How did the U.S. become so pathetic that a sitcom is a topic of national conversation?

[Pogo]

Where my son lives, there are commercials on the gas pumps now. I nearly flipped when I saw that.

There are a variety of things broadcast on gas pumps:

• Weather-tising
• Major-news-imercial
• Traffic-amercial
• Comedy-mercial
• Infomercial (usually something about the oil company)
• Standard Commercial

They COULD do that but the onliest things I've ever seen on those things is the same lame who-cares crap about celebrities they monger on the standard broadcast media. And of course relentless who-cares commercials. In other words a complete interruption of my thoughts for no good reason whatsoever foisiting intellectual diarrhea that I'd never in a million years watch on purpose.

As noted these embedded telescreens usualy appear on pumps in cheapo discount gas stations. They seem to think since they gave you three cents less a galon on the price that gives them the right to pump obnoxious schlock at you while you're handling a volatile fuel that you've already paid for.

Actually, what "gives them the right" would be that they are a private business, I would think.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space. Particularly considering the reason I'm standing there is that I'm taking delivery of a product I've already paid for, and that safety concerns with that product dictate that I have to hang around.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

M*A*S*H was very definitely a political show

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

David Ogden Stiers just passed away a few days ago btw.

It was clearly anti-Vietnam, anti-war, anti-MIC.

The Frank Burns character was a conservative foil used to ridicule rightwing dogma, such as the episode lampooning conservatives' hostility toward gay Americans.

It was indeed political.

 

[Pogo]

M*A*S*H was very definitely a political show

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

David Ogden Stiers just passed away a few days ago btw.

It was clearly anti-Vietnam, anti-war, anti-MIC.

The Frank Burns character was a conservative foil used to ridicule rightwing dogma, such as the episode lampooning conservatives' hostility toward gay Americans.

It was indeed political.

I never saw it that way. To my eyes Frank Burns is just a repressed buffoon. That's a common theatrical device in comedy.

Yes it was clearly anti-war but that's not a 'political' angle. I don't recall the episode about gays but again that's a social (cultural) issue, not a political one.

Seems to me M*A*S*H was if anything about social classes far more than any kind of politics. Frank Burns represented one, David Ogden-Stiers' Winchester character represented another, and in between lampooning both of them were the commoners Hawkeye and Honeycutt. If anything it was a swipe at those pretentious social classes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off-Topic:

Where my son lives, there are commercials on the gas pumps now. I nearly flipped when I saw that.

There are a variety of things broadcast on gas pumps:

• Weather-tising
• Major-news-imercial
• Traffic-amercial
• Comedy-mercial
• Infomercial (usually something about the oil company)
• Standard Commercial

They COULD do that but the onliest things I've ever seen on those things is the same lame who-cares crap about celebrities they monger on the standard broadcast media. And of course relentless who-cares commercials. In other words a complete interruption of my thoughts for no good reason whatsoever foisiting intellectual diarrhea that I'd never in a million years watch on purpose.

As noted these embedded telescreens usualy appear on pumps in cheapo discount gas stations. They seem to think since they gave you three cents less a galon on the price that gives them the right to pump obnoxious schlock at you while you're handling a volatile fuel that you've already paid for.

They COULD do that but the onliest things I've ever seen on those things is the same lame who-cares crap about celebrities they monger on the standard broadcast media.

In fact, they do it. I deliberately conjugated "to be" in the present indicative rather than some other tense and mood.

There are a variety of things broadcast on gas pumps

I can't name all the firms that do it or how pervasive be firms implementation of the strategy as a way to boost miscellaneous revenue, but I know personally of one large one that does it. Insofar as "TVs are present at roughly 10-12 percent of the nation’s estimated 100,000 gas stations," there are clearly more doing it than I have seen doing it.

What I can say is that the strategy of using "entertainment" of one sort or another as a way to increase customer engagement with a seller, seller's product or point of product delivery is well established as a way of boosting the seller's returns. There are two basic models for deploying the strategy, and which model is best depends on a variety of situational and customer profile factors.

• Model 1: Install basic OTA or cable content --> This is "hit or miss" as goes the ROI, but it does boost revenue and involvement, but only slightly so, except in a few rarefied situations.
• Model 2: Deliver specific content that the networks, advertisers and content producers pay to have delivered. --> This is the money maker. It increases involvement, produces revenue for the corporate entity and franchisee, and it delivers something the content producer/deliverer desires (mostly awareness/eyes).

I not here going into all the behavioral science (or basic quantitative analysis models) theory and practice that gives rise to the value proposition that explains why gas companies, advertisers and networks are on-board with the tactic [1], but the short of it is that it works as it's intended to. Different content producers have different goals for appearing on the screens, but they're meeting their goals at a price they're willing to pay.


Note:

1. Mainly because it makes no sense for me to discuss here what firms pay me and other consultants like me to discuss with them, particularly insofar as they receive the information with the intent of collaborating to use it to their advantage, how to make it work for them, rather than to merely argue against its viability as an abettor of a larger goal or larger set of goals. Suffice to say, thoughtful readers who consider the matter not from their own perspective as consumers/individuals but rather from that of gas firms and content providers' aiming to maximize profits/revenue will figure it out.

They COULD do that but the onliest things I've ever seen on those things is the same lame who-cares crap about celebrities they monger on the standard broadcast media.

It's not about that or them at all. (See my remarks above.)

• Marketing at the Pump
• Customer involvement in service production, delivery and quality: the challenges and opportunities
• The Role of Consumer Involvement in Determining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising
• Innovation in Retail Process: From Consumers’ Experience to Immersive Store Design
• NBC Universal and Gas Station TV Form Strategic Content and Advertising Partnership
• How Brand Awareness Relates to Market Outcome, Brand Equity, and the Marketing Mix

It's about sophisticated applications of basic concepts.

You see, firms do one thing that governments and politicians, for the most part, simply do not: undertake strategy trials to determine the overall viability and merit of solution proposals. Governments, on the other hand, insist on "getting it right" the first time and doing nothing until a "perfect" solution falls in their lap. Businesses are willing to try a tactic and see if it works; governments wont' try a damn thing unless they know it works.

Why? Mostly because of the nature of politics: some "smartass" will invariably attempt to make a politician, agency, agency head, administration, etc. look bad for having been willing to try an idea that showed some promise.

What happens as a result? Exactly what we have -- stagnant government and government leaders who say a lot, perform many and myriad actions, but who more often than not accomplish little of merit.

In other words a complete interruption of my thoughts for no good reason whatsoever foisiting intellectual diarrhea that I'd never in a million years watch on purpose.

Well, what is there to say about that? Some individuals are effective enough at focusing their thoughts that a TV screen at a gas pump doesn't completely interrupt them and others cannot. You're in the latter group. That is what it is....

As noted these embedded telescreens usualy appear on pumps in cheapo discount gas stations. They seem to think since they gave you three cents less a galon on the price that gives them the right to pump obnoxious schlock at you while you're handling a volatile fuel that you've already paid for.

See the photos posted at the outset of this post. Also, click the link in that section of the post.

Truly, you need to disabuse yourself of the myth that your experience captures or exposes you to preponderant reality.

Just thinking about the business model, customer traffic volumes and corresponding gross margins on which lowest cost competitors operate, I'd expect that "el cheapo" firms to lag behind major firms in implementing the tactic. That's not to say some low cost competitors won't deploy it. It may well be, however, that the initiation costs are not high enough to act as a deterrent. If it's not, deployment will be relatively consistent across the industry. (I don't know what are the specific costs of implementation; I just understand the value proposition for the tactic and recognize that it wouldn't be used and on the upswing if it didn't produce acceptable/desired returns.)

