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!-

"Dr. Daffodil Swain" wrote in message
...

does the fairness doctrine
have any effect on the viewer?

The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. Reagan Administration.

If you'd been paying attention, ALL of us in this discussion are well aware of this.
The argument (or, in this case, the question) was whether the FD, if in place, would
have any affect on a viewer. I say yes. Frank, here, seems to think not. While I
don't doubt that the FD did suppress a licensee's willingness to editorialise, I also
think that the FD forced licensees to provide more balanced coverage, and can cite
studies which conclude that the tenor of American political discourse shifted right
after the FD was eliminated, as you note, by the Reagan FCC, abetted by right-wing
so-called "think tanks" dedicated to proclaiming the conservative world view. The
sorry part of all of this is that that claim that conservative ideals would be good
for the country is a lie....how else can it be concluded that the Great Depression
was made Great by the conservative values of the day, whereas the nation recovered to
be the truly Great America through the instigation of socialist
practices....everything from social security, to bank deposit insurance, to welfare
and unemployment insurance.

As the conservative voice decries these programs, under the Fairness Doctrine it can
be expected that the dissenting view MUST be discussed. As it stands now, any
contrary view can be squelched by an O'Reillian "Shut Up!"
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-