Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 56
Pragmatic RealitiesPage 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

Just because I can't point a finger to any individual who was imprisoned for the specific purpose of broadcasting radio waves over a substantial geographic region without a licence granted by a state official, you think I have no basis for my claims?


Yes. And because it begs the question of your credibility, it casts doubt on any other claim you make. Remember, you are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to provide suitably strong evidence in your favour.

In fact, any challenge you've been given has been responded to with nothing more than meaningless and melodramatic rhetoric.
 123581321
Joined: 6/15/2010
Msg: 57
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/15/2010 5:36:41 PM

It appeals to the instinctive compulsion of man to control the resources around them. A compulsion brought about by evolution.


The world is shaped by conspiracies...this "evolution" is nothing more than totalitarian tip toe by the few (financial elite) to control the many. It is not just on a level of taxation but also from a freedom perspective "free range does not mean freedom".Our energy is being farmed by our own freewill through contracts that people do not realize as such. It is the way it is done, your father did it the same way,as did his. The complexity of the contract has "evolved" to a point that people are giving up more and more out of ignorance. Most statutes have little to do with law and more to do with revenue collection.
The basis of common law is that there must be an injured party brought forth in order for a crime to be committed. Common law no longer exists. How many read the statutes that they contract into with their signatures? The World Order is not New nor is it something that is coming...It has been here a long time as in slowly boiling the frog. We went from blatant servitude to occult servitude that most love because their lives are good...what is there to complain about? The government? Taxes? We go and vote and have out elected
officials fix these problems LOL. Right...
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/15/2010 10:24:44 PM
stargazer

Do you not realize that it is illegal to broadcast a television or radio program over more than just a few feet? That if you do this, you will be violating a law?

Just because I can't point to anyone specific who has broken the law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean we can't expect the law to be enforced...




I've never seen a 50-ton gold sphere hoisted 2 miles into the sky and suddenly "let go". I have never once seen that happen. But I still know (see epistemology) that if I were to see it happen, that I would see the ball fall.

I have never seen a man violate FCC broadcasting laws. But I know if a man did break them, he would be forced to sacrifice his money, liberty, or more.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 59
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 5:50:58 AM
Ubiquitous, do you not realize you're being a dismissive a-hole? I know what the friggin' laws are. Do you have any reason why regulation of the airwaves are a bad thing?

Edit: Or does the idea of your emergency services unable to receive each others signals in an emergency because it's your "right" to transmit at whatever frequency at whatever power you like.

Yes, we're nations of laws. Contravene the law, you face fines or, in some cases, jail. Get over it.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 60
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 7:35:57 AM
I see you guys are still at it...
Anyhow its nice to see a good new thread on this site.
I was lead to believe they all get deleted.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 61
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 8:21:52 AM

Do you have any reason why regulation of the airwaves are a bad thing?


My bad, I meant to say "aren't" a bad thing.
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 62
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 8:59:32 AM

I have never seen a man violate FCC broadcasting laws. But I know if a man did break them, he would be forced to sacrifice his money, liberty, or more.


My RF lecturer in college told a story of how, when he was growing up in Florida, he got a visit from the FCC, FBI and NASA. Seems his juiced ham radio transmitter had lost a final power amplifier and was splattering noise all over the spectrum. Cape Canaveral was having some problems with telemetry from the Mercury capsules. The FCC guy just told him to shut down, fix it and go to legal power. I guess a 12 year old could catch a break in those days.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 10:53:58 AM

Ubiquitous, do you not realize you're being a dismissive a-hole? I know what the friggin' laws are. Do you have any reason why regulation of the airwaves are a bad thing?

Edit: Or does the idea of your emergency services unable to receive each others signals in an emergency because it's your "right" to transmit at whatever frequency at whatever power you like.

Yes, we're nations of laws. Contravene the law, you face fines or, in some cases, jail. Get over it.

That has been his point all along...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 64
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 12:25:37 PM
So nothing "pragmatic" about any of this, then.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 1:55:43 PM
stargazer


I know what the friggin' laws are. Do you have any reason why regulation of the airwaves are a bad thing?


Of course. Aside from the fact that I view all violence as immoral*, the violent enforcement of broadcasting licensure creates monopoly and oligopoly in mass media -- ossifying a single, blindingly bland message and opposing all other competing ideas.

But what I find equally peculiar is that suddenly, this conversation isn't about the fact that these broadcasting law are violently enforced. Have you've accepted that they are?




Ubiquitous, do you not realize you're being a dismissive a-hole?

In case you hadn't noticed, I tried to have a grounded discussion with you. But you retorted with:

"Ubi...seriously, you need to take some meds."
"Something really strong and, um, relaxing."
"Your doctor must dread doing the reflex test on you, your knee-jerk reactions must send him flying!"

