Blogcritics Comments on The Fairness Doctrine

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:22:05 EDT

The problem with LPFM is that the licenses are hard to get. I doubt that pirate stations or amateur citizens like myself will qualify. They are aiming LPFM licenses at institutions, like charitable orgs, schools and churches. One of the requirements is that the applying institution have a two year history.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:12:30 EDT

Anyone can get a digital to analog converter for free or close to it. You can get 2 $40 vouchers from the Federal government (there's a website, I forget the URL, google for it). Each can be applied to a converter, available at electronics stores, Best Buy, Costco, etc. I've read reviews and they work quite well, better than the original analog, in fact. The best one I read of is $60 at the store so it would actually cost only $20. I recommend that anyone who ever watches TV get one. You'll like it. It'll improve your TV picture immediately.

Comment by Dave Nalle on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:11:23 EDT

Cindy, that bill from McCain et al. seems like a MUCH better way to address this issue than something like the Fairness Doctrine. I know there are pirate stations out there which would leap at the chance to get a legit frequency, and a lot of them are left-leaning or just run by college kids and tinkerers who want to communicate. A solution like this which gives us more freedom and more options rather than less is an example of government that works for the people rather than against them. Dave

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:18:13 EDT

"Cable has no such restriction because cable bandwidth is arbitrary." And it's carried on privately owned cable, not public "airwaves," thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for the FCC to assert jurisdiction.

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:08:11 EDT

The big difference, of course, Paulie, is that, while I often (nay, usually) disagree with bliffle, I respect his intelligence, experience, and scholarship. He's not a whacko, Paulie. Speaking of needling, paulie: "funnest" is not a word.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:53:47 EDT

The bandwidth monopoly is held by the FCC and it sublets portions as it sees fit. The Fairness doctrine and the obscenity controls resulted from that perceived monopoly. Cable has no such restriction because cable bandwidth is arbitrary.

Comment by Pablo on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:51:51 EDT

Clavy, I know I certainly do, like to disagree with you regardless of the position that you take, your the funnest guy on here to needle, and I thoroughly enjoy it!

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:39:24 EDT

"Analog TV is being elbowed aside for a variety of commercial and government applications such as Emergency Responder radio, not to sell receivers, which are just about being given away, anyhow." Not the digital TV receivers. And, although electronics usually decrease rapidly in price as sales volume goes up, you can bet the price of the digitals will not go down until the last Luddite like me has upgraded. I'm surprised, bliffle. you're usually the one who accuses the business sector of nefarious practices. I'm now more than ever convinced you simply like to disagree with me, regardless of the position I take.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:30:10 EDT

Channel bandwidth has not been reduced, but control of transmitted bandwidth has improved greatly, improving chances of using the guard bands for other purposes, which was originally intended for LPFM citizen broadcast. But they made the application rules so difficult that it's difficult for a citizen to qualify. It's not necessary to provide those bands for other commercial uses, like Muzak, since existing stations can accommodate that in narrow band sidebands, as they have been doing for years. Analog TV is being elbowed aside for a variety of commercial and government applications such as Emergency Responder radio, not to sell receivers, which are just about being given away, anyhow. Traditional TV broadcasters retain their bandwidth (tho the channel number may be changed, but then remapped by an intelligent receiver). Broadcasters take advantage of the increased program capability of digital (the result of computer compression/decompression techniques) to broadcast several logical channels within one physical channel. For example, KCSM, the College Of San Mateo public station broadcasts 43-1 (PBS reruns), 43-2 (MHZ Worldview international programs) and 43-3 (24/7 Jazz). They haven't even broadcast an analog signal in a few years since 43-1 also goes to cable. I think the local Asian-language station has about 6 subchannels. Incidentally, the HDTV picture is better on Over the Air (OTA) TV than on cable TV because the cable bums over-compress signals so they can jam even more commercial crap onto their little coax. Guys who switch between signal providers confirm this. I'm watching Wimbledon on OTA HDTV (NBC) at this moment and it's gorgeous!

Comment by Cindy D on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:57:45 EDT

RE#30 If the 'fairness doctrine' is about fairness in the media why doesn't it include ALL media such as television, cable, print, etc. Evert book needs and opposing view, every news article. Singling out certain types of media is unfair in and of itself, irregardless of whether you are left or right. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't need to apply to all media. Not all media have limited space. Television, cable and print media have virtually unlimited space. The idea of the fairness doctrine was originally to prevent the limited airwave space from being used to perpetuate a daily ongoing bias. If there were unlimited airwaves then all voices could be heard and there wouldn't have been any need for a fairness doctrine. That said, I am not very interested in the fairness doctrine. Instead, I would like to introduce anyone who doesn't know about it to the LPFM (Low Power FM) and its movement. This is a wonderful thing and will enable real diversity and community. I hope you will consider supporting it. Local Community Radio Act of 2007 (House Bill H.R. 2808/Senate Bill 1675) "Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain have introduced a Senate bill to authorize hundreds of local, noncommercial Low Power FM radio stations to communities across the country. A companion bill was introduced in the House. The Local Community Radio Act of 2007 would remove the artificial restrictions imposed on LPFM by a 2000 law passed at the urging of corporate radio giants and NPR, claiming that small community stations would interfere with the signals of larger stations. While these claims were debunked by a taxpayer-funded study in 2002, Congress has not yet acted on those results - denying many communities the opportunity to apply for LPFM stations. If passed, this bill will pave the way for educational groups, nonprofits, unions, schools and local governments to launch new local radio stations across the country. Get additional details from the Prometheus Radio Project, and express your support for local radio by signing the online petition at ExpandLPFM.org."

Comment by Dave Nalle on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:24:01 EDT

If the 'fairness doctrine' is about fairness in the media why doesn't it include ALL media such as television, cable, print, etc. IF they bring the fairness doctrine back, the first target after talk radio would be internet and bloggers. There have already been proposed bills to limit freedom of political expression on the interenet under the equal time provision and under some of the campaign finance reform law provisions. The intent to censor free political speech is very clear and goes far beyond just radio or TV. Dave

Comment by Dan Miller on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:20:41 EDT

Biffle, In places like New York City and Chicago, all or most of the available spectrum for radio and TV has been taken up, because there are very many stations. There simply is no room for more stations because adding more would cause RF interference to existing stations. There is no "monopoly," and hardly any oligopoly which could be ameliorated by adding new spectrum. To the extent that there is monopoly power, I submit that it is mainly due to the FCC's gross relaxation over the years on multiple ownership -- one entity can own a bunch more stations in the same place than formerly. Not a good thing, in my opinion. Finding a way to add new stations would not reduce "monopoly" power because licensees of existing stations would eventually get the newly authorized stations. Joe Blow, having no station, might get the construction permit and might even construct a new station. But, in a few years he would find that he couldn't compete, and would sell out to a multiple owner. In other places, West Sweet Jesus, Georgia, for example, there are probably only a few (if any) radio stations and probably no television stations because it would not be worthwhile to construct and operate them. There may be allocations for such places, and some of them may well be lying fallow. If there are no allocations for them, anyone can file a request for a rule making proceeding to provide an allocation. If the FCC does modify the table of allocations, any qualified person can apply for a construction permit. As to TV going digital, the Congress seems to want it to happen and it has been mandated. It is rather an expensive undertaking for television stations as well as for people who want to get the benefits of better video. The video quality is quite a bit better than under the analog technical standards adopted many decades ago when TV was in its infancy. Subsidizes are being provided so that people who don't want to or can't spend the money for HDTV receivers can buy inexpensive converters and continue to use their old TV sets. The conversion will, of course, also make possible the use of spectrum for other purposes, most likely data transmission. Dan

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:18:02 EDT

BTW analog is being pushed off the air mainly to sell more receivers; both now, and in the future.

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:16:20 EDT

"The total spectrum for FM is about 87-107 mhz, as it has been for about 60 years." True, but signal bandwidth has been considerably reduced, as has "bleed over" between frequencies, by advances in technology, thus enabling far more broadcasters to share the same amount of spectrum; to the point where other signals from other services are now "sandwiched" in between stations on the public frequencies.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:27:23 EDT

"...there is plenty of spectrum for radio and television use,.." No. Lack of spectrum is the reason that analog TV is being pushed off the air: to release the spectrum to other uses. The total spectrum for FM is about 87-107 mhz, as it has been for about 60 years. And within the FM spectrum the FCC still allocates guard bands between full power broadcasters. The same caps exist for total number of broadcasters in an area. The price of FM stations is over $100million in this area, which is its monopoly value, not the value of studio and equipment.

Comment by Dan Miller on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:01:32 EDT

Biffle, Back in (as I recall) 1972, I attended a National Association of Broadcasters' convention, where technology was showcased. I recall seeing there my first high definition television. It was quite impressive. However, it required either two or three TV channels. Over time, technology improved and now quite a lot less than even one standard channel is needed for HDTV; quite a lot of spectrum within a given channel is available for data transmission and other purposes. HDTV receivers are on the market, and the benevolent Congress has mandated subsidies so that people unable to afford HDTV receivers can buy decoders, without which they would probably no longer be able to receive any television signals. The date for cessation of analogue television broadcasts keeps being extended, but I understand that the end is in sight. FM sidebands are also available for use by FM licensees; they can be and are used for normal programming as well as data transmission. The FM table of allocations was dramatically expanded in the late 1980s, permitting lots of new FM stations. There was a mad rush to get them, but the process was complicated and expensive and many applicants dropped out. Some folks who got construction permits didn't deem it economically worthwhile to build. There was also a flurry of low power television station applications, but little came of the idea largely due to programming costs. AM is a different kettle of fish. Unlike FM and TV transmission, which are line-of-sight and reasonably uncomplicated, AM transmission involves all sorts of variables beyond power, antenna height and terrain. Some AM frequencies are reflected differently than others by the ionosphere, and there is no table of allocations. Each case is different from an engineering perspective. My point, assuming that I have one, is that there is plenty of spectrum for radio and television use, and that quite a lot of it is lying fallow. Scarcity, once a valid basis for the "fairness" doctrine, is no longer much of a justification. As to the soap manufacturers and others, I don't understand your point. Borax (does it still exist? I don't know) can buy all the advertising it wishes on radio, TV, cable, the internet, and other media without displacing competitors. This is even more the case since the FCC, in its infinite wisdom, dropped limitations on the number of minutes of commercial time allowed per hour and the NAB code, which imposed commercial quantity limitations on member stations, was found in violation of the antitrust laws and abandoned. Even "public" radio can carry substantially unlimited "institutional announcements" which sound a heck of a lot like commercials to me. I should add that I ceased practicing communications law back in mid 1996 and haven't lived in the U.S. since then; some of the stuff above may therefore be well out of date. If so, I hope and trust that you will be kind enough to point out my errors. Dan

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:39:39 EDT

There's some truth to that since modern modulation techniques have expanded channel opportunities with encryption and compression techniques (that's what makes Cellphones and home wireless computer systems possible). But it's not practical for ordinary FM (and TV) receivers because the old ones don't have the capability to demodulate such complex signals. Until the happy day that modern FM receivers have that capability, we have to consider the broadcast spectrum as limited to about what we have now. The big hope for standard broadcast channel expansion is to use the "guard bands" between existing FM stations. That would about double FM spectrum, but it makes the FCC uneasy because it increases the possibility of channel-channel interference caused by faulty transmitters. That's why they want to make them low power. There are certainly enough channels available for any Soap Manufacturer to get their message across to potential consumers. They should be happy but they are not because they want to dominate the airwaves so that no one can escape the message. So it's not about opportunity it's about domination and power. By monopolizing the airwaves a vendor can crowd competition out of the public arena.

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:45:41 EDT

One other point: With the advent of digital broadcast technology, as well as other advances in RF broadcasting, the scarcity of the "airwaves" (a misnomer; what actually was scarce was the availability of frequencies on which to broadcast), is no longer an issue. Frequencies are not infinite, but they are also no longer scarce. The actual reason the the FCC was originally given authority to regulate over-the-air broadcasting was because the "airwaves" were considered to belong to the "people," and thus, to be regulated by the government on their behalf.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:18:44 EDT

Please spare me. RDP is not worth reading, let alone re-reading.

Comment by Dan Miller on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:31:48 EDT

Biffle, In my comment #17, I said, "I agree that All commercial content should be prohibited in the broadcast media." That seemed to be your position; if I misspoke, I apologize. As to Reductio Ad Absurdum, yep; that's what I was doing. You might want to (re?)read comments #30, 31 and 32 on this thread. Dan

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:21:59 EDT

Dan Miller mistakenly advances "I agree that All commercial content should be prohibited ..." in a misfiring attempt to refute the premise by a Reductio Ad Absurdum in the consequent. But he only succeeds in demonstrating the shallowness of his own considerations. The reason for disallowing commercial ads on the airwaves is because the spectrum is a scarce resource and thus easily capable of monopoly domination. It is not because ads are foolish or immoral, though, of course, they may be. YMMV.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:09:56 EDT

Also, for example with cable TV, the FCC has no authority because the signals are confined to the cable and not broadcast into the scarce spectrum. The FCC is not in the general business of morals enforcement, and only gets into it thru the backdoor with broadcast TV/radio because of the monopoly situation. It's a sort of fairness problem.

Comment by bliffle on The Fairness Doctrine

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:41:09 EDT

RDP asks: "If the 'fairness doctrine' is about fairness in the media why doesn't it include ALL media such as television, cable, print, etc." Because the airwaves are a limited resource and so the gov licenses a limited monopoly. A monopoly can't be broken independently. It's the obligation of creating a monopoly that you have to take all comers. A book, for example, is different. If I have an opinion different from that of some published book then I can also write a book and publish it. It isn't necessary to require that the original author allow room for my views in his book.

Comment by RDP on The Fairness Doctrine

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:08:09 EDT

Clavos (post 31), what are you talking about? I was merely commenting on the application of so-called 'fairness' in such a limited manner. If 'fairness' is the objective it should be applied across the board. What does that have to do with the exact text of any article regarding the 'fairness doctrine'. My comment is of a general nature. Is that not allowed? Are you one of those people who think they know everything and have to comment on every post? Sorry for stating my opinion, you can have your forum back now, I'll go somewhere else where free speech is okay. You can moderate your area now. People like you are highly irritating.

Comment by Clavos on The Fairness Doctrine

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:15:18 EDT

RDP, You apparently didn't read the article; the Fairness Doctrine is no longer in effect, but even when it was, there were good and sound reasons why it did not apply to all media. It's all explained in the article.