Actually, what "gives them the right" would be that they are a private business, I would think.

That is most certainly what "gives them the right."​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Who do you think is running this propaganda, Pogo? Who is Oceania?

Corporatia, basically. But not with any kind of unified "plan" as the conspiratheorists would fancy, just simple shortsighted GREED using the airwaves that belong to We the People which we hand over to them to do that for no rental fee at all.

Ignoring how much of television is no longer broadcast over airwaves, what do you think should be done with those airwaves?

At the very very least we should have at least got a cut out of the ridiculous profits broadcasters made for going on a century for using our airwaves to profit on rent-free.

(If we imagine a random city that builds a commercial district full of storefronts and then gives them away for nothing to anybody who wants to run a business --- like that)

That horse left the barn a long time ago obviously. The idea of advertising on the people's airwaves was scandalous at first but the FCC was soon bribed into collusion and the populace soon soporified into submission, and now we think it's "normal". Which is how the commercial broadcast world would prefer we think of it, and forget the fact that they operate at our pleasure and not the other way around.

Who is the "we" that should get compensated, the government? Individual checks to anyone who watches broadcast television?

Do you feel the same way about radio?

What is your rationale behind this idea, are you equating the various broadcast frequencies to property, or land, and saying that the citizens of the US own those frequencies?

Is it different when television is sent through landlines?

Excellent questions sir.

"We" own the airwaves, that is the general public. That was established as the national attitude back at the beginning of broadcasting (radio). "We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

So yes, I'm equating the various broadcast frequencies to property --- public property. The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared. We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing. In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach. We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

Now FCC does reserve some space for noncommercial broadcast, but the volume is heavily heavily skewed against the public part in favor of the moneychangers, and then what little there is on the radio is increasingly clogged with "godcasters" buying up what little slices of space there is, and shutting others out.

And yes I absolutely include radio. If I ever tune into a radio station and hear a notice about a lost dog or a square dance, I rejoice at the rare gem of what that medium should be doing rather than pissing our resources away on some self-infatuated ego trying to see how fast he can talk.

Landlines (cable) and satellite, and internet streaming being more modern technological paradigms, are different in that they're not nearly as finite as the space on the broadcast band is. And I don't know that those systems have been defined as public property. But I'll wager that if we had long ago established rental fees for commercial broadcasters on the airwaves... we could have easily carried that paradigm over.

"We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community

Excuse me? Have you truly not noticed that "we" get information of all stripes delivered via the airwaves?

Information is not nothing. It is among the most useful things one can receive.

In addition to information, we receive entertainment via the airwaves. That too is not nothing.

I'm sorry we aren't so advanced as "Star Trek" and can have tangible items beamed to us via the airwaves....I can assure you, however, that if or when the day comes that such a thing is possible, though one will receive it, one will not receive it for free as one does today receive content over the portions of the EMS that the FCC manages.

would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

By me, the alliteration went neither unnoticed nor unappreciated.

The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared.

And they are used thus. Perhaps the EMS isn't used that way where you are, but I assure you they are so used, by both public television channels (they purchase content from a host of producers, but mostly from PBS and public access television channels.

• Welcome
  
• Channel 10 Programs
  
• Peninsula Area Public Access
  
• Home | APTS
  
• D.C. area low-power television and radio channels (only available to receivers who are physically "close enough"):
  • Channel 6 (RF channel 6): WDCN-LP - Signal Above LLC (independent). Broadcast intended for FM radio reception at 87.7 MHz. Video carrier shows filler content.
  • Channel 23 (RF channel 23): WDDN-LD - Daystar
  • Channel 25 (RF channel 25): WZDC-CD - Telemundo
  • Channel 31 (RF channel 32): WRZB-LD
  • Channel 46 (RF channel 45): W45DN-D - GCN/Al Karma TV
  • Channel 47 (RF channel 22): WMDO-CD - UniMás/LATV
  • Channel 49 (RF channel 14): WWTD-LD - Soul of the South/NTDTV/QVC/VieTV
  • Channel 58 (RF channel 44): WIAV-CD - Deutsche Welle

I don't know where you live, but perhaps you should seek out your local public access television and radio stations. Assuming there are some, I think you'll find they function very much as a "town bulletin board." You must seek them out; they are not going to "beat you over the head" to get you to tune in, nor will they literally or figuratively fall into your lap.

You do realise the EMS is extant regardless of how or whether anyone uses or manages it, right?

We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing.

Well, you're entitled to have that normative view of the FCC's role and mission. I don't.

The FCC does exactly what, IMO, it should: manage the efficient use and apportionment of the EMF so that competing users of it don't "step on" one another's signals/messages. I don't want the FCC to do more than that.

In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach..

Well, that is the extant approach. Others agree and/or acquiesce to that being the approach.

The FCC does "lease" the channels for a fee:

• FCC Auctions: Factsheet: Auction 59
  
• Fees

The actual process isn't as simple as your phrasing suggests, but in essence, that's exactly what happens when a broadcaster applies for a licence to tansmist content using a given piece of the EMS.

I don't know how the FCC uses the revenue it collects from "leasing" the EMS, but I know damn well that it "leases" it. (The FCC calls it "licensing," but they with mean with that term what anyone else would mean by "lease" or "sell." The use the term "license" because of that word's authorization context.)

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan.

I wouldn't know. I know what the CPB receives/collects, ditto for PBS, and I can look up what various individuals and organizations donate to public broadcasting networks, public broadcasting stations/channels and public access stations and channels, but that's more work than I'm going to undertake for there are thousands of them to examine.

How those sums compare with that is collected and spent in Germany, Japan or any other nation is something I don't know and, while you made the claim you did, you didn't see fit to share any quantitative information that would allow one to assess (and presumably accept) the veracity of your claim. I know that in terms of what governments spend on public funding that, on a per capita basis, the U.S. spends less than do many other OECD nations.

​

The thing to keep in mind is that regardless of one's position on the overall quantity of public broadcasting and publicly broadcast content, because it is a public good [2], per capita public (governmental) funding isn't terribly useful (though it has some use) as a measure of the sufficiency of the public funding made available to public broadcasters and content producers. [1]

So while it may well be that total U.S. spending on public broadcasting and thus delivered content may be less than or more than the same metric for other nations, merely knowing the comparative extent of that spending isn't particularly useful for evaluating the normative merits and/or demerits of the sums spent.

FWIW:

At the national level, NPR increased its total operating revenue in 2016 to $213 million, up 9% from 2015 levels. PRI saw gains as well, rising 26% to about $22 million in total revenue for 2016. APM’s total revenue, on the other hand, went down 6% year over year, accounting for $126 million in 2016. (Source)​

Notes:

1. Take roads for example. Even if the U.S. spends more per capita than does any other country, the U.S. could still have "not enough" roads and/or worse quality roads than some or all other countries. That can happen for one or a combination of a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are:
   • More people using the roads.
   • Not enough money being allocated to maintain them all to as high a standard as other countries do.
   • Population size relative to total sums spent.
2. Public broadcasting and content so delivered is what economics calls a "public good."

