Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illeagal!
 

Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.

Better send in Sgt. Friday: "Just the facts m'am".

"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.

"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.





So what does the law say? And what happened in the 70s? I have the
impression that the SW broadcasters had to give up thier transmitters at the
start of WW2. These transmitters were used for propaganda broadcasts during
the war. After the war ended, the broadcasters were offered thier
transmitters back, but were prohibited from targeting the US. Those that
didn't take the transmitters back were paid by the government. Most of the
broadcasters took the money. Those transmitters were used to start up the
VOA.

That's my recollection from a few stories I may have heard or read or maybe
not. How much of that is correct? Anyway, I've been listening since about
1970, and I can't remember a time when there wasn't at least a couple of US
independent SW broadcasters with domestic content.

Frank Dresser

mAximo wrote:
"http://CBC.am/" writes:


Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.


You've been taking lessons from Brian Denley, eh? You fail to cite any
relevant statute.

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

47CFR73.701:

(a) International broadcasting stations. A broadcasting station
employing frequencies allocated to the broadcasting service between
5,950 and 26,100 kHz, the transmissions of which are intended to be
received directly by the general public in foreign countries. ...

(73.701 goes on to mention the existence of government-owned
international stations but that the FCC doesn't regulate them)

("International broadcast stations" are the only type defined as allowed
to use shortwave frequencies - there are no rules authorizing a
"domestic shortwave service", so any stations broadcasting between 1710
and 54 mHz must meet the definition of "international" stations.

I'm not sure whether the 5,950 kHz figure in 73.701 has been amended to
accomodate the tropical-band stations like WWCR, or if WWCR etc. has a
waiver to allow use of the lower frequency.)

(there is nothing in my copy of the rules to indicate when these
regulations were established. My *suspicion* is that they predate WWII,
as in the early days of radio, smaller domestic stations feared loss of
their network affiliations - and most of their audience - to
high-powered distant stations. (that's why WLW lost their 500kw permit)
Domestic shortwave would be a real nightmare to these small domestic
stations. )
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

Wow, very interesting. Sounds quite plausable.

Guess with one post I started two threads and counting....LOL.

mike


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

So what does the law say? And what happened in the 70s? I have the
impression that the SW broadcasters had to give up thier transmitters at
the
start of WW2. These transmitters were used for propaganda broadcasts
during
the war. After the war ended, the broadcasters were offered thier
transmitters back, but were prohibited from targeting the US. Those that
didn't take the transmitters back were paid by the government. Most of
the
broadcasters took the money. Those transmitters were used to start up the
VOA.

That's my recollection from a few stories I may have heard or read or
maybe
not. How much of that is correct? Anyway, I've been listening since
about
1970, and I can't remember a time when there wasn't at least a couple of
US
independent SW broadcasters with domestic content.

Frank Dresser

"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.





So what does the law say? And what happened in the 70s? I have the
impression that the SW broadcasters had to give up thier transmitters at the
start of WW2. These transmitters were used for propaganda broadcasts during
the war. After the war ended, the broadcasters were offered thier
transmitters back, but were prohibited from targeting the US. Those that
didn't take the transmitters back were paid by the government. Most of the
broadcasters took the money. Those transmitters were used to start up the
VOA.

That's my recollection from a few stories I may have heard or read or maybe
not. How much of that is correct? Anyway, I've been listening since about
1970, and I can't remember a time when there wasn't at least a couple of US
independent SW broadcasters with domestic content.

Frank Dresser


What kind of content did they broadcast in the 70s and 80s? Surely the
militia patriot guys hadn't come along yet, had they? Was it all just
religious back then?

--
Col. I.P. Yurin
Commissariat of Internal Security

Stakhanovite
Order of Lenin (1937)
Hero of Socialist Labor (1939)

"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.

Actually, it goes much further back than that.

Behold, Doug Smith W9WI signaled from keyed 4-1000A filament:

I'm not sure whether the 5,950 kHz figure in 73.701 has been amended to
accomodate the tropical-band stations like WWCR, or if WWCR etc. has a
waiver to allow use of the lower frequency.)

It would make sense, especially in the west where the mountainous regions
would benefit from the larger groundwave coverage of the upper MW/lower SW
bands.


--
Gregg
*Perhaps it's useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
Visit the GeeK Zone - http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
Gregg wrote:
Behold, Doug Smith W9WI signaled from keyed 4-1000A filament:


I'm not sure whether the 5,950 kHz figure in 73.701 has been amended to
accomodate the tropical-band stations like WWCR, or if WWCR etc. has a
waiver to allow use of the lower frequency.)


It would make sense, especially in the west where the mountainous
regions
would benefit from the larger groundwave coverage of the upper MW/lower
SW
bands.

There's not much useful groundwave coverage much above the MW band - the
signals are "skipping" but at such low frequencies, the "skip zone"
disappears..

But that's really beyond the point. Yes, from a technical standpoint
the lower frequencies are useful for covering areas relatively close to
the transmitter. I would think, however, that you've got to be able to
show *some* useful coverage outside the U.S. before you can get a
frequency approved. Or maybe they ignore 73.788? (not impossible)

Remember, the prohibition of domestic SW came from the desire to protect the
US clear channels in the early 30's. The AM 50 kw stations were supposed to
offer extensive regional coverage, and SW was prohibited from competing with
them. (It had nothing to do with the war as far as I have researched)

Since clear channels essential don't exist, maybe the FCC does not care.

