Can the FCC possible screw things up more?

[Psycho Fox]

Thing about it. Their big plan to push everyone to Ditigial TV is a joke since so far there is half a dozen standards since TV manufactures each have their own idea of what the standard should be. Broadcasters are uneasy about switching since the FCC has not made a standard and switching over is expensive, doing all the is uneconomical and they don't want to have a limmited market. If this keeps up it will be like the CRTCs push to make AM stereo basicly a few stations compling but most ingnoring them. They will have to back down since they can't shutdown the majority of brodcasters that will be econmical suicide.

Their Educational requirment is not working either. PBS beats all the other stations at it this most just put any thing that passes as educational. Unlike in other countriess where stations actully compete during their educational time slot.

They even suck at handing out frequencies since they don't plan it out and have bands all over the place.

In Canada CRTCs incompetence has made the goverment question their existence (handling freqinces is now done by Industry Canada here)

The FCC is just as incompetent if not more so, so what is the goverment going to do about it.

[DR. BELCH]

--in short, be dissolved. They were created during WWII to keep the enemy from intercepting and decoding our radio frequencies in the name of American security. They served their purpose fifty years ago and--much like welfare or social security or anything else F. Roosevelt created to alleviate the Depression's impact--this organization has bloated to fifty times the size it was intended to and causes nothing but trouble. I thought the TV ratings system was their ultimate abuse of power; now they want to force Americans to choose a system provider? This smacks of an Iron Curtain mentality.

[Vin]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
--in short, be dissolved. They were created during WWII to keep the enemy from intercepting and decoding our radio frequencies in the name of American security. They served their purpose fifty years ago and--much like welfare or social security or anything else F. Roosevelt created to alleviate the Depression's impact--this organization has bloated to fifty times the size it was intended to and causes nothing but trouble. I thought the TV ratings system was their ultimate abuse of power; now they want to force Americans to choose a system provider? This smacks of an Iron Curtain mentality.

What's the point of the FCC when they are getting rid of laws that they created, i.e., the creation of duoplies, etc. I think the FCC shouldn't regulate television.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

WHOA! I never did think the FCC would stray so far from its original point! Never knew it was just to intercept spying....and yet now it's forcing networks to play educational TV. Man, America's going down the tubes when it lets its organizations get like that....(sniff)

[Anthonynotes]

>>> Thing about it. Their big plan to push everyone to Ditigial TV is a joke since so far there is half a dozen standards since TV manufactures each have their own idea of what the standard should be. Broadcasters are uneasy about switching since the FCC has not made a standard and switching over is expensive, doing all the is uneconomical and they don't want to have a limmited market. If this keeps up it will be like the CRTCs push to make AM stereo basicly a few stations compling but most ingnoring them. They will have to back down since they can't shutdown the majority of brodcasters that will be econmical suicide. <<<

Well, the plan was to have everyone switch to digital/high definition TV by 2006, but since that doesn't seem likely, they're going for "when 85-90% of households in the country have switched over", which from the looks of things seem to be decades off. The price of sets is probably the main reason this isn't going to catch on anytime soon IMO, along with presumably smaller broadcasters (local / smaller TV stations, etc.) balking at the cost. The main networks would stand plenty to gain from this, with multiple channels/feeds being able to be broadcast on one signal (one channel for "Friends", another for some promotional thing, another for pay-per-view, etc.). Plus, there's the fact that the FCC pretty much gave the digital spectrum away (instead of charging for it), and the existing analog spectrum likely to be also given away (to cell phone cos/whoever)...


>>>Their Educational requirment is not working either. PBS beats all the other stations at it this most just put any thing that passes as educational. Unlike in other countriess where stations actully compete during their educational time slot.
<<

As I said in a previous spectrum, American broadcasting doesn't work like the other countries you cited. Here, it's primarily commercial-based, without a specifically government-owned network; hence, anything that NBC/the WB/etc. etc. do is motivated solely by whatever's profitable and gets the most advertising bucks. They'd much, *much* rather air a 47-hour "Pokemon" marathon over a 47-hour "Histeria"/etc. one since they know Pokemon'd get bigger ratings. The only reason they even broadcast educational stuff like H! at all is because of the govt. forcing them to, which they *wouldn't* do on their own (see: the above example )---their primary and *sole* purpose is profit, and airing "high brow" stuff like eduacational programming doesn't pull in the bucks like Pokemon/Digimon/Recess/etc. etc. *would*. Their prime-time lineups also prove this "lowest common denominator" approach---they *could* air stuff like "60 Minutes"/"Masterpiece Theater"/thoughtful shows, but instead opt for "WWF Smackdown!" and reality specials and their ilk...because *they* bring in the bulk of their profits.

PBS has had a lock on kids' educational shows because of their non-commercial/nonprofit motives and apathy/profit-interests of commercial broadcasters here. The E/I requirement was instituted so that TV stations/networks could actually on *some* minimalistic purpose have at least one vaguely redeeming thing on the air (and actually "provide a public service" as various FCC broadcasting rules says they're supposed to do in order to keep their broadcasting license), instead of *completely* airing nothing but the usual mindless sitcoms/infomercials/whatnot 24-7 (a half-hour of the day out of 24 hours no less) or (as before the E/I rule) stations trying to cite stuff like the "Jetsons" as "educational" programming (an example of how U.S. commercial broadcasters *won't* air anything educational if they weren't forced to)...

Basically,as Hatter and others here said before, think like a businessman (or an American businessman anyways) in looking at this...

