"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!-