• Public Goods: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
• What are public goods?
• https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/public-goods/
  
  
  

Because it/they are public goods, it's a safe bet that no mater where they are offered, they are likely undersupplied. That's just a near ubiquitous consequence of something being a public good, be it public broadcasts of content, education or roads, for example. Consequently:

• Providing public goods is primarily something governments do. Good governments (or more precisely, the leaders of them) endeavor to provide enough public goods (and services) to satisfy most people, but they know they won't satisfy all people.
• There will always be someone who wants more of a given public good than is provided. Such individuals have one option: pony up their own resources to fully or in part provide/obtain the incremental increase in the amount of the public good/service they desire more of.

That is simply the reality of public goods in any economy faced with existential resource scarcity and having to choose how to use resources achieve multiple objectives.​

​

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

What?

• All of the public broadcasting we have comes from whatever be one's public broadcasting station/channel. There are literally thousands of those broadcasters and they are dispersed all over the country.
• "Decent public broadcasting," like all broadcasting, looks and sounds clear and is bereft of static and other intrusions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

What is one to say about that?

Anyone can stand next to a tall-enough tree and see its leaves. Similarly, one can fly over a green area, know it's covered with plant life and still not know whether it's trees or grass one sees.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space.

Are you among the folks who complain about what's currently on their TV screen while also refusing to change the channel, leave the room, or turn off the television?

The world is full of stimuli that will approach you. Some of them one can hold at bay and others one cannot. One's sanity is best preserved by knowing which of them one cannot aptly parry and, with regard to them, undertaking non-parrying tactics. Accordingly, I suggest you stand farther away from the pump/TV screen/speaker(s) than you have been. The pump and the TV screen aren't moving, but you can; thus that is your solution for preserving the sanctity of your personal space. Another solution option is , to try wearing earplugs or larger blinders.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space. Particularly considering the reason I'm standing there is that I'm taking delivery of a product I've already paid for, and that safety concerns with that product dictate that I have to hang around.

​

Why do you need to be so close to the pump that you can't observe your vehicle from a greater distance? Last I checked, nobody is forced to remain at a gas pump while the pump is operating. What one is implored to do is turn off the car's engine while the gas is pumping. Lock the care and take key with you when you exit the vehicle if you're concerned about someone steeling the vehicle or breaking into it or stealing it. There are myriad solution options for allowing you to maintain a reasonable measure of obliviousness to the TV audio and video content being aired at a gas pump. Surely you can identify at least one that'll work for you.

 

[Roudy]

I turned up the volume on the news to hear a segment about the new version of the Roseanne sitcom. Some people don't want to watch it, and that they don't is the topic of conversation. Seriously?

If someone asks you or asks me about it, sure, that either of us watches, or doesn't, enjoys, or doesn't, the show is banal enough banter....maybe at lunch or for a moment at the water cooler. On national TV, though? For what?


Now, don't get me wrong. My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content. I know the show has a political bent, and I presume it favors Trump since Trump was touting it, but what be the content of a TV show is of mon import to me. I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne," even though I suspect the Roseanne character anachronistically channels "Archie Bunker," but I'd have to watch to say for sure. [1]


One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?
• Will liberals embrace the "do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it" stance or will they just watch the show and laugh, or just not watch the show?
  • If chided about adopting that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

Note:

1. I think the Roseanne character is anachronistic because of this.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (Note: National annual average unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%)

And where was your chart when yet another Hollywood Leftwing piece of shit actor or producer made an anti Trump statement during the Oscars or similar event?

Or is this all about the bubble that the Dems and the media are in that makes them totally out of touch with the real concerns of most Americans? Seems like you guys still have not gotten the message of the 2016 elections.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I turned up the volume on the news to hear a segment about the new version of the Roseanne sitcom. Some people don't want to watch it, and that they don't is the topic of conversation. Seriously?

If someone asks you or asks me about it, sure, that either of us watches, or doesn't, enjoys, or doesn't, the show is banal enough banter....maybe at lunch or for a moment at the water cooler. On national TV, though? For what?


Now, don't get me wrong. My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content. I know the show has a political bent, and I presume it favors Trump since Trump was touting it, but what be the content of a TV show is of mon import to me. I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne," even though I suspect the Roseanne character anachronistically channels "Archie Bunker," but I'd have to watch to say for sure. [1]


One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?
• Will liberals embrace the "do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it" stance or will they just watch the show and laugh, or just not watch the show?
  • If chided about adopting that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

Note:

1. I think the Roseanne character is anachronistic because of this.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (Note: National annual average unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%)

And where was your chart when yet another Hollywood Leftwing piece of shit actor or producer made an anti Trump statement during the Oscars or similar event?

Or is this all about the bubble that the Dems and the media are in that makes them totally out of touch with the real concerns of most Americans? Seems like you guys still have not gotten the message of the 2016 elections.

where was your chart when yet another Hollywood Leftwing piece of shit actor or producer made an anti Trump statement during the Oscars or similar event?

I don't know what point you sought to make. Perhaps you'd be good enough to state it clearly and precisely.

I don't know what your point is because the charts in my OP are ancillary to the points made in the OP. Did you note notice that the charts are in an endnote to the post, tangential and illustrative of an assertion in the post. Their content is not the point of the post.

Perhaps had you read the OP itself -- it's not a long one, after all -- you've have noticed that I wrote:

My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content.... I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne"

Another thing you might have noticed was this:

One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

I guess I have my answer with regard to you.

 

[Pogo]

Corporatia, basically. But not with any kind of unified "plan" as the conspiratheorists would fancy, just simple shortsighted GREED using the airwaves that belong to We the People which we hand over to them to do that for no rental fee at all.

Ignoring how much of television is no longer broadcast over airwaves, what do you think should be done with those airwaves?

At the very very least we should have at least got a cut out of the ridiculous profits broadcasters made for going on a century for using our airwaves to profit on rent-free.

(If we imagine a random city that builds a commercial district full of storefronts and then gives them away for nothing to anybody who wants to run a business --- like that)

That horse left the barn a long time ago obviously. The idea of advertising on the people's airwaves was scandalous at first but the FCC was soon bribed into collusion and the populace soon soporified into submission, and now we think it's "normal". Which is how the commercial broadcast world would prefer we think of it, and forget the fact that they operate at our pleasure and not the other way around.

Who is the "we" that should get compensated, the government? Individual checks to anyone who watches broadcast television?

Do you feel the same way about radio?

What is your rationale behind this idea, are you equating the various broadcast frequencies to property, or land, and saying that the citizens of the US own those frequencies?

Is it different when television is sent through landlines?

Excellent questions sir.

"We" own the airwaves, that is the general public. That was established as the national attitude back at the beginning of broadcasting (radio). "We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

So yes, I'm equating the various broadcast frequencies to property --- public property. The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared. We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing. In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach. We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

Now FCC does reserve some space for noncommercial broadcast, but the volume is heavily heavily skewed against the public part in favor of the moneychangers, and then what little there is on the radio is increasingly clogged with "godcasters" buying up what little slices of space there is, and shutting others out.

And yes I absolutely include radio. If I ever tune into a radio station and hear a notice about a lost dog or a square dance, I rejoice at the rare gem of what that medium should be doing rather than pissing our resources away on some self-infatuated ego trying to see how fast he can talk.

Landlines (cable) and satellite, and internet streaming being more modern technological paradigms, are different in that they're not nearly as finite as the space on the broadcast band is. And I don't know that those systems have been defined as public property. But I'll wager that if we had long ago established rental fees for commercial broadcasters on the airwaves... we could have easily carried that paradigm over.