>>>They even suck at handing out frequencies since they don't plan it out and have bands all over the place.
<<<

Not sure what you mean by this....AM vs. FM? They seem to do their frequency allocation job pretty decently (the primary reason they were founded in the 1930's [not World War II as Belch noted]). Though what happened with their program to allow for small, low-power radio broadcasters in Congress is another issue for me to gripe about... :-)

>>>
In Canada CRTCs incompetence has made the goverment question their existence (handling freqinces is now done by Industry Canada here)
<<<

(Shrug) Well, the CRTC isn't the FCC....as the Canadian govt.'s minimal Canadian broadcast content requirement laws would suggest...

>>>The FCC is just as incompetent if not more so, so what is the goverment going to do about it.
<<<

I don't think their core job is incompetent/irrelevent, though my concern is their lack *of* concern over all the broadcaster mergers and such of late....or their lack of concern over cable TV rates...


-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra

As I said in a previous spectrum, American broadcasting doesn't work like the other countries you cited. Here, it's primarily commercial-based, without a specifically government-owned network; hence, anything that NBC/the WB/etc. etc. do is motivated solely by whatever's profitable and gets the most advertising bucks. They'd much, *much* rather air a 47-hour "Pokemon" marathon over a 47-hour "Histeria"/etc. one since they know Pokemon'd get bigger ratings. The only reason they even broadcast educational stuff like H! at all is because of the govt. forcing them to, which they *wouldn't* do on their own (see: the above example )---their primary and *sole* purpose is profit, and airing "high brow" stuff like eduacational programming doesn't pull in the bucks like Pokemon/Digimon/Recess/etc. etc. *would*. Their prime-time lineups also prove this "lowest common denominator" approach---they *could* air stuff like "60 Minutes"/"Masterpiece Theater"/thoughtful shows, but instead opt for "WWF Smackdown!" and reality specials and their ilk...because *they* bring in the bulk of their profits.

PBS has had a lock on kids' educational shows because of their non-commercial/nonprofit motives and apathy/profit-interests of commercial broadcasters here. The E/I requirement was instituted so that TV stations/networks could actually on *some* minimalistic purpose have at least one vaguely redeeming thing on the air (and actually "provide a public service" as various FCC broadcasting rules says they're supposed to do in order to keep their broadcasting license), instead of *completely* airing nothing but the usual mindless sitcoms/infomercials/whatnot 24-7 (a half-hour of the day out of 24 hours no less) or (as before the E/I rule) stations trying to cite stuff like the "Jetsons" as "educational" programming (an example of how U.S. commercial broadcasters *won't* air anything educational if they weren't forced to)...

Basically,as Hatter and others here said before, think like a businessman (or an American businessman anyways) in looking at this...But see other countries found answers to this IE CBC sells its ad space during it educational block cheaper then they should givin CBC has pretty good ratings for the slot thus private stations don't want waste their expensive programs for a slot they can't charge much for thus they realize educational is cheaper and it is best to fight education with education in that case.



Not sure what you mean by this....AM vs. FM? They seem to do their frequency allocation job pretty decently (the primary reason they were founded in the 1930's [not World War II as Belch noted]). Though what happened with their program to allow for small, low-power radio broadcasters in Congress is another issue for me to gripe about... :-)Police bands are all over the place some with fire and airport they have cell and private bands in the middle of them it is a mess and thus US police radios are more epenisve the European Police radios since in Euope the bands are in a single spectrum all over with no brakes.

[Anthonynotes]

>>>But see other countries found answers to this IE CBC sells its ad space during it educational block cheaper then they should givin CBC has pretty good ratings for the slot thus private stations don't want waste their expensive programs for a slot they can't charge much for thus they realize educational is cheaper and it is best to fight education with education in that case.<<<

Well, as I stated before, the CBC isn't directly comparable to any U.S. broadcast network, since IIRC it's directly owned by the Canadian govt. (and thus can afford to not be as concerned over ratings as commercial Canadian TV stations/networks); another reason they were apparently able to air the Olympics the way they do (vs. the U.S.'s abysmal coverage on NBC---and the flurry of Web posts/Usenet posts by Americans living near the Canadian border preferring to watch the CBC coverage....).

Plus, to be blunt, the U.S. doesn't give a flying frig (to use the phrase) about *how* any other country in the world does things or solves its problems---here, the attitude's "the American way = the *only* way" and "it's our way or the highway". Other countries' ways of solving problems/doing things are pretty much ignored by our country (even if they sounded like good ideas), and our insulatedness from other countries doesn't help (we don't even get news about what happens in *Canada* down here usually, unless it's something truly earth-shattering/involves the U.S. in some way...most Americans probably can't even name what the capital of your country is....). Thus, your suggestions of how things could be done here would pretty much get shrugged off by our govt. here (or labeled as "socialism"/"communism" or somesuch). Not to sound rude/depressed, but that's pretty much the case, and I guess I don't see it changing anytime soon (esp. given the way the U.S. seems to handle its relations with other countries). A shame, I suppose, since we *could* learn some things from other countries on how to do a few things/solve a few problems...


>>>Police bands are all over the place some with fire and airport they have cell and private bands in the middle of them it is a mess and thus US police radios are more epenisve the European Police radios since in Euope the bands are in a single spectrum all over with no brakes. <<<

Well, dunno what to say about that....though U.S. broadcasting and European broadcasting have taken different paths over the decades (PAL & SECAM vs. NTSC for instance, or the space that's used for VHF's channel 1 here being used for such police/etc. frequencies since the 40's...).

-B.

[Narfpinky]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Thing about it. Their big plan to push everyone to Ditigial TV is a joke since so far there is half a dozen standards since TV manufactures each have their own idea
of what the standard should be.

