Telecommunications Act of 2006!

[gr8oldies]

Re: Hate the tracker, not the game

Definately. What automation and VTing cost was the "warm body" jobs..as in "we gotta have a body between midnight and 5am Sunday". I suppose someone could say that that tracker at your station needs to be in the chair for the whole shift, even if he's catching up on his reading, and someone else should be doing production, etc. We still have folks who want radio to be an old-school federal jobs program.

 

[gr8oldies]

"public service"

I have yet to find anyone on these boards who can give an example of what proghramming they would like to force radio stations to carry as part of their "public service" requirement. It's still "I don't care if you want to listen to your Smooth Jazz or CHR, dammit you're going to listen to this federally-mandated public service programming whether you like it or not, and you're not going to plug in a CD or turn on satellite radio to avoid it!" This isn't the 60s and no matter how high-minded you're purpose, I can turn you off before you can say "public interest, convenience and neccessity". No, I don't want you forcing the city council meeting on me, or the opera. Even a well-produced block program when I don't want to listen to it.

 

[Ed_Walker]

If Its Truly Local....

> I agree with point number one. As for point number two,
> define "local". A DJ sitting in a chair in the city of
> license talking? For how many minutes an hour and about
> what? Does that mean a jockless Jack station has to hire a
> DJ and have him or her talk for a minimum number of minutes
> per hour? So what if I have the receptionist run back to the
> studio and read the weather live twice an hour for the six
> hours then go back to automation? Remember, legal
> definitions have to be precise.

Yeah. If its truly local, then the recorded music that makes up..
what 90-95% of the hour should be locally-recorded too.

A song recorded in LA certainly isn't "local" content, except in LA.



>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> That's mostly true. Radios with VHF-TV capability can
> already tune there, but those are a minority. It would be a
> fairly simple matter to extend the tuning range of other FM
> radios, mainly because the asian FM band goes down to 76
> MHz. Circuits and tuner chipsets already exist that can
> tune down there so it would be a matter of altering the
> designs somewhat to make them tune all the way from 76 to
> 108 MHz, if they don't already.

These designs do already exist. Some years back, I went to Tokyo for business and brought back a small Aiwa boombox that tuned from 76 to 108 MHz.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> It's pathetic, really, when the simple minded must construe
> any attempt to safeguard the public interest as "socialism".

Thanks for an excellent post -- you expressed my feelings regarding Peppertree's post very effectively.

I'll just add a note that the reason that broadcasting is regulated to begin with is that broadcasters begged for regulation so that new stations couldn't just pop up on the air where ever and when ever they felt like.

For those who want to truly get away from that evil socialistic regulation and embrace the concept of deregulation, here's a few things that we would have to do to get there related to broadcasting:

1. Eliminate licensing completely. Anyone who wants to go on the air can do so...and if it causes interference to another station, tough. After all, interference standards are just another form of arbitrary regulation. Let the station with the biggest...transmitter win!

2. Eliminate copyright laws, which are also an artificial government constraint on the marketplace. Let's turn the IP marketplace into a free-for-all with folks taking and rebroadcasting what IP they can on the one hand, while the content producers flail about to find the appropriate anti-copy technology to provide them the protection that copyrights will no longer give.

3. Of course it is a given that any content standards must go. Obscenity and pornography? No problem. False advertising? Not the government's concern -- let's bring back the days of "Doctor" Brinkley advertising his goat gland operations. Slander and personal attacks? Let it go...who are we to have the government intervene. Payola and plugola? Yeah, you know...unrestrained market can handle it.

With these simple changes to our regulatory environment, we can truly enjoy a broadcast business that epitomizes the finest the laissez faire libertarian economics has to offer.

 

[954]

> 2. Eliminate copyright laws, which are also an
> artificial government constraint on the marketplace.

Totally wrong.

Libertarians feel strongly about individual rights.
Among these are property rights.
And this, of course, includes intellectual property.

> With these simple changes to our regulatory environment, we
> can truly enjoy a broadcast business that epitomizes the
> finest the laissez faire libertarian economics has to offer.

Except that Pep's view on this doesn't represent
a libertarian approach. More like a nihilist opinion.