"We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community

Excuse me? Have you truly not noticed that "we" get information of all stripes delivered via the airwaves?

Information is not nothing. It is among the most useful things one can receive.

In addition to information, we receive entertainment via the airwaves. That too is not nothing.

I'm sorry we aren't so advanced as "Star Trek" and can have tangible items beamed to us via the airwaves....I can assure you, however, that if or when the day comes that such a thing is possible, though one will receive it, one will not receive it for free as one does today receive content over the portions of the EMS that the FCC manages.

would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

By me, the alliteration went neither unnoticed nor unappreciated.

The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared.

And they are used thus. Perhaps the EMS isn't used that way where you are, but I assure you they are so used, by both public television channels (they purchase content from a host of producers, but mostly from PBS and public access television channels.

• Welcome
  
• Channel 10 Programs
  
• Peninsula Area Public Access
  
• Home | APTS
  
• D.C. area low-power television and radio channels (only available to receivers who are physically "close enough"):
  • Channel 6 (RF channel 6): WDCN-LP - Signal Above LLC (independent). Broadcast intended for FM radio reception at 87.7 MHz. Video carrier shows filler content.
  • Channel 23 (RF channel 23): WDDN-LD - Daystar
  • Channel 25 (RF channel 25): WZDC-CD - Telemundo
  • Channel 31 (RF channel 32): WRZB-LD
  • Channel 46 (RF channel 45): W45DN-D - GCN/Al Karma TV
  • Channel 47 (RF channel 22): WMDO-CD - UniMás/LATV
  • Channel 49 (RF channel 14): WWTD-LD - Soul of the South/NTDTV/QVC/VieTV
  • Channel 58 (RF channel 44): WIAV-CD - Deutsche Welle

I don't know where you live, but perhaps you should seek out your local public access television and radio stations. Assuming there are some, I think you'll find they function very much as a "town bulletin board." You must seek them out; they are not going to "beat you over the head" to get you to tune in, nor will they literally or figuratively fall into your lap.

You do realise the EMS is extant regardless of how or whether anyone uses or manages it, right?

We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing.

Well, you're entitled to have that normative view of the FCC's role and mission. I don't.

The FCC does exactly what, IMO, it should: manage the efficient use and apportionment of the EMF so that competing users of it don't "step on" one another's signals/messages. I don't want the FCC to do more than that.

In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach..

Well, that is the extant approach. Others agree and/or acquiesce to that being the approach.

The FCC does "lease" the channels for a fee:

• FCC Auctions: Factsheet: Auction 59
  
• Fees

The actual process isn't as simple as your phrasing suggests, but in essence, that's exactly what happens when a broadcaster applies for a licence to tansmist content using a given piece of the EMS.

I don't know how the FCC uses the revenue it collects from "leasing" the EMS, but I know damn well that it "leases" it. (The FCC calls it "licensing," but they with mean with that term what anyone else would mean by "lease" or "sell." The use the term "license" because of that word's authorization context.)

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan.

I wouldn't know. I know what the CPB receives/collects, ditto for PBS, and I can look up what various individuals and organizations donate to public broadcasting networks, public broadcasting stations/channels and public access stations and channels, but that's more work than I'm going to undertake for there are thousands of them to examine.

How those sums compare with that is collected and spent in Germany, Japan or any other nation is something I don't know and, while you made the claim you did, you didn't see fit to share any quantitative information that would allow one to assess (and presumably accept) the veracity of your claim. I know that in terms of what governments spend on public funding that, on a per capita basis, the U.S. spends less than do many other OECD nations.

​

The thing to keep in mind is that regardless of one's position on the overall quantity of public broadcasting and publicly broadcast content, because it is a public good [2], per capita public (governmental) funding isn't terribly useful (though it has some use) as a measure of the sufficiency of the public funding made available to public broadcasters and content producers. [1]

So while it may well be that total U.S. spending on public broadcasting and thus delivered content may be less than or more than the same metric for other nations, merely knowing the comparative extent of that spending isn't particularly useful for evaluating the normative merits and/or demerits of the sums spent.

FWIW:

At the national level, NPR increased its total operating revenue in 2016 to $213 million, up 9% from 2015 levels. PRI saw gains as well, rising 26% to about $22 million in total revenue for 2016. APM’s total revenue, on the other hand, went down 6% year over year, accounting for $126 million in 2016. (Source)​

Notes:

1. Take roads for example. Even if the U.S. spends more per capita than does any other country, the U.S. could still have "not enough" roads and/or worse quality roads than some or all other countries. That can happen for one or a combination of a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are:
   • More people using the roads.
   • Not enough money being allocated to maintain them all to as high a standard as other countries do.
   • Population size relative to total sums spent.
2. Public broadcasting and content so delivered is what economics calls a "public good."

• Public Goods: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
• What are public goods?
• https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/public-goods/
  
  
  

Because it/they are public goods, it's a safe bet that no mater where they are offered, they are likely undersupplied. That's just a near ubiquitous consequence of something being a public good, be it public broadcasts of content, education or roads, for example. Consequently:

• Providing public goods is primarily something governments do. Good governments (or more precisely, the leaders of them) endeavor to provide enough public goods (and services) to satisfy most people, but they know they won't satisfy all people.
• There will always be someone who wants more of a given public good than is provided. Such individuals have one option: pony up their own resources to fully or in part provide/obtain the incremental increase in the amount of the public good/service they desire more of.

That is simply the reality of public goods in any economy faced with existential resource scarcity and having to choose how to use resources achieve multiple objectives.​

​

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

What?

• All of the public broadcasting we have comes from whatever be one's public broadcasting station/channel. There are literally thousands of those broadcasters and they are dispersed all over the country.
• "Decent public broadcasting," like all broadcasting, looks and sounds clear and is bereft of static and other intrusions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

What is one to say about that?

Anyone can stand next to a tall-enough tree and see its leaves. Similarly, one can fly over a green area, know it's covered with plant life and still not know whether it's trees or grass one sees.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space.

Are you among the folks who complain about what's currently on their TV screen while also refusing to change the channel, leave the room, or turn off the television?

The world is full of stimuli that will approach you. Some of them one can hold at bay and others one cannot. One's sanity is best preserved by knowing which of them one cannot aptly parry and, with regard to them, undertaking non-parrying tactics. Accordingly, I suggest you stand farther away from the pump/TV screen/speaker(s) than you have been. The pump and the TV screen aren't moving, but you can; thus that is your solution for preserving the sanctity of your personal space. Another solution option is , to try wearing earplugs or larger blinders.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space. Particularly considering the reason I'm standing there is that I'm taking delivery of a product I've already paid for, and that safety concerns with that product dictate that I have to hang around.

​

Why do you need to be so close to the pump that you can't observe your vehicle from a greater distance? Last I checked, nobody is forced to remain at a gas pump while the pump is operating. What one is implored to do is turn off the car's engine while the gas is pumping. Lock the care and take key with you when you exit the vehicle if you're concerned about someone steeling the vehicle or breaking into it or stealing it. There are myriad solution options for allowing you to maintain a reasonable measure of obliviousness to the TV audio and video content being aired at a gas pump. Surely you can identify at least one that'll work for you.

Holy shit. I'm not about to work on a dissertation Emily. But I'll pick a couple of random thoughts while reserving the right to return and pick some more.