Hmmm, I thought the 'Grand Alliance'(AT&T, GI, MIT, Philips, Sarnoff, Thomson and Zenith) narrowed it down to the standars of 720 progressive, 1080 interlaced, or 1080 progressive horizontal scan lines. Perhaps I need to do some brushing up on the current HDTV situation.




Originally posted by BrainatraThe price of sets is probably the main reason this isn't going to catch on anytime soon IMO...

Also, those are HDTV ready sets; you have to buy a separate HDTV tuner to recieve the higher quality broadcasts. I've seen those listed around $700 to $900. Seems rather difficult to sell a $3,999.95 TV set and say you'll need to spend another $700 to actually see the higher quality of the TV you've already paid so much for.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Narfpinky
Hmmm, I thought the 'Grand Alliance'(AT&T, GI, MIT, Philips, Sarnoff, Thomson and Zenith) narrowed it down to the standars of 720 progressive, 1080 interlaced, or 1080 progressive horizontal scan lines. Perhaps I need to do some brushing up on the current HDTV situation. Well yhea but that is their standards there are others. There are some made up with the idea the using Digital to shove more channels in is better then greatly increassing the quailty of the picture.

[Anthonynotes]

>>>Hmmm, I thought the 'Grand Alliance'(AT&T, GI, MIT, Philips, Sarnoff, Thomson and Zenith) narrowed it down to the standars of 720 progressive, 1080 interlaced, or 1080 progressive horizontal scan lines. Perhaps I need to do some brushing up on the current HDTV situation.

<<<

I'm pretty sure that those are the finalized several standards---and because of the standards uncertainties, I believe HDTV sets are being built to accomodate whatever standard becomes most popular (with those various formats supported IIRC)...


>>>
Also, those are HDTV ready sets; you have to buy a separate HDTV tuner to recieve the higher quality broadcasts. I've seen those listed around $700 to $900. Seems rather difficult to sell a $3,999.95 TV set and say you'll need to spend another $700 to actually see the higher quality of the TV you've already paid so much for. <<<


Indeed...or the notion of that much for a TV set to begin with to a public accustomed to shelling out $100-300 for a typical set...which brings me more nitpicks re: HDTV:
- all the talk about it is the benefits it'd bring to the "big ticket" TV buyers, i.e. those who buy big-screen TVs. What about the average person,who'd just want a set similar to their 20-27" sized sets? Or smaller 13"-style bedroom sets? No mention of this in any of the HDTV talk---it's all emphasizing big-screen TVs vs. what the average person will actually likely be *buying*.

- unlike the switch from black-and-white to color, HDTV doesn't seem to offer any hugely obvious benefits (besides a sharper/clearer picture) that would prompt Joe Average to spring for the extra bucks for such a set (even if they come down in price, I've the feeling they'll still be more expensive than current standard TVs....). Plus, of course, color TV is designed to be backwards-compatible with black-and-white TV sets, enabling every set made since World War II to still be in use, vs. the clean break of HDTV (which might not go over too well with some people I suppose)

- finally, there's the various peripherals (DVD's/VCR's/camcorders/etc.) ubiquitous...converting these to HDTV compatibility will take some time, I suppose, thus delaying adaptation of HDTV. Along with of course cable companies having to upgrade their equipment to carry HDTV signals.

As for using the one HDTV signal stations get to air lower-quality, ordinary digital TV signals on several "subchannels", this seems to be the most likely use for HDTV I'd see networks/stations using: one channel for weather/news, another for regular shows, another for some other usage, etc. Likely that HDTV would be reserved for special events (Super Bowls, etc.)...

-B.
Only has a 9-year-old 13" Sharp brand mono-sound TV set, no cable TV, and a 5-year-old Zenith mono-sound VCR....

[Narfpinky]

Originally posted by Brainatra
re: HDTV:
- all the talk about it is the benefits it'd bring to the "big ticket" TV buyers, i.e. those who buy big-screen TVs. What about the average person,who'd just want a set similar to their 20-27" sized sets? Or smaller 13"-style bedroom sets? No mention of this in any of the HDTV talk---it's all emphasizing big-screen TVs vs. what the average person will actually likely be *buying*.

Shouldn't be too difficult for a company to take a computer monitor CRT and apapt it for HDTV. The typical resulution should be adequte enough for HDTV. That should make for a more affordable set, considering that a 17 inch computer monitor costs somewhere around $200- $300 -- aside from the matter the HDTV tuner is still that $700 extra.
Also, on that $$$ extra HDTV tuner, I've seen some that have a VGA type connector, so you can hook up a computor monitor as a HDTV set.



Originally posted by Brainatra
[B]...Plus, of course, color TV is designed to be backwards-compatible with black-and-white TV sets, enabling every set made since World War II to still be in use, vs. the clean break of HDTV (which might not go over too well with some people I suppose)[/b/]

I always find that remarkable how they managed to accomplish such a feat between B&W and color sets.

[Anthonynotes]

>>Shouldn't be too difficult for a company to take a computer monitor CRT and apapt it for HDTV. The typical resulution should be adequte enough for HDTV. That should make for a more affordable set, considering that a 17 inch computer monitor costs somewhere around $200- $300 -- aside from the matter the HDTV tuner is still that $700 extra.
Also, on that $$$ extra HDTV tuner, I've seen some that have a VGA type connector, so you can hook up a computor monitor as a HDTV set.
<<<

Maybe...though I guess we're also expected to pay for the initial research/development/startup costs with the inflated HDTV prices as well.... and to think I put my current TV in layaway at K-Mart to pay for it 9 years ago...


