Is the FCC a bunch of Morons?

[clouseau]

I start this topic in an equitable and fair way. Now while this COULD be posted in the FCC policy forum, it strikes me there are a few opinions about it here. Especially in regard to HD and Digital radio. I'll opine with the following.

I find all the time that the FCC is held up to much abuse and ridicule in this forum. There are folks that think they have completely blown it with AM HD. (A lot of those folks) there are folks that think they have blown it with FMHD. (Not as many of those). Now they're (The FCC) being called out for the DTV conversion, Their handling of the Great Translator Invasion, Their crazy Digital rules vis a vie FM translators (OK only Chuck and I care about that here) and their ownership revisions. Many have expressed their feelings that the FCC is a "LAPDOG" for the broadcast industry. IMHO that's not "NECESSARILY" a bad idea. It does call into question the wisdom of broadcasters themselves, though. Are we our own worst enemy?

In regards to IBOC/HD, the FCC did what the majority of broadcaster interests wanted. By "Majority" I mean "IF every radio station got one vote per listener" then I believe a "Majority" of votes wanted it. Not exactly the way we vote for government, but there is a validity to it.

Most of the people who think the FCC is doing a lousy job seem to be from the "Old School" of broadcasting. Not that that's a bad thing. Just an observation. It's been MY observation that the way rf is looked at has changed. A lot. Some for the better. Maybe some not.

We've had TV drop in channels. LPTV. Docket 80-90. LPFM. DTV HDAM. HDFM. Most would state at least some of these are good ideas. Or ARE THEY?

TV drop ins gave us more interference on the fringe. LPTV? I have a permit for one and I'm not sure I'm even going to build it. This based on the fact I know more people who own HD radios than watch OTA TV. "If an LPTV causes interference and no one notices does it really happen?"

Docket 80-90 certainly gave us more local radio. More NON-VIABLE local radio. 80-90 caused station to be built that made no sense. This caused us to encourage the "Maximization of facilities" to cover more ground. Then we moved the transmitter halkfway to the next big city and basically left town. When I moved here in 1980, 6 stations, which were licensed to little towns around Corpus Christi, broadcasted from the base of their towers and actually had a Sales Office" in the city. Since then, 9 more "Suburban" stations have signed on. And a couple more in town. And all 17 of them now have no presence outside of Corpus Christi. And the funniy thing is, there's fewer actual addresses of radio stations than when there were when there we so few stations. Now there as many as six to a building. Clearly somewhere this went wrong.

Do broadcasters need the FCC to save them from themselves?

Or is the FCC just a bunch of morons?

I should have thought this out before posing the question, but that other thread got me to wondering. More later. What do you think?

Clouseau

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Thank you for posting something that is not a screaming, one-sided diatribe.

Good reading to follow up your essay is one in the current TIME magazine (01/12/09) by James Poniewozik: "Mediapocalypse Now. I could not find it indexed yet on the Internet to offer a link.

All of us who participate in the discussion at Radio-Info about radio like it used to be vs. radio like it should become ought to read Poniewozik each time just before we post!

A throwaway quote, not part of his trail of logic: Journalists now read the business pages the way octogenarians read the obituaries." Wow!

 

[SUPERCASTER]

Link to an above quoted story:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869219,00.html

 

[Savage]

In answer to the subject line you posited: No. I don't think the FCC is a bunch of morons.

They are, however, typical government policy wonks. In other words - what one would expect from unelected low-level politician worker bees. And, parallelling the failures of government in all walks of life, self-perpetuating, aloof and out of touch with the realities of the industry it seeks to control.

The only antidote for the long list of shortcoming suggested by Clouseau's original post is to make sure that regulatory agencies like the FCC have ample leadership with expertise in the industry they govern. If the Commission staff or the actual Commissioners had actual radio experience, we might have gotten more informed decisions before Docket 80-90, HD and other questionable developments were foisted upon us with the typical government mandate to "make it work."

 

[landtuna]

Savage,

I wonder how much lobbyists affect the decisions made by the FCC? It would be easy for highly paid industry experts to baffle the well-meaning but technically challenged FCC worker bees. Not to mention congressional pressure applied through lobbyists there too.

