- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: David Sacks idea: auction off public licenses, potentially kicking ABC/CBS/NBC to cable
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:30 am to GeneralLee
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:30 am to GeneralLee
There are already laws about giving each side equal airtime. You’d have to be a special kind of fricking stupid if you think that those laws aren’t being completely violated. The first thing that federal government has to do is to enforce those laws. Force these shows to hire REAL conservatives to make these complete fricking lying scumbags look like the idiots they are.
Second, clearly, the federal government has to cut off all funding to NPR and PBS given their long-standing violations of the same laws. Let the DNC pay to have those propaganda machines spew their hate and lies over the airways. And then, of course, fine them every time they do.
Second, clearly, the federal government has to cut off all funding to NPR and PBS given their long-standing violations of the same laws. Let the DNC pay to have those propaganda machines spew their hate and lies over the airways. And then, of course, fine them every time they do.
1
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:31 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Indeed. But one doesn't need a license to produce content--which is what the three-letter networks do.
Broadcast licenses are for 8 years and have to be renewed and the license holder has to apply for this renewal.
quote:It's pretty difficult to get a non-renewal. You have to do something pretty serious and usually repeatedly. But again, it has nothing to do with what content the networks produce.
Is this renewal process a sham and the current holder is entitled to the renewal?
Sacks is clearly ignorant how broadcasting is regulated.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:34 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
But again, it has nothing to do with what content the networks produce.
What does their content have to do with license renewal?
It seems the idea is to charge for the renewal. The current networks could still keep them, they would just have to pay.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:35 am to MMauler
quote:Nope. The "Fairness Doctrine" was eliminated decades ago. RIghtly so, or we would have never had Rush Limbaugh.
There are already laws about giving each side equal airtime. You’d have to be a special kind of fricking stupid if you think that those laws aren’t being completely violated.
The only "equal time" rules currently in effect is around purchasing political air time. If you let Candidate A purchase an ad for $20 during some daypart, you have to let any other Candidate to purchase an add for the same price. IOW you can't give discounts to Democrats, then charge the Republican $1,000,000 per ad.
quote:You want the government to pick TV hosts?
Force these shows to hire REAL conservatives
You sure about that? We love our small government, don't we? This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 8:36 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:38 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Literally nothing, unless their content vioaltes decency standards and get the people that actually hold the licenses in trouble.
What does their content have to do with license renewal?
quote:What renewal? The networks don't hold the licenses.
It seems the idea is to charge for the renewal.
quote:They'd have to own them first. This is like raising driver's license prices to regulate jay walkers.
The current networks could still keep them
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:47 am to GeneralLee
I've always thought the networks should be charged with illegal campaign contributions - their advocacy for democrat ideology in the past decade alone would approach the trillion dollar level.
And the DNC should be fined for accepting the illegal assistance.
And the DNC should be fined for accepting the illegal assistance.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:48 am to SlowFlowPro
Get ready for Truth TV, and his little brother Twitter TV. Let them compete. Why beg at the trough of the legacy media.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 8:53 am to GeneralLee
Some of this has been talked about on this page previously what I really want to see done is at the local level these channels what now is an ABCCBSNBC affiliate it has to go to local investors for local news local programs
they can still pick up the primetime shows with the networks I don't want to see major sports for the local teams I don't want to see that impossible to find for poor people the game needs to be broadcast in the area and needs to be seen available to be seen by all fans
Especially where fans owned the stadiums the government-funded taxpayer paid for stadiums those games should not be blocked out from any local viewer
But back to the issue of the MS M biased media influence on issues in campaigns you take it down to local level it will begin to focus and set up on national politics but state regional municipal politics and you'll also get some fixes at that level by shining the spotlight on it
I'm a big advocate for this there are several people on here that have talked about it as well this is a simple thing to do and has long lasting real benefits to the taxpayer/ American citizen
they can still pick up the primetime shows with the networks I don't want to see major sports for the local teams I don't want to see that impossible to find for poor people the game needs to be broadcast in the area and needs to be seen available to be seen by all fans
Especially where fans owned the stadiums the government-funded taxpayer paid for stadiums those games should not be blocked out from any local viewer
But back to the issue of the MS M biased media influence on issues in campaigns you take it down to local level it will begin to focus and set up on national politics but state regional municipal politics and you'll also get some fixes at that level by shining the spotlight on it
I'm a big advocate for this there are several people on here that have talked about it as well this is a simple thing to do and has long lasting real benefits to the taxpayer/ American citizen
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:02 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The only "equal time" rules currently in effect is around purchasing political air time
I believe that the equal time rule goes well beyond just purchasing political ads or airtime. When you have three networks who all have late night talk shows that are nothing more than DNC-sponsored propaganda machines, the equal time rule should apply. In a real sense, they are giving Democrats and the DNC free advertising. Further, when it’s beyond fricking clear that everyone in their “news divisions“ do nothing more than promote one party, again they are giving the DNC and Democrats free advertising and airtime. Hell, many of their top “political journalist“ come straight from the Democrat party in the DNC like George Stephanopoulos.
