| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bad news for Short Wave Listening
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:
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 The BPL Internet provider would install an RF bypass circuit on each power transformer to allow the digital signal to go around the transformers and continue along the power lines. The big problem with this technology is that digital signals are rich with RF harmonics, including shortwave frequencies, which would be radiated from the power lines and be received by shortwave radios as noise or interference. It's becoming clear that the FCC doesn't really care much about the interference issue when there is so much money to be made by this new technology. Shortwave listeners don't have any influence in Washington like the BPL industry does. It's the old adage that money talks. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"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) |
starman wrote:
fredtv wrote: 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? The BPL Internet provider would install an RF bypass circuit on each power transformer to allow the digital signal to go around the transformers and continue along the power lines. This is why you just gotta love their claims that they can use the existing plant for BPL. Hell, around here there are no less than five transformers per city block that have to be bridged. At the FCC, money talks and the citizenry walks. -- Most dying mothers say, "I love you, son," or "Take care of your sister." Why were the last words of Kerry's mother a lecture on integrity? |
"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." |
IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE
FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? www.moveon.org stop the republicans! bush health care does not empower americans! |
andrew cool wrote: IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? Well, you can stop shouting! And it's BPL... dxAce Michigan USA I already cast my absentee ballot for George W. Bush |
"andrew cool" wrote in message ... | IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE | FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? | | www.moveon.org stop the republicans! | bush health care does not empower americans! Your caps lock key is broken. And if you think Moveon.org will stop the Republicans, you've got a screw loose. 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: 10/8/04 |
dxAce wrote:
andrew cool wrote: IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? Well, you can stop shouting! And it's BPL... dxAce Michigan USA I already cast my absentee ballot for George W. Bush Shouldn't that read: "I already cast my ballot for an absentee George W. Bush" ? |
m II wrote: dxAce wrote: andrew cool wrote: IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? Well, you can stop shouting! And it's BPL... dxAce Michigan USA I already cast my absentee ballot for George W. Bush Shouldn't that read: "I already cast my ballot for an absentee George W. Bush" ? No. Only proving yet again that you're a stupid Canadian 'tard boy. LMAO at the Canadian excrement. dxAce Michigan USA |
: : 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 |
In article gsadd.21040$cr4.3324@edtnps84,
m II wrote: dxAce wrote: andrew cool wrote: IDON'T LIKE THIS BLP AT ALL. I JUST STARTED HF AND IT SOUNDS LIIKE THE FCC DOES'T CARE. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS? Well, you can stop shouting! And it's BPL... dxAce Michigan USA I already cast my absentee ballot for George W. Bush Shouldn't that read: "I already cast my ballot for an absentee George W. Bush" ? No, but you could say that about Kerry. He missed most of the Senate votes this year. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"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 |
: : 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 |
this isn't a poltoical post only asking about broadband over powerlines.
the only way i'd truly be for this is if they could do something to the lines there using so that the radio wvaes or harmonics as i've read won't be emitted out side the transmission lines? www.moveon.org stop the republicans! bush health care does not empower americans! |
"andrew cool" wrote in message ... | this isn't a poltoical post only asking about broadband over powerlines. | the only way i'd truly be for this is if they could do something to the | lines there using so that the radio wvaes or harmonics as i've read | won't be emitted out side the transmission lines? | | www.moveon.org stop the republicans! | bush health care does not empower americans! The "move on" bull**** appearing at the bottom of your post makes it a political post. You might want to have a doctor provide some care - you obviously suffer from acute rectocranial inversion. 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: | 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 |
"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. |
"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. |
"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!- |
"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 ... "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) |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "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). Yeah, but isn't that largely a matter of definition and policy? As I understand, the FCC used to try to keep a 30 kHz spacing between stations in the same market, now they'll go for 20 kHz. In my opinion, there are already too damn many stations on the air, using my personal standard of maximum allowable interference. But if the FCC doesn't much care about more interference, they could pack more stations in. 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. Even if a broadcaster refuses to broadcast an opposing view on his station or stations, he is only restricting one outlet for the opposing speech. So what? The Soviet Union had an entirely controlled media. Every paper, every broadcaster was owned by one monopoly. Yet some version of the truth got around. Printed material from typewriters and photocopiers were handed around. Phone calls were made. The Soviet media lies increased cynicism, not indoctrination. Control of one station or one broadcast network would be even less persuasive, especially if other outlets for opposing viewpoints are available. 