FCC dissasembles Radio Free Brattleboro

[Scott Fybush]

At 05:46 PM 6/27/2005 -0600, Sid Schweiger wrote:
> >>I don't think it's unreasonable, in that context, for someone -
>whether it
>be the FCC or licensed broadcasters themselves or what have you - to
>take
>an active role in the public dialogue and explain just why these rules
>aren't as irrational as they look.<<
>
>Well, I'm still not convinced that public explanations are the FCC's
>business, but if it ever comes to that, I (and, I suspect, the rest of
>the folks on this list) will be all ears to hear the FCC's defense of
>allocation standards which have not materially changed in over 70 years.

I pay for the FCC. I expect them to be able to explain and defend what they 
do with my money, just as I would any other government agency.

The FCC has shown that it can do so when it so desires, on certain 
broadcasting issues such as the DTV conversion, indecency fines and 
enforcement of the payola rules. You want to try to tell me that the web 
page the FCC just set up to allow the public to play Enforcement Bureau on 
payola isn't a PR ploy?

I'll agree with you that the allocation standards have not materially 
changed in over 70 years. The world around them has. 70 years ago, it took 
a staff of engineers and very deep pockets to put a radio station on the 
air. Today, it can be done (not always very well, to be sure) for less than 
I spent on my last car.  70 years ago, my hometown had two broadcast 
stations. Today, it has about 40, not counting simulcasts and translators. 
70 years ago, all of the commerce in my county was centered in downtown 
Rochester, and it would have been a stretch to find any other community in 
Monroe County that could have qualified for an FM allocation under today's 
Tuck-analysis standards. Today, there are FM stations licensed to 8 other 
communities in Monroe County - all, save one, operated as Rochester 
stations from studios within the city limits.

If there's a reason that the allocations standards haven't "materially" 
responded to those changes in 70 years (and I agree that they have not), 
then yes, I do believe a reasonable, taxpaying citizen deserves a better 
explanation than "because we say so."

(None of this should be construed as meaning that I think I have the right 
to set up shop with 250 watts on 690 in Waltham, mind you - but I do agree 
with RFB that the elimination of class D FM licenses in 1980 and the 
ensuing gap of more than two decades before LP100s began to be licensed, 
with the crowding on the dials that took place in the interim, slammed the 
door on community broadcasting in a way that was less than consistent with 
my reading of the "fair and equitable" clause of the Communications Act.)

At least where Brattleboro is concerned, the FCC is losing the battle of 
public perception right now. It needn't have been that way.