Comments on: Radio Free Palmer

By: David Cheezem

David Cheezem — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:13:07 +0000

Thanks, Stephen, for starting this discussion!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:09:27 +0000

I don’t see how “broadcasting” to 1000 people is better than “narrowcasting” to 1000 people, especially if delivers a lesser product that costs more money and time to produce.

As a news guy, I’m all about local coverage but I’m not convinced that the town of Palmer is an under-served market. The area is served by the Frontiersman, a bureau of the Anchorage Daily News, a bureau of KTUU, and local radio station KMBQ.

I do see a special place for RFP’s programming on the web. Visitors will get more and better coverage, get it when they want it, and, most importantly, they will be able to participate in the process. If RFP must broadcast, try working a deal with KMBQ (David already has a show) or APRN.

And this is a difficult debate to have on the air, not so hard on a blog.

(sent from Vagabond Blues via RFP’s wireless network)

By: eaglepeak

eaglepeak — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:27:22 +0000

Anyone hear the guy running the small FM station in Mississippi after Katrina? He was THE provider of critical information that the community needed. Eventually, it’s possible over the air radio will become obsolete. I’d guess there’s a good 40 or 50 years left before communities and people will change to the point that community radio will no longer be needed. Community BROADCASTING as opposed to web NARROWCASTING will be a needed community asset for the foreseeable future. The web offers new opportunities for creativity and innovation, and some of that can be reflected on the air.

By: David Cheezem

David Cheezem — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:54:09 +0000

This is an amazing moment in history socially and technologically. The live shows and streaming video are going to happen — a lot sooner than broadcasting will.

But don’t think of Radio Free Palmer as fitting into easy, predetermined categories. Whatever delivery system (or systems) we use, we will always be locality-based, democratically established and educational in nature. That means a marriage of professional standards and fresh, volunteer created content.

If people select our programming because it reinforces their prejudices, then we’ve failed. If people select our programming because it gives them a window through which to look at themselves and their community, then we’ve succeeded.

By: Rob LeFebvre

Rob LeFebvre — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:06:23 +0000

Hey there,

Cool post. Glad to hear Palmer has a free WiFi network, too. IN regards to radio, what about a podcast, or net radio, or something of the sort. Live shows? Streaming video? How cool would that be?

By: John Proffitt

John Proffitt — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:02:44 +0000

I’m with you — building a new radio station today, especially one with a nonprofit community service focus, is probably a waste of money. The only thing that could make sense would be a Low Power FM (LPFM) station, which has a much lower capital requirement than the full power stations.

Streaming a signal online is way cheaper and avoids costly and cumbersome FCC licensing. Naturally, it doesn’t (yet) work in cars or easily in non-PC-savvy homes, but I’d rather build a station ahead of the curve, technologically.