talk shows on the Internet, "boom-
boxes with browsers" (Pizzi, "Boombox"), and car radios that also display certain
visual images, to name a few. In this section I will briefly detail the ways in which
each of the developing digital audio transmission technologies works, in terms
of delivering a high-quality signal to audiences.

Terrestrial Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)

The concept of DAB was first developed in 1981 at the Institut fiir
Rundfunktechnik-a research center in Munich, Germany-and refined after
1987 when a consortium of thirty-eight European companies began to develop
and market the transmission system known as Eureka 147 ("Frequently" 6; "NAB
Backs" 6). This system, which has since become the standard in many parts of the
world, offers CD-quality sound, improvements in tuning, and the capability for
broadcasting other data (e.g., song titles, traffic information, weather warnings)
besides the traditional radio signal. The creators of this system note that it over-
comes one vexing problem with traditional FM signals, multipath interference.
Anyone who listens to the radio while driving is all too familiar with this problem,
which manifests itself as occasional hisses and pops. Multipath interference is cre-
ated when the primary FM signal bounces off buildings, trees, or hills and enters
a radio receiver in competition with overlapping, reflected signals. Eureka 147
engineers overcame this problem by making technical adjustments on both the
transmitting and receiving ends of the broadcasting process ("Frequently" 2, 4-5).
Some four hundred digital audio broadcasters around the world use the
Eureka 147 system at present, and they have a potential audience of more than
230 million people ("Did You Know?" 1). In Great Britain the BBC has been
broadcasting with such a system since September 1995; it was joined in
November 1999 by Digital One, a commercial venture that has now become the
single largest DAB broadcaster in the world ("Country" 14-15 ) . Canada has also
jumped on the Eureka bandwagon by launching DAB services in five cities,
including Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. CBC stations in these markets are
distributing ancillary data through the Eureka system, including graphical men-
Radio's Digital Future

tion of song titles and artists, and CBC/Toronto has also begun streaming news,
weather, and program schedules through this new service (Stimson 4).
Eureka 147 burst onto the scene in the United States in early 1991, when the
Radio Board of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) voted unani-
mously to endorse the system. The NAB originally wanted the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to designate Eureka as the official US stan-
dard for DAB transmission, and also developed plans for the association's profit-
making arm to license the technology to American stations for a fee ("NAB
Backs" 6). Though Eureka was the only operating DAB system at the time-and,
by all accounts, functioned very well-a collection of radio station group owners
soon expressed concern over the Radio Board's actions. The chief complaint
voiced by industry insiders has been that the Eureka system, which relies on the
allocation of new portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, would bring new
broadcasters into direct competition with existing commercial operators. Radio
industry officials have cited several other reasons for the sudden about-face on
Eureka, including spectrum scarcity, the prospect of consumer confusion, and
the possibility that American technology firms might want to develop other,
competing DAB systems ("DAB" 43-44; Lambert 10; US, FCC Comments 19-23).
But at the bottom of all these rationales lie three primal fears: that a "new spec-
trum" radio system would undermine the high market values enjoyed by many
analog stations; that this potential for devaluation would hamper the ability of
station owners to profit by purchasing and selling radio properties; and that any
reallocation of spectrum to new broadcasters (i.e., competitors) would, by defi-
nition, be a bad allocation (Masters 85-86; Leanza 10). 1
As the Eureka proposal fell apart in the United States, a new company
entered the scene with another proposal for a DAB standard. USA Digital Radio
(USADR) was formed as a partnership of the Gannett and CBS/Westinghouse
media empires, both of which have amassed powerful holdings in the US broad-
casting industry ("NAB Amenable" 6). 2 This company's product represents an
in-band, on-channel (IBOC) approach to the coming digital audio conversion.
An IBOC system would not require a new spectrum allocation, as would the
Eureka system; instead, it would allow any present-day broadcaster to deploy a
new, compressed signal at the upper and lower edges of its current frequency
allocation, while simultaneously broadcasting the old analog signal from the
center of that same piece of spectrum. 3 In theory, the manufacturers of IBOG
compatible radio transmitters and receivers could minimize the financial pain
of the digital transition by permitting the broadcast of both analog and digital
signals until the time when a critical mass of Americans purchases new digital-
only sets. If IBOC becomes the digital audio standard in this country, each existing
AM and FM broadcaster would continue to use the same frequency allocation,
with the eventual goal of a full digital conversion several years down the road
(Lambert 1O; Smith, \Vright, and Ostroff 10-11, 25-26).
510 Michael P. McCauley

Until recently USADR and Lucent Digital Radio were competitors in the race
to define an IBOC DAB standard for the United States. Spurred on by competi-
tion from other technologies, these two companies announced a merger in July
2000. The formation of iBiquity Digital Corporation may, according to company
officials, enable consumers to purchase DAB receivers for in-car use by late 2001.
iBiquity also claims the merger will one day enable the delivery of !BOC-based
digital audio to cell phones and personal digital assistants such as the PalmPilot
("Lucent Technologies" 3; "Lucent Digital Radio" l; "Lucent Merges" 1).
Besides the support of Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs, iBiquity is backed by
an impressive array of investors including fifteen of the nation's top twenty radio
broadcasting groups. Even before the merger, USADR could claim that its
investors operated more than two thousand radio stations, served thousands of
other affiliate stations, beamed signals to a potential audience of more than llO
million people, and took in nearly half of all radio industry revenues in the
United States ("USA" l; see also note 1). In August 2000 iBiquity further
enhanced its financial prospects by securing a commitment by Visteon, the
world's second largest supplier of automotive components and integrated sys-
tems, to invest in its operations ("Visteon" 1).
The IBOC standard proposed by iBiquity will use a data compression tech-
nology known as Perceptual Audio Coding (PAC). Developed and patented by
Lucent, this algorithm is heralded as the highest-quality compression system in
the industry, with some observers predicting it will eventually supplant MP3 as
the technology of choice for those who download digitally encoded music
("Lucent Technologies" 2; "Let's Make" 1). While iBiquity's adoption of PAC is
a positive development, some fear it could lead to an unfortunate technological
trade-off. Because Lucent will already contribute PAC to the new company's
technological mix, it may be forced to give up another of its own developments,
namely, an interference-reduction technology known as multistreaming. This
technology splinters a broadcaster's digital signal into four parts, so three of
those parts, for example, could add up to a usable signal if one digital stream
fails. This technology would also enable a station to simultaneously program dif-
ferent content on analog and digital signals, as long as the analog transmission
system remains in use. On the other hand, USADR's system requires the simul-
casting of programs in analog and digital formats; if the digital signal fails, the
station would simply revert to the analog signal. This technology allows for qual-
itative improvements in radio broadcasting but also cuts down on the potential
number of new signals in the digital era (Janssen). If a public radio station used
USADR's interference reduction technology, for example, that station would be
prevented from using its current frequency allocation to "stream a digital music
channel and an analog news channel" at the same time-something that would
be attractive to broadcasters who place a premium on maximizing public serv-
ice content (5).
Radio's Digital. Future

These technical choices aside, most observers agree the creation of iBiquity
Digital Corporation will hasten the acceptance of an IBOC DAB standard. If and
when an IBOC DAB standard is accepted by the FCC, industry officials are con-
fident that fifty top-market stations will soon offer digital signals, with radio sets
capable of receiving them hitting the market about a year later (US FCC,
Comments 25-26; Masters 85). In spite of these rosy predictions, others who have
followed the circuitous development of this technology feel the political squab-
bling that has delayed its deployment by at least a decade may have already
mired the terrestrial DAB industry in a position of competitive disadvantage.
One critic calls IBOC "a business and allocation plan in search of technology,"
and says it is sure to fail if a simulcast-only system is chosen (Pizzi, "vVhat's
Wrong"). This observation may have merit, as a new, competitive force--one
that promises to bypass the traditional radio broadcasting system entirely-will
enter the fray very shortly.

Digital Audio Radio Service {OARS)

In the late 1980s and early 1990s several American companies formed for the
purpose of delivering digital audio content directly to motorists and other ~.;ers
through methods entirely different from terrestrial broadcasting. Two firms are
worthy of special mention. David Margolese, a Canadian telecommunications
executive, and Robert Briskman, an engineer and manager with COMSAT,
formed Satellite CD Radio in 1989 for the purpose of developing a cablelike
audio service for motorists. The other firm, American Mobile Radio
Corporation, formed in 1992 to develop its own technologies for piping satellite-
based audio content into cars and home~.
Both companies have matured in recent years, with each realizing a series
of technical breakthroughs and reinventing itself with a new corporate name
and image. In 1992 Satellite CD Radio, now known as Sirius Satellite Radio, and
American Mobile Radio, now called XM Satellite Radio, petitioned the FCC to
allocate new swaths of spectrum for their services (Sukow 42). Both services
achieved their goal in a spring 1997 spectrum auction. Sirius, which paid $83.3
million for its portion of the satellite radio spectrum, has since launched three
satellites and has been developing terrestial repeater station to help ensure cov-
erage in America's "steel canyons"-those urban areas where audio signals are
often blocked by tall buildings and other structures. Sirius began experimental
broadcasts from its new 100,000-square-foot digital facility in New York's
Rockefeller Center in early 2001 ("DARS Winners" 9; "Sirius Radio Sets" l; "At
a Glance" 1; "Sirius Radio Completes In-Orbit" 1; "Sirius Radio Completes
Satellite").
XM, which paid $89.8 million for its chunk of spectrum,4 launched both of
its satellites in early 2001, and was scheduled to begin broadcasts from its new
512 Michael P. McCauley

150,000-square-foot facility in Washington, DC later in the year (Pizzi, "S-DARS

Update" 2; White, Bl3; "XM to Launch" 1). Both services will target listeners
who are dissatisfied with the heavy commercial loads on many stations in recent
years and with a perceived lack of content diversity (Taylor, "Digital" 2). Their
success will depend on the willingness of commuters, truck drivers, and RV users
to foot the bill for new satellite radio receivers. Each company has already struck
deals with receiver manufacturers and with automakers who plan to install these
sets in certain new car models (Akasie l; White Bl3). Though it's impossible to
give a precise figure, some observers peg the initial cost of a new satellite radio
receiver at $200. A subscription to the actual audio service will cost about $10
per month; both expenses will likely be structured into the regular packages of
financing available through car dealerships (White Bl3). In order to become
profitable, XM feels it must gain 2 million subscribers by the year 2003. Sirius
thinks its product will turn a profit one year later if 1. 7 million motorists obtain
new radio sets and purchase its monthly service (Curran 26; Akasie 56).
Many commercial radio operators in the United States have objected vehe-
mently to the introduction of satellite-based radio services. NAB officials
claimed in 1995 that satellite radio would hamper the diversification of radio
ownership, undermine traditional broadcasters' ability l.o serve local audiences,
and flout the long-cherished (though seldom well defined) concept of broad-
casting "in the public interest" ("NAB-DAB" 4). Most of these claims have seri-
ous flaws, as we shall see in a moment. The real anxiety shared by many of
today's radio operators is, once again, a primal fear of competition. AB the
regional manager of one large radio group put it, "I dislike the idea of con-
sumers having more options. I don't want them to have another array of com-
petitors to choose from. I don't think that's a good thing for any local radio station"
("Contemplating" 117).
In response to such comments, officials from Sirius and XM claim their serv-
ices will enhance the quality of audio programming for listeners while solving
some vexing problems with the clarity and range of present-day transmissions.
Again, these companies plan to specifically target people who enjoy audio con-
tent without the nuisance of heavy commercial loads. According to XM's Dave
Logan:

One of the things XM and Sirius v.rill do is attack [traditional radio

broadcasters] in the place where radio is king-that is, in the car.
XM's goal is to reach at least a 1 share with each of its channels. That's
a substantial bite when you multiply it by 100 stations and realize we're
talking about a national audience. (Qtd. in Taylor, "Digital" 86)

Both services plan to offer as many as a hundred channels of music, news,

sports, and other specialty formats (Curran 26). How quickly these services catch
on-if, in fact, they do-is a matter of much speculation and debate. It is difficult
Radio's Digital Future

to imagine a significant rollout of satellite radio receivers until enough people

know about the service and are persuaded that the cost of a new set (and monthly
subscription) will offer value above and beyond the product now available on AM
and FM stations. In addition, it is not yet clear whether Sirius and XM will be able
to develop seamless national audio "footprints" based on a relatively small num-
ber of satellites and a network of terrestrial repeaters ("Cable" 96).
Sirius and XM could well grab an important piece of the market if their
satellite-based systems hit the market before traditional radio broadcasters begin
sending out digital signals. But while proponents of DARS and IBOC continue
the race to reach customers first, another audio upstart has already started pip-
ing its wares into American offices and homes through an entirely different
pathway.

Internet Radio

If terrestrial DAB and satellite-based DARS are intricate, slow-developing tech-

nologies, Internet broadcasting is a Johnny-come-lately that, in terms of deploy-
ment and basic functionality, has already passed the other two systems by. Most
Internet devotees know their fa·,orite medium began in the late 1960s as a child
of the Pentagon and that scientists-computer and otherwise-helped bring
this medium to greater public visibility in the 1990s through the user-friendly
graphical interface known as the World Wide Web. One could argue that
Internet radio (aka Web radio, Webcasting, etc.) began in early 1994, when Rob
Glaser, a former Microsoft employee, founded Progressive Networks (later
RealNetworks). This company became the preeminent developer and marketer
of Internet streaming technologies soon after the first edition of its RealPlayer
audio software was released in 1995 ("About RealNetworks" 1). Though early
versions of the software did not inspire visions of a new, more effective electronic
medium--especially when used on the often-congested patch of cyberspace that
is sometimes called the "World Wide Wait"-it took no more than a couple of
years for industry insiders to envision a day when their services might rival tra-
ditional radio and 1V.
RealNetworks remains the leader in delivery of sounds and pictures over the
Web, as more than 85% of all streaming media providers used RealAudio,
RealVideo, and other related applications by late 1999 ("About Real Networks"
1). The streaming industry has embraced radio content in a big way recently,
with more than thirty-five hundred analog radio stations broadcasting on the
Web at last count, compared to fifty-six stations in 1996 (Taylor, "NAB
Convention" 3). Hundreds of other content providers run Internet-only stations
with no corresponding signal on the radio spectrum. Program services such as
NetRadio and Broadcast.com have used streaming technologies to attain
prominent positions in the Internet world over the last five years. In spring 2000
 Michael P. McCauley