David Eduardo wrote:



Remember, the prohibition of domestic SW came from the desire to protect the
US clear channels in the early 30's. The AM 50 kw stations were supposed to
offer extensive regional coverage, and SW was prohibited from competing with
them. (It had nothing to do with the war as far as I have researched)

Since clear channels essential don't exist, maybe the FCC does not care.



I think as long as the programming carried by domestic SW stations
appeals to a small number of hobbyists and whackos, the FCC doesn't
care. If it actually started to cross over and appeal to substantial
market segments, they would tighten up a bit to protect the big guys.

"Larry Ozarow" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:



I think as long as the programming carried by domestic SW stations
appeals to a small number of hobbyists and whackos, the FCC doesn't
care. If it actually started to cross over and appeal to substantial
market segments, they would tighten up a bit to protect the big guys.


Then the National Association of Religious Broadcasters would tie it up in
the courts.

Of course, the big guys would be free to buy up all the domestic
broadcasters.

Frank Dresser

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

47CFR73.701:

(a) International broadcasting stations. A broadcasting station
employing frequencies allocated to the broadcasting service between
5,950 and 26,100 kHz, the transmissions of which are intended to be
received directly by the general public in foreign countries. ...

(73.701 goes on to mention the existence of government-owned
international stations but that the FCC doesn't regulate them)

("International broadcast stations" are the only type defined as allowed
to use shortwave frequencies - there are no rules authorizing a
"domestic shortwave service", so any stations broadcasting between 1710
and 54 mHz must meet the definition of "international" stations.

I'm not sure whether the 5,950 kHz figure in 73.701 has been amended to
accomodate the tropical-band stations like WWCR, or if WWCR etc. has a
waiver to allow use of the lower frequency.)

(there is nothing in my copy of the rules to indicate when these
regulations were established. My *suspicion* is that they predate WWII,
as in the early days of radio, smaller domestic stations feared loss of
their network affiliations - and most of their audience - to
high-powered distant stations. (that's why WLW lost their 500kw permit)
Domestic shortwave would be a real nightmare to these small domestic
stations. )
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


Interesting. Has the FCC ever made any attempt to enforce any domestic
programming restrictions on a SW broadcaster?

Also, I'm not sure domestic SW broadcasters would be much of a threat to
small domestic broadcasters. No more threating than the Mexican boarder
blasters. Maybe the protection was for the radio networks who were trying
to head off any possibility of another network or networks being formed on
the cheap on SW.

Isn't there a similar sort of ban on carrying long distance phone calls
which effectively protected the AT&T monopoly?

Frank Dresser

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 04:38:08 GMT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote (quoting regulations):

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

It's really semantics. (We go through this about once a year in this
newsgroup...I'm surprised WLS/Chicago's Jay Marvin hasn't weighed in
yet, he's a regular participant in these threads ;)

None of the programs on WWCR, etc. "solely" direct their programs for
a continental U.S. audience. WWCR and similar broadcasters direct
their signals to other countries, anywhere from Canada or Mexico (my
favorite: WBCQ/Monticello, ME's direction to Mexico, which basically
puts most of the United States in the middle) to Europe or Asia.

Legally, their beams have the "unintended consequence" (cough) of
covering a good part of the continental U.S. But as long as one
English speaking person in Mexico can listen to WBCQ, they should be
OK with the law. You don't think the FCC realizes this? If this law
has been on the books for over 30 years, why haven't they done
anything about these "domestic-targetting SW stations"? No part of
this law indicates that the stations actually have to SHOW any
evidence of listeners in their target areas, or to show how large
those audiences are.

The first part of this regulation is interesting. I can hardly see
the FCC stepping in and requiring WWCR, WBCQ, etc. to air programs
only that "promote international goodwill, understanding and
cooperation". The FCC is loathe to get into programming issues for AM
and FM stations, let alone SW stations that have a handful of
listeners nationwide.

Mike

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:16:22 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

It's really semantics. (We go through this about once a year in this
newsgroup...I'm surprised WLS/Chicago's Jay Marvin hasn't weighed in
yet, he's a regular participant in these threads ;)

Jay doesn't post much, if any, any more. Not even in the chi.* newsgroups.

Since he's doing an earlier shift now...maybe he doesn't have as much
time :D But when he was posting, he was involved in at least two
similar threads.

I don't know if it's even enforcable. I'm sure somebody in government
thought long and hard about going after some show hosts and broadcasters
after Bill Clinton's "Hate Radio" comment about the Oklahoma City bombing.
I'd like to know if the FCC has ever tried enforcing these rules. There's
alot of regulations and laws on the books, and some of them are
contradictary.

To basically paraphrase "Passport to World Band Radio"... "Congress
can't pass a law to circumvent ionospheric physics". ;)

The upshot...as long as WWCR, WBCQ, WJCR, et al. are nominally
targetting foreign countries with their signals, they're probably OK,
and again, going into content isn't something the FCC has a taste for.
If they do it THERE, that opens up the can of worms on the AM and FM
bands.

Mike

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

mAximo wrote:
"http://CBC.am/" writes:


Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.


You've been taking lessons from Brian Denley, eh? You fail to cite any
relevant statute.

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

That would make nearly all private SW broadcasts in the US illegal,
since they are clearly for a domestic audience. There are a couple
religious stations which broadcast in Spanish for Latinoamerica but most
private SW in the US is not only in English but deals with topics of
interest to only US listeners.

47CFR73.701:

(a) International broadcasting stations. A broadcasting station
employing frequencies allocated to the broadcasting service between
5,950 and 26,100 kHz, the transmissions of which are intended to be
received directly by the general public in foreign countries. ...

(73.701 goes on to mention the existence of government-owned
international stations but that the FCC doesn't regulate them)

("International broadcast stations" are the only type defined as allowed
to use shortwave frequencies - there are no rules authorizing a
"domestic shortwave service", so any stations broadcasting between 1710
and 54 mHz must meet the definition of "international" stations.

I'm not sure whether the 5,950 kHz figure in 73.701 has been amended to
accomodate the tropical-band stations like WWCR, or if WWCR etc. has a
waiver to allow use of the lower frequency.)

North America, under international agreement, cannot use the tropical
bands, which here is defined as SW freqs below 5950 khz. I suspect WWCR
is doing what on CB would be called "freebanding" or operating out of
band illegally.

(there is nothing in my copy of the rules to indicate when these
regulations were established. My *suspicion* is that they predate WWII,
as in the early days of radio, smaller domestic stations feared loss of
their network affiliations - and most of their audience - to
high-powered distant stations. (that's why WLW lost their 500kw permit)
Domestic shortwave would be a real nightmare to these small domestic
stations. )

I was led to think that the rules dated from the early days of the Cold
War and were designed to avoid "propagandizing" broadcasts.

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...

(a) International broadcasting stations. A broadcasting station
employing frequencies allocated to the broadcasting service between
5,950 and 26,100 kHz, the transmissions of which are intended to be
received directly by the general public in foreign countries. ...

The legislation on this goes back to the late 30's...

" It was the FCC, however, that gave broadcasters the greatest potential
assistance. In May 1939, the FCC reassessed the non-commercial status of
shortwave broadcasting. Realizing that shortwave was no longer
"experimental" in any real way, they made the decision to allow time to be
sold for advertising. The Commission also opened up more frequencies for
international use. However, the decision was not purely beneficial to the
broadcasting companies. The FCC required the construction and maintenance
of new, high-powered broadcast facilities and included a "culture rule."
This stipulation required the broadcasters to engage in programming that
"will reflect the culture of this country and will promote international
good will and understanding," stating further that programs created for
domestic audiences did not fit this definition.[xvii] In practice, the
costs of building the new facilities and creating original programming would
outpace any actual revenue generated by advertising. "

The "culture rule" was suspended after considerable NAB lobbying, but
returned later and became today's law.

I can't find the specific legislation, but the inference that domestic
activities were proscribed is clear.

Speaking of Jamming, something seems to be upsetting the WBCQ signal on
5105. Anyone else notice this?

Kinda sounds like the sync locking on my sony.

mike

"Gregg" wrote in message
...
Behold, Frank Dresser signaled from keyed 4-1000A filament:


"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.





So what does the law say? And what happened in the 70s? I have the
impression that the SW broadcasters had to give up thier transmitters at
the start of WW2. These transmitters were used for propaganda
broadcasts during the war. After the war ended, the broadcasters were
offered thier transmitters back, but were prohibited from targeting the
US. Those that didn't take the transmitters back were paid by the
government. Most of the broadcasters took the money. Those
transmitters were used to start up the VOA.

And countless jammers that exist today.

--
Gregg
*Perhaps it's useful, even if it can't be SPICE'd*
Visit the GeeK Zone - http://geek.scorpiorising.ca

"Mike Ward" wrote in message
...

To basically paraphrase "Passport to World Band Radio"... "Congress
can't pass a law to circumvent ionospheric physics". ;)


Of course not! That would be stupid!!

The upshot...as long as WWCR, WBCQ, WJCR, et al. are nominally
targetting foreign countries with their signals, they're probably OK,
and again, going into content isn't something the FCC has a taste for.
If they do it THERE, that opens up the can of worms on the AM and FM
bands.

Mike

The FCC can still fine on the air talent and penalize stations if their
content is out of bounds. One of the FCC commissioners wanted to yank the
radio station that hosted the Opie & Anthony church stunt. They didn't, but
they could have.

So how many complaints does the FCC get concerning the domestic SW
broadcasters? Plenty, I'll bet -- as long as there are such groups as the
Southern Poverty Law Center and others out there.

And I have to believe there are, or at least were, people in the FCC who
would love sweep the hate speech from the SW airwaves. I know that's a
couple layers of supposition there, but I don't think it's foolish
supposition.

I'd like to know if this has ever been enforced. And if it can be enforced
now:

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

If this can't be enforced, this can't be used to claim domestic SW
broadcasting is illegal.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

The FCC can still fine on the air talent and penalize stations if their
content is out of bounds. One of the FCC commissioners wanted to yank the
radio station that hosted the Opie & Anthony church stunt. They didn't,
but
they could have.

The FCC can only fine the licensee of the radio station. They do not fine
the talent. Should any other laws, Federal or State or local be broken by an
announcer's actions, it is up to those in charge of enforcemnt to separately
prosecute the talent, something the FCC is not chartered to do.

I'd like to know if this has ever been enforced. And if it can be
enforced
now:

47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

This is the original wording from 1939, I believe. The "culture of this
country" thing is a direct aprt of that regulation.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

So's the "international broadcast service" and the "goodwill,
understanding,
and cooperation" parts. But, as far as I can tell, it's a dead issue.
I'm
inclined to think it can't be legally enforced. Or maybe nobody at the
FCC
cares.

Since the original rule was intended to protect the 1-A clears, the point is
very, very moot now. (And that was the reason WLW was kept form continuing
as a 500 kw station, too).

mAximo wrote:
(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

This does not apply to domestic broadcast stations.