Pep said If the airwaves belong to the "public,"
than I would like to sell my share. I am a US
citizen and part of the public, and I choose to opt out.

Someone please give him 25c rent for his 1/300,000,000th
of the EM spectrum, so he will shut up.

73s from 954

 

[Drew5164]

> Hell, while we give the airwaves to the broadcast companies....

I don't recall an instance where the "Airwaves" were "Given" to broadcasters.
The licenses, legally obtained, are an expensive proposition. Like it or not the airwaves are sold or leased -if you like - for a particular period of time for a particular marketplace by the government to private enterprise. The lease, known as a license, is not just handed out like cheese on the first Thursday of the month.

 

[flip_flop_fly]

> Thanks for an excellent post -- you expressed my feelings
> regarding Peppertree's post very effectively.
>
> I'll just add a note that the reason that broadcasting is
> regulated to begin with is that broadcasters begged for
> regulation so that new stations couldn't just pop up on the
> air where ever and when ever they felt like.
>
> For those who want to truly get away from that evil
> socialistic regulation and embrace the concept of
> deregulation, here's a few things that we would have to do
> to get there related to broadcasting:
>
> 1. Eliminate licensing completely. Anyone who wants to go
> on the air can do so...and if it causes interference to
> another station, tough. After all, interference standards
> are just another form of arbitrary regulation. Let the
> station with the biggest...transmitter win!
>
> 2. Eliminate copyright laws, which are also an artificial
> government constraint on the marketplace. Let's turn the IP
> marketplace into a free-for-all with folks taking and
> rebroadcasting what IP they can on the one hand, while the
> content producers flail about to find the appropriate
> anti-copy technology to provide them the protection that
> copyrights will no longer give.
>
> 3. Of course it is a given that any content standards must
> go. Obscenity and pornography? No problem. False
> advertising? Not the government's concern -- let's bring
> back the days of "Doctor" Brinkley advertising his goat
> gland operations. Slander and personal attacks? Let it
> go...who are we to have the government intervene. Payola
> and plugola? Yeah, you know...unrestrained market can
> handle it.
>
> With these simple changes to our regulatory environment, we
> can truly enjoy a broadcast business that epitomizes the
> finest the laissez faire libertarian economics has to offer.
>

Thank you for the kind words.

When you mentioned Dr. Brinkley, something in my memory clicked. After a little searching, I learned that Dr. Brinkley was denied renewal of a broadcast license to push his goat gland cures in 1930, during the Presidency of Herbert Hoover, not FDR.

The agency that denied Brinkley's license renewal was the precursor to the FCC, the Federal Radio Commission, which was formed after passage of the Radio Act of 1927, during the reign of that radical socialist, Calvin Coolidge. The FRC was created to regulate radio use "as the public convenience, interest, or necessity requires."

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

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> Totally wrong.

> Libertarians feel strongly about individual rights.
> Among these are property rights.
> And this, of course, includes intellectual property.

I'd still argue that copyrights (and all IP rights) are essentially a government construct -- the government as chosen to define certain artistic/intellectual creations as property for an arbitrary period of time, while deciding that other (nominally similar) ideas are not similarly worthy of protection. That these are not "natural" rights, but rather government-defined, is best illustrated by the quagmire that copyright law has become...where huge debates and legal battles can be centered around whether or not a particular idea/invention is "obvious" or not.

And, no, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't protect IP. I believe that government-granted IP protection (whether patents or copyrights) for a limited period of time serve a valuable person in encouraging innovation to the betterment of society. But I think that any recognition of IP rights is something that is a government construct...and the debate should be over how to fairly balance the interests of individuals, companies, and society as a whole. I think it is also useful to recognize that this isn't necessarily an easy task, and the answers aren't always simple ones...

> Except that Pep's view on this doesn't represent
> a libertarian approach. More like a nihilist opinion.

I'll grant this distinction as being a good point -- the loose collection of viewpoints generally labelled as being on the right are no more monolithic than is the case with the left. And since I get annoyed with those who label any regulation or liberal idea as being "socialistic", it isn't fair to turn around and apply blanket labels on the right.

