A sad observation

[TSBench]

Things like the tornado outbreak are reminders that radio still has its place. As does today's article about Hugo Chavez' new plan for national intelligence where neighbors are to snitch on one another (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/03/america/03venez.php). Your internet listening is vulnerable to outages from natural and man made disasters. Also, it can be monitored by those with less than altruistic intentions.

On the other hand, a good portable AM/FM/SW radio will still work and what you listen to is between you and your radio (and your significant other).

There still is, and will probably always be, a place for radio.

As the COMINT folks would say, one of the bad things about over-the-air radio is that you can't DF a receiver.

Or. as the old saying (well, not that old since I just made it up) goes, "I'm as nervous as a Chinese dissident with a Yahoo! account."

Regards,
TSB

 

[The Beave]

The Big Wig, who was an engineer, said he would love to see the industry get together long enough to agree to shut down for an hour.. everyone turn the transmitters off on an agreed upon day and time to make a point about how important radio is and it should not be taken for granted.

They do that for a different reason in Phoenix... Twice a year "Operation Dark Night" happens where all the FM's will clock off for an 3 hours so the engineers can realign the signal of their stations. I remember 2 of them, one on FM and the one on AM The phones rang off the hook both nights. "WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FM/AM BAND, EVERYBODY IS OFF THE AIR!"

Some there still don't get it.. Too bad they don't do it in the middle of a book.

 

[The Beave]

According to a film documentary that featured these unlicensed stations & their operators, They state the assumption that "holding a FCC station license is not constitutional."

Well we will find out in the coming months, as all 3 stations are now silent.

Do those brain surgeons really believe this is the first time this argument has been made?

The FCC's authority to license stations derives from an act of Congress: the Communications Act of 1934. That authority has never been successfully challenged in court, though many have tried.

Southern Arizona just got rid of 3 unlicensed signals...THE FCC has a pirate web reporting link. (check the Tucson board)

------ next thought

Also I honestly believe that EAS will work if big dollar radio wants it to... Right Now the EAS rules are being discussed with the FCC... Many have commented, some negatively Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, & Wisconsin are having big EAS issues. Alot of it stems from the use of unattended operations, improper programming of receivers/encoders & Lack of education and caring of operators in many markets.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What a rowdy bunch you are!

And no one called to invite me to the party.

To heck with the Frank Sinatra records.

I want to know why I can't hear a Stan Freeburg recording at least once every two hours.

 

[FPB]

>I am trying to listen to licensed legal broadcast operations who have invested millions to do it,
>
Yes, how we should pity the lot of these poor honest working souls. Let's do everything we can to safeguard their MILLIONS, and make sure they receive their expected returns!

 

[chrish]

If you are not smart enough to get it try this analogy.........you spend your life savinging to buy a house, later several homeless decide they like your house too
and just move in.
I'll bet you would suddenly sing a different tune... immediately call the police because you invested all your money and demand the trespassers be removed.

Sounds a bit hypocritical dosen't it?

 

[spilot113]

If you are not smart enough to get it try this analogy.........you spend your life savinging to buy a house, later several homeless decide they like your house too
and just move in.
I'll bet you would suddenly sing a different tune... immediately call the police because you invested all your money and demand the trespassers be removed.

[Tongue planted in cheek}

Yeah, but houses are getting prohibitively expensive...and why shouldn't I be able to have one too?

Why should houses only go to those that paid for them?

What if I don't agree with the way you are running and maintaining your house? Why shouldn't I be able to take a piece of your land and set up a tent city?

But I don't like your taste in the music I hear you playing in the house. I don't like the kind of people you are inviting into your house.

Shouldn't the government be making it so everyone gets a house?

LOL

Great analogy Chris.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If you are not smart enough to get it try this analogy.........you spend your life savinging to buy a house, later several homeless decide they like your house too
and just move in.

Let me offer you an alternate analogy.

Here is this pleasant neighborhood of homes 45 to 95 years old. It's a little dog-eared because the well to do and the young have wandered off and established new neighborhoods that are new and exciting.

Then someone tires of the long commute and comes back into the old neighborhood and buys up a couple of older houses on really attractive lots, bulldozes them, and builds what we in the city today call "Starter Mansions. That goes well for the new owner and then comes another tired commuter who would like to live near the university and the museums and builds a real mansion.

There is this really pathetic house two or three doors down from the starter mansion and there is evidence there was a fire a few years ago that has never been fully repaired. Along comes Habitat for Humanity and buys the pathetic old house, makes extensive repairs (with volunteer labor) and makes it a very pleasant but modest place for a family to live.

