"Kevin Alfred Strom" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

The law does exist and is being enforced loosely. Domestic shortwave
stations are required to have directional antennas and there beam
heading
has to be outside the US. It is easily gotten around by using antennas
that
are directional, but not very, and targeting the main lobe to a part of
the
world that would ensure that secondary lobes cover the US. The law also
states that commercial advertising is not permitted unless it is of a
nature
that would appeal to an international audience. This is being
blatentenly
ignored. No, the FCC is not doing it's job.
[...]


Even if the beam is to Canada, and the ads are intended to appeal to
Canadians at least in part, then no law is being broken.

Now I don't want to listen to lunatic religious rants (except for a
laugh, maybe during a party after everyone's tired of dancing) any
more than you do -- but still it must be admitted that the law
itself is absurd.

No, it isn't.


There's no rational reason why domestic shortwave broadcasting
shouldn't be allowed.

Yes, there is.


The real reason for the original law (they gave a few spurious
reasons, of course) was a desire on the part of large media
corporations to protect their big investments in mediumwave networks
from competition from lower-expense shortwave upstarts, who could
easily have covered the nation with a couple of 50,000-Watt
transmitters. Can't have that!

You know that is BS. That law is older than both of us. It was put in place
long before any "large media". The sole purpose was to PREVENT large media
from controlling the airwaves. It was thought that it would be far more
beneficial to have small, reasonably local stations that would reflect the
view of local communities and provide a voice for differing points of view.
It is the same reason that you need federal approval to buy a media outlet
such as radio stations, TV stations and newspapers. It was thought, and they
were correct, that diversity of views was a good thing and having a few
giant companies controlling the media would be counterproductive. You are
right in that the FCC seems to be more and more attracted to the money but
that is a relatively recent thing, counter to the old rules under
discussion.