More than anything else, Pep's views on broadcast regulation just impress me as being poorly thought out. Sadly, that is a common problem...and at levels far higher than any of us. After all, we've seen lots of bad policies supported by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

 

[jegrant]

Re: "public service"

> I have yet to find anyone on these boards who can give an
> example of what proghramming they would like to force radio
> stations to carry as part of their "public service"
> requirement.

Hmm. Okay. No "block" programs necessary, unless station format (i.e. NPR) lends itself to that.

Why couldn't a modern definition of "public service" include things like coordinated public health campaigns (including PSA spots on air, live remotes from local health fairs), short interviews with popular artists on various social / political topics, and the like? Another thought is encouraging stations to carry things like local high school sports games as online streams / HD subchannels.

(I realize some stations do some of these things already. I am not necessarily saying that a new law should exactly prescribe certain programming / activities for public service. Maybe just a percent of revenue set-aside for public interest activities that are either integrated with regular programming or at the very least, are promoted by spots run during regular programming. )

In fact, if stations didn't want to do a lot of work with their PI set-aside, they could just donate it to a non-profit that supports either independent musicians or local school music programs, and use the PSA spots mentioned to promote the group or its activities.

Some public radio stations like KCMP, KCRW, and KEXP that may already be playing local artists could count that as part of their PI obligation. Particularly if they also give those local and/or independent musicians regular opportunities to perform or be interviewed in studio or at station events. Commercial stations willing to do these types of activities could also count them toward a PI obligation.

I mean, BBC Radio 1 seems to do some interesting enough public service, and it is integrated throughout their programming. Not shoved into a half-hour on Sunday morning. (Admittedly, I guess the "Sunday Surgery" could count as block programming. But they seem to have made it into something that fits the station and is sought out by at least some listeners.)

 

[954]

I enjoyed and agreed with your whole posting -- almost.

Following is one small correction/suggestion.

> > Except that Pep's view on this doesn't represent
> > a libertarian approach. More like a nihilist opinion.
>
> I'll grant this distinction as being a good point -- the
> loose collection of viewpoints generally labelled as being
> on the right are no more monolithic than is the case with
> the left. And since I get annoyed with those who label any
> regulation or liberal idea as being "socialistic", it isn't
> fair to turn around and apply blanket labels on the right.

Libertarianism isn't on the right or on the left.
Although it includes fugitives from both extremes!
(And liberals often don't understand that it is quite
different from conservatism.)

Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- and tell us
how you rank.

> More than anything else, Pep's views on broadcast regulation
> just impress me as being poorly thought out. Sadly, that is
> a common problem...and at levels far higher than any of us.
> After all, we've seen lots of bad policies supported by
> politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

I guess so...

73s from 954

 

[davideduardo]

Re: "public service"

>
> Why couldn't a modern definition of "public service" include
> things like coordinated public health campaigns (including
> PSA spots on air, live remotes from local health fairs),

Many stations do this already as it is good programming for adult demos.

> short interviews with popular artists on various social /
> political topics, and the like?

That assumes the artists are accessable (gnerally they are if they are able to plug a CD, but not to chat) and that they are intelligent. I really want Britney talking about social issues... right!

> Another thought is
> encouraging stations to carry things like local high school
> sports games as online streams / HD subchannels.

In the markets that can, today, afford HD there are dozens if not hundreds of High Schools. This would only work in smaller markets, where they already do this.
>
> (I realize some stations do some of these things already. I
> am not necessarily saying that a new law should exactly
> prescribe certain programming / activities for public
> service. Maybe just a percent of revenue set-aside for
> public interest activities that are either integrated with
> regular programming or at the very least, are promoted by
> spots run during regular programming. )

You do know that, historically, around half of all US stations have not made money? THis goes back to the FCC financial reports of the late 50's in fact.

If we want HD to work, don't saddle it with additional expenses. If we do that, no station will build HD installations.

> Some public radio stations like KCMP, KCRW, and KEXP that
> may already be playing local artists could count that as
> part of their PI obligation. Particularly if they also give
> those local and/or independent musicians regular
> opportunities to perform or be interviewed in studio or at
> station events. Commercial stations willing to do these
> types of activities could also count them toward a PI
> obligation.