It seems, instead of the FCC, what we need is a national "steering committee" of industry leaders which is not beholden to Congress to make the technical decisions affecting radio, terrestrial and satellite TV. Politicians tend to make a mess of things they don't understand and I doubt there are many technical experts in Congress.

 

[clouseau]

Well taken points on the operation of the FCC, Bob.

Now the post...
The following is all my opinion. Yours may vary. I can't help it if you're wrong.

I, too, believe they are fairly typical of government run agencies. I've speculated before if the entire agency is just "Too Big". Should we in fact return to the days of the FRC, with overall oversight of all things radio (Which of course would include broadcast TV). That would pull the whole cables, telephones, faxes and the like out of the picture. Frankly, they should be a technical agency, NOT a political one. They're not to decide content at all. Give that job to the Decency police (Whoever they would be). I would not change content rules, just who administers them. In order to get a license renewal from the FRC, you need an Okey Dokey From the content folks. They should be Non Intrusive. (Yeah Right)

There is a slippery slope here and we're beginning to experience it now. As there are more and more outlets, there becomes less and less resources diue to cost constraints. Perhaps hthere should be a formula allowing only so many stations per amount of population. Obviously there is a line somewhere. No one thinks "Everybody get's their own class "C" FM" is a good idea. We'd just need to find the line.

Since we need to limit the numnber of stations, the number of station any one person or entity can own should be limited as well. SEVERELY limited. I'd postulate maybe 2 of each service per owner per market. Maybe we shouldn't have multi market ownership at all. After all, as an owner, you are entitled to ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED GOVERNMENT SCARCITY. The alternative would seem to be "Allow all the sations anyone wants". That'll never work.

To slide back on the HD path for a moment, No one would care about even 20% HD injection if there was twice the room between stations. We're acting like there is a shortage of spectrum, and frankly, I just don't believe there is. There's a big allocation problem, though. And apparently broadcast is leading the way. With the broad adaptation of digital, maybe it's time to rework the whole thing. Of course that might have been a little easier before we made every TV station in the US rebuild their transmission system.

Clouseau

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We all come to this discussion with our own personal "baggage". Our philosophy of life. Our view of how the political system works. Our view of how the political system SHOULD work. Our own view of things we variously call faith, religion, view of things that extend beyond our national border or even beyond our earth.

clouseau: you initiated this post with a very provocative essay. Your latest response left me confused a place or two as I was not sure who or what was the object of some of your verbs.

Some at the FCC might say one of your purposes is achieved by having different bureaus within the FCC but I think you are onto something.

We need a different agency and commission for:

1. Utilities that just transport content. Phones. Satellite. Internet.

2. Content originators where in spite of our long held concept we do not want GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, we may be ready to at least discuss the idea that "content originators" must either have content rules, or must have some content competition. (There will be one audible national gasp as The Goat dares to suggest that some agency should consider the promises in the competing applications of Content Originators and make some kind of judgement about which content proposal would actually do something productive for community, society and civilization.)

I don't know what that would look like. I don't know how you would reduce it to enforceable law, rules and regulation. But I do know that we ought to talk about the possibility, and do it with civility. Not just on the R-I boards.... but as communities, societies and civilizations. If we are going to ask city councils and zoning boards to look with favor and sympathy on the idea of allowing neighborhoods to be cluttered up with transmission towers, They need to be able to explain to the neighborhood associations who are yelling: "Not in My Back Yard" what greater good will come from allowing that ugly monster to reside in their neighborhood.

Can you imagine as mayor of the town saying HOA reps: "Your life will be improved, and the future of your children will be improved when this tower makes it possible for Neil Boortz to say to some phone caller 'Go screw yourself' or Howard Stern to utter some vulgarity your junior high student hasn't heard before, or some rap artist to sing the glories of creating death and sexual subjugation." Of course, it may not be convincing if the mayor tries to explain that this particular tower will permit NPR to broadcast essays on "Why the music of Mozart is more compelling than the music of Bach."

If we are to continue down this road that the FCC must never give merits and demerits for the quality of program content, then broadcasting as we have known it, and as some of us would envision it next year and the next decade is DEAD. Give the spectrum to some public utility that will use it to make Internet access more affordable... or even free.

