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?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
To keep those myriad channels from being owned by one monolithic company.
Not that it's actually serving that purpose.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, I mispoke in my initial post. No station would need to buy licenses from anyone.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Monopoly of airwaves by some monolith uber-station? Impossible.
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.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
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?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
My question is, if the government gets out of the business of broadcast licensing, how is it possible to have a broadcast monopoly?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
For instance, micro radio is illegal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But if there were no FCC, who would I get my ham license from?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> 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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Twinky, even then, you are still going to have competition. No private company can prevent another company from building or buying other stations.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And why must the network be national, anyway? People are more than willing to watch low budget entertainment.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> 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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wrong
Not everybody can afford Cable.
Not everybody can afford Internet.
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Or, for a look at what happens when you take all the regulations away from media ownership, check out Russia's recent history.
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?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Wrong Robes.
They don't have government controlled media.
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
[ February 16, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Apple sued MS, and MS settled out of court; part of the settlement was an $150 million investment in Apple. Some people called it a payoff.
I'm not one of them, myself, but then I'm a Mac user Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Okay, but that is very far from
quote: It bought its biggest competitor, Apple.
As far as I know, apple is still MS's biggest competitor.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Storm, you have a knak for getting some good threads going.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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 .
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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
[ February 16, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*cough*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
That sounds correct.
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?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't mean radio as in what you listen to I meant radio as in the range of frequencies (roughly).
That includes TV broadcasts, cell phones, and much much more.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
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?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Did you consider going to a library?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
His username is BookWyrm, Robes.
quote:fugu13: The FCC is absolutely necessary for keeping the airwaves usable.
I agree. The FCC shouldn't have all the power it has now, but there definitely needs to be some sort of entity that controls allocation of broadcast frequencies.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
I saw that Nato, and don't know what to make of it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dan, it is interesting that you brought up Russian TV. There is a good article at NYTIMES.com about this.
quote: From the article ...On Russia's two largest channels, both government owned, and even on those with a lesser degree of state control, there is an uncritical deference to the nation's elected leader that would be unthinkable in Europe or the United States.
...All of the national networks are now owned by the state or controlled by state corporations, including the once feisty and critical NTV, which was taken over in 2001 by Gazprom, the state gas monopoly.
Sounds unregulated to me....
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
On a tangent, here's an article about how the Dept. of Education is deeming what shows are fit for closed-captioning (original link from www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp )
quote:By Dan Moffett, Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer Sunday, February 8, 2004
The Bush administration has decided that people with bad hearing have bad judgment, too, and need special guidance from the federal government. So the U.S. Department of Education is declaring about 200 television programs inappropriate for closed-captioning and denying federal grant requests to make them accessible to the hearing-impaired.
The department made its decisions based on the recommendations of a five-member panel. Who the five members are, only the government seems to know, and it isn't saying. But the shows they censored suggest a perspective that is Talibanesque.
The government is refusing to caption Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, apparently fearing that the deaf would fall prey to witchcraft if they viewed the classic sitcoms.
Your government also believes that Law & Order is too intense for the hard-of-hearing. So is Power Rangers. You can rest easy knowing that your federal tax dollars aren't being spent to promote Sanford and Son, Judge Wapner's Animal Court and The Loretta Young Show within the deaf community. Kids with hearing problems can forget about watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, classic cartoons or Nickelodeon features. Even Roy Rogers and Robin Hood are out.
Sports programming took a heavy hit, too. The government has decided that people with hearing problems don't need to watch NASCAR, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League or Professional Golf Association tournaments.
The National Association of the Deaf says the government used to caption these shows but abruptly changed course, deciding that the shows don't fit the required definition of "educational, news or informational" programming.
"They've suddenly narrowed down the definition of those three kinds of programming without public input," says Kelby Brick, director of the NAD's law and advocacy center. "Basically, the department wants to limit captioning to puritan shows. The department wants to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are not exposed to any non-puritan programming. Never mind that the rest of the country is allowed to be exposed."
...
The Department of Education is refusing to reveal the names of the panel members whose opinions determined the caption grants and also won't disclose the new guidelines. By every appearance, the government has changed its definition of what constitutes a caption-worthy program. But it's keeping the new rules secret.
"They apparently used a panel of five individuals and then made the censorship decisions based on the individuals' recommendations," Mr. Brick says.
"We have found the identity of one of the panelists. This individual tells us that he never knew he was on such a panel and that his views would be used for censorship. No panel was convened. The five panelists were contacted individually and separately."
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Robespierre
Did you consider going to a library?
How does a Shut-in go to the library? Notice in my breakdown of my income, there is no room for buying a car, much less paying for the insurance. And I lived in the Boonies. 15 miles to the nearest 'center' (meaning town where theres a grocery store etc. Add to the fact that the doctors have forbidden me to drive just puts another nail in my ability to motorvate. I have to depend on others for my getting around.
Makes for an interesting cunundrum, eh?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Makes for an interesting cunundrum, eh?
Yeah, that is interesting.
How can you afford to use the internet? Is there some reason why you cannot use the same IP you use to post on here to access news sources?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I can't afford cable or satellite (plus, living in the country makes cable not even an option).
However, I do, of course, have a telephone and internet, and keep up with news/events via internet at home & work.
But I do know people who have neither option and can afford neither. In a rural area this is especially hard because it costs money to drive anywhere of decent enough population to have such things as libraries that offer internet, etc. And if you are rural and poor and have no vehicle or a broken vehicle, you are pretty much stranded, except for the kindness of neighbors.
So while I'll agree that some of the scenarios are rare, they do exist.
I have a friend I gave an old computer to, who cannot afford to connect it to internet (no phone line). Has no tv. Is about to lose his house (inherited) to unpaid taxes due to no income. Has a heart condition that prevents him from being able to do many options of work. Has no vehicle to get to work if he had a job. There are some severely poor people out there.
Don't worry -- I keep him updated on all the latest news! <GRIN>
Farmgirl
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Robe, I was talking about the time I was living in South Carolina. I recently moved to Arkansas (back in September). What I was pointing out was the fact that not everyone is mobile in the US. Not everyone has a TV or radio, can jump in a car and trundle down to the nearest library. Not everyone has a computer, much less internet access. I was there. I know. Just because *MY* situation has improved doesn't mean I was the Last Person Doing Without so to speak. No one seems to think of those with VERY limited resources because we aren't in your face. Its easy to forget those left behind when you 'Make It'.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: No one seems to think of those with VERY limited resources because we aren't in your face.
You seem to be in my face right now. Living with VERY limited resources limits your availability to news, no doubt. However, if receiving news is something that is valuable to you, find a way to get it.
quote: Its easy to forget those left behind when you 'Make It'.
Its equally as easy to get angry at those who have "made it" and forget that no one made it for them.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Having the FCC does allow complaints to be handled with the appropriate fingerwagging and miniscule fines rather than by absurdly stupid Congressional lawmaking.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)