"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"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.

Here in Chicago, we just had an AM xband station go on the air a year ago.
Other frequencies sound open. One street gang related pirate station was
operating on an open FM frequency here. We also have a couple of reletively
new low power UHF stations.


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.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying the fairnss doctrine should not
apply in those markets?



: 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.

Right. And viewers/listeners don't really make the distinction between
cable and satellite and broadcasting anymore. If 90% of a person's TV
channels are uneffected by the fairness doctrine, does the fairness doctrine
have any effect on the viewer?

If the fairness doctrine is really a good idea, shouldn't it effect every
station a consumer gets?

Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea?



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.

It's hard to say exactly how many people listen. But, as far as the rate
goes, it used to be alot higher back about 20 years ago when stations such
as WRNO and WINB were selling time. Since then, there must have been at
least fifteen SW brokered transmitters going on the air. It's a buyers
market now.

Frank Dresser