[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Absolute power.......
Paul:
With all due respect, I think your political
banner is showing. Giving the ultimate powers to the
big broadcasters (with the passage of the Telecomm
Bill of 1996) is like allowing the inmates to run the
asylum. Allowing the big conglomerates to have
unlimited ability to buy and sell the Public Airwaves
at will, just for the sake of getting big is NOT what
I call "serving the public interest". It used to be
that broadcasting was a trust, not to be taken
lightly. There were specific requirements that every
broadcaster had to abide to. What ever happened to the
"Television Code"? (Remember that joke from the NAB?)
Getting a license was a privilege, not a God given
right. This bill has done more damage to the American
system of broadcasting than anything superseding it.
The result, the average "Joe" will NEVER (and I mean
NEVER) have the opportunity to own and operate his or
her own radio station, even LPFM. (Fritts and his
cronies at the NAB saw to that, with the death of
LPFM.) The auction fees (used to pay for FCC
enforcement) are so exorbitant that only a Lowry Mays
or a Randy Michaels could pay for it. And we are
talking about major $$$$$$$$$ here.
I've been told that in San Diego, the opening bid
for the last empty frequency (a drop-in) in that
market is worth the tens of millions of dollars. A
friend of mine who found and re-allocated a frequency
in Washington state was unable to pay the auction fee
($25,000). He was bumped by another applicant who
owned the other station in town. This is in a very
small market, population less than 5,000 persons.
That is ridiculous.
And what are stuck with, pure vanilla. Nothing
but time tested programming dictated by the corporate
office in another part of the country. No local
input. The FCC is basically de-regulating itself out
of business. The result? But big companies get
bigger, richer and we, the listening public, LOSE. As
for local radio........
(soapbox mode, off.....)
-Pete
--- hopfgapr@sprynet.com wrote:
> Regardless of what folks may think about the "Public
> Air Waves", I don't think the arguement can be made
> for cable. Cable TV is not (to my knowledge) in
> existence for the "public interest" so if one's
> cable bill is too high, just stop subscribing.
>
> It seems most of the folks (all except myself?) seem
> totally disgusted by the '96 Telecom Act. How many
> on this list have directly lost a position as a
> result of this act, as opposed to other
> circumstances? (Just curious...not trying to be
> nasty or anything) I, for one, didn't find radio
> particularly diverse in content PRIOR to 1996.
> Different owners perhaps, but not significantly
> different content.
>
> I also think we need a good 20 years out to
> determine the true long-term effects of Telecom 96.
> As someone that thinks the Feds do WAY TO MUCH
> regulating as it is, I need to see the long term
> effects of this action. I think reducing government
> involvement in any endeavor is a good thing unless
> clearly and succinctly proven otherwise.
>
> -Paul Hopfgarten
> -Derry NH
>
> Peter George <radiojunkie3@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The Telecomm Bill of 1996 was designed to
> "promote competition and diversification on the
> market". We got competition alright, but among 4
> broadcast companies and no one else. As for
> diversification in the market, you answer that. As
> a
> result, we have a radio dial that stinks of
> "vanilla".
> Everything is "tested" for your satisfaction.
> Sorry,
> I am not satisfied. Thank God there are "the few,
> the
> proud" (and I don't mean the Marines), like Bob
> Bittner to who stand up for what they feel is right
> (or in the case of the Telecomm Bill....just plain
> WRONG!).
> Oh, also by the way.... instead of my cable
> bill
> going down, it has almost doubled since 1996...and I
> have NOT added ANY premium channels since that time.
>
> So much for saving me money.
>
> -Pete (K1XRB)
>
> --- Larry Weil wrote:
> >
> > --- Donna Halper wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, except (Dan Billings, please don't hate
> me)
> > > this was largely pushed
> > > by the Republican congress, who have received
> > > MILLIONS in donations and
> > > contributions from the NAB and various companies
> > > like Clear Channel. Clinton signed it because
> > >congress had enough votes to over-ride
> > > his veto.
> >
> > Also, remember that there was a lot of pressure
> put
> > on by those who tried to present this as a
> consumer
> > friendly bill, in that it supposedly would solve a
> > number of consumer issues related to cable TV.
> This
> > is how they (whoever is they?) generated citizen
> > calls and letters in support of the bill.
> >
> > =====
> > Larry Weil
> > Lake Wobegone, NH
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
> > prices
> > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
> =====
> Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
> Whitman, Massachusetts
> "Scanning the bands since
> 1967"
> radiojunkie1@yahoo.com
> radiojunkie3@yahoo.com
>
***********************************************************
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great
> prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
=====
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts
"Scanning the bands since 1967"
radiojunkie1@yahoo.com
radiojunkie3@yahoo.com
***********************************************************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/