Quote 1:
I believe you're using the term 'information" far too loosely here. Technically anything is information right down to the fly that just landed on your nose, Useful information however is a whole 'nother smoke. And considering the content -- I won't glorify it with "information" --- of commercial broadcast is engineered to hypnotize a wiling drone into a soporific state of near-paralysis so that he or she is nice and vulnerable for the real point --- persuading people to buy shit they don't need, which is what we call "advertising" --- somehow this falls a bit short of "useful".

Said a Clear Channel executive to one of his Program Directors: "What's the definition of Programming?" When the underling didn't answer the exec declared "Programing is the shit we run between commercials". As well, the term "entertainment", considering (again) the watcher is simply being softened up for the commercial with mindless pap, well that's a bit of a stretch too, but have at it if you wish.... just be aware of what its function is.

Quote 2:
Irrelevant. It's not necessary to respond to literally everything, particularly if you didn't get the joke. Moving on.

Quote 3:
I need no channel listing for anywhere, thanks. Broadcasting is actually my career. What you've got here is a list of max 15kW TV stations --- which for a TV station is nearly invisible -- at least two of which are Spanish services, one's a godcaster, one (WRZB) doesn't even exist, perhaps except as a CP, and all of them consigned to the dustheap of available space, which is what I already had noted. And one is owned by a guy in Denver.

As for that "frankenstation" on 87.7 lemme tell you about frankenstations and what they're doing there.

When TV channels were first re-allocated into "channels 2-13"* it happened that the audio signal for channel 6 was designated at 87.75 Mc. Since this was within the range of an FM radio receiver that meant you could pick up channel 6 audio on an FM radio, as readers of a certain age will recall. When television went to digital broadcasting a few years ago that meant all those frequencies changed.

Since then though, some less-than-ethical broadcasters devised the strategy of applying for an analogue TV license on channel 6, running a still image with maybe a weather crawl on the video side, and then pouring all their resources into the audio on 87.75, including massive compression, including a stereo pilot, the whole shebang. This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial. That means twenty FM channels reserved for We the Public, only a handful of which can be used in one place due to interference concerns, versus 64 channels for the profitmongers. Twenty versus sixty-four, guess who wins. And make that sixty-five with the frankenstations, since they are technically licensed as a TV station and thus are not bound by FM regs. So they pulled an end-around. They run commercials all day long. Oh and speaking of commercials, one of your list above is a JTV channel --- a continuous jewelry commercial. Even a paltry low-power channel is pissed away on jewelry commercials.

And no, I don't need to "seek out" or assess my local or distant stations -- I know them all, here and in previous residences, and I've worked at several. I know exactly what they do and why they do it. That's why I'm here.


That'll do for now. Nourishment, she beckon.


*footnote: why, you may wonder, did those channels begin with "2"? Shouldn't there be a channel 1? Indeed there should and indeed there was. When these channels were first mapped out in the 1930s, before television broadcasting was near practicality, there was a channel 1 in the table. Before it could be used that channel was reassigned to a band for the newly-invented FM method invented by Edwin Armstrong, and TV channels then began with "2".

That FM band was changed later in a massive corporate profit war courtesy of David Sarnoff, but the main point here is --- ONE (1) TV channel -- became the entire FM broadcast band. That's how much more EMS resources are eaten up by television --- the clearly inferior medium of the two---- than by radio. Fun facts.

​

Edwin Armstrong with his newlywed wife and the radio he built her as a wedding present at the beach, 1923. One of my favourite photos.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Quote 2:
Irrelevant. It's not necessary to respond to literally everything, particularly if you didn't get the joke. Moving on.

Wow. That's your response to a compliment.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ignoring how much of television is no longer broadcast over airwaves, what do you think should be done with those airwaves?

At the very very least we should have at least got a cut out of the ridiculous profits broadcasters made for going on a century for using our airwaves to profit on rent-free.

(If we imagine a random city that builds a commercial district full of storefronts and then gives them away for nothing to anybody who wants to run a business --- like that)

That horse left the barn a long time ago obviously. The idea of advertising on the people's airwaves was scandalous at first but the FCC was soon bribed into collusion and the populace soon soporified into submission, and now we think it's "normal". Which is how the commercial broadcast world would prefer we think of it, and forget the fact that they operate at our pleasure and not the other way around.

Who is the "we" that should get compensated, the government? Individual checks to anyone who watches broadcast television?

Do you feel the same way about radio?

What is your rationale behind this idea, are you equating the various broadcast frequencies to property, or land, and saying that the citizens of the US own those frequencies?

Is it different when television is sent through landlines?

Excellent questions sir.

"We" own the airwaves, that is the general public. That was established as the national attitude back at the beginning of broadcasting (radio). "We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

So yes, I'm equating the various broadcast frequencies to property --- public property. The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared. We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing. In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach. We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

Now FCC does reserve some space for noncommercial broadcast, but the volume is heavily heavily skewed against the public part in favor of the moneychangers, and then what little there is on the radio is increasingly clogged with "godcasters" buying up what little slices of space there is, and shutting others out.

And yes I absolutely include radio. If I ever tune into a radio station and hear a notice about a lost dog or a square dance, I rejoice at the rare gem of what that medium should be doing rather than pissing our resources away on some self-infatuated ego trying to see how fast he can talk.

Landlines (cable) and satellite, and internet streaming being more modern technological paradigms, are different in that they're not nearly as finite as the space on the broadcast band is. And I don't know that those systems have been defined as public property. But I'll wager that if we had long ago established rental fees for commercial broadcasters on the airwaves... we could have easily carried that paradigm over.

"We" however get nothing, literally nothing, for allowing commercial entities to use our resources to make themselves rich --- nothing except the loss of air space that could have been used for broadcasting that would be of actual use to the community

Excuse me? Have you truly not noticed that "we" get information of all stripes delivered via the airwaves?

Information is not nothing. It is among the most useful things one can receive.

In addition to information, we receive entertainment via the airwaves. That too is not nothing.

I'm sorry we aren't so advanced as "Star Trek" and can have tangible items beamed to us via the airwaves....I can assure you, however, that if or when the day comes that such a thing is possible, though one will receive it, one will not receive it for free as one does today receive content over the portions of the EMS that the FCC manages.

would be of actual use to the community instead of a cash cow for Clear Channel. A little alliteration there, hee hee.

By me, the alliteration went neither unnoticed nor unappreciated.

The airwaves are akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared.

And they are used thus. Perhaps the EMS isn't used that way where you are, but I assure you they are so used, by both public television channels (they purchase content from a host of producers, but mostly from PBS and public access television channels.

• Welcome
  
• Channel 10 Programs
  
• Peninsula Area Public Access
  
• Home | APTS
  
• D.C. area low-power television and radio channels (only available to receivers who are physically "close enough"):
  • Channel 6 (RF channel 6): WDCN-LP - Signal Above LLC (independent). Broadcast intended for FM radio reception at 87.7 MHz. Video carrier shows filler content.
  • Channel 23 (RF channel 23): WDDN-LD - Daystar
  • Channel 25 (RF channel 25): WZDC-CD - Telemundo
  • Channel 31 (RF channel 32): WRZB-LD
  • Channel 46 (RF channel 45): W45DN-D - GCN/Al Karma TV
  • Channel 47 (RF channel 22): WMDO-CD - UniMás/LATV
  • Channel 49 (RF channel 14): WWTD-LD - Soul of the South/NTDTV/QVC/VieTV
  • Channel 58 (RF channel 44): WIAV-CD - Deutsche Welle

I don't know where you live, but perhaps you should seek out your local public access television and radio stations. Assuming there are some, I think you'll find they function very much as a "town bulletin board." You must seek them out; they are not going to "beat you over the head" to get you to tune in, nor will they literally or figuratively fall into your lap.

