|
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "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). Yeah, but isn't that largely a matter of definition and policy? As I understand, the FCC used to try to keep a 30 kHz spacing between stations in the same market, now they'll go for 20 kHz. In my opinion, there are already too damn many stations on the air, using my personal standard of maximum allowable interference. But if the FCC doesn't much care about more interference, they could pack more stations in. 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. Even if a broadcaster refuses to broadcast an opposing view on his station or stations, he is only restricting one outlet for the opposing speech. So what? The Soviet Union had an entirely controlled media. Every paper, every broadcaster was owned by one monopoly. Yet some version of the truth got around. Printed material from typewriters and photocopiers were handed around. Phone calls were made. The Soviet media lies increased cynicism, not indoctrination. Control of one station or one broadcast network would be even less persuasive, especially if other outlets for opposing viewpoints are available. 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 people don't like what they hear on a broadcast, getting rid if it is even easier than canceling. They just tune out. I'm not sure I catch the reason why the fairness doctrine is necessary with broadcast stations but not necessary with pay services. I don't think it has to be a jurisdictional thing, as some Congressmen have proposed extending decency standards to pay services and the internet. Anyway, I can't think of any reason a satellite direct broadcast service must be a subscription service. If satellite technology gets cheap enough, the networks might well launch their own, advertiser supported satellites. It's also easy enough to imagine the satellite receivers would be easily affordable. With cable systems, there's no practical distinction between cable channels and broadcast channels. 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. They do serve people, by entertaining them. That's what broadcasting is good at. Broadcasting is a poor educational media. People who want to actually learn something read about it. Or converse with someone knowledgeable. Or, best yet, do it. I suppose broadcasting could be whipped into a decent educational media with VCRs and tape recorders so people could go back and forth until they actually understand what's being discussed, but they hardly ever do. Broadcast information goes into the air for an ephemeral moment, and then it's gone. Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are successful, not because they are informative, but because they're entertaining. I suppose there are a few doofuses who think they are getting some sort of political education from the broadcast loudmouths who are putting on a show within the limitations of broadcast media. Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea? Because we've seen what happens when it's not in place. The biggest difference I've noticed is there is less boring programming on Sunday mornings. 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? It seems to work well for Brother Stair and Doctor Scott! Frank Dresser |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "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. Not possible in broadcasting? There's no brokered stations anywhere? Anyway, since there's more than one media to fight a disagreeable newspaper, an opponent might use a different media. Buy time on a radio or TV station. Start a letter writing campaign. Annoy people over the phone. Put up some billboards. And I still think these are reasonably good questions: Maybe so, but it's clear you don't understand broadcast policy and spectrum management. There's a whole world of things I don't understand. That's why I ask so many questions! 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". Actually, I think US politics is reverting to it's normal nastiness. The post WW2 political era was unusally calm, but that started falling apart in the sixties, and it took a big hit in the Watergate era. The trend has solidified in the last 20 years. We still may decline further. We haven't had a fistfight in Congress for a while. 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. Ah, is that who the fairness doctrine is supposed to serve? People who associate only with others holding similiar views? Well, I was sure you didn't need the fairness doctrine in order to think straight, and I'm pretty sure I don't, either. I'm glad I have that question answered. But aren't these just the sort of people who would follow their favorite propaganda outlets to cable or satellite radio when the fairness doctrine is reintroduced? If the fairness doctrine serves American society, shouldn't it cover all media outlets? 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. I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine. Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message 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. I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine. Isn't Fox News only on cable anyway? |
"Charles Hobbs" wrote in message ... Frank Dresser wrote: "Bob Haberkost" wrote in message 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. I suppose FOX could herd their news operation from Dodge to cable. Their fans would follow them, and FOX news would do just fine. Isn't Fox News only on cable anyway? Doesn't FOX also have a broadcast division, which affiliates pick up? Or is that Sinclair? I don't know, as I don't watch the Fox station here, which is owned by Sinclair. All I know is that what used to be a fairly decent newscast has now been taken over by the parent company's agenda, making the national segment of this newscast worthless. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... 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 open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. A standard power transmitter would encroach on the coverage area of one or more of these stations. I'm sure there are cases in which a low power station could be allowed. The street gang FM pirate is an example of this. I don't live near where they were broadcasting, but I think I heard them. They were broadcasting rap, and I had no interest in listening. The nearest licensed station on that frequency is in LaSalle Illinois, or some such place. I doubt they have any listeners east of Aurora. There were no interference complaints. 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. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. 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? That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. The government gives alot of weight to the opinions of the NAB on interference. There's closer station spacing, more stations, and more 24 hour operations and IBOC, all with NAB backing. The NAB didn't like the low power FM proposal, presumably on interference grounds, and we don't have it. 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. Image rejection is an issue. Chicago's Ch. 23 gets an image from another station. 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... I'm not a parent, so I'll admit my opinion is nearly worthless, but, if I were a parent, I'd seriously consider just playing tapes and DVDs through the TV. 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) |
Doesn't FOX also have a broadcast division, which affiliates pick up?
The Fox O&O in Boston runs local news, but I've never seen a Fox news operation other than cable (and the Boston station occasionally picks up actualities from them, but not whole newscasts). |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... 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 open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. 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. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ 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. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
does the fairness
doctrine have any effect on the viewer? The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. Reagan Administration. First Time Users May Be asked To Do A 1 Time Setup. "Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... 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 open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. 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. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ 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. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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 ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... 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 open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. There's no evidence the Chicago street gang FM pirate ever took one listener away from any licensed station. Their signal was lost in the noiise a few miles from their transmitter. The nearest licensed station was over 60 miles away. The FM pirate was playing rap, much of it was offensive, and there were no complaints 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. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. Of course not. But it does indicate that the FCC's interference standard is weak. If the FCC had a strong stand on interference, WRLL wouldn't exist as it is in either Chicago or Johnson City. Given the interference and power situation, it's practically a daytimer for most of it's listeners anyway. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. The irony is the Xband is best suited to daytimers. Or true clear channel 24 hour operations. As it is, it's a mess at night. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). What is the noise in the signal to noise factor? Do they take into account the cochannel interference, or they just assuming natural plus manmade backround noise? On nearly all AM nighttime frequencies, the cochannel interference is much stronger than the backround noise. And there are very few FM frequencies which go down to the backround noise anymore. But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. I think we're saying the same thing here. I said: "Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna." Which sounds much like: "Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength." If the FCC really wanted to take a stronger stand on interference, it could bring back it's older interference standards with wider frequency spacing between stations in the same market, fewer AM nighttimers and fewer stations overall. If the FCC wanted to take a near absolutist stand on interference, they could get rid of about 75% of the stations. The remaining stations would have a much wider coverage area. The FCC has neither a wide open stand on interference nor a absolutist stand on interference. The current standard is a comprimise with elements of both technology and politics. I belive politics is the bigger factor. The NAB didn't like the old interference standards, so we have new standards. The NAB and NPR didn't like the low power FM proposal, so they screamed "interference!". I think there's plenty of room for low power 10 to 1000 watt FMers which would serve a community. ... All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ 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. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. What about OTA subscription services? The used to be pay TV stations in areas which weren't wired up with cable. Suppose IBOC AM flops, and Clear Channel converts their digital sidebands into a subscription service. Should those stations be allowed the same speech rights as satellite stations? Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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!- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com