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.
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.
I've watched two f1 races and that's it this month.
That's what I do miss after I cut the cord; F1, BBC (news and Dr. Who) and college football. Aside from those three items, I honestly can't think of anything else I miss by not having tv. What I do remember is constantly flipping through channels either trying to find something to watch, or avoiding commercials.
If ESPN would broadcast college football without one having to be subscribed to a cable company, I would be very happy.
for the four people who still watch and trust anything on Television.
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
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...
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.
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.
The only thing that I was allowed to watch as a kid was Cosmos. Ona B&W tv. My parents sucked.
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
Seriously?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It's hard to imagine less selections than what few we have now. :(
To be completely fair, upper VHF (7-13) is rather nice for ATSC, but a lot of antennas without VHF elements are sold these days. Lower VHF is rather crap for ATSC, though. Maybe they are the ones who deserve a "discount" (whatever that is) these days.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
No, I'm using censorship in the correct fashion. You on the other hand are attempting to insinuate that only Governments can censor, which is false. When you point out the TV numbers alone it does not demonstrate the larger scope of the problem. Most likely your intentional way of attempting to minimize any claims that censorship is rampant in the US. It is, you are wrong. Pretty simple.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Horse shit. You are free to say what you want as am I. Censorship is blocking speech. How about reading a definition of the word and then applying that definition to my comments. Dumbass.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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/