Good article.

This whole situation seems hilarious to me. The Left quite simply wants to muzzle right-wing talk radio. That's all this is about. There is no "fairness" about it.

Libs dominate the television news stations (ABC, NBC, CBS). Libs control most of the major newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, USA Today). Libs control most of the major news magazines (TIME, Newsweek) as well as the music/culture magazines (Rolling Stone, Spin).

The only area of the media where libs don't have the largest market share is talk radio. So, naturally, that's the really "unfair" thing that needs to be regulated by the government to ensure "fairness" ...

Of course, it's not as though there aren't any liberal talk radio shows. According to streamingradioguide.com there are actually more liberal talk radio shows than conservative shows (by a margin of 169-155). So it's not as if shows hosted by libs aren't available; it's just that almost no one wants to listen.

So the libs want to punish (conservative) success in order to be "fair" (to liberals), without regard for the free market. Typical.

RJs arguments are off base in a "typically" conservative fashion, but that's another argument.

The main reason that "liberal" talk radio doesn't do well, is that they tend to lower themselves to the Neanderthalic level of most of the conservative programs which is unpaletable to most of a liberal persuasion. The typical conservative discourse on talk radio is infantile at best. We "elites" don't cater to such bullshit.

Nevertheless, I do agree with Dan on this one. The so called Fairness Doctrine is archaic at best and unenforcable in any pragmatic sense.

But Dan, two things: I demand that you give equal time to the Camp Fire Girls - and remember its "either/or" and "neither/nor." ;-)

B-tone

"The main reason that 'liberal' talk radio doesn't do well, is that they tend to lower themselves to the Neanderthalic level of most of the conservative programs which is unpaletable to most of a liberal persuasion."

Not really, the reason is becuase with many media sources leaning liberal anyway there is no reason for an alternative in that vein. As a libertarian that is a very frustrating thing.

I don't know about other people but within a couple of paragraphs of reading an article or a few sentences of listening it is very easy to see which side of an issue a jounalist stands on. It comes through in word choice and phrasing like a bright flashing light. Sure, there's always the obligatory token counter to their main thrust of their story but again the counter argument is usually simplified and made to appear petty or weak if they support the issue. If it's an issue they reject the reverse is true.

Starting from that point it is easy to see that most jounalists lean to the liberal side. Perhaps it's all those required indoctrination courses at college, perhaps it's simply that people who take a liberal viewpoint are more apt to choose journalism as a field. I don't know why, I just know it is true anecdotally and through most studies of the issue.

I think the author's values are inverted. He states:

"It should not be the function of the Government to mandate the broadcast by commercial broadcast stations or other commercial media of programming in which there is insufficient interest to be commercially viable."

The broadcast spectrum is limited, and so the charter of the FCC has always specified that they are to be operated in the public interest. It is just not possible to let anyone anytime broadcast anything at all. Pirate radio would soon obliterate licensed radio. In fact, the 'commercial' broadcasters are the most vigorous supporters of anti-pirate radio.

The commercial operators see the spectrum as their private little playground (and so apparently does Dan Miller), but it was not always so. The creators of TV (Philo Farnsworth) and FM (Edwin Armstrong) envisioned their inventions as opportunities to bring the great writing and great music of human history to everyday people. Both of them were disgusted to see the inventions they worked so hard to create and build turned into the crass conveyances of mere consumer junk propaganda. Both were inspired by higher motives than, say, Dan Miller.

One can make the case that NO commercials be allowed in the broadcast band. Indeed, it is an easier case to make than the case against the Fairness Doctrine. Why should airwaves owned by the public be used for partisan commercial advertisements at all? Isn't that an unwarranted intrusion of commerce upon the public forum? And doesn't the manifestation of commercials represent a government choice between competing commercial interests?

Bush has earned every ounce of "anti dribble" he gets from whatever source.

When it comes to the MSM, with the exception of cable outlets - CNN, MSNBC and Fox I see little in the way of left leaning bias in most reporting. It is, rather, the predisposition of conservatives to assume the bias before they ever pick up the remote.

B-tone

"One can make the case that NO commercials be allowed in the broadcast band."

One could, but then no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself.

Either way, the government would have a major say as to the content being broadcast. Of course in the USA, the "Shining City on The Hill," this would not be a problem, for the benevolent, all-wise US government would ensure that all the arts and all peoples would be well represented on the airwaves, and we would all live happily thereafter.

The Messrs. Farnsworth and Armstrong were great engineers, but obviously not very astute observers of humanity if they "envisioned their inventions as opportunities to bring the great writing and great music of human history to everyday people."

