The FCC won't let me be me
June 2, 2003 12:13 AM Subscribe
As media concentration grows, (and grows) today is the big day the FCC announces their changes in regulations. You can hear it live, via realaudio, at http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/, starting at 9:30AM EST, 6:30AM west coast time.
Bravo Ted, please point out again in a polite logical way that business are in the field for profits, not for individual or public good. Sometimes people forget this.
posted by elpapacito at 4:00 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by elpapacito at 4:00 AM on June 2, 2003
One of the best arguments I heard for maintaining the current rules was the story of a town in the midwest which had some serious tornadoes bearing down on it.
The local police figured they had 20 minutes to warn the public. So they try to call the local radio stations who would broadcast the alert. Problem was that 6 out of the 9 "local" radio stations were not really local at all, but manned via satellite by some anonymous engineer across the country. Said engineer wasn't picking up his phone. Therefore, no alerts. Therefore tornadoes killing people who could have been warned.
I'd love to hear what the FCC would do to solve this sort of problem.
posted by jeremias at 4:26 AM on June 2, 2003
The local police figured they had 20 minutes to warn the public. So they try to call the local radio stations who would broadcast the alert. Problem was that 6 out of the 9 "local" radio stations were not really local at all, but manned via satellite by some anonymous engineer across the country. Said engineer wasn't picking up his phone. Therefore, no alerts. Therefore tornadoes killing people who could have been warned.
I'd love to hear what the FCC would do to solve this sort of problem.
posted by jeremias at 4:26 AM on June 2, 2003
Could it be that the same guy who brought on the current policy is now lobbying for big media? Fittingly, his name is Dick.
posted by magullo at 4:56 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by magullo at 4:56 AM on June 2, 2003
jeremias, do you have a citation for that highly unlikely story, which doesn't seem to be informed by any practical experience in the Midwest? Do you really think that tornadoes bearing down means police dispatchers manually calling radio stations, anymore? What is this, Mayberry RFD?
According to FCC regulations for the Emergency Alert System (which has replaced the "Emergency Broadcast System"), CFR 11.52 (c) (1) {PDF} requires that unattended broadcast facilities be automatically interrupted when an EAS message is transmitted. There are provisions for manual operation, of course, but why would a satellitized, computerized system have a manual point of failure like that? Don't you imagine that if something did happen it would backfire on the radio station, and thus the company would have a vested interest in not screwing up the emergency notification? Boy, the standards around here sure have slipped. May as well use the blink tags and say in all caps NEW FCC RULES WILL KILL PEOPLE.
Additionally, it is pretty much standard for communities in Tornado Alley to have working siren systems; and Weather Radio services are provided nationally through the NOAA, activating specially-equipped radios automatically when a severe weather alert is issued.
Finally, 6 of 9 stations in one local area would violate the existing as well as the expanded FCC ownership rules. In a market of fewer than 15 stations, one company can own no more than five.
posted by dhartung at 5:01 AM on June 2, 2003
According to FCC regulations for the Emergency Alert System (which has replaced the "Emergency Broadcast System"), CFR 11.52 (c) (1) {PDF} requires that unattended broadcast facilities be automatically interrupted when an EAS message is transmitted. There are provisions for manual operation, of course, but why would a satellitized, computerized system have a manual point of failure like that? Don't you imagine that if something did happen it would backfire on the radio station, and thus the company would have a vested interest in not screwing up the emergency notification? Boy, the standards around here sure have slipped. May as well use the blink tags and say in all caps NEW FCC RULES WILL KILL PEOPLE.
Additionally, it is pretty much standard for communities in Tornado Alley to have working siren systems; and Weather Radio services are provided nationally through the NOAA, activating specially-equipped radios automatically when a severe weather alert is issued.
Finally, 6 of 9 stations in one local area would violate the existing as well as the expanded FCC ownership rules. In a market of fewer than 15 stations, one company can own no more than five.
posted by dhartung at 5:01 AM on June 2, 2003
business are in the field for profits, not for individual or public good.
So, business are "in it" for profits. So what? As I recall, slave traders and slaveholding plantation owners were "in it" for profit as well. Sweatshops are "in it" for profit. Child pornographers? In it for profit. Theives? In it for profit.