>>>
I always find that remarkable how they managed to accomplish such a feat between B&W and color sets. <<<

If memory serves B&W-compatible color TV works by sending both color and monchrome signals on a standard TV broadcast signal...black and white TVs pick up only the monochrome portion, while color TV's pick up the whole thing. RCA developed this system, which was accepted by the FCC in the early/mid 50's, beating out CBS' proposed color TV system (which was mechanically-based and wouldn't have been compatible with the existing B&W sets at the time). RCA, owning NBC at the time *and* manufacturing TV sets, of course had plenty of motivation to do all this :-)

Thus, NBC began broadcasting color in the mid-50's on a few of its shows, with the NBC peacock devised to pitch this (the old "the following program is brought to you in color" bit); apparently, CBS and ABC came into the game a bit later, and from what I can tell didn't put as much creativity into their "this program is in color" logos (CBS recently reran their logo before each episode of "Kids Say the Darndest Things" a few years ago; it consisted of the letters "C", "B" and "S" dropping down on the screen, with the "in color" voiceover and the CBS "eye" sweeping over the letters changing them into different colors). I suppose Sharklady might have some interesting anecdote about the transition to color TV to tell us... :-)

Wonder if that's another drawback to HDTV catching on: when they introduced color, these bumpers ran before the program started, thus giving plenty of notice/advertising to the audiences at the time that it was a color program (even if they had B&W sets). Nowadays, CBS runs some "this program is in HDTV" logo for a few seconds on the screen, which everyone probably ignores (having learned to tune out such logos being plastered all over the screen these days), and (even though it's banner-sized) probably gets lost between the TV ratings logo and the network/local station logo (and the closed caption logo)....

Found this website with Quicktime images of the various old "in color" bumpers (albeit kind of not smoothly animated):
http://people.we.mediaone.net/ktedsel/KARD_html/kard4.html

On-topic: I recall watching TTA eps over and over on our old 13" Sears black and white set (with occasionally in color on the main set in our living room)...

-B.

[Matthew Hunter]

That is a bit wrong, isn't it? Why should there even be a regulation of television? Whatever happened to freedom of the press....or does that only include printed materials? I didn't know the FCC was a spy protection program to begin with...how the heck did they get in the TV regulation business, just nothing else to do?

Although the whole educational TV requirement is stupid, I do agree with giving shows ratings...there are some prime time TV shows that have shocked me, and I rarely watch network TV. Whether they work or not is anybody's guess, but if it keeps a little kid from seeing all that gratuitious sex, maybe that's best. Rating something is fine, as long as they don't censor it.

And has anyone noticed that very few TV's nowadays have good reception without cable or satellite? Most don't come with antennas anymore, and they may get one channel. And I remember when there was such thing as a local channel, as in an independent station, now they're all owned by big corportations.
-Matthew

[Anthonynotes]

>>>That is a bit wrong, isn't it? Why should there even be a regulation of television? Whatever happened to freedom of the press....or does that only include printed materials? I didn't know the FCC was a spy protection program to begin with...how the heck did they get in the TV regulation business, just nothing else to do?
<<<

Well, unlike newspapers, broadcasting (TV & radio) involves the use of sparse resources: a non-limitless broadcasting frequency spectrum with a set range...hence the need for (if nothing else) regulating to ensure that, say, Channel 18 in Milwaukee doesn't think of pulling something like boosting its transmission power to the point of causing interference (or overriding some *other* channel 18 somewhere else)...which is the reason that the FCC was created back in the early 30's, as a means of regulating technical broadcasting aspects for radio (not as a spy protection program). This extended to television once it came along (and the FCC allocated experimental television broadcasting licenses in the 30's as such---see the end of "Pinky and the Fog" where Pinky's watching an experimental TV set in the lab in the 30's/40's), since TV also would require such technical regulation. Any "spying" aspects would've been related to World War II, presumably.

As for regulating the *content* that airs, the notion of broadcasting (here and in other countries) theoretically is that those who're licensed to do so are obliged to "serve the public good" in what they do air in order to get a license...of which said concept seems to vary depending on what country one lives in/the times/etc. Hence stuff like regulation of swearing on air or of what's considered "obscene" (which seem subjective), or stations in some areas that opt not to air certain network-run shows (such as a few stations in the south that refused to carry the Kirk-Uhuru kiss on one "Star Trek" episode due to its interracial aspects). Of course, even despite this, the stations/networks *could* air quality, innovate programming and take full advantage of the first amendment---but then, I guess that apparently isnt' as profitable as "WWF Smackdown!"/"Pokemon"/those cheesy animal attack things on Fox...
(sigh)...and probably why such things as an educational requirement came about: because it was perceived that commercial TV networks weren't airing anything of merit for children beyond "Flintstones"/"GI Joe" and the like (the equivalent of not airing anything for adults like "60 Minutes"/documentaries/news, but rather just sitcoms...).


>>>Although the whole educational TV requirement is stupid, I do agree with giving shows ratings...there are some prime time TV shows that have shocked me, and I rarely watch network TV. Whether they work or not is anybody's guess, but if it keeps a little kid from seeing all that gratuitious sex, maybe that's best. Rating something is fine, as long as they don't censor it.
<<<

Of course, ratings themselves can be seen as somewhat subjective, esp. depending on one's tolerance for certain material and what the subject of the show in question might be about (a show on, say, the pros and cons of sex education today in America on PBS and a typical crude-reference-laden "Family Guy" episode could both get TV-14, even if the former has a intelligent discussion of the subject vs. the latter's usual, ahem, "quality"....). (Shrug)

>>> And has anyone noticed that very few TV's nowadays have good reception without cable or satellite? Most don't come with antennas anymore, and they may get one channel. And I remember when there was such thing as a local channel, as in an independent station, now they're all owned by big corportations.
<<<

Agreed....my set (made in 1992) seems to tune OK without cable, but the VCR (more recently made) tunes really poorly without cable (esp. the UHF channels). Then again, most TVs these days do assume one has cable and seem to function as little more than monitors to this point...