The "everyday people" are, for the most part, not very interested in such things, as is obvious from the comparatively low audience ratings for NPR and other, similar outlets; they eat into their time available for viewing American Idol and Wheel of Fortune, while listening to pirated pop music MP3s on their Ipods.

What happened to the posts by JustOneMan? It seems that he was the only one presenting facts that support the issues of fairness and media bias...

Is BC really a left wing blog pretending to be "fair and balanced"?

Voice...I think your on to something! If you read this blog on a regular basis youll find the majority are typical holier than thou - liberal types...

As I suspect both "VoiceOfReason" and "Jammin" - who share an IP address - already know, JustOneMan is banned from this site for persistently abusing people.

Which begs the question:

Could Susie and Voice be JOM??

Inquiring minds want to know...

'Jammin', as Chris astutely observed, I'm probably wasting my time explaining this, but there is actually a fairly good balance on BC between 'conservative' and 'liberal' views - at least in the comments space. As far as the articles go, the right-wing writers seem to be a bit more prevalent and prolific, but there's no huge imbalance one way or the other. There's certainly no blatant editorial bias: no-one is shouted down or suppressed, unless - like VoiceOfReason Jammin JOM - they insist on being a complete dickhead even after a plethora of warnings about their conduct.

As far as reinstating the Fairness Doctrine goes, I agree that it has no place in a free broadcast market as long as it can be demonstrated that 'free' is actually what it is.

For instance, the BBC in Britain is a quasi-governmental organization. The potential for abuse of such a broadcaster is obvious, which is why it is granted a (renewable but not indefinite) charter by the government under which it is mandated to be politically fair and balanced. That's not to say it can't give politicians a hard time: it can and does daily. But it must do it on an equal basis. Although government ministers and MPs and toadies of the ruling party often whine that the BBC is treating them unfairly, what escapes their squirrel-sized brains is that the reason they are being given such a hard time is that they are in power, and as such deserving of journalists' greater scrutiny - whether said journos are employed by the BBC or anyone else.

It all balances out in the long term. Most of the national daily newspapers in Britain are conservative, but they also tend to know which way the wind is blowing. If the Tories look as if they will do badly in an upcoming election (kind of odd that that could ever happen with such an unfair balance of control over the minds of the populace, isn't it?), it's amazing how sympathetic those papers suddenly become to the views of the other parties.

The liberal bias states that no one should have any presidence over their personal persuasions. The sexual revolution of the 1960's has mushroomed into a culture that expects to see sex performed by a male and female in almost every movie and many TV programs. There is no longer any normal affection between men. Prior to 1960, if a girl got preganant in High School, she was forced to leave school in shame and dis-honor. Abortion was un-fathonable at that time in history. Birth control was newly discovered, as well as penicillin; both of which contributed to the new "morality". At that time, most couples decided not to get married when they shacked up together, largely because flagrant lusts and un-hampered promiscuity was actually spurned by the media. At that time in History, those ideas were attributed to the new left, or liberal dogma. The morrays and social disciplines prior to the 1960's were the inverse and extreme opposite of where they are in the new millenium. Color television and computers are responsible for introducing the pramatic dogma that persuaded society away from the established moral codes of the early industrial world. Radical new ideas in all aspects of life were promulgated by the media. They caught on, and many people now are living in moral and psychological disarray. Alcoholism is at an all time high; drug addiction is tolerated in the streets, augemented with drug paraphernalia shops in every city. There is a plethora of movies and TV shows centered around drugs and police. Crime is rampant in government and officials are being indicted and convicted in continuously growning numbers. Rarely can a man afford to keep a wife and family at home, divorce is over 50%, people are beginning to accuse the government of lying, women are proclaiming they don't need a man or husband to raise children. Business, especially telecommunications companies are guilty of fraud, and business executives are being jailed, etc, etc, etc. When it comes to con/serving, who's "con"ing whom? The social permissiveness that has grown out of the 1960's is now being examined and distained by a growing number of people. The avant gard of that era was considered the arch liberal. Now that objections are being raised against the "new" morality, which in essense has become the establishment, the evolved liberals are in a position that requires them to fight to conserve the ethics that support their philosophies. They have devoloped into a faction that must stuggle to conserve the rampant immorality by which they have prescribed to so that their "right" to choose what ever their lusts desire, should also be the predominate focus of the media. The new morality is so ingrained in our media concerning evolution, and all the social havoc it entails, it has actually taken the place of the old morality, thus making it the paradigm of the establishment. The new religious right is now the advocate of change, making them the new "avant gard", because it is unquestionable that the United States is no longer a God fearing nation.

Just as Ruvy can jump into any thread and change the topic of conversation to Israel, so Howard attempts to turn any discussion into a badly-spelled rant against the Sodom and Gomorrah that is, apparently, contemporary America.