True, but we're talking about domestic *shortwave* broadcasting, and
there is no such thing in the United States.

At least not legally. Certainly (as has been pointed out by others,
myself included) many U.S.-based international stations have large
"incidential" domestic audiences. And of course there are other radio
services (such as amateurs) allowed to communicate domestically on
shortwave, but they're not allowed to broadcast to the general public.

("incidential" in quotes as I think we all know the stations sure don't
consider those audiences incidential!)

47CFR73 Subpart F defines "International Broadcast Stations". It
contains the above-cited regulation that proscribes programs solely
intended for a domestic audience. It also allows operation on various
frequencies in the 3-30MHz shortwave spectrum. (and nowhere outside
shortwave)

47CFR73 Subparts A-E define "AM Broadcast Stations" (535-1705KHz), "FM
Broadcast Stations" (87.9-107.9MHz), "Noncommercial Educational FM
Broadcast Stations" (also 87.9-107.9MHz), and "Television Broadcast
Stations". (TV channels 2-69) Programs intended for a domestic
audience are encouraged. [0] Operation is only allowed within those
specified frequency bands - none of which fall within the shortwave
spectrum.

There is no intersection of the services. Either you're an
International station operating at shortwave, or you're some other kind
of broadcast station and you're allowed to operate only at either
medium-wave or VHF/UHF.

(73.701 goes on to mention the existence of government-owned
international stations but that the FCC doesn't regulate them)

Another case of the fox guarding the henhouse, and deciding that
the regulations he made don't apply to him, at least not for gov't-
-owned int'l stations, but they may apply to gov't-owned domestic
stations such as jammers, unless also exempted.

I suppose, though this principle is hardly unique to broadcasting
services. Federal government use of other frequencies (for example,
military communications, or the FBI's two-way radios, or WWV) is not
subject to FCC regulation either.

I would suppose this is set forth in 47CFR0 or 47CFR1, the regulations
that set forth the structure and powers of the FCC.

("International broadcast stations" are the only type defined as allowed
to use shortwave frequencies - there are no rules authorizing a

You misread the regulation. It doesn't say that Int'l broadcast stations
are the only ones allowed to use SW frequencies. Besides, ham stations
on 40 metres are using parts of the Int'l broadcast bands, and so would
fall under this regulation, if such a restriction were called for by
statute. But such a statute doesn't exist, or it would be cited at the
start of the chapter. Otherwise, the regulator would be exercising
legislative power, in breach of the separation of powers, and would
be making regulations inconsistent with law.

Hams on 7100-7300KHz in the (continental) USA are operating in spectrum
allocated to the amateur radio service. They operate solely under
47CFR97, the regulations applicable to amateur radio. (and which
specifically prohibit them from broadcasting to the general public)

The allocation of that spectrum in Regions 1 and 3 is different, which
is why the broadcasters are there. It doesn't mean American amateurs
are subject to broadcast regulations.

[0] though I see nothing in the regulations that would prohibit a
station from specifying a "principal community" outside the United
States, if that community was close enough to the border that a
"city-grade" signal could be provided from a transmitter site within
U.S. jurisdiction. Cooperation of the foreign country would also be
necessary in allowing siting of the "public file" in their territory.

I certainly would not hold my breath waiting for such a station to be
authorized!
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

tommyknocker wrote:
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

That would make nearly all private SW broadcasts in the US illegal,
since they are clearly for a domestic audience. There are a couple
religious stations which broadcast in Spanish for Latinoamerica but most
private SW in the US is not only in English but deals with topics of
interest to only US listeners.

Do note that the regulation says "...an audience in the continental
United States..." - it says nothing about the citizenship or national
origin of the listeners in foreign countries.

In other words, Americans traveling abroad would be an acceptable target
audience. Certainly with regard to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
(the primary places U.S.-based SW stations claim to target) you could
make a case that there are enough Americans visiting the target areas to
justify the programming. In fact, many SW broadcast stations in other
countries DO specify their own nationals travelling abroad as a target
audience.

Of course we'd still know who the REAL target audience is...

I was led to think that the rules dated from the early days of the Cold
War and were designed to avoid "propagandizing" broadcasts.

I've heard that suggested elsewhere. I'm having a hard time believing
they really thought a US-based international pro-Communist station could
have found enough support to get off the ground. (especially with the
massive opposition they would have faced at all levels of American
society at the time)

And I'm having a hard time figuring out why they'd *want* to stop an
anti-Communist station.

Given the political history of the domestic clear channels, I think the
"competition to domestic stations" explanation makes more sense.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...
tommyknocker wrote:
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
understanding, and cooperation. Any program solely intended for and
directed to an audience in the continental United States does not meet
the requirements for this service.

That would make nearly all private SW broadcasts in the US illegal,
since they are clearly for a domestic audience. There are a couple
religious stations which broadcast in Spanish for Latinoamerica but most
private SW in the US is not only in English but deals with topics of
interest to only US listeners.

Do note that the regulation says "...an audience in the continental
United States..." - it says nothing about the citizenship or national
origin of the listeners in foreign countries.

In other words, Americans traveling abroad would be an acceptable target
audience. Certainly with regard to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
(the primary places U.S.-based SW stations claim to target) you could
make a case that there are enough Americans visiting the target areas to
justify the programming. In fact, many SW broadcast stations in other
countries DO specify their own nationals travelling abroad as a target
audience.

Of course we'd still know who the REAL target audience is...

I was led to think that the rules dated from the early days of the Cold
War and were designed to avoid "propagandizing" broadcasts.