Those businesses ought to remember that regardless of what they're "in it" for, no one has a "right" to do business.. In the specific case of radio stations, the airwaves are held in public trust for the people by the government. In plain terms: who owns the airwaves? The people of the United States do. That means that if the government is going to properly adminstrate the use of those airwaves, it has evety right, and in fact, the duty to consider the best public good, profits be damned.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:52 AM on June 2, 2003
So, business are "in it" for profits. So what? As I recall, slave traders and slaveholding plantation owners were "in it" for profit as well. Sweatshops are "in it" for profit. Child pornographers? In it for profit. Theives? In it for profit.
Those businesses ought to remember that regardless of what they're "in it" for, no one has a "right" to do business.. In the specific case of radio stations, the airwaves are held in public trust for the people by the government. In plain terms: who owns the airwaves? The people of the United States do. That means that if the government is going to properly adminstrate the use of those airwaves, it has evety right, and in fact, the duty to consider the best public good, profits be damned.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:52 AM on June 2, 2003
Email Dick Wiley's good friend, Michael Powell, here: mpowell@fcc.gov Or call the FCC at (888) 225-5322.
posted by four panels at 6:25 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by four panels at 6:25 AM on June 2, 2003
no one has a "right" to do business..
So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
posted by alumshubby at 6:59 AM on June 2, 2003
So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
posted by alumshubby at 6:59 AM on June 2, 2003
dhartung: I believe jeremias might be talking about an anecdote told on NPR last week. Here's a link (Real Audio).
posted by turaho at 7:13 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by turaho at 7:13 AM on June 2, 2003
dhartung: It was also recounted on Nightline last week, with interviews from several people from the station and community. It sounded like they got the problem fixed.
posted by sj at 7:42 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by sj at 7:42 AM on June 2, 2003
Bravo Ted, please point out again in a polite logical way that business are in the field for profits, not for individual or public good. Sometimes people forget this.
And Ted sure had a tough time making money under the old rules, didn't he? As noted above, this is a different situation than companies selling widgets. The airwaves belong to us, not some megalomaniacal Australian. Would it kill us to have a balance of profit making and public good, or is that too complicated a concept?
posted by jalexei at 8:02 AM on June 2, 2003
And Ted sure had a tough time making money under the old rules, didn't he? As noted above, this is a different situation than companies selling widgets. The airwaves belong to us, not some megalomaniacal Australian. Would it kill us to have a balance of profit making and public good, or is that too complicated a concept?
posted by jalexei at 8:02 AM on June 2, 2003
I heard a wonderfully damning "pro" (in favour of the proposed new FCC regs) argument on public radio - "groups in favour claim that increased ownership of media outlets would allow them to better serve the public by allowing greater resources to be applied to news coverage." (or something like that). Of course it depends on what exactly one means by "better".
Does "better" mean slicker? More expensive?" Or is it about attempts at impartiality, a wide spectrum of available news perspectives, and aggressive investigative reporting?
By the above quote's train of illogic (monopolies=greater financial resources=better news coverage) the ex-Soviet Union would have had the finest, most impartial news coverage services of it's era - as exemplified by Pravda, et. al.
Oh, but the Soviets didn't believe in the Free Market. Yup, that's it....
If you believe that, perhaps you would be interested in investing in some prime real estate I have for sale around Tierra Del Fuego? It's great for farm purposes such as growing blind, five-legged cows (a bit high on the UV scale, but it's OK if you wear a hat).
posted by troutfishing at 8:04 AM on June 2, 2003
Does "better" mean slicker? More expensive?" Or is it about attempts at impartiality, a wide spectrum of available news perspectives, and aggressive investigative reporting?
By the above quote's train of illogic (monopolies=greater financial resources=better news coverage) the ex-Soviet Union would have had the finest, most impartial news coverage services of it's era - as exemplified by Pravda, et. al.
Oh, but the Soviets didn't believe in the Free Market. Yup, that's it....