Playing local artists is not a public service, and has never been considered one. It generally means playing sub standard music. Good local artists become national artists. Radio is not in the recond buisiness, and it is not radio's job to promote artists.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Re: Telecommunications Act of 2006! (mostly off-topic)

> Libertarianism isn't on the right or on the left.
> Although it includes fugitives from both extremes!
> (And liberals often don't understand that it is quite
> different from conservatism.)

That was a simplification on my part, since libertarianism (the philosophy, as opposed to the party) often does get lumped in with various conservative philosophies for whatever reason. And I've personally encountered more self-declared libertarians who vote Republican than Democratic -- which apparently suggests the folks that I've encountered tend to prioritize economic issues over social issues. But certainly I've also seen some notable evidence of the difference, such as Libertarian turned Republican congressman Ron Paul being the only Republican in the Texas congressional delegation to vote against teh constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage last year. As relates to broadcast issues, I would expect differences to show up in conservatives versus libertarians on issues such as indecency regulation and mandated copy protection technologies (ie, the "broadcast flag").

> Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz --
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html -- and tell us
> how you rank.

As I expected, I show up as "left liberal" (70% on social, 20% on economic) in the quiz. That reflects the fact that I tend to be liberal on social issues but also feel that we've gone too far to the right on economic issues in the past 25 years. 25 years ago, I would have probably scored closer to the center on those issues...but the center has moved significantly in the intervening years.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Re: "public service"

> That assumes the artists are accessable (gnerally they are
> if they are able to plug a CD, but not to chat) and that
> they are intelligent. I really want Britney talking about
> social issues... right!

One could argue that *not* letting Britney talk about social issues would be a public service?

 

[954]

Re: "public service"

> > That assumes the artists are accessable (gnerally they are
> > if they are able to plug a CD, but not to chat) and that
> > they are intelligent. I really want Britney talking about
> > social issues... right!

The less entertainers speak about non-entertainment issues,
the more the public is served.

> One could argue that *not* letting Britney talk about social
> issues would be a public service?

A PSA for seat belts by Britney?

Maybe Teddy can do something about drunk driving.

And of course Jocko could speak on plastic surgery.

The possibilities are limitless!

73s from 954

 

[peppertree]

Just as they mandate formats in Canada. It is a dangerous power to give to the FCC to regulat formats.


> Simple solution:
>
> Mandate that ALL "networked" religious broadcasters move to
> those channels, especially the thousands of translators.
> Then, re-assign their present channels to commercial and
> non-commercial locally-oriented broadcasters. Outlaw any
> group holding more than, say, two licenses anywhere from the
> freed-up channels.
>
> That'd rush availability of radios that would tune those
> channels! The already converted would not only rush out to
> buy them at any price, but would mount fund-raisers to buy
> radios for those not fortunate enough to have the money to
> "hear the word".
>
<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>

 

[Shawman]

> > It's pathetic, really, when the simple minded must
> construe
> > any attempt to safeguard the public interest as
> "socialism".
>
> Thanks for an excellent post -- you expressed my feelings
> regarding Peppertree's post very effectively.
>
> I'll just add a note that the reason that broadcasting is
> regulated to begin with is that broadcasters begged for
> regulation so that new stations couldn't just pop up on the
> air where ever and when ever they felt like.
>
> For those who want to truly get away from that evil
> socialistic regulation and embrace the concept of
> deregulation, here's a few things that we would have to do
> to get there related to broadcasting:
>
> 1. Eliminate licensing completely. Anyone who wants to go
> on the air can do so...and if it causes interference to
> another station, tough. After all, interference standards
> are just another form of arbitrary regulation. Let the
> station with the biggest...transmitter win!
>
> 2. Eliminate copyright laws, which are also an artificial
> government constraint on the marketplace. Let's turn the IP
> marketplace into a free-for-all with folks taking and
> rebroadcasting what IP they can on the one hand, while the
> content producers flail about to find the appropriate
> anti-copy technology to provide them the protection that
> copyrights will no longer give.
>
> 3. Of course it is a given that any content standards must
> go. Obscenity and pornography? No problem. False
> advertising? Not the government's concern -- let's bring
> back the days of "Doctor" Brinkley advertising his goat
> gland operations. Slander and personal attacks? Let it
> go...who are we to have the government intervene. Payola
> and plugola? Yeah, you know...unrestrained market can
> handle it.
>
> With these simple changes to our regulatory environment, we
> can truly enjoy a broadcast business that epitomizes the
> finest the laissez faire libertarian economics has to offer.

