"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

What has happened to the FCC interference protection standards, though?
I am regularly seeing appliances for sale which can't even come close to
meeting the Part 15 requirements for emission.

You're right. Interference requirements seem to have to become a dead issue
in the last 10 or 15 years. It would be asking alot of the FCC to have them
start caring now.


Now we've got BPL coming
down the pike, on top of all the touch lamps and noisy TV sets. Is there
anyone at the FCC that cares about MW and HF use at all?

I don't think so.



I think BPL is a terrible idea, and I say that as someone who holds stock
in several power companies. But then, I thought VOIP was a terrible idea
also.
--scott


Are any of those power companies considering BPL? I'd worry about the
company ****ing away cash on a goofy idea.

Frank Dresser

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:


a bigger question should be what has happened to the FCC period (hint:
michael powell is no help). AM and FM interference "standards" went out
with the fairness doctrine. both bands have been totally ghettoized. fits
in nicely with the crud channel corporate sound of slop. no standards on
the technical side and no standards on the programming side. no wonder
listenership is down....



The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks and
newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.

Is that really what you want?

There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the Hun.

Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness doctrine.
Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or the
audience?

Frank Dresser

"CAwriter" wrote in message
...
Does BPL mean that I can just pack up my equipment? Or is it going to
be such a loser than I can ignore it?
I live a half mile east of a large power substation with high voltage
lines running north. Depending on the weather, I already have
occasional interference on all types of wireless reception and
transmission.

Would satellite or digital radio be better to avoid the interference?

Thanks for all your helpful information on this thread!




Search around and find out if your local power company has any tests or has
expressed any interest in BPL.

Frank Dresser

CAwriter wrote:
Does BPL mean that I can just pack up my equipment? Or is it going to
be such a loser than I can ignore it?
I live a half mile east of a large power substation with high voltage
lines running north. Depending on the weather, I already have
occasional interference on all types of wireless reception and
transmission.

Presumably BPL is only going to be a last-mile sort of thing. So you will
not have to worry about the high voltage lines so much as the local lines in
your neighborhood.

The noise will be broadband, and will be pretty much everywhere.

Would satellite or digital radio be better to avoid the interference?

My personal feeling is that BPL will not be cost-effective anywhere and
that attempts to put it into place will not be very successful, so there
probably won't be too much to worry about. If you are outside of a
dense urban area, it probably won't be an issue in any case.

Nobody really knows. But in this age where a huge number of appliances
don't even come close to meeting Part 15 requirements, I think it's a wonder
that HF is as clean as it is.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

Want to try that again?

:
: The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
: Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
: doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks
and
: newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
: first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
: climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
: companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.
:
: Is that really what you want?
:
: There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
: wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
: Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
: seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the
Hun.
:
: Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness
doctrine.
: Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or
the
: audience?

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

Maybe so, but your statement...

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

....is quite incorrect. Quoting
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...rnessdoct.htm: The FCC
fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of /Red
Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc/. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania,
licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author,
Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the
fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission
declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its
obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and
eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the
fairness doctrine.

Point being that the Fairness Doctrine had been in place for quite some time...at
least long enough that the challenge to it (which, as the article notes, failed)
culminated in 1969. Another article (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html)
asserts that the policy was in place in 1947 (and enforced since 1949) when the
"Mayflower Doctrine", which prohibited all editorialising by broadcasters, was
abandoned.

Want to try that again?

Indeed.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

Fuller Wrath wrote:

:
: The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
: Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
: doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks
and
: newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
: first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
: climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
: companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.
:
: Is that really what you want?
:
: There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
: wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
: Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
: seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the
Hun.
:
: Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness
doctrine.
: Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or
the
: audience?

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

Yeah, it's called 'a lot of other things going on'.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Fuller Wrath" wrote:

| 1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
| balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
| 2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
| (with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
| responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
| indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
| 3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
| dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
| actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
| was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
| studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
| they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
| down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
| 4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that

Regarding your item number one, who gets to be the arbiter of this
"Fairness?" Government?

Regarding items two through four, I would argue that the problem is,
and always will be, program content. You'd never know this if you
read the industry rags; they are obsessed with digital transmission
methods, but if the monopoly ownership rules aren't attended to, radio
will dwindle and, eventually, die.

73,

--
Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

"If a man wants his dreams to come true then he must wake up."
- Anonymous


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/9/04

"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?

What are the details of this rewrite? The old fairness doctrine was a club
for partisians and others with an ax to grind. How would the new fairness
doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks from harassing media
stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define what a nuisance
complaint is?

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


2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.

Yeah, people listen to what they want to listen to. I have no idea if the
IQ factor is up or down. I am sure people would be stupid to be listening
to things they don't want to listen to.

I am also sure there has never been as much bad radio as there is now.
There has never been as much radio as there is now. There are more
stations broadcasting more hours than ever before. Too bad. As a radio
hobbyist, I miss the days of easy coast to coast dx'ing.


I dislike most of the stuff on the radio. So what? There's still plenty to
listen to. Nobody makes me listen to Limbaigh, and I don't. I can't stand
Sport Babble but I don't have to. Mostly I listen to a local FM Jazz
station and US domestic shortwave radio. For me, radio has never been more
entertaining. There are also some local Spanish and Polish language AM
stations here with good music. Very little of this was around 30 years ago.


3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so..

When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four radio
networks, each playing their own similiar so-so comedies or dramas? When
each of the top 40 stations in the US were playing "Muskrat Love"? The
radio industry is like the rest of the entertainment industry. As soon as
somebody comes up with an idea which grabs a part of the audience, that idea
gets reused over and over in each market.


.. Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that



If that's true, then the problem will fix itself. These overpriced radio
stations will soon go for giveaway prices. You'll buy a radio station and
so will I. I will realize that your programming ideas are so good, I'll
copy them all!!

Frank Dresser