If we are going to regulate the airwaves, why not

[Leebo65]

Why not relegate half of the stations for educational purposes. For example, a language station where one can learn Spanish, French or Italian. Another could teach us US history, civics etc. Another Math and Science. Another English grammar. If people want to listen to music they can use there IPods and MP3 players. We could rewrite the FCC regulations where each licensee owns 2 Frequencies one for profit the other strictly for Educational purposes.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Why not relegate half of the stations for educational purposes.

I thought we already did this. 88.1 FM to 91.9 FM. Not half the stations, but plenty.

And they're running, by and large, the same automated crap the commercial stations are.

A number of these "educational" stations used to run programming such as you describe, but not anymore. Religious groups got a lot of money and bought up all the "educational" stations, except for some run by universities.

 

[TheBigA]

I think if you read the legislation for LPFM, you'll see that's one of the ideas. Some high schools have applied for licenses. Back in the old days, some educational stations used their frequencies during the day for instructional radio. The goal was to allow shut-ins and handicapped listen to classes without coming in to school. By the late 70s, it was determined this purpose was better served by SCAs.

 

[Leebo65]

I would love to hear lectures on history, science, mathematics, literature, anything... How much better as a people, as a nation if we used the airwaves to educate ourselves instead of listening to that mind numbing fodder the corporations put out to dumb down our intellect. We can do so much better. We can be so much better.

 

[TheBigA]

I would love to hear lectures on history, science, mathematics, literature, anything... How much better as a people, as a nation if we used the airwaves to educate ourselves instead of listening to that mind numbing fodder the corporations put out to dumb down our intellect. We can do so much better. We can be so much better.

You sound like the people who wrote the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Back in the early 60s, radio was pretty dull. Former FCC Commissioner Newton Minnow said what you just said. He got LBJ to agree, and they dedicated money and spectrum space to public broadcasting. All went well until Reagan pulled the plug on the money.

 

[Leebo65]

You sound like the people who wrote the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Back in the early 60s, radio was pretty dull. Former FCC Commissioner Newton Minnow said what you just said. He got LBJ to agree, and they dedicated money and spectrum space to public broadcasting. All went well until Reagan pulled the plug on the money.

I nor the public want tax dollars to do this. We rewrite the law simply "for each Frequency that you have a license you are provided another frequency in which you provide the means(transmission equipment and pay the overhead) for a pure educational broadcasts. Get your local College or University and School District to record class lectures and broadcast them. We waive the license fee and allow the business write off the cost of broadcasting on the frequency. This way half the Stations on the Radio Band will be educational.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Leebo65: What you are wanting to promote appeals to some people. Making it happen, making it happen in a way that it is self-supporting and in a way that results in attracting any listeners is kin the following act in a circus or night club act: 17 spinning plates on top of 5 foot tall poles.... sequentially placed across the bar of a swing in a trapeze act where the performer bounces up and down on a trampoline to tend to the spinning plates.

It's an act I might go see once in my life. But I would not show up daily for this act.

I remember programming that meets your specifications back in the 1960s. A also remember walking into an AM-FM operation back then where the AM was among the top rated in a top-30 market. Their FM was automated and was off the air that day. They explained that the engineer told management that it was going to take 48 hours to get the part and then he could make the repairs. After 48 hours there had been NO calls from listeners. ZERO. No one missed it enough to to ask when it was returning. By then management was muttering: "I'm not sure if I care if you ever get the thing back on the air." That FM was playing reasonably palatable easy listening music which was a more viable format than it would be today.

If a decently programmed music station can go 48 hours with to calls to report an outage, think of the overwhelming response that would arise if the lecture on middle European middle ages history failed to broadcast.

Now, I have poked a little fun at you. Truth be known, I may a little bit kin to you... or least your way of thinking. I think there should be some of what might be called "socially redeeming content" available on the airwaves. To whom does that task belong? You agree government shouldn't pay for it and then you seem to lay part of the expense at the feet of universities. Am I reading you right: you want each broadcaster to earn the commercial space they occupy in the spectrum by hanging on their back the expense of operation one "plate spinning on a stick" space in the spectrum.

Paint me a better picture of your dream. Put some meat on the bones. Explain a few more of the details. Tell me how it would differ from what the non-musical part of NPR is doing today.

 

[TheBigA]

We rewrite the law simply "for each Frequency that you have a license you are provided another frequency in which you provide the means(transmission equipment and pay the overhead) for a pure educational broadcasts.

Once again, that's what SCAs were used for. The problem is that colleges and universities don't have the money or time to supply the content any more. We've been there. We once got state funding to cover it. Now that money is gone.