I've heard that suggested elsewhere. I'm having a hard time believing
they really thought a US-based international pro-Communist station could
have found enough support to get off the ground. (especially with the
massive opposition they would have faced at all levels of American
society at the time)

And I'm having a hard time figuring out why they'd *want* to stop an
anti-Communist station.

Given the political history of the domestic clear channels, I think the
"competition to domestic stations" explanation makes more sense.
--

Exactly right on the "competition to domestic stations" point. A look at
the history of the regulation and the arguments for and against it make that
pretty clear. Also, there is the matter of efficient use of the spectrum.
Shortwave is (well "was" now, I guess) valuable primarly, as everybody here
knows, for long distance transmission, and it was felt that the use of the
spectrum by U.S. broadcasters for domestic transmission was a wasteful and
inefficient use of spectrum space compromising efficient international use
of frequencies.


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don Forsling

"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"

"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
...

Do note that the regulation says "...an audience in the continental
United States..." - it says nothing about the citizenship or national
origin of the listeners in foreign countries.

In other words, Americans traveling abroad would be an acceptable target
audience. Certainly with regard to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean
(the primary places U.S.-based SW stations claim to target) you could
make a case that there are enough Americans visiting the target areas to
justify the programming. In fact, many SW broadcast stations in other
countries DO specify their own nationals travelling abroad as a target
audience.

Of course we'd still know who the REAL target audience is...



I've heard that suggested elsewhere. I'm having a hard time believing
they really thought a US-based international pro-Communist station could
have found enough support to get off the ground. (especially with the
massive opposition they would have faced at all levels of American
society at the time

A Communist or leftist station would have been highly unlikely but not
inconcieveable. There was a leftist press in the postwar era, such as the
Daily Worker. Many newspapers owned their own radio station. Many
conservatives such as Col. Robert McCormack, were staunch supporters of the
first amendment and would have vigorously defended the right of the Commies
to have the same right to broadcast as everybody else.

And I'm having a hard time figuring out why they'd *want* to stop an
anti-Communist station.

I think they would want to speak with one voice. And playing favorites
would be unnecessarly divisive.

But I think the domestic propaganda arguement makes more sense when applied
to the VOA. I have no doubt there was a fear that the VOA could become the
voice of the party in power.



Given the political history of the domestic clear channels, I think the
"competition to domestic stations" explanation makes more sense.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com


I don't know how much domestic SW could compete with domestic clear
channels. Radio did, and does, depend on advertising. And most radio
advertising is local. Sure, the clear channel stations had a nighttime
coverage of hundreds of miles, but did they do much of their own programming
for people outside their prime coverage area? I'm guessing they didn't. If
they did, would it have increased their advertising revenue?

Domestic SW would have been a bigger threat to the established radio
networks, especially if some genius would have been able to solve the
propagation problems. Technical progress in radio was happening fast in
that era, so it's easy to imagine David Sarnoff and the others worring about
the possibility of a handful of SW stations posing a competitive threat to
their national networks. A viable, low cost SW network would have been able
to pirate or create the sort of national "Old Time" radio programming which
did sell Ovaltine or Texaco gas or whatever. I know the clear channel
stations were network stations, but I think they could have survived on
local programming. Obviously, the networks had alot more to lose and they
were the ones with the strong voice in Washington. Anyway, that's all
speculation on my part.

But US domestic SW didn't get going until the radio networks had faded.

Frank Dresser

"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

I don't know how much domestic SW could compete with domestic clear
channels. Radio did, and does, depend on advertising. And most radio
advertising is local. Sure, the clear channel stations had a
nighttime
coverage of hundreds of miles, but did they do much of their own
programming
for people outside their prime coverage area? I'm guessing they
didn't.
If
they did, would it have increased their advertising revenue?

In the 30's, when the non-domestic prohibition was written, a huge
portion
radio advertising was national network. It was, in fact, hard to be an
independent station outside of a couple of the very largest markets
until
Top 40 developed in the early 50's.

The term "disc jockey" (shortened to DJ) wasn't even coined until 1950,
when stations were losing their programming to television and had to
play music nonstop to fill time. (Alan Freed was NOT the first DJ, only
the first to be famous.)

Actually, I have found references to the term in late 40's Broadcasting
Magazines. I believe the term originated just after the ASCAP decision when
radio stations could play lots more recorded music.

"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


"Prime Time" developed during this era, with the idea that people would
listen once they got home from work. The eight hour day was codified
into law during FDR's first term, which in turn created two blocs of
broadcast time-Daytime and Prime Time. Daytime broadcasting was to
housewives and mothers who stayed home all day, consisting of serial
melodramas heavily advertised by soap companies (thus the term "soap
opera"). (The first soap operas were as short as 15 minutes.) Prime Time
was when the man of the house got home from his factory job, and the
whole family gathered around the big, expensive radio in the parlor to
hear regular news and dramas. Most radio stations went off the air
around 10pm and stayed off until 10am the next day.

Until the Federal Radio Act of 1934, many stations shared channels. there
was all-day (6 AM to midnight) broadcasting in larger markets, but in
smaller ones schedules were less because there was not enough net progrmming
to fill them... and even more because the line charges were a major, major
expense.

At the start of the
TV era TV stations followed these same schedules. "Today"-starting at
8am or so-was a radical innovation in 1953. All night TV didn't come
until as late as the early 80s in much of the country.

1953 was the year the freeze was lifted. Until then, there were not enough
channels for every net to have alocal affiliate, and the technology was very
new. Stations expanded as fast as possible and the nets followed suit by
adding salable hours.

