香港的民間電台爭議持續不休，特區政府與法院為了一個小小電台，一個全香港唯一的地下電台，弄得團團轉。由於民間電台的發起及經營者是社民連線的曾健成，這件事便變成一件十足的政治事件。不過，若換一個較大的角度來看，這究竟是一件怎樣的媒體事件？最近美國環繞著「低功率電台」（Low Power FM station）的爭議，也許可以幫我們看清一點。
最近美國聯邦上訴法院華盛頓特區巡迴法院作出判決，指聯邦通訊委員會（Federal Communications Commission, FCC) 有權保障「低功率電台」的廣播權，面對大型電台以干擾廣播的指控，FCC有權平衡雙方利益，繼續發放牌照及容許「低功率電台」經營。
我們香港的民間電台，從技術上就是「低功率電台」，別稱「社區電台」，一般電波發放功率只有10至100瓦，只覆蓋1至3.5平方公里的地方，比香港一個區還要小。兩年前我訪問曾健成，他說，在柴灣發射，大概也只有港島東及小部份九龍東的市民能收聽到。這種規模的電台在美國的廣播業開始以來一直存在，不少是非牟利的廣播機構。但自八十年代開始，「低功率電台」數目便沒有增長，最大的理由是FCC不發放牌照，而且，大財團支持的全國性或城際電台亦以「干擾」作理由，反對有關部門發放牌照予小型電台。同時，1996年，國會通過「電信法」修正案，解除了電台擁有權的限制，結果，造成美國出現一些大型的廣播集團，例如Clear Channel Communications，他們在九十年代原本擁有四十三家電台，但卻一下子增至一千兩百家以上廣播電台。
「低功率電台」一般能在企業化的壟斷媒體市場中提供另類選擇，例如非主流音樂，而新聞節目方面，除了提供社區新聞資訊外，也能在全國範圍創造出另類新聞議程，Democracy Now!是一個好例子，它在全國各社區及獨立媒體上播放有別於大電台的新聞節目，尤以多年前率先質疑布殊總統的外交及軍事政策而聞名。
自二千年以來，由於媒體改革組織的壓力，在體制及政策上出現了一些鬆動。由2000年開始，FCC開始發放「低功率電台」牌照；2005年，有國會議員提出「地方社區廣播法案」（The Local Community Radio Act of 2005)；2007年，FCC更建議國會修改頻譜管制的技術規定，允許更多低功率調頻廣播電台可以出現。而這次裁決是由獨立小電台的聯盟組織 Prometheus Radio Project推動，嘗試從司法渠道上支持FCC，確認協助小型電台的政策及制度。
平衡大型電台與小型電台的利益，特別在頻譜上作出較合理的分配，不單是社會運動團體及社區組織的訴求，也得到美國不少工程師的認同及支持，否則，也不會得到FCC及法院認同。回想香港，除了幫忙民間電台解決技術問題的發燒友外，所有電訊專家，包括學院及在公營或商營電台工作的工程師，皆一致否定這個可能性，認為不切實際，反而叫大家期望未來的「數碼廣播」。但是，這個所謂「實際」，是指無法多加一個像現有的全港性的FM電台，因為，根據政府的牌照要求，這些電台要佔用非常多的頻譜，現在已不敷應用。但是，像「民間電台」這樣的「低功率電台」，他們要求的根本不是另一個商台、新城或港台！而遠遠不知何時定案的「數碼廣播」為何是較實際的呢？
這個問題是清晰易懂的，也是可行的，平衡大小電台利益對香港的好處也是明顯的，也不見得是很激進的政策。為何強調「平衡」的政府以及建制中人，對這種「平衡」卻視若無睹？
回應
What if there are over a
What if there are over a thousand low-powered radio stations in Hong Kong (which is such a small place), and some of them are under the control of triad societies.
Many would quote the existence of these radio stations to support civil radio in Hong Kong, but I am regret to say that to me this is not some concrete reasons:
1. Hong Kong enjoys such a free flow of information so there is no need to have community radio to serve a small area. In places like Mexico or US, some areas are so remote and difficult to reach so there is such a need to have local radio stations to serve the unique local culture. In Hong Kong, we don't have such a need.
2. It will be VERY difficult to make sure that the radio broadcasters will air programmes with appropriate content. Here I don't mean an interfere with freedom of speech, but it would be hard to regulate triad information or some unethical information (if a 16-year-girl becomes a prostitute and puts her ad through such small radios). How can the government check these contents?
3. Existence of such radios does not justify its existence. We also have corruption in China then we does not need to fight it in HK, which is illogical! The LSD gangsters are pretending to be self-righteous but again the existence of no regulations in US does not mean they are right.
What if
What if the large media company own by the triad societies? I think it's funny to raise a conversation like this.
Hong Kong enjoys such a free flow of information? I do not agree. I think we need such local stations because there are 7 millions of people in HK, but we listen to only a few radio stations.
Why would we have to restrict the content? Who defines "APPROPRIATE content"? The non-democractic government? What do you mean unethical information? Do we understand ethic through banning information? So why would we are taught critical thinking? It's really funny.
Why would you call LSD gangsters? Prejudice?
"What if the large media
"What if the large media company own by the triad societies? I think it's funny to raise a conversation like this."
But at the time being all radio programmes, movies, and television programmes are regulated by the government.
"Hong Kong enjoys such a free flow of information?"
We have zero restrictions on Internet and Publication (as long as they are not of category three). The Falungong can even distribute their newspaper sponsored by the US here territory-wide.
So there is no need for us to have local radio stations to serve the local community. (reasons stated)
"Who defines "APPROPRIATE content"?"
In this sense you can abandon all laws and rules, as they are written by a group of people. (Of coz there is a difference between Rule of Law and Rule by Law. Rule of law is what we must achieve.)
"Why would you call LSD
"Why would you call LSD gangsters? Prejudice?"
I can speak freely here, I suppose. (Though I knew a Civic Party Member controls the Youtube Channel here.)
唔好亂入
"I can speak freely here, I suppose. (Though I knew a Civic Party Member controls the Youtube Channel here.)"
係人都知 Civic Party 同 LSD 勁唔妥，唔好亂入佢地係同一陣線。仲有，葉蔭聰唔係 Civic Party Member，呢個亦唔好亂入。