I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner
Kathleen Q. Abernathy. The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law
degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus.


No, someone who actually understands the physics of radio
could never run the Funny Cookie Corporation. You need
someone who writes screwball regulations like "A radio
station will not be allowed to own the translator
(repeater) it uses to get heard in another area".
Why would that matter?

" I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell commissioner
Kathleen Q. Abernathy.

The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law
degree.

Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of
"connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience.

IF you're going to write regulations for a very technical subject area, you
have to have the technical expertise and ability to understand what the
consequences of your rules and regulations are. Technical competence, NOT
the fact that you were a legislative assistant to a senator from North
Dakota, or on the board of zoning appeals, will make you effective.
Otherwise, you will be BS'ed by lobbyists that have an axe to grind, and you
will make poor regulatory decisions with poor outcomes, because you can't
forsee the unexpected consequences of you new regulations.


Abernathy is NOT stupid.
She is just a technically illiterate lawyer.
She doesn't understand RF,propagation or antenna theory, consequently, BPL
which is touted to bring the internet to the rural masses, sounds wonderful.

I should be the next FCC commisioner.

Dan
AI8O

"ai8o" wrote in message
...

" I would find Swaggart much more preferable than the dumbbell
commissioner
Kathleen Q. Abernathy.

The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law
degree.

Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a
plus.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of
"connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience.

IF you're going to write regulations for a very technical subject area,
you
have to have the technical expertise and ability to understand what the
consequences of your rules and regulations are. Technical competence, NOT
the fact that you were a legislative assistant to a senator from North
Dakota, or on the board of zoning appeals, will make you effective.
Otherwise, you will be BS'ed by lobbyists that have an axe to grind, and
you
will make poor regulatory decisions with poor outcomes, because you can't
forsee the unexpected consequences of you new regulations.


Abernathy is NOT stupid.

Depends on how you define stupid, I suppose.

She is just a technically illiterate lawyer.
She doesn't understand RF,propagation or antenna theory, consequently, BPL
which is touted to bring the internet to the rural masses, sounds
wonderful.

I should be the next FCC commisioner.

I could vote for that, Dan. I'm an ex-8lander living in NC also. I didn't
keep my 2x1 call, however.

ak

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:27:30 -0500, ai8o wrote:

The FCC commissioners are all WASH DC political hacks. LOTS of
"connections", but NO TECHNICAL experience.

Technical experience by itself isn't necessary if the Commissioner(s)
has/have an Engineering Assistant whose job is to absorb the technical
stuff and lay it out in a manner that the Commissioner can understand
and act on.

The good Commissioners have all had such folks on their staff. None
of the current ones do, although I could be wrong in regard to
Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, the only two with brains.

Several decades ago a former colleague of mine started a movement to
get the Communications Act changed to mandate that at least one
Commissioner have a degree in engineering or physics or be a
Registered Professional Engineer. Although most of the engineers
supported that, it went absolutely nowhere.

The last "engineer" Commissioner was George Sterling in the late
1940s. During WW-II he had headed up the Radio Intelligence Division
which chased German and Japanese spies using radio. He was also the
last Commissioner who was a licensed ham during his time at the agency.

Common sense and a good grasp of what communication regulation
should be is what is really needed. Rubber stamps can be obtained
at any office supply store.

Two more electron's worth....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:09:47 GMT, King Zulu wrote:

The first requirement for FCC chief should be NO law
degree. Some brains and some technical comprehension would be a plus.

One of the best, if not THE best Chairman that the FCC had was
Dick Wiley (Nixon appointee-mid 1970s) who was a top-notch lawyer
before coming to the Commission. He had an engineering assistant
to whom he could turn to explain the issues, and Dick was sharp
enough to listen and understand what he was being told.

I got to brief him about a special project involving TV technical
standards for which I was heading up the field measurements and
analysis portion, and from his many questions he seemed to understand
what was going on the first time.

After his term was over, he went back to his old law firm (Wiley,
Rein, and Fielding) where he still is.