 

[Carmine5]

At the Congressional hearing over the issue of newspaper/broadcast property cross-ownership, I remember one former FCC staffer being interviewed who characterized the agency as "a little craven." We've seen this trait by how easy it often is for major broadcast entities to push their objectives through while citizen groups often find their petitions stalled.

Having spoken and written to staff at the FCC, my own impression is that they are just bureaucrats, mostly lawyer-types, whose sole function is to interpret and enforce the myriad rules and regulations that govern the airwaves.

They're not visionaries and, unlike ourselves, have little to no passion for broadcasting.

The FCC is also usually intractable. I often smile at some of these earnest but naive LPFM (and non-com) applicants whose application may be missing some information or an exhibit hoping the Commission will cut them some slack. Sorry. Next.

But to characterize the FCC staff or the Commission itself as "morons or moronic" is totally wrong and untrue.

C5

 

[clouseau]

clouseau: you initiated this post with a very provocative essay. Your latest response left me confused a place or two as I was not sure who or what was the object of some of your verbs.

My apologies for the lack of organization. I really don't profess to know all the details of what I'm leaning towards, so at times it gets disjointed.

There's a point made above about how if the "Content" should be seperated from the license, then broadcasting as we know it is dead.

It was suggested that "Content" be a large part of the equation. Great in principle, but I question it's practicality. In the license awarding process for LPFM now that exists. Applicants just say they will do one thing. And then do another.

I'm not arguing, just pointing out a reality.

Clouseau

 

[audioguy]

I deal with the FCC on a regular basis, and I have found them to be exceptionally well qualified, considerate, and helpful people. That said, the make-up of the FCC has changed over time. Its ranks today consist primarily of lawyers, economists, and policymakers rather than engineers (although there are a few left in the ET Bureau).

I do consider many of the policy decisions that were made in the past 10-20 years to have been deleterious to the radio listener, and thus the general public. We asked for consolidation-- we got it. We asked for HD radio-- we got that too. Often, these decisions were made in response to heavy lobbying efforts by radio's biggest trade association, the NAB; along with large corporations and group owners. The FCC is no different in this regard than any other Washington regulatory agency. If you are a big corporation or a powerful trade association, you will be heard. If you are a private citizen or a small business, you will have a difficult time even getting an audience. The bottom line is that the FCC has largely ruled in accordance with the expressed wishes of the industry, as expressed through its major trade organizations. If you don't like the results, what does that say about your representatives?

Although I wish there could be some way for the FCC to make decisions based on the quality or type of broadcast content, I don't see how this could ever be practical. Over in Europe, they call this a "beauty contest". My appreciation for Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms may be of no interest to you whatsoever. Listener supported radio is the only practical way to address this.

One thing the industry needs to do is to stop thinking about itself as being in the radio broadcasting business and realize that it is actually in the audio entertainment business. As such, how can radio make itself relevant, compelling, and attractive to the consumer? Not just today's listeners, but the ones to come (and also, incidentally, the ones who have already tuned out because they found the available offerings to be dull and boring). I still maintain that although technology is not unimportant, it is not as important as content. I've said it before and I'll say it again; people listen because there is something on that they want to hear, not whether it is being broadcast on AM, FM, or HD. Unless there is a reception problem.

As a broadcaster, how would your world change if one day you woke up and discovered that you had to compete with every other station on the planet? And all of those stations could be heard perfectly well by anyone, anywhere. No protected contours, no thunderstorms. No daylight hours. No barriers to entry. Heck, even a kid could join in and broadcast from his bedroom! Impossible? No, it's not. It's called wireless Internet radio. I believe it is coming, and that it will be here before very many more years.

 

[w9wi]

I deal with the FCC on a regular basis, and I have found them to be exceptionally well qualified, considerate, and helpful people. That said, the make-up of the FCC has changed over time. Its ranks today consist primarily of lawyers, economists, and policymakers rather than engineers (although there are a few left in the ET Bureau).

I might only add, that far too often I see people blame the FCC for the actions of others. Mostly, Congress. The Commission answers to Congress, and Congress can overrule the FCC if they (more likely, their lobbyists) don't like a Commission decision.