Local channels that're independent are becoming rarer, esp. in smaller towns....of course, the rise of UPN/Fox/the WB/Pax probably have a lot to do with that. Larger cities seem to fare somewhat better in that regard (ex.: Chicago's WCIU-TV channel 26, even though it airs KWB's shows since WGN don't want to air them, favoring talk shows instead..."Svenghoolie", a decades-old, locally produced cheesy comedic horror movie show [a la MST3K] still airs on "The U" (as they nickname themselves)).

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Well, unlike newspapers, broadcasting (TV & radio) involves the use of sparse resources: a non-limitless broadcasting frequency spectrum with a set range...hence the need for (if nothing else) regulating to ensure that, say, Channel 18 in Milwaukee doesn't think of pulling something like boosting its transmission power to the point of causing interference (or overriding some *other* channel 18 somewhere else)...which is the reason that the FCC was created back in the early 30's, as a means of regulating technical broadcasting aspects for radio (not as a spy protection program). This extended to television once it came along (and the FCC allocated experimental television broadcasting licenses in the 30's as such---see the end of "Pinky and the Fog" where Pinky's watching an experimental TV set in the lab in the 30's/40's), since TV also would require such technical regulation. Any "spying" aspects would've been related to World War II, presumably.
I agree that we need some goverment body for that but it was stupid to slap the content and techinial into one huge mega orginazition most other countries split them off so the power wouldn't go to their heads.


As for regulating the *content* that airs, the notion of broadcasting (here and in other countries) theoretically is that those who're licensed to do so are obliged to "serve the public good" in what they do air in order to get a license...of which said concept seems to vary depending on what country one lives in/the times/etc. Hence stuff like regulation of swearing on air or of what's considered "obscene" (which seem subjective), or stations in some areas that opt not to air certain network-run shows (such as a few stations in the south that refused to carry the Kirk-Uhuru kiss on one "Star Trek" episode due to its interracial aspects). Of course, even despite this, the stations/networks *could* air quality, innovate programming and take full advantage of the first amendment---but then, I guess that apparently isnt' as profitable as "WWF Smackdown!"/"Pokemon"/those cheesy animal attack things on Fox...
(sigh)...and probably why such things as an educational requirement came about: because it was perceived that commercial TV networks weren't airing anything of merit for children beyond "Flintstones"/"GI Joe" and the like (the equivalent of not airing anything for adults like "60 Minutes"/documentaries/news, but rather just sitcoms...).Well yhea but you can't tell Brodcasters what they can and can not air without comming off a wee bit like a dictorship. It would be better if Networks formed a union of Networks and found common ground with the Goverment when it comes to severing the public while keeping their profits healthy. Thus the Union polices the airwaves (by upholding a book of codes both they and the goverment agrees with)and the goverment polices the union. Thus if I want to air in NY state a TV station that the NY state goverment don't like I should have the right or else it leaves a door open for goverment abuse ie to be able to silence the voice of truth or the goverment to get what they want on TV without question

[Sharklady]

> Thus if I want to air in NY state a TV station that the NY state goverment don't like I should have the right or else it leaves a door open for goverment abuse ie to be able to silence or the goverment to get what they want on TV without question <

I am not convinced that the average TV station/ Network owner is any more respectful of 'the voice of truth' than the US government is. If they think deceiving people will get 'em higher ratings, they'll do it.

So, the control of television content is yet another of those social balancing acts- one doesn't want either the government or the buisness community in full command. Governments have too much motive to sway public opinion by concealing information. And buisness people have too much motive to produce whatever gets them the highest profits, even if that means filling the airwaves with unmitigated junk. I figure, if we're getting equal volumes of complaints about both sides, we're probably close to a decent balance.

BTW: Kudos for a particularly insightful post on the subject, Brainatra.
Unfortunately, I have no particularly "interesting anecdote about the transition to color TV to tell (you)... :-)" Only that, the national newscasts always used to describe their shows as "In Color!"; something they don't bother to do anymore.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> Thus if I want to air in NY state a TV station that the NY state goverment don't like I should have the right or else it leaves a door open for goverment abuse ie to be able to silence or the goverment to get what they want on TV without question <

I am not convinced that the average TV station/ Network owner is any more respectful of 'the voice of truth' than the US government is. If they think deceiving people will get 'em higher ratings, they'll do it.

So, the control of television content is yet another of those social balancing acts- one doesn't want either the government or the buisness community in full command. Governments have too much motive to sway public opinion by concealing information. And buisness people have too much motive to produce whatever gets them the highest profits, even if that means filling the airwaves with unmitigated junk. I figure, if we're getting equal volumes of complaints about both sides, we're probably close to a decent balance.
Thus why the Union of networks works see that means ABC,Fox,WB and smaller independant stations + the goverment has to work together they each have eqaul say and they each have their own agenda thus what you have is the lowest common denominator winning what ever they all can agree on (kinda how Diplomacy among nations works)

[The Mad Hatter]

Another example of the benefits of FCC regulations is the current radio mess. Till 1996, the FCC put a strict limit on the number of radio stations any one entity can possess. But in 1996 the FCC removed the limit.

The result? 60% of the rock radio stations in the US are now owned by Clear Channel communications. All these radio stations have the exact same playlists, so you can forget about finding any local surprises. Furthermore, the sheer coverage Clear Channel has means that music companies have to play by their rules, or their songs get yanked. For example, in numerous cases Clear Channel has demanded that competing stations not be allowed to promote concerts in Clear Channel territories... and the concert promoters always back down. Not to mention that playlists have gotten narrower and narrower over the years... why bother coming up with variety when you've got a lock on the market? So, when the government gave up control... the corporations assumed control.