the Portland, Maine-based BroadcastAMERICA.com claimed it had become the

world's largest online broadcasting network, with exclusive contracts to Webcast
programs from more than five hundred audio content providers and other deals
to air programs from more than four thousand radio stations around the world
("BroadcastAMERICA" 1). Like so many "dot-com" start-ups, however, the
Portland Maine-based company went belly-up soon after its pronouncements of
great success. In early 2001, a bankruptcy court awarded the radio assets of
BroadcastAmerica.com to a New Jersey firm, SurferNetwork.com, which had bid
for those properties at auction. With this development, and another major
acquisition, SurferNetwork has become the leading service provider of stream-
ing radio content. The company expects to average about five million listening
hours every month, once stations formerly contracted to other providers begin
streaming with its own technology ("SurferNetwork" 1).
If these numbers sound impressive to the casual observer, they've also
caught the attention of the marketers and statisticians who keep track of listen-
ership for traditional AM and FM broadcasters. Scarborough Research claims
that by February 1999 five US cities (Washington, San Francisco, Austin,
Seattle/Tacoma, and Salt Lake City) achieved 50 percent Internet penetration
among loca~ adults ("Five U.S. Cities" 1). Later that year Arbitron, America's top
radio research firm, released its first ratings report for Internet audio providers.
The initial Webcasting "book" showed that more than nine hundred thousand
listeners tuned into the 240 channels monitored in October 1999. Texas Rebel
Radio, an adult album alternative service in Austin, logged nearly eighty-four
thousand hits during the one-month survey period. In terms of time spent tun-
ing (TST), the survey showed the average listener to ABC Radio's Smooth Jazz
Webcasting service tuned in for nearly eight and a half hours during the same
month ("Arbitron Releases First" 1). The Arbitron Webcast Ratings report in
December 2000 charted audience response to more than a thousand Webcast
services. Channels streamed by NetRadio occupied seven of the top ten spots in
this report, and Radio Margaritaville, offering "Parrotheads" a daily dose of
Jimmy Buffet songs, was ranked number 23 ("Radio Margaritaville").
One might guess the legitimacy conferred by top market research firms
would position the new Web radio industry for great financial success. Indeed,
recent studies cosponsored by Arbitron find that online radio listeners, or
"streamies," are fast becoming a coveted market for the purveyors of consumer
goods. Streamies are very responsive to online advertisements; a January 2000
study showed that 79% of online radio listeners visited Web sites advertised on
their favorite radio station and that 60% of those same people have already
made a purchase from a Web site. Streamies spend an average of eleven hours,
fourteen minutes weekly on the Web and are quite likely to purchase books,
CDs, software, travel services, and other goods online. It is hardly surprising,
then, that one Arbitron official says online listeners are "worth their weight in
Radio's Digiial Future

gold to Webcasters and advertisers targeting the Internet audience" ("Internet"

1). More than one analyst predicts that Internet radio, once coupled with "wire-
less" Web technologies, could lead to a significant shift in advertising revenues
away from traditional AM and FM stations and toward companies formed specif-
ically to deliver content over the Internet (McVicker 1; Saxe 1).
In early 2000 Motorola unveiled an Internet radio prototype called
iRadio-a wireless receiver for automobiles that allows easy access to content
originating from the Web, cell phones, satellites, AM and FM radio stations,
and other sources ("Motorola Unveils" 1). iRadio and other competing receiver
technologies may not hit the market until fall 2001, but GM and Ford both plan
to offer Internet access in some new car models very soon (Carpenter Al).
Indeed, the new industry known as telematics-wireless communications for
cars and trucks-is growing rapidly on the bet that consumers will gobble up
these new devices. For example, Motorola's new telematics group brought in
$200 million worth of new business during the first half of 2000 alone
("Motorola Telematics" 1). DAB and satellite radio providers are getting into
the telematics business as well.
Developments such as iRadio and iPaq, a new Internet-only appliance for
the home ("The Web"), will indeed hasten the delivery of digital audio content
to all the traditional venues for radio listening. Before getting carried away by
this initial wave of optimism, however, we must pay heed to some cautionary evi-
dence. For one thing, Internet radio listening is not yet habitual, with only 30
percent of all Web users actually listening to music, news, or talk programs
online ("Study" 1). Other points of skepticism include persistent problems with
the audio quality of Webcasting services, the reliability of connection to those
services, the ease of navigation toward one's favorite features, and the fact that
Webcast listening is still largely confined to desktop computers in the listener's
place of work (Pizzi, "Living on the Edge" 1-2).
These problems do exist, but the drive to develop technological fixes is also
underway. Faster computers, new streaming technologies, and systems solutions
that could help bypass the clutter of today's crowded Internet may, within a few
years, begin to ease some of the problems Web radio listeners now have with low-
quality, intermittent reception. Better audio player software, coupled with a new
generation of browsers, should soon make the task of hooking up to your
favorite Internet station quicker, easier, and more pleasant. Once these fixes are
in place, the development of wireless broadband delivery systems will undoubt-
edly liberate Webcasting from the confines of the desktop computer. 5
Finally, on the content delivery side of the equation, "smart technologies"
such as iRadio will take some pressure off the shoulders of Internet, satellite,
and DAB broadcasters, all of whom have worried about consumer acceptance of
expensive receiving equipment tailored specifically for their competing trans-
mission systems. Perhaps the prediction of one technology research group for
 Michael P. McCauley

widespread consumer acceptance of personalized digital audio content by 2005

is not entirely far-fetched (Saxe 1).

Maintaining the Public Interest

Amid all the techno-speak and revelry surrounding new audio media, the pur-
veyors of these technologies sometimes forget the principle that supposedly
underlies American broadcasting and that should, by logical extension, under-
lie the coming digital revolution. The Radio Act of 1927 clearly stated that all
broadcasters must serve in "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" (US
Congress), but this standard has often been used and abused in ways that tend
to protect the status quo. Over the years broadcasters in the United States have
typically used the terms "public interest" and "public service" to describe the
advertiser-supported fare offered by most radio and 1V stations. The "service"
rendered to the public under this system does entail some degree of format
diversity across the nation, but those formats are typically marketed to groups of
consumers who have a fair amount of money and are susceptible to advertising
and the regular purchase of consumer products (Hurwitz 237-39). Explicit serv-
ice to marginal demographic groups is less common, along with broadcasting
that supports social justice causes-the brand of community-level radio that
aims to promote citizenship through greater participation in local and national
politics (Barlow 101).
To date there have been no explicit formulas for enhancing the public
interest in digital audio broadcasting. No new spectrum allocation has been
authorized for DAB at this point; indeed, current plans for IBOC technology-
with its proposed one-for-one swap of analog and digital allocations-would not
permit any additional entrants to the radio portion of the spectrum. In this
sense one may find little basis for developing further public interest regulations
for digital radio, for if current broadcasters have their way, the future of radio
will entail, for all purposes, the same kinds of content offered by the same com-
panies. But some experts have begun to imagine a more progressive future for
the American broadcast industry as a whole. For example, we can refer to a tem-
plate offered by a blue-ribbon government panel formed to study America's
conversion to digital television. The Advisory Committee on Public Interest
Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters was formed in October 1997.
Commonly known as the Gore Commission, because of Albert Gore Jr. 's partic-
ipation as titular head, the twenty-two-member panel- delivered its recommen-
dations to President Clinton in December 1998.
Some of the Gore Commission's recommendations were crafted specifically
for television, yet others could be used to fashion a program of public interest
reforms for digital audio broadcasting as well. In the process of imagining radio's
digital future, then, I propose that the users of each new delivery system be
 Radw 's Digital Future

required to promote programs that are of use to citizens of a democracy-not

only to those consumers who are an essential part of any capitalist economic sys-
tem. Specifically, my proposal would require broadcasters to submit themselves
to four normative processes: the creation and adoption of an overall set of defin-
itive public interest standards; the adoption of policies that enhance diversity in,
and access to, radio content; the adoption of measures to enhance civic discourse
and political communication; and the construction of funding mechanisms to
enhance broadcasting in the public interest. 6 In the paragraphs that follow, I will
further explicate these policy imperatives and see how well they square with the
vision today's radio broadcasters generally hold for digital media.