(notably, the decision to technically cripple the LPFM service by imposing 3rd-adjacent restrictions FCC staff engineers had shown unnecessary. It was not the Commission's decision to impose those restrictions -- Congress ordered them to. Not "sent the Speaker to have a talk with the Commission Chair", but enacted a public law to the effect of "the Commission *shall* enact limitations..."

I might suggest, that if the Commission had refused to sign off on IBOC, or had approved an out-of-band solution like Eureka, it is almost certain Congress would have overruled them.)

 

[KB1OKL]

Which begs a new question: Is Congress a bunch of morons? ;D

 

[TheBigA]

i posted this link under FCC Policy Debate. It's to a Newsweek story titled "Reboot The FCC:"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/176809

The untold story of the last 25 years is how government has changed. During the 80s, Ronald Reagan campaigned for smaller government. Under that mantra, lots of government agencies suffered funding cuts, the FCC among them. When Reagan left office, however, the government itself wasn't smaller. But lots of government agencies were smaller. In the years since, the government has continued to impose spending cuts on domestic agencies like the FCC. As a result, they've outsourced many of the engineering work that previously had been done internally. Audioguy is correct. The FCC is mainly lawyers and bureaucrats. Not engineers. Congress is worse.

The FCC is not unique in its inability to carry out its mandate. I just saw a story on CNN about how the FDA is in a tailspin. They approve drugs that don't work or have terrible side-effects. How could this be? Turns out they outsource all their work.

I know it's popular to believe broadcasters serve the public. But the actual public servants, the government employees, have fallen down on the job. And there are a lot fewer of them watching the store. It's partly why things are this way in broadcasting. We all know the speed limit on our area roads. But if we know there's no cop around, do we continue to drivce the limit? No way. Same way in broadcasting. And with a multi-trillion dollar deficite, don't expect to see the FCC get a budget increase any time soon.

 

[Tom Wells]

I suggested a few months ago that we need a Federal Radio Commission again.
Anything using radiated energy through electromaganetic waves would be their domain.

As others have stated, other functions should perhaps stay with the existing FCC policy and lawyer types who would
control content, wire and cable communications, internet and all telephone/cellphone matters.

And if the Congress is stupid enough to override decisions made by those who know best how to manage the technology, then yes,
the Congress is a bunch of morons.

In radio school, our instructors warned us about people who could pass tests but didn't truly understand what they were doing.
Perhaps the first visible cracks in the FCC were back in the 60's when the production line schools began teaching to the test for the 1st class ticket, and the FCC did not respond by making the examinations harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I have less and less respect for the FCC as time goes on and I witness wise methods bulldozed to make way for idiocy.
My dealings with the patent office (USPTO) were enlightening. There WAS no one who could understand the basic
premise in a class A amplifier, where DC coupling was imperative, and dismissed my application twice, citing prior art designs which were
NOT DC coupled. It was necessary for me finally to hire a patent attorney to argue that the matter was prematurely
dimissed, and I did prevail, winning 2 patents. But I was amazed that the examiner did not seem to know very much about electronics.

In a similar way, if the majority of the FCC is now law people in charge of an engineering-based technolgy bureau, it's working about as well as can be expected. Would you hire attorneys to fix your furnace? Repair your car? Design your airplane?
Why should we expect legal people to adequately regulate what they don't understand?

Physics and engineering are not "managed outcome" endeavors. Many people are not up to the task.

Perhaps it was also the fault of the Congress in letting the FCC take on too many responsibilities that ideally would have been
regulated by separate entitiies. If the FCC were still mostly engineeering types, I think radio would be healthier in many ways.

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps it was also the fault of the Congress in letting the FCC take on too many responsibilities that ideally would have been regulated by separate entitiies.

There is a possibility that the Obama team may suggest a new "technology agency." Everyone keeps looking at the FCC as the technology agency, but it really isn't. Of course, this doesn't help make government any smaller or more efficient, either. It's just another agency of bureaucrats to file papers to. And there's no guarantee that because they're in charge of technology, that they'll know what they're doing.

 

[clouseau]

There is a possibility that the Obama team may suggest a new "technology agency." Everyone keeps looking at the FCC as the technology agency, but it really isn't. Of course, this doesn't help make government any smaller or more efficient, either. It's just another agency of bureaucrats to file papers to. And there's no guarantee that because they're in charge of technology, that they'll know what they're doing.