And Howie, what's with the lack of paragraphs? Is it because the Bible doesn't have any?

"huh?"

Clavos claims some credit for his modesty, and he deserves it: he has much to be modest about.

Clavos' cynical attitude about the public is undeserved. The modern commercial bias of broadcasting has been foisted on us by an increasingly shrill and peremptory network system. When I was a lad, every family and every person I knew reserved sunday afternoon to watch "Omnibus" hosted by Alistair Cooke, which presented scenes from famous operas, Leonard Bernstein, etc., and fine documentaries of Americana as well as world culture. We ALL watched and gained from it. In glorious black and white. Families of immigrant laborers watched it and thrilled to what they saw. Their children watched it and learned about America and the world and the great names and works of culture.

One can make a better case for the broadcasters lowering our character (the better to train us to accept their egregious demands on our attention and our wallets) than for our intrinsic low character demanding crap television.

Clavos himself has noted the degeneration of the American character. From whence could that proceed if not from the incessant yammering of TV and radio commercials? Has it not been shown over and over the effect of propaganda on populations?

And Clavos is wrong again when he states that:

"no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself."

Not at all. From the early days of radio there have been amateur radio operators and 'lite' commercial operators who only allowed a modest announcement of business support. Same for TV. All the pioneers in broadcasting were either amateurs or shoestring operators.

Early TV/radio had very modest commercial interests. The modern monster of TV was created by people whose only interest is to sell, sell, sell.

What they've created is a high stakes business that only they can afford to enter. And they control the spectrum monopoly through their puppets at the FCC, who simply ignore public opinion and public requirements.

Even a modest FM station in a metro area costs about $100million to purchase. That's not for the FCC license (which I think is $40 a year now), that's not for the electronic equipment (which is a few $100,000 purchase), it's to buy your share of a MONOPOLY. That's to join the fraternity. The basic value is nothing like that. Consequently, your major operating expense will be debt service.

However, there are some small pirate radio stations! And there are some very old FM stations who got their licenses before commercial interests raised the stakes. And they continue on. It must be galling to the commercial folk that the best signal in the SF area is KPFA, a threadbare operation founded in 1948 by a bunch of Quakers and Pacifists.

Of course ordinary people would operate stations. A few years ago the FCC offered to open up some of the guard bands between major stations to Low Power FM (LPFM) local use. But they got so many requests from eager enthusiasts (including myself, hoping to broadcast Cantatas 24 hours a day from my hilltop nest overlooking SF Bay) that they had to create dreadful restrictions to suppress it, which they did totally, under the demands of the networks (including PBS, you might like to know).

Biffle,

I agree that All commercial content should be prohibited in the broadcast media. However, I submit that the prohibition should extend as well to the print media, cable television, the internet, billboards and everywhere else where such content thrives. The result would be their demise, giving us all more tranquil lives and true inner peace. We would no longer feel a need for stuff beyond necessities, and the culture of consumption would disappear. Many more people would be able to enjoy such tranquil lives, because they would no longer be employed. A minor flaw may lurk somewhere in the above argument, but I can't imagine what it might be. It is very puzzling that no one thought of this before.

Dan

bliffle, ever the garrulous know-it-some, says,

"When I was a lad, every family and every person I knew reserved sunday afternoon to watch "Omnibus" hosted by Alistair Cooke, which presented scenes from famous operas, Leonard Bernstein, etc., and fine documentaries of Americana as well as world culture. We ALL watched and gained from it. In glorious black and white. Families of immigrant laborers watched it and thrilled to what they saw. Their children watched it and learned about America and the world and the great names and works of culture."

A typical old fart's idealized foggy memory of the "Good old days..."

Very few of the hardscrabble immigrants living in New York's Lower East Side during bliffle's youth even had time, let alone money enough, to own and listen to the radio. Maybe in whatever middle class neighborhood (s)he grew up in...

Then, bliffle tells us:

"And Clavos is wrong again when he states that:

"no one would be interested in operating broadcast stations, so the government would either have to force private enterprise to operate them with subsidies, or operate them itself."

Not at all. From the early days of radio there have been amateur radio operators and 'lite' commercial operators who only allowed a modest announcement of business support. Same for TV. All the pioneers in broadcasting were either amateurs or shoestring operators."

Ignoring the obvious point that ALL new industries start small, and are generally offered free (or nearly so) of charge in their infancy. An example from my own industry:

The world's first scheduled airline service in heavier-than-air aircraft, the St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line, was started on New Years Day, 1914 by a pilot named Tony Jannus.

As a former committee member of the Award Committee for the Tony Jannus Distinguished Aviation Society, I know that Jannus charged only $5 each way for his service, which, even adjusted for inflation, is considerably less than a taxicab charges today for the same run, from Tampa airport to downtown St. Petersburg.

