Slashdot Mirror
FCC Takes First Step Toward Allowing More Broadcast TV Mergers (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a divided vote today, the Federal Communications Commission took steps that could lead to more consolidation among TV broadcasters, reducing the number of sources of local news. Today's changes revolve around the media ownership cap -- a limit on how many households a TV or radio broadcaster is allowed to reach. The rules are meant to promote diversity of media ownership, giving consumers access to different content and viewpoints. The cap currently prevents a company from reaching no more than 39 percent of U.S. households with broadcast TV. Large broadcasters hate the cap because it prevents them from getting even bigger. And since Trump took office and Ajit Pai was named chairman of the FCC, they've been lobbying to have it revised. The FCC's vote today starts to do that. First, it reinstates a rule known as the "UHF discount," which lets broadcasters have a bigger reach in areas where they use a certain type of technology. And second, it starts plans to revisit and raise the media ownership cap.
Get rid of your TV. Stop watching all that bullshit that keeps you brainwashed.
Totally different from state propaganda channels right?
I mean, Comcast News channel 1, Comcast News Channel 5, Comcast News channel 12 and Comcast News channel 331 are entirely different uh, weather ladies.
One of them even has Channel capitalized but not the others, so you can tell they're completely different.
As a kid I thought mom was mean for not letting us kids watch tv all the time. here I sit at age 30 thinking my mom was far more wise than I had imagined. I decided to try and cut back a month ago. I've watched two f1 races and that's it this month.
I feel calmer, happier and less tired. I focus better at work and think clearer in general. Tv is a drug like pot or booze. Use it in moderation.
For someone who railed against the "mainstream media", it's surprising that Trump would support a policy allowing the largest media companies to become even larger.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
there's a Trump post within the top.
You see, that's the old annoying oligopoly set. How we have a new annoying oligopoly set.
Table-ized A.I.
is a totally obsolete incentive since the changeover to digital broadcasts. it is simply an old relic from the days from when uhf was actually inferior to vhf, in both recognition and broadcast coverage and quality, that the republican morons on the commission are using to open the door to mergers of massive proportions that will do NOTHING good for the general public.
it is also further muddied by the fact that many local stations use a 'virtual' channel number still in the vhf range (which was their old analog channel number) while actually continuing to broadcast on their formerly-temporary uhf assigned frequencies (used during the transition period when both analog and digital was being transmitted).
for the four people who still watch and trust anything on Television.
In the end, this will favor News Corporation.
That's it for diversity. We see the same news stories from the same reporters, often introduced by the same anchors. This is allowed because we are a "small market". The stations are all "low power" stations. I can watch the same news six times a day, if I really want to be bored.
I wonder if the two could soon be allowed to merge and reduce local coverage to one source. The new regulations might allow this. News coverage is already badly warped by mega-owners. How many subtly (of not subtly) news stories are ties to Disney movies on ABC stations? I see a LOT. How many commentaries are influenced and news stories perspectives "adjusted" for the corporate masters? I don't know, but I am sure it's a lot. This change is a very bad idea.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
One Nation, Under Trump.
Free OTA TV could be a good thing, just like a free Internet could be a good thing (free as in free from being spied on by your ISP, and free as in hosting your own server w/o having to pay for "business class".. still gotta pay a fair price for the service). But no, in the name of the most holy imaginary hand of the free market, everything consolidates under the biggest umbrella to get the biggest profit out of the least effort.
It doesn't have to be this way. The airwaves, and the Internet, belongs in one way or another to the public. You know, us. But we keep electing goons who give it away to people who take 'em out to pricey steak dinners and give 'em free rides on private jets. Do you know who your goon... uhhh Congressman is? What's he's been up to? I'll bet not, and that's why we can't have nice things.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
I thought illegals weren't allowed to hold office?
Why is this H1-B reject running the country's infrastructure?
All of his policies so far have favored companies with strong ties to his native India.
Ok so he's an anchor baby and not technically illegal, but still he needs to go back home and run India's infrastructure into the ground.
Australia got this last year when the 10 (Southern Cross) and 9 (WIN) national networks (named after their original VHF channel) became partners. It allows them to share re-runs and change their schedule every 15 minutes; meaning they promote only the latest episodes of the top ten shows. Because Australian drama is "too expensive", the top shows are reality-based games with non-stop back-stabbing by the contestants.
and like it or not millions of people get their news from those and choose how they vote based on that news. You should be utterly, balls to the walls terrified of this. Billionaires are going to sweep in and buy out the last vestiges of independent news. They're then going to subtlety manipulate people.
Here's a prefect example: The stories about North Korea's "Super Mighty" strike. The phrase Super Mighty in English sounds childish. It's meant to diminish the perceived threat from North Korea. The word "strike" is to make sure you know they're still a danger. In other words: You're being told it's just like Iraq. A weak enemy that'll roll over when we move in.