For sure, Big A. A scary part of changing anything government-wise is that more often than not, you were better off before the change. Not always, but often times.
<opinion="on"> With the overall lack of integrity by humans a whole, every chance for "Change" is really just an opening for more corruption. <opinion="off">

You did see that Larry Flint is trying to get bailout money for the adult entertainment indusrty, right?

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Not that I agree with Larry Flynt about much, but you've got to give him credit. He DOES point out the absurdity of the recent tidal wave of federal bailouts. And the man may seem like a lowlife, but he certainly has a good sense of humor.

Maybe HD has a future in "adult audio entertainment!"

 

[tomservo]

Perhaps it was also the fault of the Congress in letting the FCC take on too many responsibilities that ideally would have been regulated by separate entitiies. If the FCC were still mostly engineeering types, I think radio would be healthier in many ways.

Total, vehement (nay, violent) agreement.

Lawyers should no more be in charge of "spectrum issues" than I should be running a wastewater treatment facility.

 

[w9wi]

(KB1OKL: I'm shocked you believe the question needs to be asked! )

There is a possibility that the Obama team may suggest a new "technology agency." Everyone keeps looking at the FCC as the technology agency, but it really isn't. Of course, this doesn't help make government any smaller or more efficient, either. It's just another agency of bureaucrats to file papers to. And there's no guarantee that because they're in charge of technology, that they'll know what they're doing.

It's not unusual in other countries for the functions of their "FCC" to be split among two agencies.

For example, in Canada if you wish to launch a new radio station, you must first receive conditional approval for your technical parameters from the Department of Industry. Once you have that assurance, you apply to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for a licence. The CRTC decides whether your application is the best use of the facilities (assuming competing applications) and whether you comply with non-technical rules. (like not having more than two co-owned stations on the same band with overlapping coverage)

Does that guarantee no political interference in technical decisions? Of course not... any such technical agency, on either side of the border, would answer to the legislature, would be subject to having its decisions overturned by the legislature, and after being overturned a time or two might learn that sticking to their guns on certain technical issues may be simply impossible. I don't see any evidence that's happening in Canada but I see nothing to prevent it.

But to a considerable degree it's impossible to divorce technical and political considerations.

For example, how do we define the "interference protected contour" of a FM station?

Right now, for most stations it's 60dBu. For the listener with a cheap "personal stereo" this is horribly wasteful. A station has to be at least 80dBu to provide a reliable signal to one of these things -- protecting a 60dBu signal only creates a hole in the dial where a new station with an interesting format could operate. For the listener with a Yagi on the roof, not protecting a 45dBu signal limits his choices -- allowing a closer-in station whose format duplicates something else to interfere with a distant station that has a unique format and would be perfectly listenable if not for the interference.

Any of the three figures - 45, 60, 80 - is perfectly valid from a technical standpoint, depending on the policy decision of how cheap of a receiver do you want to protect.

This is just one example.

_________________________________________________

WRT creating a "technology agency", one proposal that has been occasionally floated is to require somewhere between one and five Commissioners to have a degree in electrical engineering.

 

[clouseau]

For example, how do we define the "interference protected contour" of a FM station?

Right now, for most stations it's 60dBu. For the listener with a cheap "personal stereo" this is horribly wasteful. A station has to be at least 80dBu to provide a reliable signal to one of these things -- protecting a 60dBu signal only creates a hole in the dial where a new station with an interesting format could operate. For the listener with a Yagi on the roof, not protecting a 45dBu signal limits his choices -- allowing a closer-in station whose format duplicates something else to interfere with a distant station that has a unique format and would be perfectly listenable if not for the interference.

Any of the three figures - 45, 60, 80 - is perfectly valid from a technical standpoint, depending on the policy decision of how cheap of a receiver do you want to protect.

Well put. I have always been leary of bringing up on this board what the NAB already knows. The VAST majority of a station's audience is in the 70 dbu contour OR HIGHER. While I would not recommend it, I could see the 60 dbu limit raised. What I WOULD recommend is adopting it ACROSS THE BOARD, right now on FM. Right now we have 60 dbu, 58 bdu and 54 dbu, all in the same area. Doesn't make much sense to me. But that's because it is an arbitrary standard.

Clouseau