On 24 Oct 2004 02:18:10 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

It discouraged political programming in the sense that it forced opposing
viewpoints. No political programming is easier than trying to strike a
subjective balance.

Proof by blatant assertion, I heard plenty of political
programming.

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.

It still happens and has nothing to do with the fairness
doctrine.

On 23 Oct 2004 04:13:48 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"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?

Did you read the last two words -- public airwaves? Spectrum
was considered a limited resource and government permission was
required to use it. In return, conditions were imposed.

There is no apparent shortage of newsprint for purchase.

"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!-

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

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?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition) and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

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?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event, management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

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?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have
never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition)
and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?



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?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and
some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I
worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the
occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event,
management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless
the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let
him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think
that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.


Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Frank Dresser

"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

wrote in message ...
On 23 Oct 2004 04:13:48 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"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?

Did you read the last two words -- public airwaves? Spectrum
was considered a limited resource and government permission was
required to use it. In return, conditions were imposed.

Why are these conditions a good idea?

If these conditions are a good idea, why aren't they a good idea for all the
sources of a person's information?


There is no apparent shortage of newsprint for purchase.


Oh. Is that the only reason we don't have a fairness doctrine for the
newspapers?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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.

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.

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate.

OK, how about one paper towns? Would it be a good idea for the government
to ensure that the opponents of the editorial policy of the paper in a one
paper town got their own space in that paper?

You keep missing one point. Even in one-paper towns, the acquisition of this paper
is still attached to the exchange of merchandise for consideration (the paper's sale
price). And in this instance, it doesn't take a contrary view to use a newspaper to
spread the word (and the paper may actually help in publishing a letter to the
paper's editors) since all it takes is for the dissenter to hire a printer to publish
that view to be distributed independent of the paper. This model is not possible in
a broadcasting model.

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

Maybe so, but it's clear you don't understand broadcast policy and spectrum
management.

Politics in the US seems to be going through an unusually nasty period
lately. I have no doubt the Republicans and the Democrats would be actively
searching out or creating local pressure groups, in order to push media
stations around. Maybe I'm wrong about that and my opinion of the likely
politicization of the fairness doctrine just reflects the lower regard that
I've developed for both parties over the last 20 years. But I honestly
think any attempt to revive the fairness doctrine is going to turn into a
real can of snakes. Better to leave bad enough alone.

Politics has gotten this way BECAUSE the FCC has left "bad enough alone". There's a
psychological effect that comes from people who associate only with others holding
similar views, where after a time everyone involved comes away with an even more
emphatically-held view of those issues. It's called group polarisation. If you want
politics to climb down from this precipice, then you should support the
reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. And run the likes of FOX News out of Dodge,
or fine them out of existence. It's their transgressions which have made a bad
situation worse.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"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
: ...


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.

"Sound" open and being open are two different things. I've had this didact before,
but the gist of it is that the channels that "sound" open are only to allow that
channel to be allocated in other areas, which in the Class C area that Chicago is in
may be far, far away. Putting an allocation on this "open" channel would result in
interference to these far-flung operations, thus reducing their coverage area to less
than what they're allocated to serve. Same goes for the pirate. If you look at a
frequency search map, using the specified minimum distances to each conflicting
allocation, you'll find that there is some apparent "white" areas as a result of the
overlaps (or actually, the effort to make sure they don't overlap).

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?

I am not. Open channels (assuming that there are any, which certainly isn't the case
in Chicago) mean that there are only a few possible voices that might offer
diversity. But there's still a finite limit to how many voices there will be. This
is different from printed matter or public oratory, where there is no self-limiting
property in the exersize of one's free speech rights. With broadcasting, the
existence of one station prevents the free speech rights of those other "potential"
operations on the same channel, thus depriving these "others" of their free speech
rights. Since the "others" don't have the opportunity, then neither should the
operator of the facility which abridges the "others" of theirs.

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?

Doesn't matter. People pay for subscription services. They get what they pay for,
and if they don't like what they're hearing, they can cancel. Broadcasting is
different. You can get conventional radio using devices which are readily available,
require no real skills to install or use, and cost at least an order of magnitude
less to acquire. For those who have satellite receivers, after having made the
effort, if they think it's the same, then it is for them. But that doesn't make it
so.

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

As above. Broadcasting is different. The spectrum occupied is granted, in trust, by
the people of the United States. Broadcasters should be held accountable for serving
all those people. Whether they like it or not.

Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea?

Because we've seen what happens when it's not in place.

Covering the country is not the same as getting gross impressions.
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.

Well, then, that's not exactly what I'd call a good investment, is it? Tell you
what....pay me $500 to spread to the world what you have to say. I promise I'll tell
at least 15 people a day about your message for a month. But I won't tell you how
many people I'll tell, and those that I'll tell may have no means by which to acquire
the service or goods you're selling, at that. Deal?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

Frank Dresser wrote:
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.

It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station
(broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area
than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple
signals on the same frequency mix together.

The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC.
A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if
WRLL had been operating downstate.

As for the seemingly-open FM frequency, that depends on the quality of
one's receiver. I can ensure you my car radio (1998 Ford Escort) finds
NO open FM channels anywhere along the Edens/Kennedy/Ryan/Skyway
corridor. (and I'd be amazed if it found one open anywhere else in the
Chicago city limits) The frequencies either side of WUSN (99.3, 99.7)
*sound* open but that's because WUSN is running IBOC!

On the other hand, one could take that to extremes... my home receiver
provides useful reception of several Memphis stations, 170 miles away.
Should we prohibit any Nashville station from operating on a Memphis
frequency?

The new LPTVs have (probably, I don't know the specific channels) become
possible as a result of the FCC relaxing certain "taboo channel"
regulations. They acknowledge a major improvement in the selectivity of
UHF TV tuners since 1952. Many FM receivers haven't improved
significantly in selectivity since the 1950s.

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?

Y'know, this is a dilemna in light of the Commission's new decency push.

How does OTA broadcasting compete with TBS, HBO, XM, or Sirius? When
the former industry is restricted by decency rules, while the latter
isn't?

How does enforcing decency rules against OTA stations accomplish
anything when most homes have content-unregulated premium channels?
When a growing number of cars have content-unregulated XM receivers? So
little Johnny doesn't learn what a breast looks like from Janet Jackson
on CBS. He'll figure it out the next night when he tunes past Showtime
during a program that shows a whole lot more than Jackson did...

Cable TV channels use radio transmission (via satellite) to link their
programming to your local cable system. XM and Sirius use radio
transmission (again via satellite, and now also terrestrially) to
deliver their programs to your radio.

IMHO the FCC has grounds to regulate both services on content if they
chose to do so. IMHO they need to either do so, or lift content
regulations on OTA.

--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
(who does, incidentially, believe the FD should return)