"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...
:
: "Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
: ...

: 1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure
a
: balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
:
: So, why doesn't the government also require newspapers to have a balance
of
: voices and opinions?

Is this a rhetorical question or what? That's the first thing taught in
Mass Media 101. There is a limited amount of spectrum space available for
utilization. That's one of the reasons why the FCC was (supposedly)
created (I remember when the FCC was NOT a lap dog for the broadcasters).
To manage a natural resource which supposedly belongs to the people
(although that is now empty rhetoric). The same conditions hardly apply to
the printed media.

But that limatation has been relaxed. There have been many new licenses
issued since 1980, and there are many more 24 hour stations. Given the open
situation, I'm sure there many open radio frequencies in most markets.

And you would be wrong. Further, with the coordination/transition to DTV, there's no
space anywhere, in any market. And besides, twice a finite number is still a finite
number.

Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open
frequencies and channels?

No, because a licensee should do their part to represent all divergent views.

: Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite radio,
: satellite TV, and cable TV?

no

Why not? Despite their large bandwidth, satellites don't have an unlimited
number of frequencies. The FCC currently has jurisdiction over wire
communications, but they generally have never enforced program content
there. Isn't it unfair that fairness, as defined by the government, isn't
enforced there as well?

Satellite spectrum is, by definition, not broadcast spectrum....it's just a band that
some operators choose to operate un-encrypted. And subscription satellite is another
animal altogether, like cable.

The shortwave stations are a good bargain. Time goes for around a dollar a
minute, and most of the country gets covered.

Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions. The reason why
shortwave is a dollar a pop is because the cost on a cpm (cost-per-1000) basis is,
still, probably higher than the most expensive station in the most expensive market.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-