So, certain regulations can be beneficial. The trick is formulating them so that they generate the most competition while causing the least infringement on free speech.

[Anthonynotes]

Thanks, Sharklady....

Well, there *is* a "union" of sorts for broadcasters---the National Association of Broadcasters (or NAB for short), which the major TV and radio networks (and various TV/radio stations) belong to, and which serves as their voice in Washington/to the FCC (state govts. have no say in broadcasting regulation, per your NY state govt. example PsychoFox...). However, the organization's primary concern seems to be ensuring profitability for the broadcasters, rather than freedom of speech issues (which, as Hatter/Sharklady said, is a pretty careful balancing act). Their current goal right now seems to be to do for TV what happened to U.S. radio (and, as Hatter pointed out, we know what *that's* like nowadays...).

-B.
Between all these posts I've made today on the FCC, freedom of speech-vs-profit issues, and need for diversity issues, I feel like I have enough material to start my own magazine...that or some cheesy talk radio show :-)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Thanks, Sharklady....

Well, there *is* a "union" of sorts for broadcasters---the National Association of Broadcasters (or NAB for short), which the major TV and radio networks (and various TV/radio stations) belong to, and which serves as their voice in Washington/to the FCC (state govts. have no say in broadcasting regulation, per your NY state govt. example PsychoFox...). However, the organization's primary concern seems to be ensuring profitability for the broadcasters, rather than freedom of speech issues (which, as Hatter/Sharklady said, is a pretty careful balancing act). Their current goal right now seems to be to do for TV what happened to U.S. radio (and, as Hatter pointed out, we know what *that's* like nowadays...).But see what I'm talking about is a union from WB to PBS to the community channel to the hole in the wall stations to even pirate stations (J/K on the last one). Now ontop of a union should be a joint orginazation of the union and the members of the public should police the airwaves while the goverment polices them.



Between all these posts I've made today on the FCC, freedom of speech-vs-profit issues, and need for diversity issues, I feel like I have enough material to start my own magazine...that or some cheesy talk radio show :-) Neato

[Anthonynotes]

The National Assoc. of Broadcasters *is* the representative "union" of both the broadcasters (ABC/UPN/WB/etc.), the independent stations, PBS (and PBS stations), and the "hole in the wall" local channels you speak of. They lobby in Washington constantly to have (primarily the largest networks') desires of their individual stations/networks met, and are a powerful lobbying force (and one reason TV/radio *is* the way it is in this country, I suppose).

Technically, the public is supposed to have some voice in such decisions as renewing FCC licenses as well, or concerns over obscenity on the airwaves (after someone complained, the FCC fined some station in Denver for airing an Eminem song that had been edited for the airwaves...raising concerns over free-speech laws, I guess), but few people seem to bother responding about stations/networks, and those that do usually are highly organized groups that have some agenda in mind (see: full-page ads in USA TODAY and such from Steve Allen as part of some group urging us to respond to the "sordidness of today's violence/sex/etc.-infested airwaves"). I can't imagine what sort of "union" between the general public and the NAB/the networks would consist of, esp. since the networks don't care what the general public thinks---they just plan to keep airing the lowest-common-denominator shows/whatever's profitable, toss out whatever's marginally (and growing more so) required of them to appease the "public interest", and keep lobbying in Washington to have their way (which they *don't* need the general public to do)...

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Well I do agree that this system works best with CBC since it neither is the goverments lap dog or in it for the pure pofit. Yes the goverment can make suggestions and change its budget if it is unhappy with what it air but CBC can counteract with ad money so they are kind of a middle bettwen goverment and private. Thus for it to work in the US PBS would and private stations would have to have more say to equal things out. The big networks would have to make deals like lower the educational requierment for the right to merge taken away.


but few people seem to bother responding about stations/networks, and those that do usually are highly organized groups that have some agenda in mind (see: full-page ads in USA TODAY and such from Steve Allen as part of some group urging us to respond to the "sordidness of today's violence/sex/etc.-infested airwaves").Yhea in Canada the goverment doesn't act till someone complians and then they hold a investigation but here for ever mother aginst violence on TV there is a equally strong freedom of expression group so it kinda balences out here (thus why the Bugs is sexist things just blew over here)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Sharklady
I figure, if we're getting equal volumes of complaints about both sides, we're probably close to a decent balance. Well that is not always the case ie in Toronto both the group for family freindly TV and for freedom of Expresion both are content (as they both can be at the same time) with TV in Toronto. Reg Hartt (Which is a huge voice of freedom of Expression) has turned is attention to WB Canada.

[Anthonynotes]

>>Well I do agree that this system works best with CBC since it neither is the goverments lap dog or in it for the pure pofit. Yes the goverment can make suggestions and change its budget if it is unhappy with what it air but CBC can counteract with ad money so they are kind of a middle bettwen goverment and private. Thus for it to work in the US PBS would and private stations would have to have more say to equal things out. The big networks would have to make deals like lower the educational requierment for the right to merge taken away.
<<

Well, as I've said repeatedly before, PBS/the networks (via the NAB) *have* plenty of say---lots of it. Moreso than I or any of us would. Especially since the NAB's an extremely strong (probably on par with the tobacco & firearms lobbies) lobbyist group (which *is* what a "union" is as far as U.S. corporations are concerned) within Washington DC. An example is how they were able to mobilize to try to kill off low-power radio stations (which would allowed church groups/nonprofit groups/etc. the right to operate 100-watt FM radio stations that'd be cheaper and more niche-oriented in terms of community service than a full-fledged station would be), with the NAB trying to cite how it'd "create undue interference" with existing stations (though this wouldn't have been the case). Basically, it would've stolen listeners from the recycled top-40 cookie-cutter stations that dominate the dial (and allowed for an actual diverse range of voices, esp. in smaller cities where companies like Clear Channel own a good chunk of the dial). Even despite multiple religious/nonprofit groups/small underserved communities protests, the FCC's put the low-power-radio measure on hold for now IIRC, so it's technically not dead, but may as well be....