' Public Interest Standards

A number of advocates for better broadcasting sat on the Gore Commission but
by most accounts they were overpowered by strong representatives of the com-
mercial broadcasting lobby. Not surprisingly, the commission recommended
that the NAB draft a new voluntary code of conduct. To supplement this code,
members said, the FCC should adopt a set of minimum public interest require-
ments for digital broadcasters and require them to disclose their performance
in this regard quarterly. These requirements would also apply to the ascertain-
ment of community interests and the broadcast of public service announce-
ments and public affairs programs.
In analyzing these suggestions, we must first note that broadcast licensees are
already required to document the airing of public affairs programs that impact
their communities and to make these records available for public inspection. The
Go1·e Commission report does suggest the development of other public interest
standards; in assessing the chance they will actually come to pass, however, we
must note that the record of American broadcasters in fashioning effective per-
formance guidelines is, in a word, unimpressive. The NAB did develop a self-reg-
ulatory code for radio programming and advertising in the late 1920s, issued its
first television code in the early 1950s, and made periodical revisions to both codes
for years afterward. These codes suggested limits on advertising and on the airing
of sexual and violent <;:ontent during family viewing hours. But in these matters
and others, the NAB codes had no teeth (Smith, Wright, and Ostroff 463; Head et
al. 359). Loaded with general shoulds and should nots, the only penalty for vio-
lating these codes was the loss of a station's right to display the NAB's seal of
approval. In 1979 the Justice Department charged that recommended limits on ad
time "depriv[ed] ad\'ertisers of the benefits of free and open competition," and
the NAB disbanded its code-making operations altogether in 1982 (Sterling and
Kittross 192-93, 334, 433-34; Head et al. 359).
The ideas embodied in other Gore Commission recommendations have also
been tried and abandoned O\'er the years. Starting in 1949 the FCC began to spell
 Michael P. McCauley

out concrete expectations for broadcasting in the public interest In its famous
Blue Book, a primer on this very topic, the FCC listed five factors that constituted
good public service: (1) a sense of "balance" in advertiser-supported material; (2)
the airing of programs whose nature would make them unsupportable; (3) the
serving of minority tastes and interests; (4) catering to the needs of nonprofit
organizations; and (5) allowances for experimentation with new types of programs
(Sterling and Kittross 304). Though many commercial broadcasters blasted the
authors of the Blue Book-likening them to Communists or fascists, depending
on the mood of the critic-this report, along with other legal and regulatory rul-
ings, did evolve over the years into a narrower set of programming guidelines
known as the Fairness Doctrine (Smith, Wright, and Ostroff 54-55, 445-47;
Sterling and Kittross 426-27). This doctrine generally held that stations broad-
casting stories about matters of public controversy should air the views of all com-
peting interests. But the Reagan years in Washington brought an attack on the
Fairness Doctrine, with champions of broadcast deregulation arguing that any
such guidelines would produce a "chilling effect" on stations-resulting in the air-
ing of no controversial material at all. The FCC, under Reagan appointee Mark
Fowler, scrapped major portions of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, in spite of a
lack of evidence that any chilling effect on programming a_ctually occurred
(Aufderheide 67). Also meeting its death in 1984 was the requirement that
broadcasters regularly ascertain community needs as a prelude to program plan-
ning (Creech 112). One common theme underlies the gradual weakening and
demise of all the program guidelines mentioned above. In each case these devel-
opments unfolded rather quietly, behind the scenes, and with little or no chance
for public debate-a scenario common to all major regulatory decisions affect-
ing US telecommunications since 1927 (see McChesney, i.uch Media 63-67, 281).
In all likelihood the only public interest standard today's analog broadcast-
ers will carry over into the digital age is the public service tally the NAB now
computes each year from member station data. At its spring 2000 national con-
vention, the powerful trade group reported that American radio and TV stations
contributed the equivalent of more than $8.l billion in public service efforts
from August 1998 through July 1999. NAB president Edward Fritts claimed
these contributions include "the dollar value of airtime local broadcasters
devoted to public service announcements (PSAs), in addition to money raised
for charity, needy individuals and disaster relief and prevention efforts." Fritts
added that the $8.l billion figure is conservative, because it does not include the
value of airtime donated for news coverage, breaking weather emergencies, and
off-air charitable services (Brilliant 1).
Doubtless most radio and television stations behave like other American
businesses in terms of contributions to the United Way and other charitable
causes. It is also undeniable that public service announcements include proso-
cial messages designed to raise awareness about AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse,
Radio's Digiial Future

family violence, and other important problems ("Broadcasters"). But the method
the NAB uses for calculating the amount of donated services is questionable, to
say the least. First, the statewide data collected and fed to the NAB come from
surveys that exhibit a low response rate, especially where radio stations are con-
cerned. Data from stations that do respond are then used to project statewide
figures that cannot logically be derived from the information supplied. Nowhere
in these survey reports can one find the precise method through which the
opportunity cost of running public service announcements is calculated; this
method should be open to scrutiny, as PSAs are most often run at off-peak times
that would not warrant the use of high figures for the potential loss of advertis-
ing dollars ("Executive Summary"; McConnell). Finally, it is also worth noting
that the NAB's template for conducting public service research was developed
and administered by Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, Virginia, a
Republican "political and public affairs survey research company" that, among
other things, conducted research for the infamous "Harry and Louise" TV com-
mercials-the ads that helped destroy Hillary Clinton's plans for health care
reform ("Partner"). The Web site for this firm touts its expertise in "combat mes-
sage development-the science of creating effective messages for issues in which
the opposing side is aggressively engaged" ("Overview"). Aside froo these dubi-
ous qualifications, the work of Public Opinion Strategies has been challenged by
two other studies of local public service broadcasting-one by the Media Access
Project (MAP) and the Benton Foundation in 1998, and the other by a profes-
sor in Fordham University's Graduate School of Business Administration in
2000. Both studies show that local public affairs programs-including coverage
of ongoing issues of public debate, minidocumentaries, panels, roundtables,
and extended coverage-"made up less than one half of one percent of the fare
offered by commercial [TV] broadcasters" in the markets studied. The Fordham
study, based on randomly sampled markets and stations, showed consistent
results regardless of competitive conditions, market demographics, and individ-
ual station characteristics. The MAP /Benton study, with a sample designed to
reflect all market sizes and diverse geographic locations, showed that 35% of TV
stations had no local news, while 25% had no local public affairs programming
whatsoever ("Action Alert" 2; "What's Local").

Diversity and Access

The Gore Commission report implies that broadcasters should seize the oppor-
tunities inherent in digital radio technology to substantially enhance program
diversity. Accordingly, any new audio service should provide programs targeting
audiences that lie outside the socioeconomic mainstream. At least some new
audio services must reach out to groups of listeners who may not initially be able
to afford a particular delivery platform or subscription-based program senrice.
520 Michael P. McCauley

Finally, broadcasters should take full advantage of digital technologies to pro-

mote the expansion of quality service to Americans with disabilities.
Theoretically, the coming digital conversion could provide more avenues
for enhancing diversity in broadcast content and greater access to that same
content. Many public radio stations already use portions of their existing satel-
lite relay streams to operate "radio reader" services for the blind, and also offer
Web sites for the streaming, archiving, and playback of listeners' favorite pro-
grams. In terms of new efforts, Sirius Satellite Radio has formed an alliance with
We Media to develop talk shows, entertainment programs, and other featured
programming for people with disabilities, their families and friends ("Sirius
Satellite" 1). And Webcast audiences will also be able to hear some formats that
are not currently available on many local radio stations, such as Black Gospel
Radio and Pet Owner Radio ("BGN" l; "Purina" 1).
At first glance it seems that traditional analog broadcasters would also be
able to continue the proliferation of niche formats in recent years during their
changeover to digital transmission. A 1999 report by the Katz Radio Group iden-
tified no fewer than forty-five narrowcast formats, ranging from the standard
Contemporary Hit, Country and News/Talk to newer forms called Churban,
Hot/Young Country, and Rock Talk ("Under~t..anding"). In spite of these devel-
opments, those who analyze the radio industry know that most stations will likely
program one of five or six major format types-Country, Adult Contemporary,
Religious/Gospel, Rock, Top 40, or News/Talk (Duncan 3; Shane 3-6). And
regardless of format, commercial music services will likely continue to program
in a way that values the guidance of consultants and other industry insiders over
input from local audiences (Rothenbuhler 229-30). It is sobering to note that
today's pro3ramming practices in the United States have actually caused radio
listenership to drop by 12 percent since 1990. Analyst James Duncan of
Duncan's American Radio blames this state of affairs partly on the heavy com-
mercial loads found on the most popular stations; he also cites a lack of program
innovation, saying today's "new sounds" have actually been conceived by slicing
old formats into pieces, rather than airing new styles and combinations of music
(Duncan 2-3). Finally, although the amount of time devoted to news on US
radio stations is rising slightly, researchers also report a trend toward newsroom
consolidation-one set of journalists serving more than one group-owned sta-
tion in the same city ("1999"). This artifact of deregulation in the 1990s points
toward a loss of voice diversity in many radio newsrooms; other observers also
note that many group-owned radio stations are now "outsourcing" their news
function to MetroNetvmrks or ShadowNews-both owned by the CBS/Infinity
radio family (Burch 19; Shane 6).
Regarding access to digital radio content, the picture is equally discourag-
ing. When asked about the place of public service broadcasting in the radio
spectrum, now and in the future, current broadcasters contend they should not
Radio's Digi.tal Future 521

