- 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 9:47 am to GeneralLee
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:47 am to GeneralLee
Pursue them for in-kind contributions and a violation of election laws plus license "public trust" violations, criminally.
Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot.
Engineers, surveyors, lawyers, even fricking real estate agents have to have a license (and many times ethics on top of that) where they are required to have a duties and obligations that must be met.
"Journalists"- no such requirements.
Makes no sense.
If you can go to jail for memes for 7 months- what's their sentence going to be?
Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot.
Engineers, surveyors, lawyers, even fricking real estate agents have to have a license (and many times ethics on top of that) where they are required to have a duties and obligations that must be met.
"Journalists"- no such requirements.
Makes no sense.
If you can go to jail for memes for 7 months- what's their sentence going to be?
0
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:49 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Nope. Except
Networks do hold licenses to their frequency for a specified term and are subject to renewals.
for a few cases networks do not own the stations that do the broadcasting. Nexstar, Scripps, Belo, ClearChannel, Sinclair, Tegna, Salem, Cumulus, etc own the stations and the licenses.
quote:indeed it is clear you have no idea how broadcasting and lines works.
I have no idea.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:50 am to MMauler
quote:Absolutely. Let’s give government hire experts power to decide what content is acceptable. What could go wrong?
Not only would it be possible, it would be relatively simple. This is what experts are for.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:52 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Wxcept there is no rule. The “Fairness Doctrine” was eliminated in 1987.
I'm not talking about the fricking fairness doctrine. I’m talking about the equal time rule. And I did misspeak, we’re not talking about actual laws. We’re talking about FCC rules and it's interpretations of those rules. The equal time rule is still applicable and applies to much more than just paid advertising at the same cost.
Since you seem to be the board's self-appointed expert on the matter, point to me one case where what the current broadcast systems are doing with both their newscast and their “entertainment” divisions has been blessed by the Supreme Court.
Like I said, you’d have to be a special kind of fricking retarded to even suggest that there is any precedent for what is currently going on by these publicly licensed stations. Again, in the past, the stations at least pretended to have some integrity. That’s all gone now. They don’t even fricking pretend. It's time for the FCC to start pulling licenses for the most blatant fricking bias on the part of these DNC sponsored stations. Let's put these scumbags on trial and have them defend their actions. Something tells me that even a scant amount of discovery will reveal a lot of fricking emails and behind-the-scenes communications with the DNC and Democrat candidates.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:53 am to VOR
quote:
VOR
Your take on this, as on most things, is just fricking dumb. Very low IQ
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:56 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Let’s give government hire experts power to decide what content is acceptable.
What the frick are you talking about? I only mentioned experts in the context of quantifying what this free publicity and advertising is worth.
Courts can decide whether the stations have gone way beyond the limits of what is biased and non-biased. Again, you’d have to be a special kind of fricking retarded (YOU) not to see that these stations no longer act in the public interest and are actively promoting one party and one ideology.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:58 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Except
for a few cases networks do not own the stations that do the broadcasting. Nexstar, Scripps, Belo, ClearChannel, Sinclair, Tegna, Salem, Cumulus, etc own the stations and the licenses.
OK. Got it. You are pulling a BUT AKSHUALLY.
You are making a distinction without a difference. The licenses exist and are owned by television companies, but you are just splitting hairs to make some unknown point.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 9:59 am to MMauler
quote:I don’t know how else to say it. There is no rule.
I’m talking about the equal time rule.
quote:What rule?
We’re talking about FCC rules and it's interpretations of those rules. The equal time rule is still applicable and applies to much more than just paid advertising at the same cost.
quote:You do not need the Supreme court’s blessing to produce a news show.
Since you seem to be the board's self-appointed expert on the matter, point to me one case where what the current broadcast systems are doing with both their newscast and their “entertainment” divisions has been blessed by the Supreme Court.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. quote:
Like I said, you’d have to be a special kind of fricking retarded to even suggest that there is any precedent for what is currently going on by these publicly licensed stations.
you have to be a lot more retarded to think network news has a broadcast license, or not know the the fairness doctrine was eliminated almost 40 years ago. I do admire your dedication to being wrong though.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:01 am to MMauler
quote:
Let’s give government hire experts power to decide what content is acceptable.
quote:
What the frick are you talking about? …
Courts can decide whether the stations have gone way beyond the limits of what is biased and non-biased.
