| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bad news for Short Wave Listening
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. |
The FCC has acted to approve the implementation of Brodband Over
Powerline technology (BPL) for widspread Internet access in the United States. We were able to get in and record part of the October 14th proceeding which is now posted as a downloadable MP3 file at our website: www.arnewsline.org/quincy under the title of "EXTRA". The speakers you will hear inorder of their appearance are FCC Commissioners Michael Copps, Kevin Martin, Jonathan Adelstein and FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The presentation concludes with the actual vote to proceed with the implementation of BPL (ARNewsline) |
I saw a TV news story that said power transformers acted as ''speed bumps''
on the information superhighway. Have they found away around this? Or is the powerline Internet service still slower than competing technologies? --Fred Cantu Austin, TX "Mike Terry" wrote in message ... The FCC has acted to approve the implementation of Brodband Over Powerline technology (BPL) for widspread Internet access in the United States. We were able to get in and record part of the October 14th proceeding which is now posted as a downloadable MP3 file at our website: www.arnewsline.org/quincy under the title of "EXTRA". The speakers you will hear inorder of their appearance are FCC Commissioners Michael Copps, Kevin Martin, Jonathan Adelstein and FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The presentation concludes with the actual vote to proceed with the implementation of BPL (ARNewsline) |
"fredtv" wrote in message ... I saw a TV news story that said power transformers acted as ''speed bumps'' on the information superhighway. Have they found away around this? Or is the powerline Internet service still slower than competing technologies? This is, in my opinion, a gimme by the FCC to the power distribution companies who want into an industry far above the old technologies they're in now. I've said for years, when a British firm was doing trials, that this technology would never work - that the power lines, being unshielded, would be both a source of interference and prone to noise and intermodulation from the alternating current being transferred by the lines' primary function. The trials were scuttled prematurely, for all these reasons. The fundamental problems still exist, and the methods needed to work around them require equipment which interfaces and/or is raised to lethally high voltages. To maintain the system would require conventional power linemen, wearing gloves and other protective clothing. You can imagine what level of service is to be expected under these circumstances. Further, as power lines are the top-most utilities on a utility pole, they're most prone to lightning hits, as well. I'd stay away from this, if an investment opportunity were to come around. It wouldn't be the first time the FCC has type-accepted a failed technology, and it wouldn't be the first time that a proposed standard's supporting technical documentation wasn't "cleaned-up", if you know what I mean, so as to demonstrate to the Commission that it met the requirements necessary for type-acceptance. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- "Mike Terry" wrote in message ... The FCC has acted to approve the implementation of Brodband Over Powerline technology (BPL) for widspread Internet access in the United States. We were able to get in and record part of the October 14th proceeding which is now posted as a downloadable MP3 file at our website: www.arnewsline.org/quincy under the title of "EXTRA". The speakers you will hear inorder of their appearance are FCC Commissioners Michael Copps, Kevin Martin, Jonathan Adelstein and FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The presentation concludes with the actual vote to proceed with the implementation of BPL (ARNewsline) |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... This is, in my opinion, a gimme by the FCC to the power distribution companies who want into an industry far above the old technologies they're in now. I suspect politics are behind it. Not the political differences between liberals and conservatives or the presumed differences between Demorcrats and Republicans. It's the politics of opportunism. Anyone who acts to restrict BPL on technical grounds will be called a "thief of broadband rights" and "a pawn of the telecommunications establishment". The FCC commissioners put themselves into a no lose situation by allowing BPL. If it works, they take the credit. If it fails, they don't get the blame. The fundamental problems still exist, Thank you for making sense. [snip] I'd stay away from this, if an investment opportunity were to come around. [snip] One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!! Frank Dresser |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!! Even if it isn't the Next Big Thing, it will take time for that to be evident. There be a period during which they can still sell people their dreams. |
Frank Dresser wrote:
The FCC commissioners put themselves into a no lose situation by allowing BPL. If it works, they take the credit. If it fails, they don't get the blame. 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. 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? One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!! 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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
What has happened to the FCC interference protection standards, though?
Scott, Scott, Scott. Haven't you learned yet? The FCC can rewrite the laws of physics!!!! If you don't believe it, just ask them! |
: : 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. 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? 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.... |
"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 |
: 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? |
"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 |
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. |
"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!- |
"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 |
"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. |
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? |
"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. |
"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 |
"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 |
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) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com