be forced to serve potentially unprofitable demographic segments. Milford K

Smith Jr., who chairs the DAB Subcommittee of the National Radio Systems
Committee (a group sponsored jointly by the NAB and the Electronic Industries
Foundation), argues that Internet radio is the place for minorities and other
underserved groups to "seek mass distribution of their product" (Smith 29-30).
But attorney Cheryl Leanza of the Media Access Project bristles at Smith's sug-
gestions, categorizing them as part of a "let them eat internet" argument that
ignores America's present digital divide. "Many communities who are disen-
franchised either because of cultural or economic reasons ... are not familiar
with computer technology, are not comfortable with computer technology," says
Leanza. "Radio technology, on the other hand . . . is a familiar technology.
People have radios all over the world. If they're immigrants to this country, they
understand radio. So it's much more accessible socially and economically" (5).
Leanza links the NAB's distaste for providing terrestrial radio service to
groups of people with "undesirable" socioeconomic profiles to a larger policy
objective that would keep any newly opened portions of the electromagnetic
spectrum out of the reach of nonmembers (10). Whatever the case, Internet use
among low-income groups is quite low (Walsh 2;Johnston 1), as is the likelihood
tl.ese people will become early adopters of Web- or satellite-based radio tech-
nologies. Internet use among most nonwhite groups-at home and work, in
schools and libraries-is rising but has not yet passed the 50 percent mark. More
than 25% of African-American households live on less than $15,000 per year;
accordingly, Internet usage among this group lags even further behind (Walsh
2-3). For all these reasons, it is hard to imagine how access to quality audio con-
tent in the digital age would be much better than it is now.

Civic Discourse and Political Communication

The coming digital conversion should eventually bring the era of simple one-way
broadcasting to an end. Tomorrow's radio operators should feature conversation
that transcends tightly controlled talk formats and affords audience members
real opportunities to join in. On the political front, broadcasters should do their
part to enhance the positive use of radio during electoral races; specifically, the
radio industry should voluntarily provide five minutes each night for candidate-
centered discourse in the thirty-day period before an election.
Some radio operators with a presence on the Web already provide content
designed to foster civic discourse and political participation. For example, NPR
Online developed an Election 2000 site linked to the network's home page. This
site features the top political headlines of the day along with audio clips, recaps
of the major political conventions, candidate profiles listed by party (including
the Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and Reform Parties), discussion sites, a
resource center and links to relevant NPR coverage ("NPR's" 1) Likewise,
 Michael P. McCauley

Minnesota Public Radio and Wisconsin Public Broadcasting have developed

sites that include poll results, conversations with leading candidates, and analy-
ses of debates and campaign ads ("Campaign;" "Wisconsin"). Another innova-
tive use of the Internet comes from the commercial sector. Working Assets
Broadcasting-whose parent company promotes political activism and dona-
tions to progressive nonprofit organizations-has launched a service called
RadioForChange. Based at KWAB-FM, a progressive commercial radio station in
Boulder, Colorado, this Web-based simulcast service features hosts and com-
mentators such as Laura Flanders, formerly of the media watchdog group FAIR,
and Jim Hightower, the syndicated political gadfly whose humorous diatribes
serve to elevate "the little guy." RadioForChange serves people who feel their
voices have become lost in the current sea of conservative talk shows and distant
media conglomerates ("About RadioForChange").
These developments are certainly positive in terms of creating electronic
public spaces for citizens to gather information and share concerns. But their
future success is contingent upon the wider availability of Web technology to
people in remote locations and lower income groups. In terms of traditional
broadcasters and their plans for civic and political conversation in the digital
era, we need only look at the Gore Commission's efforts to formulate a program
of free airtime for candidates to become dismayed about the prospects for suc-
cess. Robert McChesney notes that "to extract even a recommendation for a vol-
untary five-minute-per-night commitment of free time for candidates in the
month preceding an election, the Gore Commission recommended that broad-
casters be permitted to raise their ad rates for political commercials beyond the
rates then legally permissible" (McChesney, Rich 157). If democratic uses of our
broadcast media have a price, members of the Gore Commission were certainly
not willing to ante up.

Funding

Digital radio broadcasters who use portions of their former analog allocations
for services aside from the main broadcast channel, and in so doing reap
enhanced economic benefits, should have the flexibility to choose between pay-
ing a fee, providing a channel for public interest purposes, or making an in-kind
contribution. Also, Congress should create a trust fund to ensure enhanced and
permanent funding for public broadcasting, to help it fulfill its potential in the
digital radio environment, and to remove it from the vicissitudes of the political
process.
First of all, we must repeat that the prevailing !BOC DAB standard would
preclude the opening of any new channels for digital audio broadcasting-for
public service or any other purpose. Second, as we have already seen, the NAB
argues that its members already do quite enough in the area of public service.
Radio's Digital Future

These developments aside, there seems little hope that our future digital broad-
casting system will be structured around any imperatives other than those of rat-
ings success, advertising revenue and programming for economically attractive
demographic groups. It's not that broadcasters can't afford to fund more public
service efforts, the kind detailed in the FCC's Blue Book. In 1997 alone the
American radio industry posted revenues of more than $13.6 billion; at the same
time, the owners of radio stations paid only $9.3 million for their use of the air-
waves in terms of regulatory fees, and another few million in license application
fees (US CBO). All told, then, radio operators paid a tiny fraction of their gross
revenues in 1997-probably less than 1 %-for the right to stay in business.
These figures show that commercial radio broadcasters clearly can afford to sup-
port noncommercial programming as part of their public interest obligations.
Considering the profitability of the radio industry and current estimates of a
large federal budget surplus, one broadcast reform group has suggested the cre-
ation of a Public Broadcasting Trust (PBT) to support noncommercial pro-
gramming in perpetuity. Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting argues
that a 2% annual spectrum usage fee, coupled with small taxes on the sale of dig-
ital TV sets, the sale or transfer of commercial broadcast licenses, broadcast
advertising revenues, and the proceeds of spectrum auctions, would produce a
sufficient amount of money to create the PBT, which would replace the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Starr 276-79).
A poll conducted in December 1998 showed that 79% of the American pub-
lic favored a plan that would have commercial broadcasters pay 5 percent of
their revenues into such a trust fund ("CIPB"). If proposals such as this one
come to pass, public broadcasting could remove itself from dependency on the
federal government and corporate sponsors. Unfortunately, the creation of a
Public Broadcasting Trust is politically impossible at the moment. The idea has
been floated for many years in Washington and even came close to fruition in
the 1990s; yet the federal government, commercial broadcasters, and public
broadcasters themselves have thus far been unable to agree on the source and
amount of seed money (Witherspoon and Kovitz 49-50, 86-88, 110-11).
In summary, we can find a few promising pockets of programming at the
edges of today's radio industry-program sources that will be mapped directly
onto the worlds of satellite and Internet radio and, perhaps, terrestrial DAB.
Fundamental change in the prevailing definition of public interest or public
service broadcasting, however, seems no closer than it was in the 1930s. Self-
regulation has, over the years, conferred a sense of benevolence on the
nation's largely commercial broadcasting system. Yet even a novice economist
can see that self-regulation in any industry most often involves weak preemp-
tive measures by firms whose fear of economic loss is most acute. These reali-
ties, and the inability of the Gore Commission to successfully grapple with
them, prompted one of its dissident members to put the matter into historical
 Michael P. McCauley

context. Speaking of the switch to digital broadcasting, former FCC chair

Newton Minow said, "[O]ur grandchildren will one day regret our failure to
meet one of the great communication opportunities in the history of democ-
racy." They will conclude, Minow added, "that our generation believed that
from those to whom much is given, nothing much is required in return"
(quoted in McChesney, Rich 159).

Conclusion

In writing about the coming digital television conversion, Nolan Bowie and
Hugh Carter Donahue note that digital media "could begin the slow fade out of
broadcast network economics in which broadcasters vie over advertising rev-
enues for delivering the largest numbers of an increasingly fragmented mass
audience through duplicative programming" (128). It is small wonder, then,
that these authors see the digital transition-looking through the eyes of today's
commercial broadcasters-as a frequency grab that offers little hope for new
entrants into the business, and almost no possibility that digital spectrum will be
returned to the American public (129). Certain new program streams aside, the
same can be said about the future prospects of public service broadcasting via
digital radio. Public broadcasters and a handful of other vendors will offer use-
ful content, especially in the area of political communication. But many
Americans will not, for financial and other reasons, rush to buy receiving equip-
ment capable of handling content from satellite or Internet providers. Also,
public radio in the United States now offers a relatively limited form of public
service; only one in ten Americans now listens to it, and those listeners can gen-
erally be described as well educated, well-off, and mostly white (Witherspoon
and Kovitz 98-99).
Perhaps a better pathway for democratizing America's digital radio system is
the development of a greater number of small-scale, listener-responsive outlets.
Stations that carry programs from the Pacifica network have generally been con-
sidered part of the community radio movement, an alternative form of broad-
casting designed to fill the programming needs of people who are missed by
commercial, mass-marketed formats. More recently, variations on this theme
have come even closer to delivering the sort of content that is most important
to low-income and underserved Americans: "content about employment, edu-
cation and business development; information that can be clearly understood by
limited-literacy users; information in multiple languages; and opportunities [for
listeners] to create content and interact with it so it is culturally appropriate"
("Content" 1). Some current NPR affiliates, such as KUNM in Albuquerque,
New Mexico, carry the network's marquee newsmagazines while also running
more progressive programs such as· Pacifica's Democracy Now!!, David Barsamian's
Alternative Radio and Native America Calling ("KUNM"). Other stations-espe-
Radio's Digital Future

cially those that belong to the Grassroots Radio Coalition-aspire to these same
ideals with shows that are tied more closely to the local community and, in most
cases, drawn from a universe of programs that lie outside of NPR's orbit. For
instance, WERU in Blue Hill, Maine, offers a wildly eclectic schedule of music
shows, mixed with locally produced programs such as Economic Literacy 101,
Science and Society, and Talk of the Towns ("WERU").
These community-based stations aspire to truly democratic forms of radio-
program schedules that seek to level the informational playing field that lies
between society's haves and have-nots. While templates for this sort of radio
already exist, the prospect of growing a disparate band of stations into a stronger
national movement in the digital age presents clear logistical challenges. The
"educational" portion of the FM dial is already overcrowded in mid- and large-
sized American cities, with multiple NPR affiliates in the top markets. Thus the
spread of grassroots or community radio in the new millennium will necessarily
be tied to (1) the maintenance of NPR and Pacifica affiliates that already build
their schedules around community needs, (2) the construction and licensing of
new full-power community stations in rural and other underserved areas, (3) the
procurement of funds to help these stations change to digital transmission tech-
nologies, and (4) the further development of low-power FM (LPFM).
LPFM stations, which would operate on the neighborhood scale with power
of 100 watts or less, are seen by former FCC chairman William Kennard as an
important vehicle for giving schools, churches, social service agencies, and other
community groups a chance to make programs that ordinarily would not air on
other stations (see Microradio.org). One FCC official reports that the prospect of
low-power FM has triggered more mail, e-mail, and phone messages to the
agency-much of it from LPFM supporters-than any other telecommunica-
tions issue in decades (Stewart). However, America's commercial and public
radio broadcasters have opposed the FCC's decision to license LPFM stations,
claiming they would interfere with their own broadcast signals. FCC engineers
have refuted these claims, and the agency has in fact cleared the way for the
granting of 255 LPFM licenses. However, Congress severely reduced the scope
of LPFM deployment in late 2000; thus, the future of this small-scale radio alter-
native is in the hands of various interest groups that continue to pressure law-
makers in Washington (US FCC Statement, "Over 500," 2).
Perhaps it is time for those Americans who wish to enhance radio's public
service function in the digital era to borrow a favorite term from corporations
that have consolidated rapidly in other deregulated fields: the "grand alliance."
It would be truly fascinating to see progressive NPR and Pacifica affiliates, com-
munity and grassroots stations, and new LPFM licensees unite for the purpose
of producing, sharing, and broadcasting programs that meet the needs of those
not served by other radio stations. In order for this to happen, a wide cross sec-
tion of concerned citizens must work to rebuild a viable broadcast reform
 Michael P. McCauley

movement in the United States. This task would entail the building of coali-
tions among minority, low-income, labor, and other interested groups, along
with an analysis of why other broadcast reform efforts have failed (Mosco).
Such a process of coalition-building could take several years, but if it is done
carefully, this sort of effort could one day enable the creation of a Public
Broadcasting Trust, which in turn would provide a certain percentage of annual
funding for community-scale radio stations. Daunting as this task may seem,
groups such as Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting have shown that
the PBT ideal is more than just a passing fancy. Whatever the specific pathway,
advocates for better radio must now move beyond the "baby steps" of intellec-
tual commitment to active participation in a movement to renew public service
commitments at the systemic level. Only through this level of change-and of
corresponding change in America's overall political culture-will the ideal of
good citizenship come to enjoy the same status in media discourse that con-
sumerism now does.

Notes
I. To be fair, the Eureka system would require stations in a given region to share trans-
mission facilities and adopt the same power and coverage configurations. Deployment of this
system would thus entail another reallocation of radio spectrum and would, in a very real
sense, change the valuation of radio properties. This much is true; radio broadcasters who
vilify the Eureka system, however, are making a statement about policy preference and not
about an irrefutable social fact.
2. Gannett's support for USADR marked its first foray into radio broadcasting, though
the company has many other media holdings. Gannett is, for example, the largest American
newspaper group, and also owns and operates twenty-two TV stations. The broadcasting
properties formerly owned by Westinghouse are now pan of the Viacom/CBS empire, which
either operates or provides programs for more than 7,500 radio stations through its various
subsidiaries. USADR (now iBiquity Digital Corporation) is also owned in part by ABC. For
further details, see the Gannett Web site <http:/ /www.gannett.com/map/gan007.htm>, the
Westwood One (Viacom) site <http://www2.cbsradio.com/wwl/index.htm>, and the
USADR site <http:/ /www.usadr.com/aboutus.html>.
3. For a fuller textual and graphical depiction of an IBOC system under development, see
the comments that USADR filed in response to the FCC's Notice of Proposed Ru/,e Mailing
regarding DAB (US FCC, Comments).
4. The XM allocation is less susceptible to interference and thus has been deemed to
hold greater profit potential (see "DARS Winners").
5. Broadband is a term used to describe any transmission medium that can simultaneously
handle hundreds of audio and video channels, telephone calls, and a wide variety of high-
speed data applications end to end. These services are most commonly delivered by cable
and telephone companies and other "telcos" that have begun to use fiber-optic technology.
"Wireless broadband" refers to the same sort of high-speed transmissions outlined above, but
without the need for wires or cables (see McNamara).
6. These suggested reform measures, described more fully in the following pages, were
culled from a larger list of recommendations by the Gore Commission and augmented by
the autl10r's own research. A complete text of the Gore Commission's report is available at
<http:/ /www.benton.org/PIAC/report.htmi>. An excellent summary of this report is also
available through Current Online at <http:/ /www.current.org/ dtv/ dtv823g.html>.
Radio's Digital Future