Remember, in 1940 there were less than 1000 radio station in the whole
country. The clears covered huge otherwise unserved areas.

I know for a fact that San Francisco stations served most of California
north of the Tehachapis. Sacramento-by far the most populous inland city
of Northern California in the 30s-only had two radio stations.

In 1931, only KFBK was on the air. Fresno had KMJ, San Francisco, Oakland,
Berkley and San Jose had 14 stations. Bakersfield had 1, as did Santa
Barbara, and Stockton had 2.

With the nets having all the major talent under contract, that would
have
been rather hard. And in the meantime, millions of Americans would have
had
to be convinced to buy receivers to get something that they already got
on
the 4 webs.

Actually, most console radios had shortwave. But as a glance at a dial
of a 1930s console radio will tell you, this was intended for listening
to Europe-all the listings on the dial were for European countries.

A lot of consoles had SW, but not all radios had it. there were plenty of
nice kitchen radios and shop radios running around.

There still is no true domestic SW broadcasting if you look at
listenership.
No shortwave station has ever even approached showing up in any US radio
market's ratings. Average, non-SWL folks generally found SW listenining
to
be less attractive than a nice clean local signal if such were
available.
Domestic commercial SW thrived for a while in nations like Ecuador,
Peru,
Bolivia, Indonesia, etc., where there were limited broadcasting
faciliteis,
bad roadways and terrible phone and telegraph services... and high
illiteracy. None of this describes the US, then or now.

Indonesia comprises a thousand islands. Much of South America and Africa
was either impenetrable jungle or uninhabitable bush (desert). AM simply
couldn't cover those vast expanses. As populations have grown and
standard AM and FM stations have penetrated those areas, SW listening
has gone down dramatically.

Africa was left out of my argument, as there was no commercial radio in most
of that continent in the 40's through the 60's. Except for Angola, which I
believe had, like Portugal, commercial stations, the rest depended on state
broadcasters. radio ownership was pretty limited.

Latin America had commercial radio going back to the 20's and 30's. At one
point, there were stations in many countries that only ran on SW, with no MW
facilities. As more stations were licensed in smaller towns, and other
stations increased power, the value of shortwave diminished. By the 60's, it
was mostly a way of communicating with rural areas, often in lieu of the
telephone.

FM hit most of Latin America at the tail end of the 60's. The first
Ecuadorian FM was in 1966; Peru in that year had one FM, Colombia and
Venezuela none, and Chile one. Bolivia had none, and I don't believe
Paraguay had any, either.

The death of SW had already started by the late 50's. It was no longer
economically viable as AM stations learned that if you built a tower instead
of hanging a wire between two poles, you could cover better day and night
than some ratty SW channel. As powers increased on AM, SW stations signed
off. At one point, I had an SW license... but the AM it came with covered
better and more consistently than the SW could, so I handed the license in.

"The Green Troll" wrote in message
m...
Doug Smith W9WI wrote in message
...
47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

(a) A licensee of an international broadcast station shall render only
an international broadcast service which will reflect the culture of
this country and which will promote international goodwill,
understanding, and cooperation.

Ergo, a shortwave station reflecting Cuban culture and promoting
competition (aimed at undermining Castro) would be ineligible.

that would promote both capitalism and democracy, both American values.

Some would argue that an internal contradiction prevents any licensee
from complying.

Not really. You are simply leaving no nit unpicked.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
om...

"tommyknocker" wrote in message

The term "disc jockey" (shortened to DJ) wasn't even coined until 1950,
when stations were losing their programming to television and had to
play music nonstop to fill time. (Alan Freed was NOT the first DJ, only
the first to be famous.)

Actually, I have found references to the term in late 40's Broadcasting
Magazines. I believe the term originated just after the ASCAP decision
when
radio stations could play lots more recorded music.

Following up, I fund a half-dozen references to "disc jockey" in the 1948
Broadcasting Yearbook, including one featuring, headlined in 36 point type,
the "Disk Jockeys of KFEL" in Denver.

Both the '44 and '46 editions have mentions of the term in advertising for
radio staitos with music from disc programs.

And, by the way, radio was not losing its audience to television in 1950,
and the network (CBS, NBC, Mutual, ABC, Don Lee, Yankee, IMN, etc.)
programming continued strong through the late 50's That was the depth of the
freeze, and only a few million homes had TVs. Even by 1953, according to a
WSYR study, the average Syracuse listened to 3.07 hours of radio a day. A
1950 study, referenced in the Gordon McLendion biography, indicates 21 hours
a week of listening per person. Today, it is 20 hours and 45 minutes.

Then, as now, the reports of radio's death were much exaggerated.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

I don't know how much domestic SW could compete with domestic clear
channels. Radio did, and does, depend on advertising. And most radio
advertising is local. Sure, the clear channel stations had a nighttime
coverage of hundreds of miles, but did they do much of their own
programming
for people outside their prime coverage area? I'm guessing they didn't.
If
they did, would it have increased their advertising revenue?


Further follow up:

A WLW (clear channel 700 AM) ad from the 1948 Broadcasting Yearbook refers
to a survey of its 7 state coverage area (bits of IL, MI, VA and lots of OH,
KY, IN and WV) where 75% of the 3.5 million population listened to WLW
weekly. The ad has a map of this area, and stresses the fact that, of 115
stations serving the area, none comes close to the penetration and daily
usage of WLW.

A WSM ad shows mail pull from every one of the 48 states, and stresses
regular coverage of 38 of them.

Even a 1-B station like WLAW (680-Boston) shows a coverage map with contours
covering from Bangor, ME to SW Rhode Island, complete with population counts
of the 5 states they at least partially covered.

"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Actually, most console radios had shortwave. But as a glance at a dial
of a 1930s console radio will tell you, this was intended for listening
to Europe-all the listings on the dial were for European countries.

[snip]

There seems to have been some domestic SW activity in the pre-war era.

Most of these were active before the war:

http://members.aol.com/jeff560/1947sw.html

The Apex stations were experimental AM Hi Fi broadcasters:

http://members.aol.com/jeff560/1939apex.html

There were alot more experimental stations which came and went.

Frank Dresser

David Eduardo wrote:
Were the other clear channel stations pressing for 500 kW privliges?


WLW in '48 was using 50 kw.

If I recall WLW was required to shut down the 500KW rig in 1939. (I've
heard vague rumors it was occasionally "re-lit" during WW2 at the
request of the Army)

I know WSM filed for 500KW, and was part of a group of 1-A clears that
asked for 750KW in the 1970s. I'm quite confident it wasn't the only
one besides WLW to do so.
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

These priviledged stations wanted no competiton and even greater power.
Specifically, 750 kw.

Well they sure didn't get anything like that! Also, they lost the pure
clear channels. So, I guess that supports your point that the networks
and
the clear channels were closely joined. And as the radio networks
declined,
so did the clear channel's Washington clout.

Keep in mind that in the 70's, WOAI in San Antonio was near receivership
with a 1-A clear channel. The new owners, Messrs. Mays and Combs, bought it
for next to nothing and capitalized the "clear channel" designation as the
name of thier new company. There were quite a few others like it that were
very unimpressive performers in that era.


FM started in the late 30's. It was not profitable on any scale until
thelate 60's. In fact, form 1950 to 1960, there was a net decline in
licensed FMs. And UHF made it only due to the dual band tuner
requirement
pushed by the FCC when they saw UHHFs shutting down all over the place
in
the mid to late 50's.

Yes, that's my point. There's no shortage of big dreams. The early FM
and
UHF-TV broadcasters ended up being no real threat to the established
broadcasters, but that couldn't be known with certainty in the early days.
Plenty of otherwise capable investors threw money down the rat hole. But
nobody knew it was a rat hole in advance. So while I can't prove it, it
still seems likely that the FCC's domestic SW ban was to protect the
Networks/Clear Channel stations from competition.

Sounds right. Interestingly, in the 30's the nets tried to do commerical SW
for Latin America and lost lots of money.

WRNO was an international staiton, aimed outside the US. In fact, Joe
Costello bought a condo in Puerto Rico so he could sit and listen to his
station in the Caribbean. The idea did not work, just as the commercial
SW
efforts of the big networks aimed at LAtin Ameirca did not work in the
late
30's.

Was he more serious about being an international broadcater than the
current
domestics?

Yes. I spoke with him severa times, and he was a true believer that a rock
station... an album rock station, could be very successful in the
Hemisphere.

He didn't do much broadcasting in Spanish.

He felt that US rock was so popular in Latin America (a fact) that a real US
station in English with American formatics could be a huge winner. If it had
been satellite delivered to local FMs, he would have been right.

His programming was
almost 100% US oriented.

Actually, it was a US style station for foreign audiences who loved US
music.

Mostly simulcasts from WRNO-FM. Seemed like every
other ad was for the car dealer in Kenner.

When it started, they had plans to be 100% separate. When WRNO started to do
badly, there was not much left for the SW.


The border blasters were irrelevant. They hawked products (the
equivalent
of
HSN and infomericals), and had very little audience as they really had
no
interesting programs. They operatied erratically, and could only be
heard
at
night (they did not even operate in the daytime, in fact). There were
only
a
couple of them and thier history is spotty.

What about Wolfman Jack?

Until he moved to XERB in Rosarito, which is not a border blaster, but put a
half decent signal over LA, he was a novelty but not a real audience factor.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline of
the radio networks?

I don't think so. I think the rise of stations that would run the Hal Turner
show has more to do withthe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed
the kind of one-sided shows we hear today. Remember, an early SW
broadcaster, Rev. Norris of Red Lion, made history by his refusal to follow
the doctrine. He also lost his licenses. The repeal of Fairness also ushered
in today's talk radio, from Rush to Savage to Stern. None would work without
the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...


Yep. Nothing like the conductivity of the Midwest. Today, noise
effectively
kills them within maybe 150 miles, less in big metros like Milwaukee.



At least as important was the lack of rural electrification, and all the
electrical noise which comes with that.

Frank Dresser

David Eduardo wrote:

Africa was left out of my argument, as there was no commercial radio in most
of that continent in the 40's through the 60's. Except for Angola, which I
believe had, like Portugal, commercial stations,

Also Mozambique. Remember all of the "Radio Clube do..." in both Angola and
Mozambique? (These all went away when radio was nationalized upon
independence.)

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline
of
the radio networks?

I don't think so. I think the rise of stations that would run the Hal
Turner
show has more to do withthe repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed
the kind of one-sided shows we hear today. Remember, an early SW
broadcaster, Rev. Norris of Red Lion, made history by his refusal to
follow
the doctrine. He also lost his licenses. The repeal of Fairness also
ushered
in today's talk radio, from Rush to Savage to Stern. None would work
without
the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Yes! Now we're back where we started. The question of if the FCC language
which bans domestic SW content still applies.