No one said there should be no regulation, but like most socialists, you can not resist letting the government take control of everything.

The FDA should regulate food safety, but not the price of the food.

The FAA should be involved in Air Traffic issues, but not how many flight are offered.

The FCC should regulate frequency allocations, but not what is programmed on your stations.

Hell, your pizza is delivered via the public road ways, so should the government approve your toppings?
>

 

[Shawman]

> >
> > 4. Studios must be in the COL or within a reasonable
> > distance, and always in the same county.
>
> That is absurd. Many of the smallest radio stations, the
> ones that make nearly no money, are quartered at the
> transmitter site. Often this is not in the COL, and can
> frequently be in a different county... county lines are not
> a definition of a community, and thousands of US towns and
> cities straddle county lines.
> >
> > > If you are forceing "real public service" and Local
> > > programming as mention in a previous post, then you
> better
> >
> > > force people to listen to the stations as well. When can
>
> > we
> >
> > Given the choice between listening to Madonna


> > and listening to the Mayor, Madonna will win
> > every time. So why not eliminate all news and
> > all local content from radio and TV.
>
> There are listeners for this programming, but not everyone
> wants news all the time and on every station. Stations that
> provide a nice blend of music are serving listeners, too.
>
> > Clear Channel could VT pop and rock and urban
> > pabulum content all over the country on all
> > their channels -- and no local employees
> > would be required except some geek old
> > fogey to sweep the floor and maintain the
> > transmitter.
>
> Except that Clear Channel knows that the music mix that will
> win in each market is locally produced and researched and
> programmed.
> >
> > Without public service and local content,
> > radio is no better than CDs.
>
> Most people do not want public affairs and could care less
> where the studio is. ratings and research over the last 4 or
> 5 decades have proven this amply. Do you really think that
> in this era of iPods and music on demand that anyone will
> sit through a public affairs show they don't want to listen
> to?
>
> There will always be a segment that wants news and
> discussion. If they are numberous enough, a station will
> serve them. If not, there is no loss as nobody would ahve
> listened anyway.
>
Right... Don't you see, the people who have the most to lose if a station is unsuccessful is the station owner. Some of you guys act like CC and CBS are going out of their way to NOT give the public what it wants. Thats crazy.

And this public airways argument has to go away. The local hobby shop in your town probably uses the public sewer system, so should the local govermenet tell the owner what kind of model airplanes it should carry?

If a broadcaster airs too many obscenities, not enough local news, the wrong music, the public will hem them know by changing the dial, then the money goes away, and the broadcaster changes or goes out of business. This is true if it's a small family run station or Clear Channel.

 

[KMRichards]

> The FAA should be involved in Air Traffic issues, but not
> how many flight are offered.

Does that simplistic argument take into account that the number of flights offered to and from any specific airport is limited by air traffic issues, and therefore the FAA does, by regulating the latter, is also indirectly regulating the former?

To bring this back on-topic, the parallel is that the FCC, by regulating the technical issues that determine how many stations can co-exist in a given area without interfering with each other, coupled by the relaxed ownership rules, is indirectly creating a limit on competition.

I'm not saying the Canadian model is where we should be, but shouldn't there be some kind of regulatory control that promotes more creative programming?<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[KMRichards]

> And this public airways argument has to go away. The local
> hobby shop in your town probably uses the public sewer
> system, so should the local govermenet tell the owner what
> kind of model airplanes it should carry?

Your comparison is flawed because the laws of physics apply to radio frequencies as being a limited resource. A sewer system, if used to capacity, can be rebuilt for more capacity. If radio frequencies are used to the maximum capacity, you cannot create more of them.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>