Are you feeling OK today?This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 10:02 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:05 am to GeneralLee
Something noone has said, what would prevent China from investing an obscene amount of money, like 10 billioin dollars, to buy up these frequencies? How "unbiased" will the networks be then? Or Russia via its fake capiitalist arm Gazprom Media?
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:06 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:Huh?
OK. Got it. You are pulling a BUT AKSHUALLY.
quote:Nope. Saying “let’s get ABC by going after their licenses!” makes no sense. How are you going to take away something they don’t have? It’s like trying to punish homeless people that poop on the sidewalks by suspending their pilot licenses.
You are making a distinction without a difference. The licenses exist and are owned by television companies, but you are just splitting hairs to make some unknown point.
I mean, we already auction off CPs for the AM/FM band. it hasn’t changed anything with regards to talk radio become more “fair and balanced”.
This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 10:10 am
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:11 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Absolutely. Let’s give government hire experts power to decide what content is acceptable. What could go wrong?
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:13 am to MMauler
quote:
Courts can decide whether the stations have gone way beyond the limits of what is biased and non-biased.
I can promise you that you would hate this with a passion.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:14 am to GeneralLee
Pretty sure I’m the only idiotic person in Murica who still overpays for cable
Posted on 10/29/24 at 10:49 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. Saying “let’s get ABC by going after their licenses!” makes no sense. How are you going to take away something they don’t have? It’s like trying to punish homeless people that poop on the sidewalks by suspending their pilot licenses.
I mean, we already auction off CPs for the AM/FM band. it hasn’t changed anything with regards to talk radio become more “fair and balanced”.
I never suggested this was a good plan or said I was for it.
But on the issue of the actual licenses, you are making a distinction between, for example, CBS and WAFB Baton Rouge (Owned by Gray Television).
And while this distinction does exist, they are all connected and this doesn't negate the sentiment in the OP.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:00 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
That's what Taxing Authority is saying, the stations are owned by companies like Gray Television and not the networks (except in super big markets like NY and LA, yes the networks own those).
But elsewhere...
LINK
But elsewhere...
LINK
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:03 pm to teke184
quote:
quote:Why would anybody bid on this? Very few people still use antennas
Then there is no reason NOT to then. Bring in some extra money by putting that spectrum up for bid.
Correct analysis.
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:03 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:I'm olde enough to remember when AFLAC owned it.
CBS and WAFB Baton Rouge (Owned by Gray Television).
And while this distinction does exist, they are all connected
But the realtionship only exists to the degree that WAFB chooses what to broadcast. And the owner gets to decide what is broadcast--even if the network tries to force them. There have been several cases where local affiliates didn't want to show what the network was showing. The FCC has made it clear that licensee get to decide and can preempt network programming because the public interest portion of the license belongs to the licensee. (example some affiliates did not show an episode of NYPD Blue that featured Ricky Schroeder's bare white arse).
So, hypothetically, set's say the FCC non-renewed Gray's current licensee, what would happen to CBS?
Nothing. Not a damn thing. The new licensee would almost certainly become a CBS affiliate, because they aren't going to start their own production company from scratch. None of the other networks want/need 2 affiliates in the same market. So, they will just pickup CBS. There is nothing to stop that from happening. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
quote:Of course it does. Sacks has no idea what he's talking about.
and this doesn't negate the sentiment in the OP.
Outside of repeated, blatent obsenity, the FCC has almost never non-renewed over content--for good reason. The government shouldn't be deciding what you can/can't see.
If you want to define "public interest" as "what I agree with"-- understand that will apply when democrats are in power too. And I guarantee what they consider "public interest" isn't what you or I do.
If you want the government to censure content--then just say so. I'm not a proponent, even if I don't like or agree with the content.
This post was edited on 10/29/24 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:26 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Very few people still use antennas
I do. Watched lsu (
) several times this year because it's on ABC, I have roku and sling so don't get networks through them.Posted on 10/29/24 at 12:57 pm to VOR
quote:
Yay. Screw the free press!
…says the guy who has supported the actual censorship of the press and even individuals.
You’ve got a skewed view on reality.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News