That's the kind of propaganda that'll be everywhere, not just on the major Cable networks. And that will suck, hard. Because dumb poor people will see it and vote you (and your draft age kids) into a war.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For those occasional times when I want to watch TV (sports, etc.), it's nice to be able to flip on the TV and get a nice 720 or 1080 picture w/surround sound, zero streaming issues common to "questionable" sources, and pay $0 for it (my "antenna" is a length of speaker wire).
Yes, for all of my actual content it's Netflix, locally stored media, etc.
The more people they try to force feed their acidic and depression inducing "news" down peoples throats the more people will get wise and simply turn off the TV.
Why strip away the best virtue of capitalism, you jackasses?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Funny how this freedom for the businesses leads to homogeneity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Should have read FCC reverses Obama administration attempt to contravene existing law with bogus regulation.
The old rules prevent anybody (with enough money) from buying an outlet in each of the bulk of the markets and setting up a new network. (That would be doable even by parties of relatively modest means, because there are a lot of little stations that are hanging on by their fingernails which might be available cheap.) They're limited to directly reaching about a third of the potential viewers (and partnering with other owners if they want to reach more).
Meanwhile, they don't keep someone from buying up essentially all the outlets in a particular area (since taking over more of the stations doesn't add any more potential viewers).
Both of those reduce diversity - the first nationally, the second within regions.
Seems to me that eliminating the rule would fix the first one and increase the diversity of opinion available to viewers.
(Meanwhile, if the FCC wants to prohibit something to try to increase diversity, they could limit the number of outlets within each region a single party could own. That would also free up some outlets for new wholly-owned network builders, too.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Correct regarding the current state of media being monopolized, but off by about 10 years. We were warned back in the 80s that monopolization would lead to propagandizing of "news" and the people giving warning were absolutely correct.Media in the US Is pure propaganda. Some stations much worse than others (MSNBC/CNN) but they each have a hefty left tilt.
GP is correct however, that people should be bothered about further monopolization. I have been saying for over a decade that "News" needs to be addressed by the Sherman Act and broken up, not allowed to monopolize further. Media won't give voice to that need, and they lobby Congress so that no action gets taken. People (we) have to start pushing back, because we see what has been done to other mediums which have tried to substitute for the lack of real news. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being censored.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Camp 1) The stations that either directly or indirectly back the current amalgamation of the Senate, the Congress and the Executive branch
Camp 2) The stations that by policy or funding vehicles... cannot abide by camp 1's stance and therefore have to support any other effort both judicial, legal and validated (or just grab your hoodie and your mask and say fk-it) because you decided that camp 1 isn't what you wanted.. but camp 2 is less bad. They are the Sad face camp.. because they didn't get the trophy for showing up.
Camp 3) The enlightened citizens that realize they don't have to be part of Camp1 or Camp2, but realize they have the constitutional right to have their own opinion and their own stance.
Peace out.
That Verge article is an indoctrination piece. Garbage article from a garbage outfit. The submitter should have found a publication that deals with actual TV broadcasting and linked to that article instead of this verge garbage. Come on people, do Your Own Thinking instead of getting indoctrinated.
"Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
I work for TV. Right now, my station is undergoing a 'move' that will most likely involve a merger, and will 'retire' early. Such is the business of broadcasting (radio, TV and catv) for the last 30 years.
With the start of the station re-pack to free up spectrum for cell phones (paraphrasing here), there will be a bunch of stations that will go dark permanently. Some are marginal operations that took the buy-out because the money was to good to pass up. Others are pretty much duplicate operations, that, after the channel changes, will overlap coverage areas enough that it will not make sense to pay for running 2 of the same so close together. Some of the disappearing sub channel services will get moved, other will get dropped (shopping channels and music, wx, traffic cams) to make room for the more popular subs.
After all this is done at the end of 2020 (there is a mandatory schedule), then the 8VSB protocol will be replaced with ATSC 3.0, making your TV obsolete for OTA reception unless you buy a converter box or get cable. ATSC 3 will allow more than one HD (720p) channel. It's all about efficiency and cost savings.
Seriously?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's hard to imagine less selections than what few we have now. :(
I've never heard of a broadcast TV station having a range of more than around a hundred kilometres. How could any broadcast station ever begin to reach anywhere near 39% (49 million!) households? Even stations in New York City are only reaching 19-20 million people, according to the FTC.
You mis-read the summary. Go back and re-read it. It's pretty clear that reference total stations owned by any one entity exceeding service to > 39% of households.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The point is how the US Media portrayed it with a notable lack of gravity. The quote was in the headlines of every article. The point is you're being manipulated whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/