So along comes some neighborhood activist group made up primarily of suburban dwellers and protest that these bums are moving into the property of the McMansion owners. No, they are living two doors down. Yes they mow their own grass instead of hiring it done.

They are not trespassers. I'm sorry the owner of the starter mansion feels like they are holding back his property values, but they have not taken any of his property, and they are not keeping him from peaceful enjoyment of his own property.

 

[Keith321]

So along comes some neighborhood activist group made up primarily of suburban dwellers and protest that these bums are moving into the property of the McMansion owners. No, they are living two doors down. Yes they mow their own grass instead of hiring it done.

So far in your analogy, they haven't broken the law.

They are not trespassers. I'm sorry the owner of the starter mansion feels like they are holding back his property values, but they have not taken any of his property, and they are not keeping him from peaceful enjoyment of his own property.

Well, we have been talking about laws...not feelings. It doesn't matter how CC feels about a neighbor or a competitor. It matters what the laws are.

CC can feel that they don't want another format competitor...but they can't stop it when someone come in challenging them playing by the rules.

However, the pirates are not purchasing the property down the street. They are taking it.

They are taking spectrum that has been assigned to someone else.

They are not following the "zoning laws" established....so your analogy is flawed.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

However, the pirates are not purchasing the property down the street. They are taking it.

They are taking spectrum that has been assigned to someone else.

They are not following the "zoning laws" established....so your analogy is flawed.

You have expressed a very valid point. However, there is still room here for valid debate. Many of the "pirates" would love to be legal operators. To continue the housing analogy, Civil Rights Law and court developments have moved in the direction of saying: It is not legal to create zoning and property laws that make it impossible for people to have reasonable housing.

I recently began looking at something that has never before been of interest to me. LPFM. What an interesting idea. Set up "zoning" that would allow people to have a very low power transmitter to cover a very limited range. Think of it as habitat for humanity.

And what has been the outcome? Tight zoning that makes it rather impossible to get and impossible to have a reasonable revenue stream to make the LPFM work. And we wonder why peope are so uncouth as to become pirate broadcasters. Just like on the way to work some mornings you wonder why some people are living under neath the bridges. Yes, some are mentally ill, but some just can't scrape up the money for a ticket to the concert of life.

 

[Keith321]

However, the pirates are not purchasing the property down the street. They are taking it.
They are taking spectrum that has been assigned to someone else.
They are not following the "zoning laws" established....so your analogy is flawed.

You have expressed a very valid point. However, there is still room here for valid debate. Many of the "pirates" would love to be legal operators. To continue the housing analogy, Civil Rights Law and court developments have moved in the direction of saying: It is not legal to create zoning and property laws that make it impossible for people to have reasonable housing.

Many of the pirates would love to be legal operators? Well, I would love to own a mansion! ;-)

Housing comes under "food clothing and shelter" as a necessity...and some courts have sought to strike down so-called "snob zoning".

The courts have not struck down the FCC's authority to regulate the spectrum.

I believe the founding fathers included the right to own land (private property)...but not to guarantee everyone the right to their own broadcast station.

But, both are available to anyone who wants to pay the market price for such.

I recently began looking at something that has never before been of interest to me. LPFM. What an interesting idea. Set up "zoning" that would allow people to have a very low power transmitter to cover a very limited range. Think of it as habitat for humanity.

Well, you CAN broadcast under a certain power limit (is that part 15?) And there are LPFM's available...and some legal am facilities are being abandoned! However, this does not get around the fact that everyone wants to be able to transmit in the most densley populated metro areas.

Just like more people want to live in Wellesley and Newton than can afford to.

And what has been the outcome? Tight zoning that makes it rather impossible to get and impossible to have a reasonable revenue stream to make the LPFM work. And we wonder why peope are so uncouth as to become pirate broadcasters. Just like on the way to work some mornings you wonder why some people are living under neath the bridges. Yes, some are mentally ill, but some just can't scrape up the money for a ticket to the concert of life.

Again, we are geting back to the *I* factor that was pointed out previously.

You are not guaranteed the right to have your own broadcast station. You ar not guaranteed the right to a "revenue stream" for your own business. You are not guaranteed a right to things just because you want them.

Do I wonder why people become pirates? Not at all. I understand it. Just like I understand why people want race cars and big boats.

Remember, when espousing the wonders of pirate operators, don't forget to include the ego factor.

You would make a more valid point if you were to say people have a right to health care, resonable housing and food (although many would argue that.)...than you would be to say that people have a right to their own broadcast station.