Bibliography
"1999 Newsroom Workforce Survey. RTNDA/F Research, Radio-Television News Directors
Association and Foundation <http://www.rtnda.org/research/staff.shtml>.
"About RadioForChange." Working Assets Broadcasting<http:www.workingforchange.com/
radio/aboutradio.cfm>.
"About RealNetworks." Rea/Networks.com <http:/ /www.realnetworks.com/ company/index.html>.
"About Yahoo! Broadcast." Yahoo! Broadcast <http:/ /www.broadcast.com/about>.
"Action Alert, NAB 2000: Speak Out for Media Democracy." Fairness and Accunuy in Reporting
<http://www.fair.org/ activism/ nab-2000.html>.
Akasie,Jay. "Pie in the Sky?" Forbes 26Jul. 1999: 56.
"Arbitron Releases First Webcasting Ratings." Arbitron.com <http:/ /internet.arbitron.com/
mainfiles/ combined_cume_tst_nycutables.htm>.
Aufderheide, Patricia. "After the Fairness Doctrine: Controversial Broadcast Programming
and the Public Interest." journal of Communication 40.3 (1990): 47-71.
Barlow, William. "Community Radio in the US: The Struggle for a Democratic Medium."
Media, Culture and Society IO (1988): 81-105.
Barnouw, Erik. A Tower in BaheL New York: Oxford UP, 1966.
"BGN-The Black Gospel Network Web Radio Station Launches." PR Newswire, 7 Apr. 2000.
Available through the Search feature at <http:/ /www.prnewswire.com>.
Bowie, Nolan A, and Hugh Carter Donahue. "Doing Well by Doing Good: The Gore
Commission's Hope for Digital Broadcasting in the Public Interest." info I.I (1999):
127-31.
Brilliant, Robert. "Public Service Efforts Top $8.1 Billion." NAB 2000 Online Daily News
<http:/ /www.nab.org/ conventions/NAB2000/Daily/ l 9_public.asp>.
"BroadcastAMERICAcom Now World's Largest Online Broadcaster." BroadcastAMERICA.com
press release <http:/ /www.broadcastamerica.com/ company/press.phtml>.
"Broadcasters: Bringing Community Service Home." NAB Public Service Home Page
<http:/ /www.nab.org/Public Seniice>.
Brown, Les. "Living in a Nielsen Republic." Fast Forward: The New Television and American
Society. Ed. Les Brown and S. W. Walker. Kansas City: Andrews, 1983. 103-7.
Burch, Dianne. "Radio Waves." College Park 11.3 (2000): 17-23.
"The Cable TV of Radio?" R:siness Week 31 Jan. 2000: 96.
"Campaign 2000 from MPR News." Minnesota Public Radio Web Site <http:/ /news.mpr.org/
features/ 199908/0 l_newsroom_campaign2000>.
Carpenter, Dave. "Motorola Hails Radio-Internet Hybrid As Future of Car Audio." Bangor
Daily News 7 Aug. 2000: Al.
"The CIPB Proposal for a Public Broadcasting Trust." cipbonline.org <http:/ /www.cipbon-
line.org/ trustMain.htm>.
"Contemplating Digital Radio's Threat." Bil/hoard 5 Sept. 1998: 117.
"Content and the Digital Divide: What Do People Want?" Digital Divide Network <http:/ /www.
digitaldividenetwork.org/ contentbeat.adp>.
"Country Updates, April 2000." World DAB Forum <http://www.worlddab.org/dabworld/
factsandfigures.htm>.
Cravatta, Nicholas. "The Internet-Audio (R)evolution." EDN3 Feb. 2000: 101.
Creech, Kenneth C. Electronic Media Law and Regulation. 3d ed. Boston: Focal P, 2000.
Curran, Lawrence J. "Satellite Radio: Along for the Ride." Electronic Business 24.8 ( 1998): 26.
"DAB Concerns." Broadcasting and Cable 18 Feb. 1991: 43-44.
"DARS Winners Named." Television Digest i Apr. 1997: 9.
"Did You Know? Interesting Facts and Figures about DAB." World DAB Forum <http:/ /www.
worlddab.org/ dabworld/factsandfigures.htm>.
Duncan,Jamesjr. Speech delivered as a member of the Media Panel at the PaineWebber
Media Conference. New York. 6 Dec. 1999.
"ExeclltiH' Summary." Lorn! Broadcastrm; 'Xational Rej1ort, Survey 2000 <http:/ /www.broadcast
 Michael P. McCauley

publicservice.org/2000results/ default.asp>. "FCC Authorizes New LPFM Service." FCC

Web Site. <http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm>.
"Five U.S. Cities Reach 50% Internet Penetration." Arbitron.com <http:/ /internet.arbitron.
com/ mainfiles/scar_netrankings.htm>.
"Frequently Asked Questions." World DAB Forum
<http:/ /www.worlddab.org/ dab/whatis.htm>.
Head, Sydney, et al. Broadcasting in America: A Survey of El,ectronic Media. 8th ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1998.
Hoynes, William. Public Te/,evision for Sale: Media, the Market, and the Public Sphere. Boulder, CO:
Westview, 1994.
Hurwitz, Donald. "Market Research and the Study of the U.S. Radio Audience."
Communication 10, 1988: 223-41.
"Internet Study IV: The Buying Power of 'Streamies."' Arbitron.com <http:/ /internet.arbi-
tron.com/mainfiles/internetstudyiv.htm>.
Janssen, Mike. "Technical Merger May Speed Adoption of Digital Radio." Current 17 July
2000: 5.
Johnston, Margaret. "Low-Income Households Still Largely Unwired, Study Finds."
Computerworld, 21 Aug. 2000. <http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/frame/0,1213,
NAV47-68-84-88-93_ST048849,00.ht>.
"KUNM Programing Schedule-Graphic." KUNM Web Site. <http://kunm.unm.edu/
programming/ schedule-graphic.htm>.
Lambert, Peter. "NAB May Rescind Eureka Endorsement." Broadcasting23 Dec. 1991: 10.
Leanza, Cheryl. Telephone interview. 4 Apr. 2000.
"Let's Make IBOC DAB the Best It Can Be." Radioworld.com ("Guy Wire" column), 14 Aug.
2000 <http:/ /www.radioworld.com/ guywire/ guywire.htmb.
"Lucent Digital Radio and USA Digital Radio Agree to Merge to Create New Entity ...
iBiquity Digital Corporation ... Speeding Development of Digital Radio Standard." USA
Digital Radio press release, 12July 2000 <http://www.usadr.com/news/pressreleases
/2000/jul/press071200.htmb.
"Lucent Merges Digital Radio Unit to Create New Entity." Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), 13 July
2000. Available through Star-Ledger Search services <http://www.nj.com/archive>.
"Lucent Technologies Licenses ePAC Music Coder for Internet-Enhanced Digital Radio
3ervice." Business Wire 9 May 2000: 2-3.
Masters, Ian G. 'The Future of Radio: Digital Audio Broadcasting Will Change the Way the
World Listens." Stereo Review Oct. 1997: 83.
McChesney, Robert W. Telecommunications, Mass Media and Democracy: The Battle for the Control
of US. Broadcasting, 1928-1935. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
- - - . "Public Broadcasting in the Age of Communication Revolution." Monthly Review
47.7: Dec. 1995: 1-19.
---.Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana: U of
Illinois P, 1999.
McConnell, Bill. "Adding Up the Public Service Dollars: How the NAB Calculated the Public
Service Total." Broadcasting and Cable 6 Apr. 1998: 76.
McNamara, Kevin. "DSL and DOCSIS: ABCs of Broadband." BERadio.com, Next Wave, Apr.
2000 <http:/ /216.246.51.183/html/2000/April/nextWave.htm>.
McVicker, Dee. "Web Radio Nets Interest." tele.com 5.10 (2000): 35.
Microradio.org. Web site of the Microradio Implementation Project. <http:/ /www.microra-
dio.org>.
Mosco, Vincent. E-mail message. 19 Apr. 2000.
"Motorola Telematics Group Books More than $200 Million during First Half of 2000;
Introduction of iRadio (TM), and Strategic Alliances Trigger Explosive Growth." PR
Newswire, 26 July 2000. Available through the Search feature at
<http:/ /www.prnews"·ire.com>.
Radio's Digital Future