Moreover, I continued to give you the benefit of the doubt as you grossly exaggerated my claims. But you did not cease.

So, I decided to make you aware of your bigotry by giving you a taste of your own medicine. I've found this tactic works well in this medium.

You remind me a lot of Krebby. When I pose grounded, logical, and accurate claims inconsistent with your position, you attack me with (literal) bigotry. I try to ignore it, attempting to keep the conversation on the topic, but you both keep the act up. Then the moment I decide to expose fire with fire, you both jump on the defensive and act as a victim.

It's as if your ego is so large (and irrational) that it has you genuinely convinced that I start these scuffles.

I tried having a productive, rational discussion of political philosophy with you. It's clear that you don't want to have such a conversation. So why not just ignore me rather than resort to ad hominem bigotry?






hyoid

People get out of speeding tickets too. That doesn't excuse the fact that the laws are fundamentally enforced with violence. That if your professor had wanted to broadcast a radio program because he disagreed with a "station" that had FCC liensure, he would be subject to a fine or worse. And if he did not pay this money, men would be sent to his house to take it from him. And that if he defended his property from this theft, he would be thrown into a cage.

And it does not excuse the fact that the FCC and other agencies -- as well as the men who are sent to "enforce" their rules -- are all paid via the forced extraction of money at gunpoint. Where if you do not pay, you will be thrown into prison.

And if you want examples of people tossed away for years because of that crime, I could list dozens.






sarniafairyboy

The "If you don't like the fact that I believe it is virtuous for violence to be used against you if you disagree with me politically, then you should move far away from me" position is a cowardly and evil non-argument. It attempts to end the discussion while utterly avoiding the real issue: The belief that it is virtuous to use violence against non-violent individuals.

I know that I will never live to see the day of a global stateless society. But that doesn't bother me too much. Especially in light of what I'm about to write about. I find value in propagating these ideas. Watching people navigate their sophistry. And most of all, in sharing the beautiful experience of seeing, for the first time, someone you care about act with enough integrity to reject the use of violence against you.

I firmly believe that human beings cannot experience the full depth of a relationship (of any kind) without both parties acting with integrity. That means to never, ever, lie about anything, to hide how you feel about the other, to withhold opinions, and to respect their right to make their own choices and define their own values. In line with this is the feeling I get from knowing, rationally, that someone I value, values me above a brutal system built on rhetoric and force. It is among the most pleasurable experiences I have ever enjoyed and can imagine.


I believe the vast majority of human beings are deprived of this feeling. I believe the very family acts without integrity. I believe mothers and fathers do not share their deepest, most personal secrets with their children. I believe parents do not disclose the full gamut of their emotions with their children. I believe parents do not show their greatest shames, fears and resentments with their children. And I believe mothers and fathers take advantage of a biological, irrational adoration young children have for their parents by manipulating them (either violently with spanking or other corporal punishments, or with mental manipulation through the use of fear or guilt) into serving "family" rather than respectfully reasoning with them, encouraging them to participate, and treating them as young, less-knowledgeable individuals worthy of the same agency as an adult. And I believe families often do (or don't do) all of this while openly professing to be "close". Where their everyday conversations are purely aesthetic or at the very most seep only into the shallow surface of their emotions.

"I better not say __________ to my child, because I'm afraid of how they might react."

The only reason they would react in such a way is because you, the parent, the one their tiny, vulnerable little mind imprinted itself onto (as a duckling with its mother) has deprived them of that level of sincerity and integrity in the most impacting relationship of their life and have thus conditioned them to feel anxiety when confronted with genuine integrity. And in doing so, you have essentially guaranteed that they will never experience that kind of relationship with anyone, thereby banishing them from feeling the utter bliss of the knowledge that someone knows everything about you at the most vulnerable level (including precisely how you feel about them) and still values you.

When families claim to be "close" when they do not act with integrity, we set the bar painfully low for our expectations of future relationships.

The state is inconsequential when compared to the family.

So, to answer your question, I do not care if someone who believes it is moral for violence to be used against me for disagreeing with them mocks my position as "mental masturbation". Such people cannot value me. And I certainly cannot value them.

I am living the most virtuous life I know and I am engaging in those activities that I believe contribute the most to the multi-generational project of convincing man that violence should be rejected if we want to live in a free, clean, prosperous society. I do this by encouraging people to confront the violence of the state. For more analytic thinkers, I describe in detail how freedom as it pertains to economic activities is the what creates wealth (and is the mechanism behind what led to the explosion of wealth over the past few centuries) and that the evils we see in the economy are not the result of free human interaction, but rather of coercion. And that the vast majority of that coercion is comes from egotistical politicians -- poisoned with the fatal conceit -- whose egos convince them that they are intelligent enough to understand the billions of variables that make up an economy enough to use violence in productive ways. That what really happens from this are either direct devastating economic consequences or commonly, the betterment of one group of people at the expense of many more. And moreover, that the other negative aspects of the economy are the result of self-interested companies writing rules on paper that grant them exclusive advantages over their competitors and getting them "passed" by a legislature, who then violently enforces those mandates onto the public, thereby making us pay for what would otherwise be their costs (police, regulatory agencies, and the courts are funded by taxes) and making it appear as though these companies do not engage in violence.

No one would watch CNN, MSN, or Fox news if these companies hired mercenaries to prevent anyone from starting a competing television station. But to the extent these companies can organize into a cartel and lobby the people who comprise "the state" to only grant a select few companies "licences" to peacefully broadcast communication and to use force against anyone else who non-violently broadcasts competing programming, they can get away with it.
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 66
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 4:53:08 PM
That's the nature of the RF spectrum.
Only one person can use a frequency at a time.
Regarding broadcasting-You can buy a 10m shortwave rig for around $300, a serviceable antenna rig for about the same. You will have to pass some licensing requirements, mostly on how to avoid messing up other people's transmissions. Then you can transmit whatever wisdom or folly you desire.

Of course almost no one will receive it. You apparently want to transmit in the commercial, medium wave bands. Is it because that's where all the receivers are?

Well, you can. Buy a station or a channel. Other people bought them up before you came on the scene. Just like real estate. They aren't making any more. What's it worth to you?

If you advocate anarchy of the RF spectrum, then you'll have to deal with the technical realities. Things like stronger transmitters on your carrier frequency, over modulators. There would be nothing to stop someone from putting up a directional array around your antenna site and limiting your broadcast area to what's inside the circle. That's not to mention sabotage; it's fairly easy to booger a transmission line so the final amplifiers let out their smoke.

These were all practices that occurred in the early days of commercial radio. In the early 20s the US ATTY Gen opined that the ICC had no jurisdiction to assign frequencies.Hundreds of people packed up their gear and moved to the big city and started transmitting at any frequency they chose. Radio was well on its way toward uselessness. Then congress created the entity that preceded the FCC-forgot the name. They played marshall to that wild west scene. Did some make out like bandits? Sure, same as when any new resource is exploited. Bad luck that you weren't there to get in on the ground floor.
Me, I want to own Manhattan. I'd pay up to double what the Dutch did.

Seriously, why obsess over radio/TV broadcast anyway? It's a limited medium. The internet/WWW has the potential reach orders of magnitude more people at a fraction of the cost of a transmitter.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 6:36:21 PM
sarniafairyboy


I agree with that sentence at the top. I agree with much of what you say.

This is a surprise, considering the way you've been engaging me.




...in your thread title.

This isn't my thread, and I didn't write the title... although I won't deny accusations of hijacking




I think what people are taking issue with is the word "Pragmatic"

I think it is impossible for the system to be improved from within. This isn't some pessimistic feeling of helplessness either. I think it has technical roots in political science and economics. For example, let's look at the OP's concern: the media cartel.

I do no think there is anything that can be realistically done to significantly improve the situation with broadcast television and radio within the system. I do not think we can "vote" to improve the situation. Why is that? I believe it is because of imbalances in incentives. In a relatively free society, politics becomes a money game. Politicians are elected by a popular majority. Thus, to get into power you must be popular. To be popular requires large amounts of money. Money -- like anything else -- is only transferred via incentive. People must have an incentive to give exchange their money for anything.

The corporations that profit immensely from the state are highly organized, highly capitalized, and have an enormous incentive to maintain the status quo (it is an utter myth that large business interest favor Laissez Faire government). Thus, in a relatively free society, the special interest will almost always beat out the disperse, weak, general interest of the majority, who has much less to gain from entering the political process than the special interest.

This has roots in the idea of Rational Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance).

I believe it is rational for most people to ignore most aspects and arguments in the political process. Why? Because spending the hours and hours each week to argue against state subsidies that make the price of corn $.04 more expensive per ear for or the price of steel 15% more expensive results in a net loss of value for most people. That the costs of engaging in these activities (based on the amount one values his/her time) generally far exceeds the benefits that can be gained from entering the political to the extent necessary to compete with special interests realistically.

This makes it very easy for special interests to work with politicians and to benefit from the use of state coercion.

There are many other reasons, but this is one of the most fundamental when it comes to why I think the only way we can end these institutionalized forces is to utterly reject this system. I do not believe this system of institutionalized violence is capable of producing the incentive structures required for achieving the ends we desire.

Remember, humans only act according to incentives.

Thus, the only pragmatic approach I believe is to call for the end of this system. And I think the most practical way to do that is to 1) encourage the family to act with integrity 2) to expose the violence behind the state (people naturally reject violence) and 3) to propagate an understanding of economics in order to correct people's misunderstandings of history and to do away with their irrational fears of business, profit, money, markets, and other natural human activities.

Thankfully, I also understand that violence is not conducive to stability or productivity. This is why I think statism will lead to its own demise. For example, abject violence of the "strand" of statism known as "Communism" collapsed within a few generations. The less violent "strand" known as "Democracy" (some call it "state capitalism", "corporatism", etc) has produced welfare states supported by violence, which has installed a system of fiscal unsustainability. In the United States, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public-employee pensions cannot be maintained for more than a generation. This is economic reality and a political third rail. It cannot be maintained. Raising taxes much higher will result if less tax revenue for the government. These portions of our government must be shed. And when this happens, I believe people will be even more open to ideas against the state.

This is why I believe statism is nearing its end. When I say that, I do not mean it is coming to its end anytime soon. I mean it as an astronomer points to a Red Dwarf and says it is a dying star. From any one man's life, the star looks bright and vibrant.. but on the timeline of existence, the star is indeed taking its last breaths.

I believe this is the case with statism. I believe each generation of humans are becoming less and less affected by propaganda and more and more receptive to empiricism. And I do not think that this -- paird with the ubiquity of computers and internet access -- will leave room for statism much longer.

...although, I do think it will take longer than 5 generations....




hyoid

Couple things. First of all, I know all of the practical "problems" associated with radio transmission. But there are a few things that I do not think you adequately addressed.

First of all, there is room for millions of low-power radio frequencies to be used in relatively small geographic areas. The US alone has over a hundred million cell phones in active use at any moment.

I cannot tell you how television would be organized without central control. But one way I imagine it would happen would be that investors would create a company that operates a network of radio towers and "sells" time on them in much the same way cell phone companies sell "time" on their networks. That would leave room for thousands and thousands of competitors to enter the market. And television manufacturers, desiring to sell as many televisions as possible, would ensure their TVs could receive as many of the available bands as possible.

There would still be interference on a small scale, likely more than there already is. But two things: 1) the argument that the violence of the FCC and the tax collection required to fund it is preferable to some radio interference is silly and 2) this system would almost certainly make television less awe-inspiring than it currently is. The oligopoly the FCC enforces guarantees a handful of companies such a large market share of television that the networks can literally pay to scientifically engineer their programming to be awe-inspiring. Doing away with this system -- and introducing more competition -- would likely result in programming more reliant on content rather than image (example: YouTube). Because of this, we'd also probably have fewer parents watching American Idol, Lost, House, and other shows more hours per week than time they spend with their children.



Lastly, I do not obsess over the FCC. This thread is, indirectly, about the FCC, which is why I chose to focus on it. I'm with ya on the web. I believe the internet will kill television within my generation.

So, I suppose arguing against "Net Neutrality" is another pragmatic approach we can take. The last thing we want to do is to drink the politician's kool-aid and buy into the fear that without a government regulatory body, ISPs will destroy the internet. Giving the FCC authority to regulate (aka, control) American ISPs can only result in harm for the internet, in my opinion.





Paul K
I'm not sure how carefully you've read my posts, but I tried to define my use of "violence" as often as I could in an attempt to prevent this very misunderstanding. So let me repeat: To me, violence is "the initiation of the use of force".

Under that definition, self-defense against an aggressor is non-violent. Action movies are non-violent. Combat sports such as boxing are non-violent. Etc.

To be more clear "the use of force" includes threats. A slave may obey his master and thereby avoid the whip. But he is still threatened with force. Therefore, force is indeed being in use against him. And since the slave master initiates this force, he is acting violently even if he does not once strike his slaves.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 68
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 7:56:07 PM

Aside from the fact that I view all violence as immoral*, the violent enforcement of broadcasting licensure creates monopoly and oligopoly in mass media -- ossifying a single, blindingly bland message and opposing all other competing ideas.


So you don't want the enforcement of any laws by "the state?" So, if someone steals from you...what? If someone assaults you...what? So, if someone broadcasts a signal of sufficient strength and on a frequency that if interferes with the work of emergency services then...what?

But please, provide a single example of someone who's rights to a transmission license has been notably blocked or someone who has transmitted a signal and has had black-clad "state" operatives set upon him with truncheons. The fact that you already acknowledge you don't have such an example reduces your argument to little more than the typical rhetorical spew of any other "true believer" and nothing more.


So, I decided to make you aware of your bigotry by giving you a taste of your own medicine. I've found this tactic works well in this medium.


I see you and Appreciative go to the same knitting circles. Someone who vehemently disagrees with you is either a bigot or rude. Couldn't possibly be that you might have a logically flawed viewpoint. But self-superiority feels good, doesn't it.


You remind me a lot of Krebby. When I pose grounded, logical, and accurate claims inconsistent with your position, you attack me with (literal) bigotry. I try to ignore it, attempting to keep the conversation on the topic, but you both keep the act up. Then the moment I decide to expose fire with fire, you both jump on the defensive and act as a victim.


Wait...who's playing the victim?


But what I find equally peculiar is that suddenly, this conversation isn't about the fact that these broadcasting law are violently enforced. Have you've accepted that they are?


No. In fact, I find it a stunningly simplistic and assinine statement. We are nations of laws. Contravene those laws, there is a consequence. What about that is so hard for you to understand?


It's as if your ego is so large (and irrational) that it has you genuinely convinced that I start these scuffles.


Okay, let's recap. You accuse a regulatory body like the FCC (CRTC in Canada) of essentially being an agency of "The Government" to limit access to "The Media" to a select few. I point out - as an aside, I might add - that an agency within the FCC actually limits some uses of the electromagnetic spectrum for perfectly rational (scientific research) and socially important (emergency services) uses and you responded with this utter nonsensical rant:


This question is for everyone. What possible good could come from a system of violence-enforced monopoly and oligopoly in the realm of mass media? A system where if you try to start a competing television or radio station -- because you are dissatisfied with the existing establishments -- you will be threatened with violence until you stop or you are neutralized (caged or killed).


...emphases, mine...

So essentially, you are accusing the FCC (and by association, I assume, the CRTC) as an organization roughly equivalent to the Brown Shirts, KGB and CIA deathsquads? All while acknowledging you don't actually have evidence for this kind of behaviour.

Think maybe your credibility is starting to falter a little?


I tried having a productive, rational discussion of political philosophy with you. It's clear that you don't want to have such a conversation.


I'd love to have such a conversation. Evidence provided indicates you are incapable of a discussion beyond your own fixed set of presumptions and intolerance of opposing points of view.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 8:49:46 PM
stargazer

Go back and read the first page of this thread. The first thing I said to you was:

"So you're saying the FCC is needed to issue and monopolize television and radio licences to reserve a small portion of the EM spectrum for official use. The government can't say "Don't use these frequencies: 1500-2000hz" and leave the rest alone [to free competition]?."


You did not address this. You told me, "Ubi...seriously, you need to take some meds. Something really strong and, um, relaxing. No, that's not the government out there to get you...just the neighbour watering his lawn."

This is not a rational, logically-grounded response. It is ad-hominem bigotry. As I carried on with the topic, you carried on with your personal insults and evaded my inquires.

That is what makes you a bigot. I engage in friendly debates with a number of posters in these forums who both agree and disagree with me. But the moment any of them resort to personal attacks and bigotry, I expose them. It's a kind of self-defense, really.



Anyways, you still have not addressed my initial question:

What does the government reserving for itself a small band of the EM spectrum for official use -- emergency, research, etc -- have to do with the FCC monopolizing the EM spectrum in order to grant licensure to a few specific media institutions?

Why can't the government just reserve a small portion of the EM spectrum and leave the rest alone?





...I brought "violence" into the equation because I think it is important to understand the nature of how states operate. Especially in realm of this thread's topic. Not understanding this fact of political philosophy is tantamount to not understanding "natural selection" when discussing biology.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 70
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/16/2010 9:03:07 PM

Why can't the government just reserve a small portion of the EM spectrum and leave the rest alone?


You realize that the 'gubmint' and the FCC only reserves a small portion of the EM spectrum, don't you? Radio and television transmission take place in a fairly small portion of the spectrum.

Not understanding that is roughly the equivalent...well, actually, it's just plain ignorance.

Here...hope this clarifies things for you:

http://tinyurl.com/24l67lt
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 1:26:30 AM
Before I open that URL, I'm going to guess that it's the generic radio-to-gamma ray image shown on posters in nearly ever physics classroom in the world.

Yea, I know that. But you're avoiding the question. And that's not what this thread is about, is it? It is about the television band. Only certain frequencies are approved by the FCC for television broadcasting. This small band is then chopped into small bits, over geographic regions. Each bit is matched with a licence, the vast majority of which are, and almost always have been, under the ownership of a very select few media networks. And they're almost always renewed to the original owners. The only way anyone has been able to compete with broadcast networks has been to string coaxial cables all across cities and to charge a substantial monthly fee (to cover the high costs) for access to the content delivered on this medium: cable tv.

Is this not oligopoly in the realm of broadcast television?

...and does the state not use violence to enforce its rules for non-violent crimes?Namely, starting a competing television network?

If the answer to both is "yes", then it means the those who comprise the state are violently enforcing oligopoly. This is not dramatic and these are not charged words. They are words we would use to describe these same actions carried out by other individuals.


**Edit**
Haha, I was right!
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 72
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 5:19:48 AM

Yea, I know that. But you're avoiding the question. And that's not what this thread is about, is it? It is about the television band. Only certain frequencies are approved by the FCC for television broadcasting. This small band is then chopped into small bits, over geographic regions. Each bit is matched with a licence, the vast majority of which are, and almost always have been, under the ownership of a very select few media networks. And they're almost always renewed to the original owners. The only way anyone has been able to compete with broadcast networks has been to string coaxial cables all across cities and to charge a substantial monthly fee (to cover the high costs) for access to the content delivered on this medium: cable tv.


I have not read this thread but read this and thought i would toss in a comment into the mix.

As most things in a society of control there are just as many if not more people that discover ways to avoid those types of controls. Some even have money enough to do things like string cable all over towns and cities but if you take a step backwards for a brief moment you might be able to see a much bigger picture.

The internet IS what you are seeking provided you keep voting in the people that will keep voting NO to any sensorship of the internet.

Stay an informed citizen and your ability to have your very own TV station is just a URL away. The speed of the internet keeps increasing and it is very valid for streaming from your own home made TV studio. Society as a whole is ALSO shifting from the TV over to watching things on the internet.

There is nothing stoping you. Sure being able to beam your signal directly into the average household has limits and strict guidlines that must be followed, but less restrictions are on the internet and with places like youtube and the many social networking sites connections can be made between like minded people.

It is about being smart and doing your homework. If you have the right target demographic and you know where they are found on the internet then you can simply fire up your own stream which can be just audio or audio and video and put whatever you wish on it.

By doing a little research and spending a few bucks for marketing like by buying banner space on places like plenty of fish or any other place that you know your target audiance would migrate to, then after time eventually your viewer count will increase.

So what exactly is the problem? It just seems to me like you are upset becase you can not jump into the race with the big boys and gals on a shoestring budget.

What i think you fail to understand is there is only x amount of channels available and once granted it means your equipment has access to anyone turing on that channel at anytime day or night.

So if your just an amature and do not have a large funding pool to draw from what if a piece of equipment fails? if you had to save your pennies to be able to purchase a piece of equipment to begin with then that leave dead space if it were to fail.

Or how about this one. Once your license is granted your equipment pretty much is granted the freedom to brodcast and sensorship falls on your own shoulders with fines etc issued if you violate those rules and laws. Everyone follows the same strict rules. So your a mom and pop tv station and do not have much funding... that means likely no security or not that great of security. Now if someone were to get into it and use your station to brodcast whatever they wanted you would be responsable. I do not think the FCC would accept the excuse that it was not you that it was someone that violated your equipment to brodcast content that is against the rules and/or laws.

So yes it may suck that an average person of limited means would very likely be excluded from getting their own channel. However the reason is not likely what you seem to think... The reason are more than likely like i listed. To be able to limit those things for the people that have the skill, personel, and contacts to brodcast successfully for the entire time frame that the licences are granted for. Would you really want to deal with fly by night here one day gone the next TV stations?

There is public access TV stations like PBS that you can dip your toe into the airwaves. Even moreso nobody is stopping you from streaming your OWN station content 24/7 into the world wide web.

The main issue i see is someones desire to take advangage of the userbase that is already in place by having access to anyone with a TV and a remote.

So answer this question...

How much time, money, and personel have you invested back in the 40's-50's-60's and 70's all the way to present to be able to get a TV in almost every single household to be able to have that amount of viewerbase?

WHAT??? $0.00??????????? you mean you have not spent anything back then on equipment development? but you think you should have access to that large pool of viewers and market created without investing????

How many experts do you have on staff for things like scheduling, sensorship reasons, security (both hardware/software as well as physical security), etc.???????

WHAT??? you mean your not spending several million dollars in proffessional saleries of skilled personal in the brodcasting field but you expect to have access to the same exact market as people that do???

Ok i could go on but i wont... Bottom line is this.... Nobody is sensoring you nobody is stopping you from getting your face on television and nobody is even stoping you from having your very own do whatever you want TV station.... They are however stoping you from having direct access to an already established user base unless you have the ability to succeed in that type of undertaking.

Don't like it well simple... fire up your own stream, put your video's on youtube, setup all the social networking sites as well as any other clever way you can think of to get people to connect to your stream. Anything further as far as content for them to watch to KEEP your stream as being watched is all up to you. Your completely on your own with getting people to connect, getting people to watch, and keeping people there watching....

Sounds like exactly what you were wanting doesn't it????????? A Complete FCC hands off way. only time you would have issues is if you violate any copyright laws and such. if you develope and brodcast all your own material well they will pretty much leave you alone....

Just my thoughts and opinions
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 73
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 6:09:47 AM

But you're avoiding the question.


I haven't avoided diddly, junior. You're just choosing not to understand the answer. And it's this...

have two signals too close to one another and at sufficient power and you get interference. You see, I'm old enough to remember a time when we actually received signals into our TV from rabbit ears. Occasionally, we would get signals from taxi cabs and all kinds of weirdness That's just the laws of physics. That's what this big, bad regulation you fear is really all about.


Is this not oligopoly in the realm of broadcast television?


Wait a minute....aren't you some kind of uber-capitalist? Now you're criticising the fact that a few large companies have risen to the top of media? What the hell does that have to do with government regulation? "Control" of the airwaves has nothing to do with that. What is it you want?

Questions YOU consistently avoid include concrete examples of people who have been set upon by the "government" for apparently trying to bravely stake their own piece of the airwaves. You also have failed to actually provide concrete evidence for what you're saying beyond the usual posturing and rhetorical protestations.

Like a typical anarchist, you demand the dissolution of the current system but you fail to propose a viable alternative. Please, in clear terms and with a minimum of flowery language, propose a viable and workable alternative so we can discuss it.
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 74
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 7:11:19 AM

Please, in clear terms and with a minimum of flowery language, propose a viable and workable alternative so we can discuss it.


I gave him one in my post above. Besides i thought that was what converting to digital was suppose to aid in doing.... like an extra layer of filtering to allow more channels in the future due to the data stream being sent and recived with byte coding and decoding at the tv/adapter box.

I may be wrong but i thought part of that whole convertion over to digital transmissions was to change the way TV stations Send and TV sets recieve signals sent via the air waves to prevent cross channel corruption by assigning digital identifiers in all the data packets sent via the airwaves as well. I might be wrong but it was just what i thought was the reason.

I mean if you really wish to think on these terms the internet is basically a connection medium that has the ability for millions of channels but instead of the channels being like 1,2,3,4,5,etc the channel numbers are the IP addresses and or using DNS just simply a domain name that then routes to an ip address and port number for access of specific streams on the servers.

To mean it just sounded like the solution he was wanting and would do everything he was complaining he could not do except one thing.... you have to go out and get your own viewers and you would not get many of the channel surfers that just hit the up or down button on a remote....

I mean if you really think about it there is nothing stoping him from making his OWN TV via the internet that someone can connect to and use a remote control connected via the computer and surf any stations that he CHOOSES to have available for streams.

But again... it is skillset dependent... if he does not have the skills to build something like that... then there is a cost associated with it to have it built.... if he does not have the skillset to be able to successfully market a system like that IE and IP based TV Network well then again there is a cost associated with it....

But from what i read of his text it just seemed like he was wanting access to all these things for free....

So all these people have to do all that work and he gets to do whatever he wants with it...

If he wants that.. well SURPRIZE..... it is even available for people like him for free... find you a good Linux distro and then spend some hours searching for the many live streaming applications and configuring and trying them out and some or free some have a small cost... some are even free but for a small fee they will do all the setup work for you.....

Everything he was asking for is available right now.... it is just all dependent on if he has the skills, money for the services and tools needed to operate it, and the drive to make it happen.

You would be surprized how many people are out there that are able to build and operate things like this but have no content. So the technology is at the level to do exactly what he stated he wanted, the available resources and connections are also there, but discovering what people want to watch is the same exact thing that the major brodcasters have for troubles.... society keeps changing and so also will the stream content need to change to match what is wanted by the majority of watchers...

Sorry but i just do not understand what he is even complaining or bytching about.... I mean his rant was similar to rants from the 90's which is when streaming live started becoming popular. I mean shoot even if you do not have money enough to buy all the equipment and connections there are even services out there if a little research was done that will allow you to have streams with like 100 seeds for a few bucks a month. I think shoutcast does something like that. so if you really want to get fancy cheap you get you a webserver attatched to fiber like a dedicated server in a datalab somewhere and just upload your content to it and THEN stream your content from it so that you have a much more stable, reliable, and higher throughput connection...

But again... not many people work for free and if he does not have the skillset and knowledge to do all this then DUH there is a cost for the staffing that does know how to do all that....

So UB whats your real rant all about? the big bad goverment blocking you or is it just that you don't have the funding and skillset to bypass regulations and restrictions or the drive, stamina, and fortitude to even take the plung into that realm of possability?

Bottom line.... Don't focus on the bad or the detriments of something you want to do.... breaking through walls is a bytch.... just walk around them or jump over those walls and you will expend less energy and time than trying to break through a wall in your way..... There is ALWAYS another way to do just about anything.... sometimes you just need the right set of keys or draw your wisdom from the correct source to make it past those hurtles...

Just my thoughts and opinions
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 9:03:37 AM
You realize that the 'gubmint' and the FCC only reserves a small portion of the EM spectrum, don't you? Radio and television transmission take place in a fairly small portion of the spectrum.

hahaha

That's because the useful range of the EM spectrum is a small portion.

So yeah, the FCC only reserves a small portion. All of the part that anyone would want to use. Yes, they haven't reserved visible light. Nobody's broadcasting xrays to spread news.

So?


Wait a minute....aren't you some kind of uber-capitalist? Now you're criticising the fact that a few large companies have risen to the top of media? What the hell does that have to do with government regulation? "Control" of the airwaves has nothing to do with that. What is it you want?

You consistently painfully miss his point. They have risen to the top because the government, via control of the airwaves, has blocked competition for them. The companies didn't even have to do the dirty work. The government enforces their monopoly. That's not a free market. Any capitalist or free-market advocate would be upset at that effect.
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 76
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 9:52:30 AM

You consistently painfully miss his point. They have risen to the top because the government, via control of the airwaves, has blocked competition for them. The companies didn't even have to do the dirty work. The government enforces their monopoly. That's not a free market. Any capitalist or free-market advocate would be upset at that effect.


Do you maybe think the gov had not much choice due to the way the technology of the time was setup and functioning?

if there are only x amount of channels and x amount of people that have those channels with the rights to renew them and there is no possability to increase that amount yes it creates an issue if those groups band together and or people with money enough buy up the companies.

Since it is not possible to increase the connections in that medium then take a step back and maybe see that your worries of not having a free market are not missed....

you have noticed the many new devices that have been developed to watch movies and tv shows via the web now like netflix streams able to be watched on xbox 360 wii and other devices that are forsale. Now granted that is just movies being streamed but same or similar technology can easily be adapted for other types of streams.

I am one that looks into the future to see what is coming and your worries and fears is on the horison as being solved... the Death of TV media as we know it now and the emergance of broadband media. Baby steps. first was converting over to digital. Soon will likely be the ability for more channels but at the moment places like the domain name authorities are in constant transition.

There is no magic switch someone at the FCC can throw to open up new channels and even if there was then the user end equipment would all need to be upgraded to handle them anyways so they would need to be replaced or updated yet again.

I am not in that loop so anything i say would just be my logical reasoning inthinking about it. but to me it does seem like things are moving in the way of the main source for communication and entertainment to be headed in the direction of the internet. Just look at the smart phones on the market.. most already have the ability to watch tv,video's, and other streams in high quality right on the phone.

Given that information do you really think it is far away before our TV sets have similar technology built into them?

If and /or when that happens then the keeper of the streams allowed on those devices and/or connections will likely be the important role.... i think it is IPv6 that opens up to an almost limitless amount of addresses that can be utilised where as IP addresses have limits...

My suggestion would be to pay close attention to any laws and regulations having to do with those types of media to gain some understanding on where TV and other forms of digitally delivered media will be headed down the road...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 77
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 10:00:35 AM

You consistently painfully miss his point. They have risen to the top because the government, via control of the airwaves, has blocked competition for them. The companies didn't even have to do the dirty work. The government enforces their monopoly. That's not a free market. Any capitalist or free-market advocate would be upset at that effect.


Okay, well then why don't you and Ubi get together and challenge the status quo! Get yourself an FCC license, start your own network, work up some content (you can't do any worse than the other networks) and show what great capitalists you can be!

In the meantime, you'll notice that the Internet is pretty open. In fact, you can pretty much put any piece of crap you want with little or no control, vetting, or quality control whatsoever!
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/17/2010 10:41:24 AM
Are you guys serious? You revert to that crap? "Do something about it"? So, are you acknowledging that there is something to be done? That's a first step, I guess, for Ubi.

It's not my point. I was clarifying his point because it annoys me, as an observer, to read this circle of him trying to make the same point repeatedly and, when the audience misses the point, tries to claim that he just doesn't understand, when in reality it's the opposite.

That's right before you run headfirst into the wall of missing the point in a full circle:


Get yourself an FCC license

Right back to running into his complaint: that the government controls licensing of content by force. He hasn't even started on the fact that they control content with a constantly evolving standard of "profane", going well beyond curse words these days, but I feel that once he actually gets his point started (as in, you guys actually realize what the argument is about), it'll come. You guys are arguing, but you aren't actually arguing anything. It's just empty complaining about the fact Ubi is writing anything at all.

If you want to argue (and I don't care whether you do or not, but IF you do) then at least go back, read what he's writing, and address his actual points.


Do you maybe think the gov had not much choice due to the way the technology of the time was setup and functioning?

No, I don't think that. It's just about money.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/18/2010 1:30:32 AM
It's nice to see someone in these forums capable of seeing more than 2ft in front of themselves.

I'll give DREAM the benefit of the doubt, given that he's admitted that he hasn't read the thread. Still though, maintaining the, "If you don't like the fact that I believe it is virtuous for violence to be used against you if you disagree with me politically, then you should just work with the system as it is" position is a cowardly non-argument. It attempts to end the discussion while utterly avoiding the real issue: The belief that it is virtuous to use violence against non-violent individuals.
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Pragmatic Realities
Posted: 8/21/2010 12:12:44 AM
Neophobia. I like that a lot.

Thank you, nltb
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >