Don't Touch That Dial

Free Radio Berkeley takes on the FCC and official history

Jesse Walker from the October 1995 issue

(Page 2 of 4)

Whatever the source of the complaint, Krock's patience has been drained by past interference problems. Once, he recalls, a religious network's local translator was blocking KQED's signal. Rather than cooperate in fixing the problem, the offending station suggested they resolve the dispute through prayer. If Dunifer is standing in the way of KQED'sor anybody else'sbroadcasts, Krock concludes, Free Radio Berkeley should be shut down.

But for Hiken, Dunifer's lawyer, interference is a red herring. 'The whole idea of micro radio is to not interfere. It's to communicate with people. If you're a small broadcaster and you go on the same frequency as a major broadcaster, you don't interfereyou get drowned out. If you have bad filtering or bad harmonics, that might be a problem, but that can be fixed.'

Beverly Baker, chief of the FCC's Compliance and Information Bureauthe agency's investi gative armisn't convinced by Hiken's scenario. 'If they're both on the same channel, there's also a chance that both won't be heard,' she argues. Technologically speaking, she's right. A one-watt station might be drowned out; a 30-watt station can cause problems. And Dunifer hasn't been limit ing himself to one watt.

Sorting out the interference debate is hard, because there are really two issues at stake. First is the concrete question of whether or not Free Radio Berkeley is regularly interfering with other
stations' signals. Dunifer insists that he isn't. Nobody has complained to him about interference, he says. And if they do, he'll immediately shut his transmitter down long enough to fix the problem.

'The only people who've complained are the FCC themselves,' claims Hiken. 'They've driven up right next to the transmitters and reported that they're receiving unlicensed broadcasts on some one else's frequency.'

Hiken's accusation is bolstered by the FCC's response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Conspiracy, the newsletter of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. In mid-1994, The Conspiracy requested the origins, dates, and details of stations' complaints against Dunifer's broadcasts.

In its October 1994 reply, the FCC explained that 'several informal inquiries or complaints were received from local broadcast engineer and consultant sources who either saw articles in the local newspapers, heard the broadcasts themselves, saw one of Mr. Dunifer's flyers, had read Mr. Dunifer's internet postings, or had seen or heard about the Commission's May 1993 monetary forfeiture action issued against Mr. Dunifer.' Furthermore, 'these contacts were made by telephone or in person,no written records of the inquiries were made, andthe individuals involved ex pressly requested confidentiality.' In other words, as of October 1994, all the complaints related to the fact that Dunifer was making unlicensed broadcasts, and not to specific instances of interference.

Have there been problems since October? Baker and Silberman of the FCC both cite a recent complaint by KFOG, an 'adult rock' station in San Francisco. A telephone conversation with KFOG's program director draws a blank; he suggests I speak with the legal department of the station's parent corporation, Susquehanna, in York, Pennsylvania. There, one lawyer passes me on to another lawyer, who directs me to yet another lawyer, who says he isn't the person I should be speaking with.

Eventually, the origin of the complaint emerges: a letter dated May 2, 1995, sent from Susquehanna Senior Vice President Charles T. Morgan to FCC General Counsel William E. Kennard. The lettersent from York, not San Franciscoappears to have been prompted by FCC prodding. 'The existence,' writes Morgan, 'of Free Radio Berkeley and other so called 'Pirate Radio' operators in the San Francisco Bay area was a point of discussion at an FCC panel at the recent [April 1995] NAB [National Association of Broadcasters] convention in Las Vegas. Ms. Beverly Bakerwas a member of that panel and stated that to her knowledge 'the FCC had not received any complaints concerning these illegal operations.' After this panel discussion, I discussed this matter with members of the Commission's staff who suggested that I direct this letter to you.'

As with the earlier FCC response, the bulk of Morgan's complaints concern the legal status of Free Radio Berkeley, not interference. Most of his evidence involves Dunifer's provision of equip ment and advice to other illegal stations, via mail, Internet, and face-to-face workshops. As Morgan says, his primary intent is to document 'the existence of these illegal operations and their total disregard for the FCC and its authoritythe blatant attitude and complete disregard for federal laws that is apparent in the actions of Stephen Dunifer and his associates.'

Nonetheless, Morgan does make some disturbing allegationsnot so much his claims of interference (the letter lists just two listener complaints, only one of which involves KFOG), but the assertion that Dunifer simply isn't a micro broadcaster at all. Free Radio Berkeley's transmitting power, claims Morgan, is actually between 100 and 150 watts. Dunifer denies this. The question will no doubt be debatedand possibly resolvedat Dun-ifer's hearing.

Whether or not this particular pirate is guilty of stepping on other stations' corners of the spectrum, the second question remains: Are micro stations any more likely to block signals than larger outfits?

The answer is straightforward: no. Indeed, Dunifer argues that it's the high-watt operations that are the real problem. 'The big stations like KQED can blast the front ends off other stations in the area,' claims Dunifer.

KQED engineer Krock approaches the question from another point of view: 'As I understand it, what the pirates would like to do is increase the number of broadcast channels in use. The prob lem with this is that the broadcast allocations in this country are based on allowing the use of inex pensive receivers by the general public. What appears to be a hole in the FM broadcast band may be there to accommodate the shortcomings of inexpensive receiver design. It would be possible to put more stations onto the broadcast band, but that would require the use of more expensive, more sophisticated radios by the public. And I haven't heard any of the pirates suggesting where this money should come from.'

In other words, cheap radios may make reception problems more likely. 'Most Walkman-type receivers have trouble separating existing FM stations,' says Krock.