To go waaay back:


Not really, the reason is becuase with many media sources leaning liberal anyway there is no reason for an alternative in that vein. As a libertarian that is a very frustrating thing.

Why? The 4th largest synidcated radio show is hosted by Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian. Other libertarians also have pretty popular shows, including the irrascible Dennis Miller.

And if you're a Ron Paul pseudo-libertarian and fan of the John Birch Society, Alex Jones can be heard in just about every major market, plus he's a regular guest with George Nouri on Coast to Coast AM.

What's interesting to me is that libertarian talk radio is so much stronger than left-leaning talk radio. There are scores of libertarian-leaning shows on the air with significant syndication. Leftist shows remain relegated to the wreckage of Air America or Pacifica or other weird little networks or local Coop stations.

Dave

Clav, A typical old fart's idealized foggy memory of the "Good old days... indeed. Hang your head in shame, joven. I well remember those good old days, when the Lone Ranger rode off into the sunset with his faithful Native American companion, Tonto. To this day, I still refer to all indigenous people by that same term of affection.

Dan

As Baritone observed earlier, the poop-flinging, back-slapping-phone-in style of political talk radio doesn't really work in the left demographic because we're more refined and fair-minded than that. ;-)

I used to listen to Air America quite often before it was dropped by the carrier in our area. For me at least, the calmer, jokey approach taken by Stephanie Miller and the rational, discussion- and news-based style of Rachel Maddow were far more appealing to the ear than the vitriol-laced invective of the likes of Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz.

(BTW, rumors of AA's demise have been greatly exaggerated. It has new owners, is still carried in dozens of markets, is available on satellite radio and, for the truly determined, on iTunes.)

Clavos is not only wrong, he immediately contradicts his own argument. Oh well.

Where?

Just like Democrats don't want public financing limits now that their candidate has more money, I bet once a few influential liberal radio talk shows emerge, they will give up on the fairness doctrine too.
But yes, so far left of center radio hasn't been successful so they want the successful ones (which happen to be right of center) stifled.
Its normal behavior on the Democrats part.

That's normal behaviour on anyones part.

Another controversy: Who decided who is conservative and who is liberal? Activist groups such as FAIR will stack the deck as far as they can. They've already decided that John McCain's the MSM darling. According to these groups, Wolf Blitzer and Larry King are raving wingnuts.

It is a fact that the activist liberals will always try to game the system in order to censor the right. They don't care about anyone else's right to free speech.

Rightist talk radio show hosts, praying public school students, and pro-life demonstrators have all been targeted by these liberals. Any opposition to the homosexual agenda, whether based in Biblical teaching or even on basic health data are now labeled 'hate speech' and forbidden.

If you want to fight back, I recommend this website.

A pew poll found the following back in 2006:

"Judged by their answers to three news knowledge questions2, the most informed audiences belong to the political magazines, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, the O'Reilly Factor, news magazines, and online news sources. Close behind are the regular audiences for NPR and the Daily Show."

"Audiences with the highest educational achievement, by far, are the literary magazines and online news outlets. Readers of news magazines, political magazines and business magazines, listeners of Rush Limbaugh and NPR, and viewers of the Daily Show, and C-SPAN also are much more likely than the average person to have a college degree."

"High knowledge" scores:

Weekly Standard 50%
New Republic 50%
Rush Limbaugh 48%
Bill O'Reilly 42%
NPR 39%
Daily Show 38%
CNN 31%
C-SPAN 25%
MSNBC 21%
NATIONAL AVERAGE 24%

Rush Limbaugh listeners are more informed than the average person by a factor of two.

It is a fact that the activist liberals will always try to game the system in order to censor the right. They don't care about anyone else's right to free speech.

Everyone who's serious about winning will try to 'game' the system, whether they are on the left or right. This is because the system is arbitrary and capricious and inherently unfair.

Rightist talk radio show hosts, praying public school students, and pro-life demonstrators have all been targeted by these liberals.

Which they have a perfect right to do, just as you have the right to target homosexuals, teachers of science and evil intellectuals.

Any opposition to the homosexual agenda, whether based in Biblical teaching or even on basic health data are now labeled 'hate speech' and forbidden.

While hate speech is a ridiculous concept, those who are filled with irrational hatred of homosexuals are not going to be able to avoid being judged based on their actions and stated beliefs.

Dave

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. Having said that, liberals just don't like it when they aren't the loudest voice. Is Rhandi Rhodes indicative of the typical liberal voice? No wonder people don't want to hear it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

"...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.

"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.

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

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

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

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."

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!

"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.

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.