Thus, is one example of the NAB's power... and also, in Washington (moreso than the rest of the world, seemingly) money (via political campaign donations/lobbyists/etc.) = access/a "voice". Since these people have plenty of money, they have an easier time getting the FCC/government's ear than I do...

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Well, as I've said repeatedly before, PBS/the networks (via the NAB) *have* plenty of say---lots of it. Moreso than I or any of us would. Especially since the NAB's an extremely strong (probably on par with the tobacco & firearms lobbies) lobbyist group (which *is* what a "union" is as far as U.S. corporations are concerned) within Washington DC. An example is how they were able to mobilize to try to kill off low-power radio stations (which would allowed church groups/nonprofit groups/etc. the right to operate 100-watt FM radio stations that'd be cheaper and more niche-oriented in terms of community service than a full-fledged station would be), with the NAB trying to cite how it'd "create undue interference" with existing stations (though this wouldn't have been the case). Basically, it would've stolen listeners from the recycled top-40 cookie-cutter stations that dominate the dial (and allowed for an actual diverse range of voices, esp. in smaller cities where companies like Clear Channel own a good chunk of the dial). Even despite multiple religious/nonprofit groups/small underserved communities protests, the FCC's put the low-power-radio measure on hold for now IIRC, so it's technically not dead, but may as well be....

Thus, is one example of the NAB's power... and also, in Washington (moreso than the rest of the world, seemingly) money (via political campaign donations/lobbyists/etc.) = access/a "voice". Since these people have plenty of money, they have an easier time getting the FCC/government's ear than I do...Yhea but it is unbalanced from what you said this NAB is more for the intrest of the corperation. If it was like CAB the goverment would have given the potental low power operators just as much say in what goes on as Clear Channel. See you have to balance it out so neither side has majority power thus Clear Channel has to convence TV stations which have no real invested intrest either way and their compeditors (which probably hate their guts) plus even then it can still the can be turned down if the soon to be low power operatiors got to the goverment to vote and someone else like PBS or a group their way

[The Mad Hatter]

Once again: these are the way things work in the US. We wish they'd change too.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Mad Hatter
Once again: these are the way things work in the US. We wish they'd change too. From what I see you need more small independants instead of the huge mega corperations. Atlest Rogers (our huge mega monoplistic media coperation) has each of its radio networks a diffent gene like News,Pop,Country,ect so they don't play the same thing.

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
From what I see you need more small independants instead of the huge mega corperations. Atlest Rogers (our huge mega monoplistic media coperation) has each of its radio networks a diffent gene like News,Pop,Country,ect so they don't play the same thing.

Well, true, but also more importantly, a tighter rein on the influence of said mega-corporations on being able to have such a heavy influence on our nation's politicians (basically, by not being able to buy off our leaders with money [donations, etc.]). Some politicians are making some effort to propose putting such limits on corporations buying off congressmen (John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona(?), being a big proponent of such a change), but his proposed legislation looks to be dead in the water these days...

As for more independent broadcasters, that's what those low-powered radio stations would've given...and why the big corporations/the NAB campaigned vigorously against seeing it implemented. Less competition and all...

-B.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Well, true, but also more importantly, a tighter rein on the influence of said mega-corporations on being able to have such a heavy influence on our nation's politicians (basically, by not being able to buy off our leaders with money [donations, etc.]). Some politicians are making some effort to propose putting such limits on corporations buying off congressmen (John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona(?), being a big proponent of such a change), but his proposed legislation looks to be dead in the water these days...Something should be done to stop that. With all these huge mega corporations merging their is the risk US might become be a corporate dictorship. This is my beef with the FCC they are worthless they do more harm then good. What's the difference if all the stations (except for PBS) is own by one or two huge coperations or TV during the Soviet Union where it was controled by the 100% goverment? nothing they both only report what is in their best intrest to report. If that does happen I hope the goverment is smart enough to realize what they have done and allow forein competition into the American market place.


As for more independent broadcasters, that's what those low-powered radio stations would've given...and why the big corporations/the NAB campaigned vigorously against seeing it implemented. Less competition and all...
Low power radio stations would solve a lot of problems. A network like CBC would work too. If the govement set it up right and it was able to be one of the Top 3 networks taking a good peice of the advertising pie others would actully have to compete and earn their money the old fasion way. It might even improve the average US viewers taste thus the private networks actully has worry quality more. (Hey CBC did so why can't a US version of the CBC do the same. Well if the goverment actully does create a CBC like network)

[Anthonynotes]

>>>Something should be done to stop that. With all these huge mega corporations merging their is the risk US might become be a corporate dictorship. This is my beef with the FCC they are worthless they do more harm then good. What's the difference if all the stations (except for PBS) is own by one or two huge coperations or TV during the Soviet Union where it was controled by the 100% goverment? nothing they both only report what is in their best intrest to report. If that does happen I hope the goverment is smart enough to realize what they have done and allow forein competition into the American market place.<<<

Well, I think there's various limits placed on those who aren't U.S. citizens in running a TV network (as Murdoch faced when starting up Fox back in the 80's). Though of course, there's cable (BBC America is a not-too-widely-distributed cable channel...), though that isn't free...