If you believe that, perhaps you would be interested in investing in some prime real estate I have for sale around Tierra Del Fuego? It's great for farm purposes such as growing blind, five-legged cows (a bit high on the UV scale, but it's OK if you wear a hat).
posted by troutfishing at 8:04 AM on June 2, 2003
jalexei - "The airwaves belong to us"? Are you saying that media monopolies don't have the right to beam radio waves through my head for a profit? Sounds like you might be a communiss to me. The media monopolies EARNED the right to exploit those airwaves fair and square - by hiring armies of lobbyists and lawyers. Do you believe in EARNING money? I bet you think the government should just deliver thick stacks of $100 bills right to your door - right? I bet you even believe that the AIR and the ATMOSPHERE belong to the public? Get a grip. *puts tinfoil hat back on, continues reading "Atlas Shrugged"*
posted by troutfishing at 8:17 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by troutfishing at 8:17 AM on June 2, 2003
The idea that media's purpose is to inform the citizenry or that the airwaves are to be used for the public good ended several years. Today it is seen as simply another means to make money.
Where were people when Congress was auctioning off spectrum in the Clinton years? Where were they when the Fairness Doctorine was abolished? When was the last time a radio or TV station was not allowed to renew their license because they didn't commit to serving the public interest?
The changes that will go into effect today are merely a continuation of policies begun in the 80s. I say let's just end all limits altogether. Let's accelerate the collapse of The System so we can start over. Nickle and diming our way to the end makes it invisible.
posted by infowar at 8:25 AM on June 2, 2003
Where were people when Congress was auctioning off spectrum in the Clinton years? Where were they when the Fairness Doctorine was abolished? When was the last time a radio or TV station was not allowed to renew their license because they didn't commit to serving the public interest?
The changes that will go into effect today are merely a continuation of policies begun in the 80s. I say let's just end all limits altogether. Let's accelerate the collapse of The System so we can start over. Nickle and diming our way to the end makes it invisible.
posted by infowar at 8:25 AM on June 2, 2003
So what happened?
*checks CNN*
OK, let the record show that "FCC adopts media ownership rules". Big surprise.
posted by luser at 8:29 AM on June 2, 2003
*checks CNN*
OK, let the record show that "FCC adopts media ownership rules". Big surprise.
posted by luser at 8:29 AM on June 2, 2003
Of-fucking-course it's in real audio. Argh!
Hey, the G-8 swarm is using Real this week for their live feed, too, and a wiki for event announcements. Anarchist chic! Blogs, now more than ever.
posted by hairyeyeball at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2003
Hey, the G-8 swarm is using Real this week for their live feed, too, and a wiki for event announcements. Anarchist chic! Blogs, now more than ever.
posted by hairyeyeball at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2003
I bet you even believe that the AIR and the ATMOSPHERE belong to the public? Get a grip. *puts tinfoil hat back on, continues reading "Atlas Shrugged"*
jalexei peers out of bedroom window in parent's basement, wonders how troutfishing can see him, decides to double number of "defense crystals" lining floor....
posted by jalexei at 8:37 AM on June 2, 2003
jalexei peers out of bedroom window in parent's basement, wonders how troutfishing can see him, decides to double number of "defense crystals" lining floor....
posted by jalexei at 8:37 AM on June 2, 2003
Aww man, I was hoping for some scathing indictment of culty Christians buried in that litany from old Ted, but not today.
posted by xmutex at 8:37 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by xmutex at 8:37 AM on June 2, 2003
Finally, 6 of 9 stations in one local area would violate the existing as well as the expanded FCC ownership rules. In a market of fewer than 15 stations, one company can own no more than five.
Bay Area folk, help me out here, maybe you can confirm Lisa's story: she claims that Clear Channel already owns 9 radio stations in the Bay Area, when the legal limit is 8?
Michael Powell, son of Colin.
I also heard that the media is the only group that has government licenses without fees (for using the TV and radio bands); the main reason being that it's the media's responsibility to keep the public informed.
posted by gramcracker at 9:28 AM on June 2, 2003
Bay Area folk, help me out here, maybe you can confirm Lisa's story: she claims that Clear Channel already owns 9 radio stations in the Bay Area, when the legal limit is 8?
Michael Powell, son of Colin.
I also heard that the media is the only group that has government licenses without fees (for using the TV and radio bands); the main reason being that it's the media's responsibility to keep the public informed.
posted by gramcracker at 9:28 AM on June 2, 2003
dhartung:
I know that the story you doubt sounds like a worst-case scenario, but it did, indeed happen. Here is a transcript of the event being discussed on NOW.