You do realise the EMS is extant regardless of how or whether anyone uses or manages it, right?

We have the FCC which is supposed to act as our custodian but in practice acts in collusion with the moneychangers and gives that property away, for nothing.

Well, you're entitled to have that normative view of the FCC's role and mission. I don't.

The FCC does exactly what, IMO, it should: manage the efficient use and apportionment of the EMF so that competing users of it don't "step on" one another's signals/messages. I don't want the FCC to do more than that.

In a more perfect world where they at least leased some of those channels for a rental fee, that revenue could fund public broadcast outlets that actually do serve the community with useful resources. That would be my approach..

Well, that is the extant approach. Others agree and/or acquiesce to that being the approach.

The FCC does "lease" the channels for a fee:

• FCC Auctions: Factsheet: Auction 59
  
• Fees

The actual process isn't as simple as your phrasing suggests, but in essence, that's exactly what happens when a broadcaster applies for a licence to tansmist content using a given piece of the EMS.

I don't know how the FCC uses the revenue it collects from "leasing" the EMS, but I know damn well that it "leases" it. (The FCC calls it "licensing," but they with mean with that term what anyone else would mean by "lease" or "sell." The use the term "license" because of that word's authorization context.)

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan.

I wouldn't know. I know what the CPB receives/collects, ditto for PBS, and I can look up what various individuals and organizations donate to public broadcasting networks, public broadcasting stations/channels and public access stations and channels, but that's more work than I'm going to undertake for there are thousands of them to examine.

How those sums compare with that is collected and spent in Germany, Japan or any other nation is something I don't know and, while you made the claim you did, you didn't see fit to share any quantitative information that would allow one to assess (and presumably accept) the veracity of your claim. I know that in terms of what governments spend on public funding that, on a per capita basis, the U.S. spends less than do many other OECD nations.

​

The thing to keep in mind is that regardless of one's position on the overall quantity of public broadcasting and publicly broadcast content, because it is a public good [2], per capita public (governmental) funding isn't terribly useful (though it has some use) as a measure of the sufficiency of the public funding made available to public broadcasters and content producers. [1]

So while it may well be that total U.S. spending on public broadcasting and thus delivered content may be less than or more than the same metric for other nations, merely knowing the comparative extent of that spending isn't particularly useful for evaluating the normative merits and/or demerits of the sums spent.

FWIW:

At the national level, NPR increased its total operating revenue in 2016 to $213 million, up 9% from 2015 levels. PRI saw gains as well, rising 26% to about $22 million in total revenue for 2016. APM’s total revenue, on the other hand, went down 6% year over year, accounting for $126 million in 2016. (Source)​

Notes:

1. Take roads for example. Even if the U.S. spends more per capita than does any other country, the U.S. could still have "not enough" roads and/or worse quality roads than some or all other countries. That can happen for one or a combination of a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are:
   • More people using the roads.
   • Not enough money being allocated to maintain them all to as high a standard as other countries do.
   • Population size relative to total sums spent.
2. Public broadcasting and content so delivered is what economics calls a "public good."

• Public Goods: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
• What are public goods?
• https://www.economicshelp.org/micro-economic-essays/marketfailure/public-goods/
  
  
  

Because it/they are public goods, it's a safe bet that no mater where they are offered, they are likely undersupplied. That's just a near ubiquitous consequence of something being a public good, be it public broadcasts of content, education or roads, for example. Consequently:

• Providing public goods is primarily something governments do. Good governments (or more precisely, the leaders of them) endeavor to provide enough public goods (and services) to satisfy most people, but they know they won't satisfy all people.
• There will always be someone who wants more of a given public good than is provided. Such individuals have one option: pony up their own resources to fully or in part provide/obtain the incremental increase in the amount of the public good/service they desire more of.

That is simply the reality of public goods in any economy faced with existential resource scarcity and having to choose how to use resources achieve multiple objectives.​

​

We invest far, far less on our public broadcasting resources than our contemporaries such as Germany or Japan. And a common theory holds that the reason much of the good public broadcasting we do have comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York, is that those places are close enough to Canada, where they take it more seriously, to hear what decent public broadcasting sounds like.

What?

• All of the public broadcasting we have comes from whatever be one's public broadcasting station/channel. There are literally thousands of those broadcasters and they are dispersed all over the country.
• "Decent public broadcasting," like all broadcasting, looks and sounds clear and is bereft of static and other intrusions.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

I don't see how. I've seen many an episode of M*A*S*H as it was a favorite of my mother. Never saw politics in it.

What is one to say about that?

Anyone can stand next to a tall-enough tree and see its leaves. Similarly, one can fly over a green area, know it's covered with plant life and still not know whether it's trees or grass one sees.

The fact that you didn't see politics in the dialogue on M*A*S*H doesn't mean it wasn't there. I am, however, willing to accept that the politics in it didn't obtain your notice.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space.

Are you among the folks who complain about what's currently on their TV screen while also refusing to change the channel, leave the room, or turn off the television?

The world is full of stimuli that will approach you. Some of them one can hold at bay and others one cannot. One's sanity is best preserved by knowing which of them one cannot aptly parry and, with regard to them, undertaking non-parrying tactics. Accordingly, I suggest you stand farther away from the pump/TV screen/speaker(s) than you have been. The pump and the TV screen aren't moving, but you can; thus that is your solution for preserving the sanctity of your personal space. Another solution option is , to try wearing earplugs or larger blinders.

The "right" referred to here is the invasion of my personal space. Particularly considering the reason I'm standing there is that I'm taking delivery of a product I've already paid for, and that safety concerns with that product dictate that I have to hang around.

​

Why do you need to be so close to the pump that you can't observe your vehicle from a greater distance? Last I checked, nobody is forced to remain at a gas pump while the pump is operating. What one is implored to do is turn off the car's engine while the gas is pumping. Lock the care and take key with you when you exit the vehicle if you're concerned about someone steeling the vehicle or breaking into it or stealing it. There are myriad solution options for allowing you to maintain a reasonable measure of obliviousness to the TV audio and video content being aired at a gas pump. Surely you can identify at least one that'll work for you.

Holy shit. I'm not about to work on a dissertation Emily. But I'll pick a couple of random thoughts while reserving the right to return and pick some more.

Quote 1:
I believe you're using the term 'information" far too loosely here. Technically anything is information right down to the fly that just landed on your nose, Useful information however is a whole 'nother smoke. And considering the content -- I won't glorify it with "information" --- of commercial broadcast is engineered to hypnotize a wiling drone into a soporific state of near-paralysis so that he or she is nice and vulnerable for the real point --- persuading people to buy shit they don't need, which is what we call "advertising" --- somehow this falls a bit short of "useful".

Said a Clear Channel executive to one of his Program Directors: "What's the definition of Programming?" When the underling didn't answer the exec declared "Programing is the shit we run between commercials". As well, the term "entertainment", considering (again) the watcher is simply being softened up for the commercial with mindless pap, well that's a bit of a stretch too, but have at it if you wish.... just be aware of what its function is.

Quote 2:
Irrelevant. It's not necessary to respond to literally everything, particularly if you didn't get the joke. Moving on.

Quote 3:
I need no channel listing for anywhere, thanks. Broadcasting is actually my career. What you've got here is a list of max 15kW TV stations --- which for a TV station is nearly invisible -- at least two of which are Spanish services, one's a godcaster, one (WRZB) doesn't even exist, perhaps except as a CP, and all of them consigned to the dustheap of available space, which is what I already had noted. And one is owned by a guy in Denver.

As for that "frankenstation" on 87.7 lemme tell you about frankenstations and what they're doing there.

When TV channels were first re-allocated into "channels 2-13" it happened that the audio signal for channel 6 was designated at 87.75 Mc. Since this was within the range of an FM radio receiver that meant you could pick up channel 6 audio on an FM radio, as readers of a certain age will recall. When television went to digital broadcasting a few years ago that meant all those frequencies changed.

Since then though, some less-than-ethical broadcasters devised the strategy of applying for an analogue TV license on channel 6, running a still image with maybe a weather crawl on the video side, and then pouring all their resources into the audio on 87.75, including massive compression, including a stereo pilot, the whole shebang. This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial. That means twenty FM channels reserved for We the Public, only a handful of which can be used in one place due to interference concerns, versus 64 channels for the profitmongers. Twenty versus sixty-four, guess who wins. And make that sixty-five with the frankenstations, since they are technically licensed as a TV station and thus are not bound by FM regs. So they pulled an end-around. They run commercials all day long. Oh and speaking of commercials, one of your list above is a JTV channel --- a continuous jewelry commercial. Even a paltry low-power channel is pissed away on jewelry commercials.

And no, I don't need to "seek out" or assess my local or distant stations -- I know them all, here and in previous residences, and I've worked at several. I know exactly what they do and why they do it. That's why I'm here.


That'll do for now. Nourishment, she beckon.

Quote 3:
I need no channel listing for anywhere, thanks. Broadcasting is actually my career. What you've got here is a list of max 15kW TV stations --- which for a TV station is nearly invisible -- at least two of which are Spanish services, one's a godcaster, one (WRZB) doesn't even exist, perhaps except as a CP, and all of them consigned to the dustheap of available space, which is what I already had noted. And one is owned by a guy in Denver.

As for that "frankenstation" on 87.7 lemme tell you about frankenstations and what they're doing there.

When TV channels were first re-allocated into "channels 2-13" it happened that the audio signal for channel 6 was designated at 87.75 Mc. Since this was within the range of an FM radio receiver that meant you could pick up channel 6 audio on an FM radio, as readers of a certain age will recall. When television went to digital broadcasting a few years ago that meant all those frequencies changed.

Since then though, some less-than-ethical broadcasters devised the strategy of applying for an analogue TV license on channel 6, running a still image with maybe a weather crawl on the video side, and then pouring all their resources into the audio on 87.75, including massive compression, including a stereo pilot, the whole shebang. This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial. That means twenty FM channels reserved for We the Public, only a handful of which can be used in one place due to interference concerns, versus 64 channels for the profitmongers. Twenty versus sixty-four, guess who wins. And make that sixty-five with the frankenstations, since they are technically licensed as a TV station and thus are not bound by FM regs. So they pulled an end-around. They run commercials all day long. Oh and speaking of commercials, one of your list above is a JTV channel --- a continuous jewelry commercial. Even a paltry low-power channel is pissed away on jewelry commercials.

And no, I don't need to "seek out" or assess my local or distant stations -- I know them all, here and in previous residences, and I've worked at several. I know exactly what they do and why they do it. That's why I'm here.

Your remark to which I responded was that "the airwaves are [not] akin to a town bulletin board where common info might be shared." The channels I cited deliver content that is precisely of that nature. And your retort is to bemoan things like signal strength....

What you've got here is a list of max 15kW TV stations

....the language in which some of the content is delivered (Are we to conclude that you think non speakers of English should not transmit or receive "bulletin board" information?)....

two of which are Spanish services

...the bandwidth the stations have licensed...

all of them consigned to the dustheap of available space

....and who owns one of them....as if who owns the damn station matters....

one is owned by a guy in Denver.

...But what you didn't do is show that airwares are not used as "bulletin boards," in spite of my having shown they are so used. Surely you've seen public access television and seen the content they carry?

This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial.

Okay, then gripe about the existence of a "loophole" and advocate for its closure, but don't sit there asserting/implying something does not happen/exist when in fact it does. Surely you aren't asserting that the loophole's mere existence be the reason extant stations/broadcasters don't lease more "space," stronger signals, etc. than they do. I submit that they don't/didn't because they didn't have either the money or the will/need to do so.

 

[Pogo]

This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial.

Okay, then gripe about the existence of a "loophole" and advocate for its closure, but don't sit there asserting/implying something does not happen/exist when in fact it does. Surely you aren't asserting that the loophole's mere existence be the reason extant stations/broadcasters don't lease more "space," stronger signals, etc. than they do. I submit that they don't/didn't because they didn't have either the money or the will/need to do so.

(Would be) broadcasters can't "lease more space, stronger signals, etc". Those stronger avenues have all been scarfed up decades ago. That's why the itty bitty puddle of public broadcasting that made up some but not all of your list, are confined to the sloppy seconds left over.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

 

[deannalw]

Murphy Brown much?

Or MASH.

Or All in the Family or Will and Grace or Seinfeld and the list goes on. People have been discussing TV since TV began for a lot of reasons.

 

[deannalw]

It is perfectly normal for television shows to become topics of national conversation. Hell, many Mondays are spent gabbing with co-workers about Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead.

Millions don't gather at the water cooler for water!

 

[usmbguest5318]

This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial.

Okay, then gripe about the existence of a "loophole" and advocate for its closure, but don't sit there asserting/implying something does not happen/exist when in fact it does. Surely you aren't asserting that the loophole's mere existence be the reason extant stations/broadcasters don't lease more "space," stronger signals, etc. than they do. I submit that they don't/didn't because they didn't have either the money or the will/need to do so.

(Would be) broadcasters can't "lease more space, stronger signals, etc". Those stronger avenues have all been scarfed up decades ago. That's why the itty bitty puddle of public broadcasting that made up some but not all of your list, are confined to the sloppy seconds left over.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

So now, your gripe is that people who've had the property rights to a given space in the EMS get their lease renewed.

Consider this:

I have a building that has a limited quantity of units. Some units are small 600 sq. foot efficiencies, some are one bedroom units of 1200 sq. ft., some are large multi floor units, others occupy whole or major portions of single floors, and so on. My tenants who've leased the largest units have renewed their leases, adequately maintained the space they occupy, and paid the requisite fees for as long as the building has been there.

Following the implications of your gripe, I should not automatically accept their lease renewal and instead I should either reject it or reduce the size of the unit or quantity of floors they occupy to admit someone else who wants to obtain a place in the building.​

While I respect your right to think that's what I should do, I can assure you it's not what I'd ever do.
​

I'm not sure how your conception of property rights goes, but the normative model you're suggesting doesn't at all align with the U.S.' notion or implementation of the property rights concept.

Quite frankly, I'm glad it does not, but I'm equally glad that you and others like you have the freedom to feel it should. Furthermore, I think it great that you can advocate to the fullest of your ability for change in America's implementation of property rights concepts. Make no mistake, however. Were I to sense that the model you've describe had a snowball's chance in hell of coming to fruition, bantering in opposition to you and about it on USMB is not the nature of conversation I'd be having about it.

 

[theHawk]

I turned up the volume on the news to hear a segment about the new version of the Roseanne sitcom. Some people don't want to watch it, and that they don't is the topic of conversation. Seriously?

If someone asks you or asks me about it, sure, that either of us watches, or doesn't, enjoys, or doesn't, the show is banal enough banter....maybe at lunch or for a moment at the water cooler. On national TV, though? For what?


Now, don't get me wrong. My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content. I know the show has a political bent, and I presume it favors Trump since Trump was touting it, but what be the content of a TV show is of mon import to me. I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne," even though I suspect the Roseanne character anachronistically channels "Archie Bunker," but I'd have to watch to say for sure. [1]


One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?
• Will liberals embrace the "do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it" stance or will they just watch the show and laugh, or just not watch the show?
  • If chided about adopting that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

Note:

1. I think the Roseanne character is anachronistic because of this.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (Note: National annual average unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%)

Liberal loons are terrified that it could be so successful because it shows that people are sick of the normal left leaning shows and want something different or something they can relate to.

The left refuse to accept the fact that most of the middle and lower class have felt abandoned by our politicians over the last several decades as they shipped jobs overseas. This is a rejection of the Dems and RINO GOP’s globalist Agenda. That is why the left have instead chosen to believe Fake News stories like “Russian collusion” and blame Facebook memes for losing the election.

 

[toobfreak]

How did the U.S. become so pathetic that a sitcom is a topic of national conversation?

Offhand, I'd say it is probably from people like you with nothing better to do with your time on a holiday weekend than to write a research paper on it? Yep, that's it. But this would not be the first time a sitcom has caught the national eye (MASH, All In The Family, etc.). Personally, I think it pretty interesting that a sitcom can come back after a 21 year lapse, with all the original cast, writers, production staff, etc. That's ******* loyalty. They even tried to get back the original living-room sofa (somebody owns it!) and they had someone recreate the original wallpaper!

TV sucks eggs so bad these days, I figure the show has to be worth checking out as being good by merely avoiding the cardboard characters and horrible writing that makes most all other new shows bad.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I turned up the volume on the news to hear a segment about the new version of the Roseanne sitcom. Some people don't want to watch it, and that they don't is the topic of conversation. Seriously?

If someone asks you or asks me about it, sure, that either of us watches, or doesn't, enjoys, or doesn't, the show is banal enough banter....maybe at lunch or for a moment at the water cooler. On national TV, though? For what?


Now, don't get me wrong. My beef has nothing to do with Roseanne's content. I know the show has a political bent, and I presume it favors Trump since Trump was touting it, but what be the content of a TV show is of mon import to me. I "grew up" with "Archie Bunker," I can handle "Roseanne," even though I suspect the Roseanne character anachronistically channels "Archie Bunker," but I'd have to watch to say for sure. [1]


One thing I'll be curious to observe is what liberals and conservatives periodically have to say about the writing for Roseanne.

• Conservatives routinely enough say of comedians something like, "Do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it."
  • Will they adopt that posture re: Roseanne?
  • If chided about not maintaining that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?
• Will liberals embrace the "do your comedy. Leave your politics out of it" stance or will they just watch the show and laugh, or just not watch the show?
  • If chided about adopting that posture re: Roseanne, will they resort to a hackneyed tu quoque retort?

Note:

1. I think the Roseanne character is anachronistic because of this.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   (Note: National annual average unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%)

Politics started to become entertainment a long time ago. Reagan was part of it, I'm not blaming Reagan.

You go to countries that are on the up, China, Vietnam, wherever, people are full of hope.

In the US it's going downhill. They people are miserable. Why? They're richer, have more secure lives, and yet lack all this hope.

Obama comes along and says "hope, not hate" and Trump comes along and says "Make America Great Again", they're offering the hope that people have lost, they'll never give them this hope, hope is slipping downwards year on year, but they offer it, and people grab it with two hands and love to have this hope for their miserable lives.

Cars, houses, boats, all of this doesn't buy happiness.

 

[deannalw]

Please focus your remarks on the thread topics:

• the Roseanne television show,
• sitcoms, dramas, and other shows germanity as national news topics,
• characters in TV shows and/or their rhetorical/allegorical likeness to segments of society or individuals in it,
• styles of portrayal of various social groups on television and the impact of that portrayal on news and commentary,
• trends depicted on television shows and the nature and extent to which they reflect actual trends,
• temporal, qualitative and/or quantitative interplay of cause and effect between television content/characters and individuals and groups in society
• how TV characters are or are not role models, and/or
• normative thoughts about any of the above.

By all means, share observations, analysis, opinions, etc.

Just don't try to convert the conversation to a topic that is not literally or contextually among the topics in the OP.

Good grief

 

[dannyboys]

I've seen better acting at a high school drama class.

 

[Pogo]

This was a devious way to shoehorn YET-ANOTHER profitmongeing station in despite the FCC having long ago designated all FM frequencies below 92 to be strictly noncommercial.

Okay, then gripe about the existence of a "loophole" and advocate for its closure, but don't sit there asserting/implying something does not happen/exist when in fact it does. Surely you aren't asserting that the loophole's mere existence be the reason extant stations/broadcasters don't lease more "space," stronger signals, etc. than they do. I submit that they don't/didn't because they didn't have either the money or the will/need to do so.

(Would be) broadcasters can't "lease more space, stronger signals, etc". Those stronger avenues have all been scarfed up decades ago. That's why the itty bitty puddle of public broadcasting that made up some but not all of your list, are confined to the sloppy seconds left over.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

The prime space is already in the hands of giant corporations, and has been for generations. Even though they all regularly have to re-apply for license renewal, which is virtually automatic. And as long as it is automatic it effectively shuts out anyone else from access.

So now, your gripe is that people who've had the property rights to a given space in the EMS get their lease renewed.

Consider this:

I have a building that has a limited quantity of units. Some units are small 600 sq. foot efficiencies, some are one bedroom units of 1200 sq. ft., some are large multi floor units, others occupy whole or major portions of single floors, and so on. My tenants who've leased the largest units have renewed their leases, adequately maintained the space they occupy, and paid the requisite fees for as long as the building has been there.

Following the implications of your gripe, I should not automatically accept their lease renewal and instead I should either reject it or reduce the size of the unit or quantity of floors they occupy to admit someone else who wants to obtain a place in the building.​

While I respect your right to think that's what I should do, I can assure you it's not what I'd ever do.
​

I'm not sure how your conception of property rights goes, but the normative model you're suggesting doesn't at all align with the U.S.' notion or implementation of the property rights concept.

Quite frankly, I'm glad it does not, but I'm equally glad that you and others like you have the freedom to feel it should. Furthermore, I think it great that you can advocate to the fullest of your ability for change in America's implementation of property rights concepts. Make no mistake, however. Were I to sense that the model you've describe had a snowball's chance in hell of coming to fruition, bantering in opposition to you and about it on USMB is not the nature of conversation I'd be having about it.

Apparently you either missed, or are intentionally ignoring, the adjective public in the term "public property".

The airwaves, by which we mean the use thereof, is literally the domain of We the Public. Thus spake the FCC when it was formed. That means we own that potential. It also means it's up to us who uses it and for what purpose, and for how long they do so. And yes Virginia, that means CBS doesn't own them and ClearChannel doesn't own them and "Power 99" doesn't own them --- WE do, and we permit CBS and ClearChannel and Power99 and everybody else, to use OUR airwaves.

That's a basic fact that can't be ignored. It's the starting point.