As I think back to this country's great history, and the great cause of FREEdom, and the millions of lives lost for that cause...are we really FREE? Have we traded safety and security (both false promises) for FREEdom? I think back to the un-restricted airwaves of our fore-fathers and the reason for the later FCC-imposed restriction(s)...were the airwaves ever really FREE? I know that as a CB operator as a young boy and later at 14 when I received my first "Ham" license, there were a few "lids" out there with more money than common sense and courtesy that, because of the money they sunk into their equipment, they needed to be regulated. But, is it really necessary? I mean, if a grocery store carries bad food, then you don't shop there. If the restaurant doesn't have good food/competitive prices, then you eat elsewhere. If the radio station you're listening to airs garbage content, then you change the channel. Do we really need someone governing us that does not have our best interest in mind? I'm not talking anarchy here, but recently the FCC considered a proposal to allow the "F" and "S" words and female full-frontal nudity (in a non-sexual manner?) to grace the public TV airwaves. My question is this: If the FCC (or any other entity) is no longer willing to enforce indecency laws, then why should they care about content aired by independent radio stations, or any radio stations for that matter? Or, why should they care if that same radio station has 10 listeners, or 10,000? If the content is bad, no one will listen. If the content is outdated, boring, or otherwise offensive, no one will listen. Let us regulate ourselves, and start the return of "Land of the FREE."
Good points, but "freedom" has changed definition.
In the New Homeland the suspects are "free" to be the criminals they are presumed to be, or to keep trying to maintain innocence by "proving" that they are not criminals.
I have noticed a tone by some who post on the Part 15 sites that "doubts" the integrity of those of us who "claim" to be operating legal radio stations. Those posters imply, from time to time, that we are lying.
The notion that the FCC represents the public interest has also changed in definition. Their public is the money bag NAB, political bosses, and the licensees who operate cheap without concern for nice things like talent or decency.
The only thing wrong about what you have said and what I am adding to it, is that perhaps a better writer could say it more convincingly.
Life is no picnic, but we - you, I, whoever - could have beem born
in the 1500s ARRRRRRRGH. Or we could be in some third world place.
My son and I like history, and we have read about past events that
have been repeated.
Some laws are good, some are bad, some are obsolete, some are
unfair, some can't be enforced, and some are just plain horrible.
I think we are still living in the stone age, in some ways. There
is a lot of stuff that has to shake out in the human race. We are in
just a teeeeny little blip.
Thankfully, we have radio and other electronics.
I still think we are fortunate.
Bruce, The DOGRADIO Group (And one CatRadio,
but just for today and tomorrow only.) Void where
prohibited by law.
P.S. Man! Is my computer's
text editor messed up.
The problem is, how do you control a scarce resource (i.e., the radio spectrum)? If someone is broadcasting on a frequency, why should someone else be free to trounce all over their signal, basically taking away THEIR rights.
That's the reason for the FCC and other regulatory bodies introducing rules and regulations. Perhaps weighted too much towards those with the big bucks, but there has to be something. Just tune into the 80 meter amateur radio or CB bands sometime and hear so-called 'freedom' in action - idiots intentionally jamming other signals, inappropriate conversations (to put it VERY mildly), etc. I think there's more freedom with the FCC than without it. That freedom gives us Part 15 radio, with all its warts and blemishes.
Artison always makes very valid points, and I always agree with what he says.
We must respect the channels and the frequencies in use by authorized stations and licensed services. I would say that all Part 15ers and low power people in other countries understand the logic of it.
But today I drove 1-mile to a store. For the first 200-feet I heard my own AM radio station until it faded away.
For the rest of the trip I listened to an unoccupied channel. That's what I think is unfair and unreasonable.
There was a channel there going to waste, not being used, I wanted to hear my programming, but was prohibited from building a station to use that empty space.
Massive amounts of spectrum have nothing happening. I suggest we fill in the vacancies.
Rest assured that the big corporate interests will see to it that every unoccupied frequency will eventually be occupied by mobile broadband Internet.
As long as frequency bands can be wrangled, they will get vacuumed up. They're currently sucking on the broadcast TV channels saying cable and Internet are viable replacements.
Mobile broadband is a cellular system. More and more simultaneous connections can be supported by decreasing the size of each cell and installing more cells. Thats great for supporting more users and more bandwidth, but it's a huge infrastructure expense. They're going to go after gobbling frequencies first. Can you imagine the nightmare of building repeaters and antennas every mile or so? All the legal expenses involved with getting variances and permits and acquiring the land boggles my mind!
On the plus side, grabbing MW, SW and low VHF frequencies won't gain them significant bandwidth.