Basically, a train carrying deadly chemicals derailed in ND, and when local law enforcement called the radio stations to issue emergency alerts (not just a friendly service, but a requirement of leasing the airwaves from the public) there was no one at all to answer the phones. Yeah, it's freaky and sci-fi, but it happened. What's keeping it from happening again?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:23 AM on June 2, 2003
I know that the story you doubt sounds like a worst-case scenario, but it did, indeed happen. Here is a transcript of the event being discussed on NOW.
Basically, a train carrying deadly chemicals derailed in ND, and when local law enforcement called the radio stations to issue emergency alerts (not just a friendly service, but a requirement of leasing the airwaves from the public) there was no one at all to answer the phones. Yeah, it's freaky and sci-fi, but it happened. What's keeping it from happening again?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:23 AM on June 2, 2003
Finally, 6 of 9 stations in one local area would violate the existing as well as the expanded FCC ownership rules. In a market of fewer than 15 stations, one company can own no more than five.
Yes. This happens as well. Clear Channel is already over the cap in many markets and in general (no link, but I suspect there may be something in the transcript above. I am scouring). I have no fucking idea why.
Dhartung:
You are usually one of the most informed people on mefi, and I usually smile when I see one of your lengthy and educational posts in a given thread, but you are wrong about this one. You are right to point out that there are existing rules forbidding much of what people fear, but when there is no enforcement mechanism, rules are meaningless. The government (FCC, in this case) is failing to adequately police this industry. In a democracy, how do the people generate pressure for change when an institution fails? The free press. Oops.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2003
Yes. This happens as well. Clear Channel is already over the cap in many markets and in general (no link, but I suspect there may be something in the transcript above. I am scouring). I have no fucking idea why.
Dhartung:
You are usually one of the most informed people on mefi, and I usually smile when I see one of your lengthy and educational posts in a given thread, but you are wrong about this one. You are right to point out that there are existing rules forbidding much of what people fear, but when there is no enforcement mechanism, rules are meaningless. The government (FCC, in this case) is failing to adequately police this industry. In a democracy, how do the people generate pressure for change when an institution fails? The free press. Oops.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:28 AM on June 2, 2003
This makes the vast, right wing conspiracy of the 1990s seem quaint.
posted by four panels at 10:29 AM on June 2, 2003
posted by four panels at 10:29 AM on June 2, 2003
So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
...which are endowed to humans, not businesses, firstly, and secondly, I don't see "do business" in that list. Legally, governments grant people the privilege of doing business so long as they meet various requirements (businesses must have a business license, after all), which differentiates any right to do business from old Tom Jefferson's inalienable ones in that it is not inalienable - it can be taken away.
So, perhaps I should amend my statement: no one has the inalienable right to do business. The right can and should be taken away if "the public good" is in jeopardy.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2003
...which are endowed to humans, not businesses, firstly, and secondly, I don't see "do business" in that list. Legally, governments grant people the privilege of doing business so long as they meet various requirements (businesses must have a business license, after all), which differentiates any right to do business from old Tom Jefferson's inalienable ones in that it is not inalienable - it can be taken away.
So, perhaps I should amend my statement: no one has the inalienable right to do business. The right can and should be taken away if "the public good" is in jeopardy.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2003
This makes the vast, right wing conspiracy of the 1990s seem quaint.
four panels, a conspiracy necessitates secrecy. What the right has been trying to accomplish has been overt and conspicuous. That is why it feels like more of a kick in the pants to me - no one seems to notice or care.
posted by plemeljr at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2003
four panels, a conspiracy necessitates secrecy. What the right has been trying to accomplish has been overt and conspicuous. That is why it feels like more of a kick in the pants to me - no one seems to notice or care.
posted by plemeljr at 11:09 AM on June 2, 2003
hey, just more reason not to watch broadcast television or listen to the radio as far as I'm concerned.
(not a solution, I know, but it's what's going to start happening more if people get fed up)
posted by Hackworth at 12:04 PM on June 2, 2003
(not a solution, I know, but it's what's going to start happening more if people get fed up)
posted by Hackworth at 12:04 PM on June 2, 2003
« Older Raiders: The Tribute | Lou Reed Interview Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by homunculus at 12:30 AM on June 2, 2003