"Motorola Unveils iRadio At CES 2000; Wireless Web Access Coming Soon to a Car Near
You." Business Wire 6 Jan. 2000.
"NAB Amenable to In-band DAB." Television Digest 5 Aug. 1991: 6.
"NAB Backs Eureka DAB." Television Digest 4 Feb. 1991: 6.
"NAB-DAB to Hurt Stations." Television Digest 2 Jan. 1995:4.
"NPR's Election 2000 Coverage." NPR Online. <http://www.npr.org/news/national/election
2000>
"Over 500 Third Window LPFM Applicants Registered, Powell Named New FCC
Chairman." The Microradio Implementation Project, News Release, 30 Jan. 2001
<http:/ /www.microradio.org/mr013001.htm>.
"Overview." Public Opinion Strategies Web site <http://www.pos.org/html/ovrview.html>.
"Partner: Bill Mcinturff." Public Opinion Strategies web site <http:/ /www.pos.org/html/
mcinturff.html>.
Pizzi, Skip. "Boombox with a Browser-and Beyond." BER.adio.com, The Last Byte, Oct. 1999
<http:/ /www.beradio.com/archive/1999/19991015.htm>.
- - - . "S-DARS Update." BER.adio.com, Managing Technology, Jan. 2000 <http://www.
beradio.com/ archive/ 1999/20000106.htm>.
---."Living on the Edge." BER.adio.com, The Last Byte, July 2000 <http:/ /www.beradio.
com/html/2000/July/departments/theLastByte/theLastByte.htm>.
- - . "What's Wrong with DAB?" BERadio.com, The Last Byte, Sep. 2000
<http://www.beradio.com/html/2000/Sept/departments/theLastByte/whatsWrongWith
DAB.htm>.
"Purina to Launch First-of-Its-Kind Internet Radio Network; Pet Nutrition Leader Partners
with Radio \'0yager for 24-Hour Web Broadcast." Business Wire 7 Aug. 2000.
"Radio Margaritaville:Jimmy Buffett Fans Listen to Ultimate Niche, Internet-Only Channel."
Arbitron.com. 13 Dec. 2000 <http://www.arbitron.com/articlel.htm>.
Rothenbuhler, Eric W. "Programming Decision Making in Popular Music Radio."
Communication Research 12.2 209-32.
Saxe, Frank. "Rise of 'Self-Serve Audio' Predicted." Billboard 10 June 2000: 91.
Shane, Ed. "The State of the Industry: Radio's Shifting Paradigm." journal of Radio Studies 5.3
(1998): 1-7.
"Sirius Radio Completes In-Orbit Testing of Sirius-I, Sirius-2, Arrives at Launch Site." PR
Newswire, 8 Aug. 2000. Available through the Search feature at
<http://www.prnewswire.com>.
"Sirius Radio Completes Satellite Constellation." Sirius Satellite Radio news release
<http:/ /www.siriusradio.com/flash/print/print_news.asp?id=l30>.
"Sirius Radio Conducts First Satellite Radio Broadcast to Vehicles from Its Orbiting
Satellites."Sirius Satellite Radio news release <http:/ /www.siriusradio.com/nonflash_
site/recent.asp?ID=l 40>.
"Sirius Radio Sets Satellite Launch Schedule." Sirius Satellite Radio, News Release
<http:/ I www.siriusradio.com/ nonflash_site I archives.asp ?ID=73>.
"Sirius Satellite Radio Partners with We Media to Develop Original Audio Programming for
Millions of Americans with Disabilities." Sirius Satellite Radio news release
<http:/ /www.siriusradio.com/nonflash_site/recent.asp>.
Smith, F. Leslie, John W. Wright, and David H. Ostroff. Perspectives on Radio and Television:
Telecommunications in the United States. 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998.
Smith, Milford K.,Jr. Telephone interview. 28 Mar. 2000.
Starr, Jerold M. Air Wai:s: The Fight to Reclaim Public Broadcasting. Boston: Beacon, 2000.
Sterling, Christopher H., and John M. Kittross. Stay Tuned: A Concise History of American
Broadcasting. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990.
Stewart, Roy. Comments made at Maine Association of Broadcasters Annual Convention,
Boothbay Harbor, Maine. 18 Sep. 1999.
Stimson, Leslie. Fax Message, 8 Sept. 2000.
530 Michael P. McCauley

"Study Finds Online Radio Listeners Are Active Web Consumers." Arbitron.com <http:/ /inter-
net.arbitron.com/mainfiles/ads_drive_web.htm>.
Sukow, Randy. "Broadcasters Blast Satellite DAB Again." Broadcasting23 Nov. 1992: 42.
"Summary of the Anti-LPFM Legislation." Media Access Project Web site <http:/ /www.medi-
aaccess.org/ programs/lpfm/ rpa2000 .html>.
"SurferNetwork Awarded BroadcastAmerica Radio Assets." BERadio.com, Feb. 2001
<http:/ /www.beradio.com/2001/02_feb/news/surfer.htm>.
Taylor, Chuck. "Digital Radio Promises: Too Little, Too Late in Face of Competition?"
Bil/hoard 29 Jan. 2000: 86.
----"NAB Convention: Whether Webcasting, LPFM, or DAB, High Tech Is All the
Rage." Bil/hoard 29 Apr. 2000: 92.
"Understanding Radio Formats." A report from the Katz Radio Group, 1999.
"USA Digital Radio Secures $41 Million in Additional Equity Financing." Business Wire, news
release, 1 May 2000. Re. Business Wire. All Business Wire news releases are accessible
through Corporate ResourcesNet, one of the EBSCOhost Select Databases. This collection of
databases is available through many academic libraries. I accessed it through MARINER,
the electronic gateway to information sevices provided by the University of Maine System
libraries <http:/ /libraries.maine.edu/ marindexesdb/default.htm>.
United States. Congress. "The Radio Act of 1927, Public Law 632, 69th Congress, 23
February 1927," in Frank]. Kahn, ed., Documents of American Broadcasting, 4th ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
- - - . Congressional Budget Office. Two Approaches for Increasing Spectrum Fees. November
1998 <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=l047&sequence=O&from=l>.
- - - . Federal Communications Commission. Comments of USA Digi,tal Radio in the Matter of
Digi,tal Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service.
Washington: GPO, 2000.
- - - . Federal Communications Commission. Statement ofDale Hatfield, Chief, Office of
Engi,neering and Technowgy, and RoJ Stewart, Chief, Mass Media Bureau Concerning Low Power
FM Engi,neering Issues. Washington: GPO, 2000.
"Visteon and iBiquity Digital Form Strategic Alliance to Develop AM and FM Digital Radios."
Business Wire 14 Aug. 2000.
Walsh, Ekaterina 0. 'The Truth about the Digital Divide." The Forrester Brief, Forrester
Research, Inc., 2000. <http:/ /www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/0,1317,9208,FF.html>.
"The Web for All." Maclean '.5 28 Aug. 2000 :29.
"WERU Program Schedule and Spoken-Word Programming Listing." WERU Web site
<http:/ /media32.hypemet.com/WERU/pages/programs.html>.
"What's Local about Local Broadcasting?-Still Not Much." Broadcasting Extra
<http:/ /www.benton.org/News/Extra/broad040400.html>.
v\Thite, Gregory L. "Two Rivals to Work on Standard for Digital Radio Via Satellite." Wall
Streetjoumall7 Feb. 2000: Bl3.
"Wisconsin Vote" Web site <http:/ /www.wisconsinvote.org>.
Witherspoon, John, and Roselle Kovitz. A History of Public Broadcasting. With an update by
Robert K. Avery and Alan G. Stavitsky. Washington: Current, 2000.
"XM Radio's Satellite Arrives at Launch Home Port." XM Satellite Radio, news release. Re:
XM Satellite radio: All XM Satellite radio news releases are accessible through the com-
pany's Web site, at this URL: <http://www.xmradio.com/js/news/pressreleases.asp>.
"XM to Launch on March 18."BERadio.com, Feb. 2001
<http://www.beradio.com/200 l /02_feb/ news/ sea_launch.htm>.

View publication stats