I posted a story here about reading services for the blind. They exist in most states. They use SCAs or LPFM to broadcast the reading of newspapers and books to the blind. But they get special funding to cover some costs. The readers are all volunteers.

What I'd suggest are talking books. That way, you can hear the lecture you want on demand.

 

[gr8oldies]

Radio geometry lessons? Think that's a job for the internet.

 

[adma]

That FM was playing reasonably palatable easy listening music which was a more viable format than it would be today.

If a decently programmed music station can go 48 hours with to calls to report an outage, think of the overwhelming response that would arise if the lecture on middle European middle ages history failed to broadcast.

Though you seem to be forgetting about something: however "decently programmed", a "reasonably palatable easy listening music" format was/is still schlocky aural wallpaper by definition. It may have been a plaid-jacketed polyester radio vulgarian's notion of sophistication, but to equate it with something university-level will only elicit horselaughs. Aural wallpaper doesn't inspire listeners, nor does it breed inspiring listeners. Now, if we were talking about a serious classical or jazz station, things might be different in the "overwhelming response" category...but, easy listening?!? Give me a break. (And if we're talking about a public service such as the CBC in Canada; well, there probably *would* be--and even has been--a overwhelming response to the watering-down, elimination, and/or interruption of classical, jazz, lecture-based and other grey-matter-stimulating programming.)

Though when it comes to broadcasting lectures and stuff for "educational purposes" in whatever once-fantasized extension-of-the-classroom "Open University" way, one thing we're forgetting about here is that in 2009, colleges and universities are pretty plugged-in and technologically current. They don't really *need* radio anymore, any more than they need card catalogues, slide carousels, and other artifacts from yesterday's college-educational experience...

 

[jackandcoke]

The last thing--as in the LAST THING--the commission wants to get into is regulating content.

And, yes, PTBoardOp94, you've got it right--there are already channels, 88.1 to 91.9 on the FM band--reserved for this specific purpose.

Why, then, do we tune to those frequencies and hear damn-near everything but what we consider to be "educational" content? Because all of the thousands of licensees involved have their own interpretation of what "educational" content is. "Public radio" in all its forms--Morning Edition/ATC, Prairie Home Companion, Classical, Jazz, Folk, Alternative Rock(Alternative Rock?). Religious "preachers & "teachers" & Christian Contemporary & Christian Rock. Talk shows of every stripe. Trouble is, in the broadest sense of "educational," all of them can make a case.

The FCC long ago used to require licensees to specify program content. But once they realized what a quagmire it was, the regulators simply ignored it--even when the rules were still on the books. Then, as one of the earliest deregulatory measures, they junked it. The closest thing to it right now is the quarterly "issues & programs" summary stored in every station's "Public File."

And to get a full understanding of why the FCC doesn't want anything to do with programming content regulation anymore, just put yourself in their shoes for a moment or two. Who becomes the arbiter? You?

It's a headache with First Amendment Lawsuit written all over it!

 

[SirRoxalot]

Considering the number of people who have tuned in purely educational programming in the past, it would make a lot more sense to make the educational content available via podcast, and leave the broadcast channel for programming that has a much wider audience.

 

[Leebo65]

You'd be suprised how many folk would appreciate a few more Educational choice's on the airwaves. How expensive is it to record a volunteer reading a book....? Hell I'd do it. I did some Habitat for Humanity volunteer work why not read a book...? Why is this so complicated. The human mind is a naturally curious beast. Looking for thought provoking stimuli. Not that hard people.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The number of people who want to hear a volunteer reading a book is so limited that they're best served by a podcast, not a broadcast. The very idea of "broadcasting" is to attract a large audience. That type of programming has no track record of success. Not only that, but podcasts would allow people to select what lesson, what book, what article, etc. and play it back according to their own schedule rather than try to catch a broadcast at a given time.

In our market, we have a service called "The Radio Reading Service", staffed by volunteers, and designed to provide audio content of books and current publications to blind people. It was provided via the subcarrier of a local TV station, and people who wanted the service could get a free/very low priced receiver (based on income). They're about to close up shop for two reasons:

1. The TV stations needs its subcarrier back when they turn off the analog signal.

2. Software can now read text almost as well as humans, and the consumer has control of the pace, voice, and access to the content.

 

[kd8hho]

Why not relegate half of the stations for educational purposes.

I thought we already did this. 88.1 FM to 91.9 FM. Not half the stations, but plenty.

And they're running, by and large, the same automated crap the commercial stations are.

A number of these "educational" stations used to run programming such as you describe, but not anymore. Religious groups got a lot of money and bought up all the "educational" stations, except for some run by universities.

not only did the bible bangers buy all they could, they seem to be tossing as many "translators" in a city they can also. if anything needs regulated its the bible bangers and there frequency squatting they have done