[opendtv] Re: FCC irrelevent??
- From: "Tony Neece" <tonyneece@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 03:16:44 -0700
In reply to Craig:
I do see and agree with a lot of your points, especially in that a lot =
of
the TV programming is a waste of spectrum. The airwaves were meant to =
be a
means of advancing our culture, not deepening it into the mire. The =
demise
of the NAB code was a sad turning point in the era of broadcasting. The
public is largely to blame, they got the programming they clamored for.
As to the idea of some students getting together to do a high school
football game, I once worked for a TV station that tried to do just =
that.
NOOOObody watched. Not even mothers of the guys on the team! Sad, =
really.
I also agree that the high quality special interest programming is a =
great
value. Personally I cherish the diversity of programming on DirecTV. =
Yet it
bothers me that they devote quite a few precious transponders to crap.
Endless "infomercials" touting near-fraudulent stuff, channel after =
channel
of home shopping touting useless trinkets! Now were talkin' wasted
spectrum!!
Apparently I mis-interpreted some of your remarks about giving the =
spectrum
back to the public, who after all does own it, to mean any hobbyist =
could
jump onto the air at will with whatever they wished. That is really =
what
the FCC is intended to prevent.
It is really egregious to propose elimination of the FCC. Who would =
enforce
the orderly use of spectrum? Who would keep others off the radio
navigation, air, railroad and port traffic control frequencies? =
Wouldn't
CBers be free to operate on any frequency they choose with any =
technology
they choose and with any power they could afford?
Wouldn't the FM radio band become a chaotic free-for all? How about the
news producer that feels getting his story back to the station is more
important that whatever was already on that satellite transponder, so he
just fires up his super-duper Mega Watt HPA and blasts away?
Without some agency being traffic cop of the radio spectrum it would =
become
a demolition derby. How could elimination of control of use of the =
spectrum
possibly lead to more efficient use?
And another thing, I must rant, what is so bloody efficient about using
spectrum to provide TV to cell phones, for crying out loud!
Look at the result of the elimination of another federal regulatory =
agency.
The shut down of the CAB has given us a chaos of bankrupt airlines and =
poor
service, often in cattle-car conditions.
I appreciate your keeping this going. It is interesting to debate these
issues.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =
On
Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:48 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: FCC irrelevent??
At 5:18 PM -0700 10/24/05, Tony Neece wrote:
>Ok, I understand you do not feel the broadcasters are using their
>channels in the public interest, convenience or necessity.
Not true. I have no problem with the original "deal" for the spectrum:
Broadcasters get to use the spectrum virtually for free (they do pay=20
fees to the FCC based on market size); in return they provide=20
television content in "the free and clear." The service has been=20
supported by advertising, which we pay for in the price of the=20
products that are advertised. It's not really free, but it is was a=20
reasonable deal for decades until many of us started paying twice=20
(more in a moment).
>Are there no TV network programs you like? Sounds like you want all =
the =3D
>big productions to fold up and TV to be just run by hobbists.
I watch very little episodic network TV, although I do watch live=20
sports. I understand that many people do like to watch network shows=20
- my wife loves the various flavors of CSI. I do believe that the=20
quality of network television content has declined significantly in=20
the past two decades as the networks have pandered to what is left of=20
their audience.
And I believe that the diversity of programming choice has been a=20
good thing. We no longer live in a world with only a few choices; I=20
am personally attracted to television content that appeals to my=20
interests and I have many more interesting things to do than spending=20
the evening vegging out in front of the tube.
I do not think of the people who create high quality special interest=20
programming as hobbyists, and I do not think that it takes overpaid=20
Hollywood stars to create high quality TV content. I AM distressed by=20
the difficulty that independent producers have gaining access to the=20
airwaves as the media conglomerates have shut them out in favor of=20
their own studios.
>Do you really
>like to watch those community access channels on cable? That is my
>impression of what you mean by giving the spectrum back to the people.
You have the wrong impression.
I do not foresee that the demise of the FCC would necessarily mean=20
the demise of broadcasting. I do see it as a positive step in=20
elimination of the unnecessary protection of a dying broadcast=20
business model.
I see no need to artificially limit the use of this public resource=20
to protect a business model that only exists today because of=20
political gerrymandering. Broadcasters waste a huge percentage of the=20
available spectrum by using it inefficiently, and they use their=20
political clout to protect themselves from competition. The public is=20
the big loser here, as we have been denied a wide range of new=20
services that have the potential to be used by virtually 100% of our=20
citizens, as opposed to the meager 15% that use the TV service today.
>Me, tho I hate a lot of crap on TV, I do really enjoy a lot of it,
>especially watching my fav football team's away games. I don't think =
=3D
>some
>guy with his little pc camera is going to give me the coverage of =3D
>football
>that I would watch!
That guy could not possibly gain the rights to bring you that game.=20
But he might work with some students to cover high school football=20
games.
You seem to have the mistaken impression that eliminating the FCC and=20
using the spectrum efficiently would mean the end of TV broadcasting.=20
This is not what I, nor the person who wrote the article I posted are=20
advocating. We are advocating efficient use of the spectrum by=20
everyone, not exclusive use of the spectrum by a few conglomerates=20
with a business to protect.
>Does your point of view follow also pertain to the satellite spectrum =
=3D
>given away by the FCC, which is being used for commercial purposes?
Not all of that spectrum was given away. But I do not favor=20
auctioning spectrum for exclusive use either. The DBS systems can=20
co-exist with other terrestrial uses of the same spectrum.
I am not advocating the elimination of broadcasting...
just the elimination of the political gerrymandering that protects=20
the current business model, and forces those of us who subscribe to=20
cable and DBS to pay twice for advertiser supported content.
Regards
Craig
=20
=20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org=20
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: