I can't think of a single reason why the FCC needs to be in existence.
Monitoring the airwaves for 'smut'? Technology, combined with viewer discretion solves the problem.
Monopoly of airwaves by some monolith uber-station? Impossible. As long as tv and radio station licenses are able to be bought and used as needed, there will be a market for every taste and desire. Look at cable.
Why does America need the FCC?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, how is one company going to prevent other companies from owning and operating other television stations? How are they going to prevent another company from airing what they want to show? How can their be a monopoly of supply in this case?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. I'm well aware of large market shares owned by various companies. They aren't monopolies. There are other companies that own stations.
For another, if I recall correctly, the FCC makes it harder, if not impossible, for anything but very expensive, large radio stations to operate. By doling out only a small portion of the possible bandwidth in a community (taking into account encryption, frequency spread spectrum and the like), the FCC makes it so starting up a radio station is very expensive. I believe there are also licensing fees and the like involved which further increase the cost of starting a radio station.
My basic premise is that if there is no agency barring what is delivered, companies will seek to make a profit from every part of the community. Where a large company may make money by delivering to the hump, another may make money by delivering to the ends of the bell curve.
You can't have a monopoly on what is virtually limitless.
Please feel free to correct me if any of the above points are wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monopoly of the airwaves and the national media is already upon us, having snuck up so quietly that no one ever noticed. The FCC is supposed to prevent this kind of takeover, but has instead done exactly the opposite. Why? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the head of the FCC is the son of Colin Powell? Or that there is quite a bit of back-scratching going on between the President and the media conglomerates?
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My question is, if the government gets out of the business of broadcast licensing, how is it possible to have a broadcast monopoly?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer, SS, is that any non-government backed monopoly, is not a coercive monopoly, and therefor not truly a monopoly. As long as it is legally possible for anyone to compete, there is no monopoly.
Local power companies have a monopoly because the government has divided the country up into zones and granted sole provider rights to the companies operating within those zones. Without government intervention, there are no monopolies.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.K. I don't know that it's impossible for a monopoly to exist. I don't want to get into whether or not monopolies are possible. I just don't see how it's possible in this case.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without the FCC then only the people with enough money to buy and own a TV/Radio station will be the ones broadcasting to the public.
If there is no organization to stop them, what is to stop the wealthy from broadcasting Social Darwinistic propaganda? If you want to get elected, you wouldn't have to buy air-time. You would only give preferential treatment to the radio and TV station owners. They wouldn't even mention the other candidates.
If you have a complaint against an advertiser, or against the station (say the accidently named your sweet grandmother as the local serial killer) then your choice would be to take it to a competing station, or buy your own station.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the cash to start my own radio/tv station. Especially one that can compete with the big competitors. Especially when, without regulations, they could set up on the frequency you are broadcasting at, and drown you out.
That just leaves going to the competitor, assuming one is in your market. I mean, CBS and ABC and NBC were all good competitors for decades. You should be able to take your complaint to one of the other networks right?
Its not like any colusion would exist between the small group of existing big shots.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Its not like any colusion would exist between the small group of existing big shots.
The only way such colusion can be profitable, is if its backed by government force. If people are not happy with the broadcast tv news, they are welcome to view the cable news. If that doesn't suit them, there are newspapers and the internet. You assume that the demand for news cannot be substituted.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Twinky, how is one company going to prevent other companies from owning and operating other television stations? <<
By buying the other companies. This has already happened.
The barrier to entry in the mass media is not insignificant. Large corporations are pretty much the only ones with the cash to operate a national television network.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robes you assume people can afford internet connection or cable TV.
YOu assume that cable TV and Internet connections, even phone lines will be available in places where the population density is too small for the service to be applied.
You assume that while driving in my car, or seeking inexpensive entertainment at home the TV and Radio I listen too won't fill the air with political opinion and biased stories.
If all the immigrants that were ever shown on my local TV station were homicidal maniacs, and I could not afford other sources of information, then I would not be willing to discuss the idea of allowing them into my neighborhood.
Finally, without the FCC what is to stop the same people broadcasting my local stations to be the ones who own my cable/sattelite news stations and run the web-site news services that my IP, which they own, locks me into?
This is the information age. Those who control the information will win. Allowing that to go to the priveldged few who can afford to overwhelm all competition is to lock ourselves into a box and give them the key.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, even then, you are still going to have competition. No private company can prevent another company from building or buying other stations.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why must the network be national, anyway? People are more than willing to watch low budget entertainment.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Robes you assume people can afford internet connection or cable TV.
I don't assume that at all. How much is a newspaper? How much is a TV? How much is the electricity required to operate that TV?
quote: YOu assume that cable TV and Internet connections, even phone lines will be available in places where the population density is too small for the service to be applied.
I don't assume this at all. I do assume that people who demand news, will do so in the way that they view as their best option.
quote: You assume that while driving in my car, or seeking inexpensive entertainment at home the TV and Radio I listen too won't fill the air with political opinion and biased stories.
Please, no one is forcing you to listen to the radio. Should we have a federal commission to control magazines? What if I am waiting in the doctor's office and all the magazines I can find are filled with carrot cake recipies and pop-pychology?
quote: If all the immigrants that were ever shown on my local TV station were homicidal maniacs, and I could not afford other sources of information, then I would not be willing to discuss the idea of allowing them into my neighborhood.
Firstly, if you can afford a TV, and the electricity required to operate it, you can afford a newspaper. Secondly, if you are tactful about it, you can go to Borders and read whatever you please, for free. Failing Borders, you can use a public library. Are you saying that television news is the only source of news available to the not-quite-poor?
quote: This is the information age. Those who control the information will win.
So who then controls the information? Is it possible for anyone to monopolize information? Do you think people would put up with it?
quote: Allowing that to go to the priveldged few who can afford to overwhelm all competition is to lock ourselves into a box and give them the key.
In a truly free society, who allows the priveldged few to do anything? Is it not those who consume their products?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Robes you assume people can afford internet connection or cable TV.
But they do now. It's not like it's underwritten by the government?
quote: YOu assume that cable TV and Internet connections, even phone lines will be available in places where the population density is too small for the service to be applied.
But that stuff was built for profit and covers pretty much 100% of the US?
quote: You assume that while driving in my car, or seeking inexpensive entertainment at home the TV and Radio I listen too won't fill the air with political opinion and biased stories.
Radio stations aren't that expensive. What's to prevent some guy from building one to make people like you happy?
quote: If all the immigrants that were ever shown on my local TV station were homicidal maniacs, and I could not afford other sources of information, then I would not be willing to discuss the idea of allowing them into my neighborhood.
quote: Finally, without the FCC what is to stop the same people broadcasting my local stations to be the ones who own my cable/sattelite news stations and run the web-site news services that my IP, which they own, locks me into?
How would they lock you into it?
quote: This is the information age. Those who control the information will win. Allowing that to go to the priveldged few who can afford to overwhelm all competition is to lock ourselves into a box and give them the key.
They can't control what's put down in web pages or micro channel radio or small newspapers. Without government intervention, there's no way to prevent the flow of information these days that I can see.
In fact, the problem is that we have too much information these days.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Twinky, even then, you are still going to have competition. No private company can prevent another company from building or buying other stations. <<
If only large, rich companies can afford to broadcast national television, how varied do you think the programming will be? They will pander to the lowest common denominator – all of them. Every last one. Because there's no money in doing it any other way; you have to appeal to the broadest possible range in order to be profitable. That's my problem. If television becomes a for-profit-only industry – i.e., if state-sponsored and/or other public national television dies and all you're left with is CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and the other for-profit networks – then niche markets lose out because there's no money in them.
>> And why must the network be national, anyway? People are more than willing to watch low budget entertainment. <<
Are they? And if there's money in regional programming, what's to stop a national conglomerate from buying up all of the regional networks as well? This has already happened in radio in the US.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
And as the prices of this entertainment goes up, the poor will have less and less chance to get this source of entertainment.
Many people do.
Perhaps even most people do.
But not all.
People who assume that everyone has an extra $60 a month for such really just don't understand what poverty is.
If you are living out of your car, then where do you plug in the freakn cable.
The only reason that all of the US has telephone access (actually 99.5%. The rest still don't have it) when it doesn't pay to run the lines to rural communities, is that the Federal Government ordered it.
CHeck your phone bill. You'll see the fee listed separately there.
I still don't get Cable or High Speed Internet because I live outside the area where it runs.
Radio stations are cheap?
A micro-station may be only several thousand dollars, but a full radio station, able to broadcast a clear FM signal would be a million easy. Add to that the cost of the people to run the station and the content and guess what? Its well beyond the pocketbooks of most people.
I certainly don't have a few million to spare on trying to get unbiased news.
And yes, your IP doesn't control where or what you go for your news. However, unless you have millions to spare on news reporters and sources and content, the news you get must come from some source. Where do you look for the news? Cnn.com? MSNBC.com? ABC.com? NYTimes.com? There are the same sources that could be controlled by those who own all the media.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and Storm, the micro Radio and small papers and pamphlets and people on the street corners yelling will still be drowned out by the corporate giants broadcasting 24/7 on every channel.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I still don't get Cable or High Speed Internet because I live outside the area where it runs.
Yet you can still receive broadcast TV signals? Those also have a limited range. What about those poor poor people who can't afford a TV or an electric bill? How will all those evil corporations rot their minds without TV?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Even the backers of the present politicians got into the act.
Surprisingly, these backers, after being attacked by their political opponents, have arranged for the arrest or closure of every other media source but their own.
Oh, but don't worry. People are spending what few rubles they have to buy satellite dishes to get the real news....
from outside their country.
I wonder where I'd have to go to get my real news if there were no regulations here?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Surprisingly, these backers, after being attacked by their political opponents, have arranged for the arrest or closure of every other media source but their own.
A wonderful argument against government intervention!
All they have now are government run stations. government control is WHY people don't trust their media, not t'other way 'round.
quote: I wonder where I'd have to go to get my real news if there were no regulations here?
So..... because we have government regulated content, we are more likely to get "real" news, just like in Russia has? I agree.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't have a TV or Radio, you are not subject to any broadcast media's message.
If you have a TV or Radio but can't afford Cable, then you have only the broadcast media as a source of news.
There are a signifigant number of people who can afford a $20 radio or a $100 TV, but who can't afford to pay $40-$60 a month for basic cable news options.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you have a TV or Radio but can't afford Cable, then you have only the broadcast media as a source of news.
False. Newspapers, magazines, books, the internet(via libraries or cafes if needed).
quote: If you don't have a TV or Radio, you are not subject to any broadcast media's message.
If you DO have a TV or radio, you are not SUBJECTED to the broadcast media's message. If you wish to evaluate its value in you own mind, you may do so. If you wish to turn it off, you are also allowed.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
They have a media that's been bought by the people in power.
Take away all regulation and safe gaurds and you get what is identical to a Government Run media.
Would our news be any different if it was run by a Republican Government or the Republican Party?
Once any company has a large enough share of the market it can, if unchecked, crush all competition. HOw? By using its size, illegally perhaps, to control all the necessary resources, wether they are capital or governmental or band width, that a startup competitor would need.
Look at Microsoft. It abused its power as near-monopoly to hinder most competition. It bought its biggest competitor, Apple. It smashed Unix. And Linux has taken over a decade to become anything more than a computer Geeks play toy.
Have no controls on the airwaves and you will soon have only one or two companies controling all the media.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Once any company has a large enough share of the market it can, if unchecked, crush all competition.
False. If a company is alone in a market, it still is subjected to market forces. If it raises its prices above market value or provide an unwanted product(news that is propaganda), people will either switch products(read a newspaper), or compete with the company.
You deliberately mis-interpret what a coercive monopoly is. The only possible form of coercive monopoly, is one where people are forced, by law, to participate.
quote: Look at Microsoft. It abused its power as near-monopoly to hinder most competition. It bought its biggest competitor, Apple.
! Did I miss something? When did MS buy Apple!?
quote: It smashed Unix. And Linux has taken over a decade to become anything more than a computer Geeks play toy.
So the government should have forced people to use linux instead of microsoft, to protect them from microsoft? I think the people voted with their cash, and they voted for microsoft.
quote: Have no controls on the airwaves and you will soon have only one or two companies controling all the media.
Broadcast TV is no longer the dominant TV market. If some company were able to use guile and evil to corner the airwaves, they would NOT control all the media, they would control one small corner of it.
posted
The big payoff wasn't the $150 million (which was all nonvoting shares), but the required creation of certain software for the mac (such as office) for a certain period. That period has recently ended, however MS is definitely continuing to make mac software. Why? Because the mac business unit is one of the most profitable microsoft units .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Apple's global desktop marketshare is about 2-3%. Linux's global desktop marketshare is less. The other ~90-95% is MS.
Servers, of course, are another story.
However, IMO MS did clearly abuse its monopoly in the Netscape fiasco, though it didn't help that Netscape became a steaming pile about the time IE started getting good.
Edit:
Most profitable because it has the highest margins, yes
quote: MS did clearly abuse its monopoly in the Netscape fiasco
By refusing to allow its product to support other products? I think if they want to do something stupid like that, its their right. Let the market decide.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, by integrating IE into their OS such that it could not be removed, and thereby heavily encouraging consumers to use it. Also by strongarming OEMs into continuing to ship Windows installed on computer hard drives.
The market has no viable alternative to MS. It could not decide to use something else, because there was nothing else. Linux wasn't ready for consumers – arguably it still isn't – and switching to the Mac requires purchasing new hardware.
In other words, Microsoft abused its position as a near-monopoly to crush its competition in the web browser market.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: >> Twinky, even then, you are still going to have competition. No private company can prevent another company from building or buying other stations. <<
If only large, rich companies can afford to broadcast national television, how varied do you think the programming will be?
Who do you think owns the stations now? I think the programming will be even more, or at least as, varied than it is now. Why wouldn't it be? Why do specialized networks like 'The Food Network' and 'CNN' and 'CBN' and 'Playboy' and 'The History Channel' exist? It's not like the government is forcing the cable companies to provide space for these channels. These channels exist because there is a niche to fill. This niche is not created by the state and is not dependent on it for profitability.
If a company panders to the LCD, then another company will step in with 'better' programming. Perhaps they won't make the money that the other company will, but they will make money and they will provide that service.
Again, it's impossible to create a monopoly when you can't control the supply. As long as stations can be built, as long as things can be taped and put on cable, there will always be little specialized channels and shows that cater to a certain segment of society.
quote: They will pander to the lowest common denominator – all of them. Every last one. Because there's no money in doing it any other way; you have to appeal to the broadest possible range in order to be profitable. That's my problem. If television becomes a for-profit-only industry – i.e., if state-sponsored and/or other public national television dies and all you're left with is CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX, and the other for-profit networks – then niche markets lose out because there's no money in them.
If there's money in them now, why not later? *The state does not underwrite anything but PBS. It does not create demand. It only raises the bar for entry and defines what can be put on the air.*
quote: >> And why must the network be national, anyway? People are more than willing to watch low budget entertainment. <<
Are they?
Yeah. Witness this thread. Or Jerry Springer. Or Reality TV. Or Strongbad.
quote: And if there's money in regional programming, what's to stop a national conglomerate from buying up all of the regional networks as well? This has already happened in radio in the US.
Not it hasn't, for one. Clear Channel owns a lot. Viacom owns some more. Other companies own some more.
quote: The audience reach of the major consolidated radio companies is staggering. According to the Fall, 1999, Arbitron survey, 28.2% of national average quarter hour listening was to stations owned by Clear Channel/AMFM. CBS/Infinity had 11.7% of the national average quarter hour listening.
Two companies have, what, 39% market share. This isn't even close to a national conglemorate owning them all. And this is *with* the FCC being stingy about handing out licenses and makign micro channel radio illegal.
Another simple reason why one company won't own all the stations is profit. Why am I going to let you take away my profit? If one company sees a chance to make money in radio, then why is it going to let its profit share disappear by selling to someone else? They don't have to. Why would they?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The root cause of the FCC is very simple: make it so the airwaves are usable.
Radio frequencies are highly subject to "pollution". One guy who knows what he's doing with some home radio equipment like one can get for a few hundred bucks at most can blanket out a given frequency so nobody's signal gets through quite easily. One modern example of this is the frequency the power runs at. Its one huge reason to be against broadband over powerlines -- broadband over powerlines runs across most of the allowed Ham radio spectrum.
Say for instance if a cable company felt a broadcaster in an area was getting too competitive. That cable company could set up interference transmitters in the middle of all the broadcaster's markets for spare change if somebody didn't stop it.
The FCC is absolutely necessary for keeping the airwaves usable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the only function of the FCC that I agree with, is to make sure that freqs don't cancel each other out. That is a problem easilly gotten around, though, and doesn't mean that the FCC needs to have the powers it has now.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the discussion about needing money to access information.
Robes is right. There's not a large community I know of without a public library, even my tiny little town has one with newspapers, magazines, and free internet service.
If you can afford a living space with electricity and a TV, you can afford to find out news from other sources, even if all you can afford is the bus fare to the nearest library. The argument that some people can only afford to get news from the broadast networks doesnt' hold water.
As long as people are free to express their opinions, they will find a way to express them. Look at us. We're doing a fair amount of opinion expressing on this board.
And unless print media and the internet is outlawed one day, a person can always find access to alternate opinions.
I'm not arguing for or against the FCC, by the way, just pointing out my agreement with Robes that there are plenty of ways to access other sources of news, even with limited funds.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sort of easy to handle. There's a rather limited frequency space. Since supply doesn't meet demand there's a need to regulate the division of frequency space, not merely the interference of frequency spaces. This implies a judgement as to the public good of a the companies receiving the use of the frequencies in the public trust, which leads to the idea of regulating the airwaves.
If we are to let what is done with the airwaves go unregulated, that breaks down the possiblity of any criteria to divide them up in the first place.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since supply doesn't meet demand there's a need to regulate the division of frequency space, not merely the interference of frequency spaces.
I agree that without organization of the signals, there is chaos. However, in the market I am currently in, there are 5 VHF stations broadcasting, and a handful of UHF stations. As far as I understand, there are 10 available freqs on VHF, channels 2-12, excluding 3. That makes 50% utilization. I really don't know if this is because of lack of interest, or if there is some technological limit, and there needs to be space between the freqs or what. But I know that UHF is under-utilized.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that is deliberate, and is to reduce overlap. Stations are staggered -- one area gets the "evens" and the adjacent area gets the "odds" -- to prevent bleed-through. Same reason why radio stations are spaced the way they are.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
In St.Louis the VHF stations are 2,4,5,9,11. I would assume that there should be room for a channel 7 at least. And if 4 and 5 can be next to one another, why not 11 and 12 as well?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my area we also have 4 and 5 adjacent; I have a vague recollection that there is less of a frequency overlap issue at that end of the range. Be that as it may, those two stations are the two it is hardest for me to tune in.
In the (considerably larger) metropolitan area in which I reside, the locally available VHF channels are 2,4,5,7,9,11,13; and the alternating channels are (I believe) assigned to outlying areas. I don't think it's under-utilization.
And as a licensed amateur operator, with some knowledge of countries with both stricter and weaker control of the airwaves, I actually think we could do with MORE (or rather, tighter) regulation than we have. But I'll settle for what we have. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ain't read the whole thread yet but this kinda struck me and I needed to address it.
quote: by Robespierre
I don't assume that at all. How much is a newspaper? How much is a TV? How much is the electricity required to operate that TV?
There is a portion of the population that can't get out to get the news paper, can't afford to buy the TV or radio because all their money goes towards subsisting (this is beow the 'existing mark) Take me for example. I draw 572 dollars a month. Before I moved to Arkansas, my rent was 350 per month. Power was averaging 120. (100 year old farm house that had VERY bad wiring) Phone was 40 or so. Water 20 average. The rest went for food. Thats 42 dollars a month to eat on. Where in that can I afford to buy a TV or radio? And would anyone else like to eat on 42 dollars a month?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
