"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!-