And, you need to remember that ALL members of a Democracy have a right to express their opinion about what goes out over the airwaves. That's Me as well as You...and "Compromise" is the best way of dealing with it. Right now one side has a huge advantage over the other...and I own those airwaves along with you... There's a big difference between "Buster, Sponge Bob and "gratuitious sex." Where's the big outcry over the Simpson's Gay Marriage? Silence. I don't have a problem with that...but the Fundies wanted Bob and Buster off. Equating everyone who want's some regulation with Fundies is very extreme, as you know..
------------------------
Ralph Nader on TechnologyFCC is hapless agent in media regulation
These media moguls are doing all this on our property - the public airwaves - and paying us no rent for exclusive use of our property. Yet they are deciding who says what and who doesn't say what 24 hours a day. The public airwaves are the property of the American people. The FCC is our hapless, industry-indentured real estate agent that gives away the spectrum.
Source: In the Public Interest, "Giving Airwaves to Media Moguls" May 31, 2003
The media needs more diversity and competition
There remains the base of a large movement for recovering some diversity, localism and competition from the mass media. It is bad enough that about 90 percent of what is carried on television and radio is advertising and entertainment. Our country needs serious talk, more good reporters, and citizen access to the great but unseen and unheard talent in our land - from artists to candidates for office.
Source: In the Public Interest, "Giving Airwaves to Media Moguls" May 31, 2003
FCC gave away $70B in airwave licenses to large corporations
In 1996, Congress quietly handed over to existing broadcasters the rights to broadcast digital television on the public airwaves-a conveyance worth $70 billion-in exchange for. nothing.
Although the public owns the airwaves, the broadcasters have never paid for the right to use them. The FCC has recently begun to recognize the large monetary value of the licenses and typically auctions licenses. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, however, prohibited such an auction for distribution of digital television licenses, and mandated that they be given to existing broadcasters.
How to explain this giveaway, especially when other industries, such as the data transmission companies, were eager to bid for the right to use the spectrum? Look no further than the National Association of Broadcasters. The NAB are huge political donors & have close ties to key political figures.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:U9PDmacdT3gJ:www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Technology.htm+Public+Owns+Airwaves&hl=enNot surprisingly, the nightly news was silent on this giant giveaway. It represents a failure of our working democracy
Source: Cutting Corporate Welfare, p. 17-18 Oct 9, 2000
Domain name registration needs openness to replace monopoly
The federal government currently contracts with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), to manage domain name registrations (including .com, .org, and .net). NSI’s monopoly on the valuable .com domain names has turned a tiny initial investment into a firm with market capitalization of $2.5 billion-thanks to control of the power to sell the public the right to use their own domain names. At no time did the government seek any competitive bids to determine the prices that consumers and businesses should pay for domain name registrations.
The federal government is now trying to find ways to introduce competition and replace the current NSI monopoly with something new. This new initiative raises a number of questions regarding its lack of accountability, and it is justified largely on the basis that the NSI monopoly needs to be “fixed.” But it is hard to see how the creation of a new unaccountable body constitutes a “fix.”
----------------------------------------------
From Make Them Accoutable website...questions about who owns the airwaves...
Hi, I’m Carolyn Kay with MakeThemAccountable.com
Last week, I got a message from liberal talk show host Peter Werbe that his show, available on the i.e.america radio network, has been dropped by a conservative station owner in Santa Cruz, California. I put out an alarm, asking people to write to the station owner, and I found out to my surprise that some people don’t realize that we own the airwaves. Not rich people who can go around buying radio stations.
Here are some of the messages and replies.
From Chito
I support Werbe's position on the Shrub, of course. But isn't that a private station and therefore in complete control of their programming? Or does the FCC license obligate them to broadcast a balanced repertoire because of something similar to the public access regulations for cable?
My response
WE own the airwaves, Chito. You and me. There once was a Fairness Doctrine that required those who use OUR airwaves to report both sides on controversial issues. That law was repealed during the Reagan administration, and part of the understanding was that no one media outlet had to provide alternative voices or alternative points of view, since those would be reflected in other outlets in the community.
Well, I live in Chicago, where we voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore. The conservative suburbs came very close to voting for Gore, also. But we have two newspapers that are both conservative, and one talk radio station that has three hours of liberal programming PER WEEK. The rest is right-wing promotion of hatred for everything they don't believe in.
We the citizens own the airwaves. We license the right to use those airwaves to private parties like the owners of KOMY, and we have the right to demand certain things from them in return. The demands we've made in the past have been eroded over the years by Mau Mau tactics from the right wing. I think it's time we stood up and took our rights back.
Chito wrote back and gave me a quote from a website he was directed to by the station owner.
>>With some 25,425* FCC licensed broadcast outlets in the country, there exists plenty of opportunity for all viewpoints without the heavy hand of government forcing "fairness."
Sure, there exists plenty of "opportunity" of "fairness." But there is no fairness.
If the number 25,425 is correct, it becomes even more ludicrous that so little liberal talk is available. Take a look at my Unconservative Listening page, and you'll see what I mean. There are so few faces on that page that it would never occur to you just looking at it that half a million more voters voted for Gore than for Bush last year.
Go to MakeThemAccountable.com/listening to see what I mean. That’s MakeThemAccountable.com/listening.
http://makethemaccountable.com/listening/index.htm------------------------------
Can CBS Deny Access to Issue Ads? From Andrew Somers,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
The Airwaves Are Owned by the Public - Not Corporations.
By Andrew Somers
Last week we discussed the issue of CBS censoring the "advocacy ads" of certain political action groups during the Superbowl. I received a number of emails regarding that issue, some claiming that CBS, as a corporation, has the "civil right" to deny airing the ads paid for by those groups.
The response to this contention, is no. Corporations are not persons or citizens. Corporations are not able to vote in elections, and have no special rights protected by the constitution. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of any civil right therein being extended to a corporation.
But more to the point, CBS is using the public airwaves for interstate commerce. The public, not CBS, owns the airwaves, and CBS is granted the right to use them for commercial broadcasting. In the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast entities were required to allow for access for opposing views, as broadcasting is a public forum. Theoretically, CBS claims that it broadcasts no ads of a controversial or "issue related" nature, and thus need not provide any access to "issue" ads.
The upshot: CBS is using airwaves, that we the people own. CBS is a corporation and not a real person, having no "real" rights other than those that we the people grant them. One should consider the first amendment for a moment - the need for we the people to be exposed to issues is a critical component of our socio-political system. A public forum, such as the public broadcast mediums, must provide at least equal access to issues.
No one is suggesting that CBS offer ad time for free, but denying advertising because they disagree with the message is a violation of the public trust. A trust WE give them to use the airwaves WE own.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:15enkGSMHbMJ:civilliberty.about.com/cs/freespeech/a/cbs021004.htm+The+people+own+the+airwaves&hl=en