Has the FCC handled their responsibilities well? People on BOTH sides of the fence will agree that they have not.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

[
You would make a more valid point if you were to say people have a right to health care, resonable housing and food (although many would argue that.)...than you would be to say that people have a right to their own broadcast station.

Has the FCC handled their responsibilities well? People on BOTH sides of the fence will agree that they have not.

I think you are overlooking some language in the constitution about what we refere to as "freedom of the press".

I don't know that most pirates really want to "OWN" the radio station. In a sense, _I_ don't first and foremost want to OWN a radio station..... what many of us want is ACCESS to the soap-box if you please. At the time our Constitution was composed it appears the pamphlet was the major method of communication and that form was to be protected by the language we today call "freedom of the press". I'm not sure how big a financial burden it was to a colonist who was the equivalent of what we today call "Joe Six-pack" but I don't think you had to have the kind of wealth it takes to go into business in competition with CC or Cox or Cumulus in order to publish and distribute some pamphlets back then.

I think that may be what this discussion is really all about. If I and a number of my friends are unhappy with the management of the public school system in our area, I think it is a reasonable extension of the constitution of the U. S. to say that the allocation of communication franchises should be done in such a way that we should have access to today's soap-box down in the village green. Not for free. There is no implied guarantee that we should be able to own it as opposed to renting it.

I'm being all inclusive here. Broadcast. Cable. Print. Meeting halls. Signage zoning. The telephone system. The Internet. Election campaign laws and financing.

 

[Keith321]

[
You would make a more valid point if you were to say people have a right to health care, resonable housing and food (although many would argue that.)...than you would be to say that people have a right to their own broadcast station.

Has the FCC handled their responsibilities well? People on BOTH sides of the fence will agree that they have not.

I think you are overlooking some language in the constitution about what we refere to as "freedom of the press".

Not at all. I just read it the way it is written.

There is a right of Freedom of the Press. But the Government do not guarantee that everyone will have their own press...even if they are expensive or in limited supply..

You must legally purchase one.

And, presses and paper are not in limited supply....and the spectrum is....like a national park...a government agency has been given authority to manage it.

Again, there are AM's being abandoned, there are part 15 broadcasters, there are LPFM's....

But there's no getting around the fact that some people want what is not theirs.

Like I want a home in Wellesley.....

If I and a number of my friends are unhappy with the management of the public school system in our area, I think it is a reasonable extension of the constitution of the U. S. to say that the allocation of communication franchises should be done in such a way that we should have access to today's soap-box down in the village green. Not for free. There is no implied guarantee that we should be able to own it as opposed to renting it.

Sure, go down the publlic green...post things on the internet...print up leaflets...start your own streaming radio station!

But,try going to the Superintendent of Schools office and causing a disturbance...and you'll be arrested. Just ask David Parker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Parker_controversy

As far as the village green goes....you might need a permit. The Courts have given city hall the right to require protesters to have permits....for reasons of safety, coordination, cleanup, accountability, etc., etc.

Rights are not absolute.

Your freedom of religion does not allow you to have 5 wives.

Your freedom of speech does not allow you to yell 'fire' in a theater.

Your freedom of assembly does not allow you to set up on the median of I-90.

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

read the Constitution again...

.. and you will see that the First Amendment says that Congress will not infringe on the
freedom of the press. This means that the government will not silence you. This means that
the press will not be a mouthpiece for the government, quoting the official party line, hook,
line and sinker. This means that you will not automatically be arrested (in some counties -
disappear, executed, etc.) for espousing an unpopular point of view in public.

This does not mean that you are afforded a soapbox solely because you want one!
Any legal types out there care to elaborate?

 

[argytunes]

The indignity of not being able to listen to whatever you want whenever you want on the radio. Now you know how it feels to be a minority.
[/quote]

This is why cd players as well as the ability to download your favorite music are alternative choices.

Since you cain't always get what you want---programming your own format...based on your musical taste is often a better choice! :

argytunes

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

Previous post, I meant COUNTRIES, not counties. Typo...

 

[ssetta]

It's very interesting you mention this, because I've actually been noticing this for a long time. You're right, you really won't have much luck putting a radio right next to a computer. In fact, I recently heard on WJIB an announcement regarding on how to get better reception on WJIB. They suggested to turn your computer completely off when not using it, because when most people "turn the computer off," it's not REALLY off, it's just in sleep mode, and so it will still emit the RF noise. And this is much more true with AM than it is with FM. Most stereo receivers, even from the 80s, really don't work very well on AM at all. But the problem is, you can't exactly do your work, or anything much, without the computer on, can you?