>>>Low power radio stations would solve a lot of problems. A network like CBC would work too. If the govement set it up right and it was able to be one of the Top 3 networks taking a good peice of the advertising pie others would actully have to compete and earn their money the old fasion way. It might even improve the average US viewers taste thus the private networks actully has worry quality more. (Hey CBC did so why can't a US version of the CBC do the same. Well if the goverment actully does create a CBC like network)<<<

Well:
A) As repeatedly stated before, that's not how things work in the U.S.---we're way too capitalistic to ever see the govt. even *think* about starting its own TV network (esp. when some in Congress would sooner do away with giving whatever paltry sum they're dishing out to PBS as it is), plus they'd rather spend the cash on something more worthwhile, like the military (another factor in all this---the U.S. is a militaristic country, and thus the military gets bigger priority than anything related to social spending [vs. Canada/Europe being the reverse of this]...).

B) PBS is already an "alternative" network to the Big Three, though it could stand a few improvements in its way of running things/in funding...

C) The big three networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) each have approx. 1,000+ affiliates across the country; when Fox came along, they were forced to use various formerly independent UHF channels across the country, and still took awhile to get a truly national reach. UPN/the WB/Pax were in an even tougher spot: forced to take whatever channels were available, with some smaller cities airing either UPN/WB stuff in their off-hours (since they were already Big Three affiliates) or not at all. Basically, most existing channels in our cities have become some sort of network affiliate, and (concerns over lack of independence aside), and thus, not too many suitable high-powered independent channels left.

To get hundreds of affiliates for *another* broadcast TV network doesn't seem likely anytime soon (esp. if it'd mean taking a lower-powered station in even a larger city: in Indianapolis, just about the only non-religious independent station left is on channel 65 (not a high-powered station from what I can tell), which of course, also might not *want* to become a network station. And if that's the case, a potential network wanting an affiliate around here would either be out of luck (and mean missing out on the viewership of one of America's larger cities) or hope someone applies for another TV channel license that serves the Indianapolis viewing area sometime soon. The two long-time independent channels that were here, on channels 4 & 23, both became WB/UPN affiliates a long time ago. In smaller cities with fewer stations, this situation might be even worse...).

D) Finally, there's no guarantee that another TV network would be too high-minded, esp. these days when "Survivor" and the like are what's popular; it'd probably air the same lowest-common-denominator stuff like everyone else (esp. having to find something original to fill hours of air time with)...

-B

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Brainatra
Well, I think there's various limits placed on those who aren't U.S. citizens in running a TV network (as Murdoch faced when starting up Fox back in the 80's). Though of course, there's cable (BBC America is a not-too-widely-distributed cable channel...), though that isn't free... Yhea but allowing them in means new competiton so you can bring CBC (along with other networks) in and the US don't need to make its own.


Well:
A) As repeatedly stated before, that's not how things work in the U.S.---we're way too capitalistic to ever see the govt. even *think* about starting its own TV network (esp. when some in Congress would sooner do away with giving whatever paltry sum they're dishing out to PBS as it is), plus they'd rather spend the cash on something more worthwhile, like the military (another factor in all this---the U.S. is a militaristic country, and thus the military gets bigger priority than anything related to social spending [vs. Canada/Europe being the reverse of this]...).Bahhh bunch of do nothing Nuclear missiles what a waste.


B) PBS is already an "alternative" network to the Big Three, though it could stand a few improvements in its way of running things/in funding...Well yes PBS should stay and Ontario has TVO but the thing is PBS does not take Advertising dollars away from the big networks since they don't run ads.


C) The big three networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) each have approx. 1,000+ affiliates across the country; when Fox came along, they were forced to use various formerly independent UHF channels across the country, and still took awhile to get a truly national reach. UPN/the WB/Pax were in an even tougher spot: forced to take whatever channels were available, with some smaller cities airing either UPN/WB stuff in their off-hours (since they were already Big Three affiliates) or not at all. Basically, most existing channels in our cities have become some sort of network affiliate, and (concerns over lack of independence aside), and thus, not too many suitable high-powered independent channels left.

To get hundreds of affiliates for *another* broadcast TV network doesn't seem likely anytime soon (esp. if it'd mean taking a lower-powered station in even a larger city: in Indianapolis, just about the only non-religious independent station left is on channel 65 (not a high-powered station from what I can tell), which of course, also might not *want* to become a network station. And if that's the case, a potential network wanting an affiliate around here would either be out of luck (and mean missing out on the viewership of one of America's larger cities) or hope someone applies for another TV channel license that serves the Indianapolis viewing area sometime soon. The two long-time independent channels that were here, on channels 4 & 23, both became WB/UPN affiliates a long time ago. In smaller cities with fewer stations, this situation might be even worse...).Well defently independants are important thus if they do it they should do it like how CBC TV was born and new transmitters and studios are built instead of buying independants that should remain independant. Of course CBC did this in the 50s when the econmony was going super strong and the goverment was in a spending frenzy with the logic (why worry about money when the economey keeps growing)


D) Finally, there's no guarantee that another TV network would be too high-minded, esp. these days when "Survivor" and the like are what's popular; it'd probably air the same lowest-common-denominator stuff like everyone else (esp. having to find something original to fill hours of air time with)...Well CBC in canada keeps a high water mark it has already been put in countles reports that without CBC canadain television would look a bit more americanish since CBC draws viwers with high quality shows and adverstising. (They are not stupid they advertise they high quality shows during Wonderful World of Disney since they know alot of people are watching)Thus a big chunk of advertising dollars go to them thus CBC compeditors have to out do CBC or find a nitch to thrive.