Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
: 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'. Judging by the obesity epidemic going on in this country, none of the "other things" involve very much physical activity (except flipping the remote and playing with a joystick) Or is listening to the radio such an intense experience that it requires 100% of your attention? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Yep. 2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969. What are you refering to? Want to try that again? Cite? Frank Dresser |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
MT,
Make up Two Sets of 100 Post Cards each. These Post Cards will 'detail' BPL Interference Problems with your Local AM/FM/TV Stations. Go around ringing Door Bells and have your Neighbors and Friends Sign them. Add a Postage Stamp and Mail them. Send one set to your Congressman for them to "Inquire About" to the Regional FCC Office. Send the other Set to the Local AM/FM/TV Stations. The 'business' of BPL will will Die Quickly, when it "Costs" Big Business like AM/FM/TV Stations MONEY ! ~ RHF .. .. = = = "Mike Terry" wrote in message = = = ... WASHINGTON (AFX) - Federal regulators on Thursday gave the go-ahead to a new technology that enables powerlines to offer Internet access. They also adopted a rule that makes it easier for the Bell local phone companies to replace their copper wires with fiber. Michael Powell, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said the rules are aimed at speeding up the construction of high- speed networks. His point was illustrated shortly after the FCC vote, when SBC Communications said it would "dramatically" speed up its plan to construct a fiber-based network that reaches 18 million households. Yet critics such as FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, argue the new rules will limit competition, keep prices unnecessarily high and confuse investors. Electric issue The power line decision was meant to address concerns about interference. The FCC set specific rules for power companies on how to avoid interference, especially with amateur radio operators. The agency avoided the imposition of stricter rules regarding emergency 911, disability access and contributions to universal service, a fund that subsidizes phone service in areas where it is expensive to deliver. "By crafting a minimal regulatory framework," Powell said, the FCC is advancing a pro-competition agenda that will make high-speed Internet access a reality for almost every American. He noted that power lines go into nearly every U.S. home. Copps, who partly dissented with the decision, argued that the FCC's failure to address the stickier issues might actually hinder growth of powerline technology. He said the threat of future regulation may make investors leery of getting involved. "If we want investment in broadband over power line, we need certainty and predictability," he said. Fiber rules Copps also objected to a new rule that exempts fiber "loops" in all residential neighborhoods from an FCC requirement that guarantees open access to competing Internet service providers. The local loop is the mass of wires that extend from the nearest central switching office of a local phone company to the homes and businesses it serves. The new exemption only applies to high-speed Internet service delivered by fiber connections to homes. It expands on a prior rule that exempted new residential developments hooked up with fiber. Yet network operators still have to let rivals use copper and fiber wires to sell regular phone service to consumers. That rule stems from a major 1996 law whose aim was to foster competition in the local phone market. Still, the vote reflects a big victory for the Bells. They have argued that there's little incentive to spend big bucks to replace copper with fiber if rivals can use those fiber connections as well. Fiber offers much greater Internet speeds and the promise of new services such as pay TV over phone lines. The three Republicans on the five-member FCC board proved sympathetic to that argument. They say fiber loops ought to be exempted so investment won't get stifled. Still, the FCC board did require the local carriers to ensure that the fiber loops extend to within 500 feet of residential homes. Industry reaction Copps and fellow Democrat Jonathan Adelstein said the rule is a setback to competition. "The local loop represents the prized last mile of communications," Copps said. "Putting it beyond the reach of competitors can only entrench incumbents who already hold sway." Consumer groups also blasted the decision. "The FCC today took our country one giant step closer toward solidifying a two- company domination -- the local cable and telephone providers -- over the consumer Internet market," said Gene Kimmelman, senior policy director of Consumers Union. The Bells, on the other hand, reacted with jubilation. Shortly after the FCC vote, SBC said it will "dramatically accelerate" plans to build a fiber-based network "in two to three years rather than five years as previously announced." The fiber would replace copper in many parts of the network and offer the promise of "super high-speed data, video and voice services," SBC said. This story was supplied by CBSMarke****ch. For further information see www.cbsmarke****ch.com. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Fuller Wrath" wrote in message ... Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite radio, satellite TV, and cable TV? Never mind the rest of it....here's the deal. As I've said elsewhere, the reason for the Fairness Doctrine is due to the fact that broadcast spectrum is a limited commodity, where the existence of one station eliminates the possibility that another can be in the same area on the same channel (and a few adjacent, too). This hard, physical limitation means that there is no opportunity for a diversity of voices...unlike the printed word, where all it takes to get your opinions out is a printing press and a ream of paper. The Fairness Doctrine simply encouraged (even coerced) broadcasters to air opinion/issue programming, and provide an opportunity for those in dissent to provide their opposing view...analogous to "sharing" the printing press. Satellite radio is subscription, so listeners have already made their choices in the most concrete mannaer possible...with their wallets. There is no practical limit to the number of internet radio stations, and likewise satellite and cable TV doesn't use spectrum, and so has no practical limit on how many service can be delivered. Thus, in the absence of those limits, there is no need to promote diversity of voice and opinion. It's inherent in the service. The Fairness Doctrine is needed only for the medium where a diversity of voices is reduced when a service limits, by its existence, the ability for others to be heard. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... Never mind the rest of it....here's the deal. As I've said elsewhere, the reason for the Fairness Doctrine is due to the fact that broadcast spectrum is a limited commodity, where the existence of one station eliminates the possibility that another can be in the same area on the same channel (and a few adjacent, too). This hard, physical limitation means that there is no opportunity for a diversity of voices...unlike the printed word, where all it takes to get your opinions out is a printing press and a ream of paper. I live in a big city. The radio spectrum here is saturated, and I don't think it would be much more diverse if there were an infinate number of possible stations. The Fairness Doctrine simply encouraged (even coerced) broadcasters to air opinion/issue programming, and provide an opportunity for those in dissent to provide their opposing view...analogous to "sharing" the printing press. It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a subjective balance. There was alot of bad radio forced on the public during the fairness doctrine days. Well, people weren't really forced to listen. They just tuned out. Satellite radio is subscription, so listeners have already made their choices in the most concrete mannaer possible...with their wallets. There is no practical limit to the number of internet radio stations, and likewise satellite and cable TV doesn't use spectrum, and so has no practical limit on how many service can be delivered. Thus, in the absence of those limits, there is no need to promote diversity of voice and opinion. It's inherent in the service. Just as a nit-pick, and I don't think it changes the thrust of your point, but there is also alot of free audio on the non XM and Sirius sattelites. The Fairness Doctrine is needed only for the medium where a diversity of voices is reduced when a service limits, by its existence, the ability for others to be heard. People who want to be informed are informed. They can read newspapers, listen to news stations, surf the net, etc. I don't think people who don't much care to be informed have ever appreciated the accidental information from their favorite radio station. They just tuned out. And how do we keep any sort of fairness doctrine from being used as a tool of political harassment? Frank Dresser |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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. : : 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? so what do we have now? Rushbo "Oxy" Limpballs 24/7 : : Should this new fairness doctrine cover internet radio, satellite radio, : satellite TV, and cable TV? no : : 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. The people listen to what the corporate Crud Channel goons (and their ilk) shovel out of the broadcast latrine. : : 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. The FCC responded to what the broadcasters wanted and now both AM & FM have been technically ghettoized. : : : 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. Yup. There's sure al ot of cariety. A "classic rock" and "hot hits" and "modern country" station in every town. All voice tracked with the same 20 minute spot load anmd 200 song playlist. And news? What is that? Where did it go? : : When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four radio : networks, each playing their own similar 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. See above. You are equating quantity with diversity. I laugh at the way "top 40" has been fractionalized into "classic rock ("B" side losers)," "hits of the 60s & 70s," "alternative," and the latest insanity, "old school, " ad nauseum. Give me a break! That is hardly diversity. Diversity and creative died about 15 years ago. About the time the big push for deregulation began. : : 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!! That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I. Radio stations have become so overpriced thanks to the accumulation of corporate control that few single ownership outlets remain. I love having all my programming delivered voice tracked from some studio 1500 miles away. The problem is solving itself: radio is dying. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and centered. As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public resource. The fact is--the FCC violates the spirit and letter of the Act when it comes to its stewardship of licensed radio and tv stations. And no one in Congress cares because of copious amounts of NAB money. In short, it all stinks. JMHO, John Figliozzi On Saturday, October 23, 2004, at 06:15 AM, airwaves-digest wrote: airwaves-digest Saturday, October 23 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 246 In this issue: [Airwaves] Bad news for Short Wave Listening ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:14:29 -0400 From: "Frank Dresser" Subject: [Airwaves] Bad news for Short Wave Listening "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? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message ... That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I. Of course you can ... an AM station that probably can't make money. Two recent big-city AM sales: WBIX (Boston suburb) 40 kW day, 2.5 kW night, to an INDIVIDUAL for $7 million. WPLC (Washington suburb) 1 kW day, 48 watts night, to Bonneville for $4 million. But an astute friend suspects that Bonneville could diplex it on their WTOP towers and get more day power and possibly "real" night operation. And just think, with 450 kHz spacing everybody driving past a joint-site WTOP/WPLC would hear them no matter where their AM radio was tuned. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"John Figliozzi" wrote in message ... The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and centered. How did the fairness doctrine keep adgendas from spinning out of control? I mentioned Chicago's Howard Miller show. That show would frequently get as loud and obnoxious as Limbaugh or Hannity, back when the Fairness Doctrine was in full force. I haven't seen their shows, but I understand Joe Pyne's and Wally George's shows were similiar. The stations would run boring counter programming on other hours to keep the FCC happy. It's my opinion that the current popular bombastic programming is just another radio copycat phenonema. Success breeds imatators. As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public resource. Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we be better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured. They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the government the right to change their ownership or shut them down? The fact is--the FCC violates the spirit and letter of the Act when it comes to its stewardship of licensed radio and tv stations. And no one in Congress cares because of copious amounts of NAB money. In short, it all stinks. JMHO, John Figliozzi And I still think these are reasonably good questions: 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? Frank Dresser |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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. TV channels haven't been saturated since the introduction of UHF in the early 50s. Should the fairness doctrine apply in markets in which there are open frequencies and channels? : : 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? so what do we have now? Rushbo "Oxy" Limpballs 24/7 24/7? Remarkable! : : 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? : : 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. The people listen to what the corporate Crud Channel goons (and their ilk) shovel out of the broadcast latrine. But why do they listen? Is it because they have single digit IQs? If they are really that stupid, is regulating their radio and TV programming all it takes to make them smarter? : : 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. The FCC responded to what the broadcasters wanted and now both AM & FM have been technically ghettoized. : : : 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. Yup. There's sure al ot of cariety. A "classic rock" and "hot hits" and "modern country" station in every town. All voice tracked with the same 20 minute spot load anmd 200 song playlist. And news? What is that? Where did it go? They still sell newspapers. And the internet is a better newssource than radio and TV ever was. If radio and TV disappeared entirely as a news source, people would still have no excuse for being uninformed. : : When was there more radio diversity? When there were three of four radio : networks, each playing their own similar 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. See above. You are equating quantity with diversity. I laugh at the way "top 40" has been fractionalized into "classic rock ("B" side losers)," "hits of the 60s & 70s," "alternative," and the latest insanity, "old school, " ad nauseum. Give me a break! That is hardly diversity. Sure it is. It's just not the kind of diversity you want. It isn't what I want, either but I still have alot of good choices. Diversity and creative died about 15 years ago. About the time the big push for deregulation began. The most creative part of radio has always been the commericals. : : 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!! That's the whole point! YOU can't buy a radio station and neither can I. Radio stations have become so overpriced thanks to the accumulation of corporate control that few single ownership outlets remain. I love having all my programming delivered voice tracked from some studio 1500 miles away. The problem is solving itself: radio is dying. Stations go on sale from time to time. They aren't cheap, but that's a reflection of the revenue they can bring in. And the revenue reflects the number of listeners. I can buy time right now on brokered stations. There are several around here, and most of them have open air time. There are probably similar situations in most markets. Air America is buying time on at least one Clear Channel station. The shortwave stations are a good bargain. Time goes for around a dollar a minute, and most of the country gets covered. Frank Dresser |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What is the typical price/length of a syndicated radio news contract? | Broadcasting | |||
Question on antenna symantics | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General | |||
Auto News Group Poster | General |