I remember the Rev. John M. Norris, or at least his SW station quite well.
In fact, I have a WINB QSL dated Aug. 27, 1970 right here in front of me.

I think you've got something with the Fairness Doctirine connection. I
typed "norris fairness doctrine" into the Google search box, and this is the
first thing that came up:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html#FOOTNOTE_40

This article is actually about internet censorship, but it parallels
internet censorship with some of the history of the government's efforts to
control broadcast speech and it's unintended consequences. One quote from
the article:

"That the FCC determined in 1981 and 1985 that content regulation was
counterproductive to achieving public interest goals would suggest that the
notion of effective content regulation has been thoroughly discredited. "

The Fairness Doctrine was finally eliminated in August, 1987.

As far as I can tell, the FCC pulled out of the political content regulation
business entirely. And the same line of thought would make the FCC domestic
SW content ban unenforcable. Good for the FCC! Good for Rev. Norris, too!

Frank Dresser

"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

He didn't do much broadcasting in Spanish.

He felt that US rock was so popular in Latin America (a fact) that a
real US
station in English with American formatics could be a huge winner. If it
had
been satellite delivered to local FMs, he would have been right.

Actually, the USA is trying pretty much the same thing with Radio Sawa.
But Sawa is in Arabic (the native tongue of the target listeners) and is
broadcast on local FM, even though the source is VOA in DC, sent to the
transmitters by satellite. Glenn Hauser's DXLD has carried articles on
Radio Sawa. Supposedly it's #1 among young adults in Jordan, although
how they determine this is a mystery to me.

the audience research is done by Edison Research in New Jersey. They did
music testing in a bunch of freer Arab nations, such as Egypt, to determine
the music to play. And they have done follow up audience surveys using
normal random probability sample polling. The music is both in English and
Arabic.

The station concept came from Norm Pattiz of the VOA, and was consulted by
noted US programmer Andy Bloom. Sawa is also on MW stations, I believe, to
get into some of the less accessible nations as well as on SW.

"RedOctober90" wrote in message
om...
"http://CBC.am/" wrote in message
...
Domestic SW broadcasting in the US is illegal!

The law has been on the books since the 1970s.

I don't see a problem with domestic SW. I proudly support WBCQ which
promotes freedom of speech.

How? Are you not free to speak today? (The Constitution only guarantees that
the government will not restrict that freedom, not that they will give you a
freee soap box.)

I think this SW restriction was designed
to limit the use of free speech and let big corporations take over the
airwaves.

The restriction came form the 30's, not the 70's. And it was intended to
preserve the intended purpose of the clear channel stations, which was to
serve rural America as well as large cities. When the rule was enacted
originally, the whole USA had around 780 radio staitons.

If they started to fine some of the show hosts on WBCQ that
to me would be an attack on the freedom of speech that the
constitution supposely protects.

Show hosts, announcers and disk jockeys are not fined by the FCC.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message om...
"The Green Troll" wrote in message
m...
Doug Smith W9WI wrote in message
...
47CFR73.788: (note second sentence)

Ergo, a shortwave station reflecting Cuban culture and promoting
competition (aimed at undermining Castro) would be ineligible.

that would promote both capitalism and democracy, both American values.

Only international competition, with economic and political cooperation.

-- Infidel Castrato http://www.rev.net/~aloe/politics

"--exray--" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
m...

Is it a coincidence that the rise of domestic SW came after the decline

of

the radio networks?

keyphrase doesn't compute. "Rise of domestic SW" ???

As far as I can tell, the FCC pulled out of the political content
regulation
business entirely. And the same line of thought would make the FCC
domestic
SW content ban unenforcable. Good for the FCC! Good for Rev. Norris,
too!

I think the FCC is at least cognizant enough to consider Domestic SWBC a
non-issue. Outside of a couple dozen radiofolk here, who would listen
to Domestic SW?

You have the key. No listeners.

Even in supposed hotbeds of SW listening, the use of SW is much exaggerated.
When I was working in South America in the 60's, I inspected the radio
ratings questionnaires for tens of thousands of people. I never, ever saw a
SW station reported in any city with local radio.

"--exray--" wrote in message
...

I think the FCC is at least cognizant enough to consider Domestic SWBC a
non-issue. Outside of a couple dozen radiofolk here, who would listen
to Domestic SW?

There's a small group of true believers, like The Order types and the late
Timothy McVeigh who have certainly earned the attention of the government.
And the Southern Poverty Law Center would love to take credit for forcing
the government to harass station owners who carry these programs. There has
been a long history of such legal broadcasting harassment, and the
independent stations are most vunerable. But I'm not aware of any attempt
to control domestic SW broadcasting, even after Bill Clinton's "Hate radio"
remarks.

Howcum? I suppose it could be that the self-justifing activists, in and out
of government, don't really want to bother harassing the few who take
domestic SW radio programming seriously. Or they know the rules prohibiting
domestic SW programming are unenforceable.

I suppose it could be either. But I think the activists are looking for
more productive ways to make pains in the asses of themselves.



They seem to license any and all comers anyway. So where are the big
pirate guys who want to have their say legitimately?

The only big US pirate guy I can think of is Alan Weiner. The others seem
content broadcasting at low power a few times a year.

Could it be impractical financially to have domestic SW?
Uh, I think so.

-Bill


It exists, even if it's impractical. Certainly not as big time commercial
radio, but mostly as brokered shows hosted by evangalists and the paranoid
fringe element. At least, that's where the money comes from.

Frank Dresser