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 people don't like what they hear on a broadcast, getting rid if it is even easier than canceling. They just tune out. I'm not sure I catch the reason why the fairness doctrine is necessary with broadcast stations but not necessary with pay services. I don't think it has to be a jurisdictional thing, as some Congressmen have proposed extending decency standards to pay services and the internet. Anyway, I can't think of any reason a satellite direct broadcast service must be a subscription service. If satellite technology gets cheap enough, the networks might well launch their own, advertiser supported satellites. It's also easy enough to imagine the satellite receivers would be easily affordable. With cable systems, there's no practical distinction between cable channels and broadcast channels. 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. They do serve people, by entertaining them. That's what broadcasting is good at. Broadcasting is a poor educational media. People who want to actually learn something read about it. Or converse with someone knowledgeable. Or, best yet, do it. I suppose broadcasting could be whipped into a decent educational media with VCRs and tape recorders so people could go back and forth until they actually understand what's being discussed, but they hardly ever do. Broadcast information goes into the air for an ephemeral moment, and then it's gone. Guys like Limbaugh and Hannity are successful, not because they are informative, but because they're entertaining. I suppose there are a few doofuses who think they are getting some sort of political education from the broadcast loudmouths who are putting on a show within the limitations of broadcast media. Just why is the fairness doctrine a good idea? Because we've seen what happens when it's not in place. The biggest difference I've noticed is there is less boring programming on Sunday mornings. 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? It seems to work well for Brother Stair and Doctor Scott! Frank Dresser |
"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station (broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple signals on the same frequency mix together. The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. A standard power transmitter would encroach on the coverage area of one or more of these stations. I'm sure there are cases in which a low power station could be allowed. The street gang FM pirate is an example of this. I don't live near where they were broadcasting, but I think I heard them. They were broadcasting rap, and I had no interest in listening. The nearest licensed station on that frequency is in LaSalle Illinois, or some such place. I doubt they have any listeners east of Aurora. There were no interference complaints. The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC. A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if WRLL had been operating downstate. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. 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? That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. The government gives alot of weight to the opinions of the NAB on interference. There's closer station spacing, more stations, and more 24 hour operations and IBOC, all with NAB backing. The NAB didn't like the low power FM proposal, presumably on interference grounds, and we don't have it. 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. Image rejection is an issue. Chicago's Ch. 23 gets an image from another station. 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... I'm not a parent, so I'll admit my opinion is nearly worthless, but, if I were a parent, I'd seriously consider just playing tapes and DVDs through the TV. 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) |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station (broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple signals on the same frequency mix together. The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC. A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if WRLL had been operating downstate. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ IMHO the FCC has grounds to regulate both services on content if they chose to do so. IMHO they need to either do so, or lift content regulations on OTA. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
does the fairness
doctrine have any effect on the viewer? The Fairness Doctrine no longer exists. Reagan Administration. First Time Users May Be asked To Do A 1 Time Setup. "Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station (broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple signals on the same frequency mix together. The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC. A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if WRLL had been operating downstate. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ IMHO the FCC has grounds to regulate both services on content if they chose to do so. IMHO they need to either do so, or lift content regulations on OTA. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station (broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple signals on the same frequency mix together. The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. There's no evidence the Chicago street gang FM pirate ever took one listener away from any licensed station. Their signal was lost in the noiise a few miles from their transmitter. The nearest licensed station was over 60 miles away. The FM pirate was playing rap, much of it was offensive, and there were no complaints The new Chicago X-band station moved from downstate - Johnson City IIRC. A station on that frequency in Chicago would not have been allowed if WRLL had been operating downstate. I live within 15 miles of WRLL, and it's almost unlistenable at night after they drop power to 1 kW. Skywave comes in from all over. A much larger number of daytimers could be worked out, however. That doesn't make the area unserved by WRLL's nighttime pattern "open". A facility allowed to fill in this "unserved" area would interfere with the stations whose skywaves come in from all over. Of course not. But it does indicate that the FCC's interference standard is weak. If the FCC had a strong stand on interference, WRLL wouldn't exist as it is in either Chicago or Johnson City. Given the interference and power situation, it's practically a daytimer for most of it's listeners anyway. And the FCC no longer licenses daytimers, and all attempts to apply for one will be rejected on this criteria. As it is, the FCC is looking for daytimers below 1600 (and encourages, through policies in place) to move to the X-band, in order to clear out the congestion and permit more regional service by the full-time stations on those frequencies. The irony is the Xband is best suited to daytimers. Or true clear channel 24 hour operations. As it is, it's a mess at night. That's the point. The allowable amount of interference isn't really a technical consideration. At one extreme, we could have a very small number of true clear channel stations. Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna. Allowable interference is a political consideration, not a technical one. Actually, no. The interference standards provide for usable coverages to the limits of receivers (very few radios will provide a listenable output at 500uV, the current protection limit for nighttime service, which affords a 26dB signal to noise ratio, give-or-take). What is the noise in the signal to noise factor? Do they take into account the cochannel interference, or they just assuming natural plus manmade backround noise? On nearly all AM nighttime frequencies, the cochannel interference is much stronger than the backround noise. And there are very few FM frequencies which go down to the backround noise anymore. But protecting out to that limit means that for every 20dB increase in signal strength for the desired station (by moving closer to the transmitter) also means at least a 20dB boost in the signal to noise ratio...thus, the rural-grade 5mV/m contour would be a listenable signal. Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength. So, in the interest of expanding coverage, you'd actually be reducing it. For both the new, as well as the existing, stations. I think we're saying the same thing here. I said: "Or we could have super saturated radio markets in which the only clear reception would be within the shadow of the station's antenna." Which sounds much like: "Allowing increased interference (by raising the protected contour to, say, 2mV/m) means that a listenable signal would be obtained at the 20mVm contour....which is a metro-grade signal-strength." If the FCC really wanted to take a stronger stand on interference, it could bring back it's older interference standards with wider frequency spacing between stations in the same market, fewer AM nighttimers and fewer stations overall. If the FCC wanted to take a near absolutist stand on interference, they could get rid of about 75% of the stations. The remaining stations would have a much wider coverage area. The FCC has neither a wide open stand on interference nor a absolutist stand on interference. The current standard is a comprimise with elements of both technology and politics. I belive politics is the bigger factor. The NAB didn't like the old interference standards, so we have new standards. The NAB and NPR didn't like the low power FM proposal, so they screamed "interference!". I think there's plenty of room for low power 10 to 1000 watt FMers which would serve a community. ... All the details about how this is done can be found at http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/182/ and http://kauko.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2003/73/37/ IMHO the FCC has grounds to regulate both services on content if they chose to do so. IMHO they need to either do so, or lift content regulations on OTA. Maybe so....but, for the former proposal, would you want a situation where the FCC can delve into the private affairs of these operations? You know, the next step would be censoring telephone conversations, as the analogy holds. Subscription services, and other non-broadcasting licensees, are not public entities. What about OTA subscription services? The used to be pay TV stations in areas which weren't wired up with cable. Suppose IBOC AM flops, and Clear Channel converts their digital sidebands into a subscription service. Should those stations be allowed the same speech rights as satellite stations? Better that if the FCC feels obliged to limit what can be said on OTA, they feel that it's the only area where such pervue exists. While I'm not so keen to remove those restrictions on OTA, the Canadians and other democracies have no such limits (although there's some discretion in how often the ability to say anything is exploited) and they haven't come to the end of the world. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message ... It's commonly not understood by non-engineers that a radio station (broadcasting or otherwise) causes interference over a much wider area than it provides service. This is especially true on AM where multiple signals on the same frequency mix together. The open frequencies I mentioned aren't silent, but are a mish-mash of low power signals. They aren't useful in this area. Then they're not "open". And adding another signal, even a low power one, in this space would then interfere with the otherwise serviceable coverage closer in to these stations. There's no evidence the Chicago street gang FM pirate ever took one listener away from any licensed station. Their signal was lost in the noiise a few miles from their transmitter. The nearest licensed station was over 60 miles away. The FM pirate was playing rap, much of it was offensive, and there were no complaints Doesn't matter. The method by which allocations are made is sound, proven and, while imperfect in that it leaves white areas, is beholding to physical laws which require this strategy. And (getting back to the original thread) getting a few more stations on the air, under any condition, STILL does not permit the unbounded access to public discourse that printed matter or the spoken word affords. And this is the reason for the Fairness Doctrine....to assure that all reasonable voices are heard, which itself provides a lot of latitude for freedom of speech and control of a licensee's own business activities. (And with that, it's time to change the thread's subject). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com