I realize that these issues haven’t been directly addressed by the Supreme Court, however, a large part of that has to do with the RNC being spineless fricking RINOs for way too long. additionally, in the past, these broadcast networks at least attempted to pretend like they weren’t so fricking biased. Nowadays, they don’t even fricking pretend.
as far as Rush Limbaugh goes, that’s a completely different situation. Limbaugh had a syndicated show that was entirely relying upon advertising dollars to stay afloat. As a result, Limbaugh did pay for that time. Remember, Alec Baldwin attempted to compete with Rush Limbaugh on those terms and failed miserably. However, he did have the opportunity to compete under the same terms.
This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 9:05 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:03 am to GeneralLee
Essentially, they are already on cable and you are paying for them through your cable bill. Some places are paying nearly 40 dollars a month just for these local channels as local broadcast fee.
The TV channels have the option to provide these channels to local cable systems for free through must carry, but nearly 90% of stations use Retransmission Agreements that force cable systems to pay to carry these stations.
Also, it can be incredilby difficult to receive some of these stations via over the air, and they are compressing the crap out of their signals to carry more and more subchannels.
With the future standard ready to roll out, the broadcasters are stepping on their own excrement for ATSC 3.0. Some of this is greed and some of it is concerns for copyright protection. Also, the manufacturers are getting slammed on patent issues, and are not choosing to include these tuners.
Now you could look at some mandates that would roll back restrictions on free speech by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, but that is a two way street that no one wants to cross.
The TV channels have the option to provide these channels to local cable systems for free through must carry, but nearly 90% of stations use Retransmission Agreements that force cable systems to pay to carry these stations.
Also, it can be incredilby difficult to receive some of these stations via over the air, and they are compressing the crap out of their signals to carry more and more subchannels.
With the future standard ready to roll out, the broadcasters are stepping on their own excrement for ATSC 3.0. Some of this is greed and some of it is concerns for copyright protection. Also, the manufacturers are getting slammed on patent issues, and are not choosing to include these tuners.
Now you could look at some mandates that would roll back restrictions on free speech by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, but that is a two way street that no one wants to cross.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:03 am to VOR
quote:
Yay. Screw the free press! The Founders would be happy, I’m sure.
"The free press" doesn't mean "they get free shite." Those licenses are valuable public property and the legacy networks have no legal or moral entitlement to them if they can't retain the public's trust.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
What renewal? The networks don't hold the licenses
Networks do hold licenses to their frequency for a specified term and are subject to renewals.
I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:17 am to VOR
quote:
Yay. Screw the free press! The Founders would be happy, I’m sure.
Can you explain your response to where you don't look so stupid?
Or, is this another dumb comment based purely on emotion and zero intelligence, so you can't really articulate what you meant by that. You just know it makes you so angry and you hate it....
This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 9:18 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:22 am to MMauler
quote:
the equal time rule should apply. In a real sense, they are giving Democrats and the DNC free advertising.
This would be impossible to measure or quantify.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:36 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
This would be impossible to measure or quantify.
Not only would it be possible, it would be relatively simple. This is what experts are for.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:39 am to dakarx
quote:
Imagine that goat rope, sorry you can't make a 911 call because there is no bandwidth available because some stupid bachelorette show is being streamed.
You can already make 911 calls on phones without a cell provider, so they can clearly determine a 911 call vs the Bachelorette streaming. Providers throttle bandwidth all the time. Doing it when someone makes a 911 call if necessary would not be an issue.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:40 am to MMauler
quote:You can believe anything you like. Feel free to point out pertinent FCC regulatory or ALJ actions that back your beliefs up.
I believe that the equal time rule goes well beyond just purchasing political ads or airtime.
quote:Wxcept there is no rule. The “Fairness Doctrine” was eliminated in 1987.
When you have three networks who all have late night talk shows that are nothing more than DNC-sponsored propaganda machines, the equal time rule should apply.
quote:That would be an FEC issue, not and FCC issue. But it’s going to be a high hurdle to censor content production because it violates campaign finance laws. We do still have a 1st amendment.
Further, when it’s beyond fricking clear that everyone in their “news divisions“ do nothing more than promote one party, again they are giving the DNC and Democrats free advertising and airtime.
quote:
as far as Rush Limbaugh goes, that’s a completely different situation. Limbaugh had a syndicated show that was entirely relying upon advertising dollars to stay afloat.
it’s precisely the same. Just as Rush had syndication deals to deliver content to local license holders—so do the three-letter networks. It’s literally the same distribution mechanism quote:Literally has nothing to do with spectrum licensing.
Remember, Alec Baldwin attempted to compete with Rush Limbaugh on those terms and failed miserably. However, he did have the opportunity to compete under the same terms.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:42 am to Tarps99
quote:Yeah. It fundamentally didn’t work.
Now you could look at some mandates that would roll back restrictions on free speech by reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine, but that is a two way street that no one wants to cross.
If anything should be looked at—it should be ownership limits. We. we’re much better off with local licensees and more diverse ownership. But we can thank Newt Gingrich for getting g rid of that.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:42 am to TigerIron
quote:
The free press" doesn't mean "they get free shite." Those licenses are valuable public property and the legacy networks have no legal or moral entitlement to them
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:46 am to MMauler
quote:
This is what experts are for.
Not sure if serious
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News