Home › Forums › temp › Does “Public Ownership” of Radio Spectrum Need to Cease? › Tongue in Cheek?
Total posts : 45366
While many of the suggestions regarding the Krasnow article appear to be interesting in their subjectivity and scope, I have noticed something familiar. These suggestions are NOT new. All of these changes have been discussed and cussed for over a decade prior to over-the-air digital TV and radio. And still, deaf ears and stale ideas prevail.
The FCC is so much behind the curve on much of these challenges, it is unlikely (even with a solid solution) the agency could actually implement the new policy. Additionally, the FCC about a decade ago stepped away from enforcing content and programming issues unless it dealt with dirty language or nudity.
Just like everything else in the U.S., attorneys are the driving or impeding force in communications law. Seldom do executive branch agencies or law makers get involved in developing and promoting innovation in electronic RF-born media platforms. New laws and rules tend to encourage breaking the law rather than encourage true innovation. Attorneys seem to be always at-the-ready with writs and arguments that rarely have the good of the country at heart.
The purpose of the Krasnow article is to get us to think of innovative ideas to develop, fund and promote new media. If not for next year, then how about in ten years or more? Did anyone 30 years ago think we would be embracing digital audio codecs, VOIP, digital audio editing software and effects processors like we have today. I worked everyday in broadcasting then; we had not even a clue.
So, cheeky responses to where media should grow to will only cause media consumers to be the innovators, not the broadcasters. And maybe that’s the way it should be. However, are we smart enough to stay slightly ahead of the consumer curve to remain relevant as media professionals and broadcasters? We had better hope we are, or we will go the way of the buggy whip and the steam engine. That path leads to oblivion.