I wish we could get him back. He would have made short shrift of
the BPL business.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 22 Jan 2005 16:16:17 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Some folks are cheering that Mr. Powell is leaving FCC, but ya gotta
wonder who will replace him.

Rumors in the industry come up with a name of a Texas state
regulator, that person being eons worse than Mister Michael.

There are two sitting Commissioners either of whom would make an
excellent Chairman, but being Democrats they don't have a chance of
a snowball in hell.

The other two sitting Commissioners would scare me were either of
them installed as Chairman. It's not because they are Republicans -
two of the best Chairmen in my memory were Republicans. It's because
they scare me....

My two electron's worth, based on serving under about ten different
Chairmen and meeting half of them in person.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't lived
up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she insists
on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D.
She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy.

It is in Physiology. We in the ba.broadcast group usually refer to
her as "the Quactor".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil Kane wrote:
On 23 Jan 2005 00:30:49 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she doesn't/hasn't
lived
up to the very values she preaches to others. For example, she
insists
on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD, Psy. D or even Ed.D.
She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy.

It is in Physiology. We in the ba.broadcast group usually refer to
her as "the Quactor".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Academia is full of folks who insist upon being called "doctor," and
I'm not talking about medical schools. Jim doesn't seem to mind it.

As far as her moral values, perhaps she discovered them later in life
than did our precious N2EY. I guess God doesn't allow for mistakes or
late learners.

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


I don't think I've ever heard Dr Laura ever ask anyone to
show her their boobs!!


No, but we she does/has done is worse. Her show basically
consists of
her lecturing people about how they have to adopt her
values in order for their lives to work.

I see where you are going. I don't quite equate the two
things as equal,
but agree that the show and here are something else. Some of
what she says is correct, but her delivery and sanctimony make you
achingly want to disagree with her always.


Agreed - but some of what she says is dead wrong too.

Of course! Just in case you didn't see the "letter to Dr. Laura, I'll
post it he

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I
have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need
some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and
how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around
us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not
Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.


Hey! Why can't we own Canadians? ;^)


Heh, sounds like a friend of ours!


In many ways!!

What I find interesting about "Dr." Laura is that she
doesn't/hasn't lived
up to the very values she preaches to others. For example,
sheinsists on being called "Doctor" - but she's not an MD,
Psy. D or even Ed.D.

She's got a Ph.D, but not in human psychology or therapy.


Phil Kane, K2ASP, informs us in another post that her degree
is in physiology. That's a fur piece from what she does.

When a person wants to have strong unshakable conviction, it is very
important that they don't know a lot about the subject.

I asked a colleague who is a psychologist about Dr Laura,
and what he thought of that sort of thing. He replied "A good rule of
thumb is that if a person is called "Dr and their first name" they
probably aren't the best person to listen to. Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil, Dr. Nick...


Dr. No...


The woman has a checkered past for sure, by here present
standards, she also appears to have occasional "episodes", after which she
feels the need to get a little more shrill in her approach.


That's just one aspect. Consider the whole "I am my kid's mom"
nonsense, compared to how she raises *her* kid...

She wasn't very respectful of her mother either, as it turns out.


The strange thing is that she has not learned the lesson that
you can improve your morals and values, but *you* have to do it, and
someone virtually screaming at you probably *won't* get you to do
it. Oddly enough, the early Dr. Laura probably knew that already


The sad part is that she has created such a following of
people who need *real* help. For all his blather, no one
really takes HS that seriously.

Masochists have to turn to someone?

Lots of other examples.


some snippage


Now you have me reminiscing. WRSC FM in the late 60's,
early 70's was a
State College sation that was very progressive. They did the albums,
theme nights, and real music all the time. I tuned in to this as a
freshman in high school, and was hooked immediately. While my
classmates
were listening to the Grass Roots, 1910 Fruitgum Company, and Gary
Puckett and the Union Gap, I was doing Hendrix, Led Zappelin,
Cream and other non teeny stuff.


In my time it was WMMR, but the same basic story.

Point is, over time the experimental/progressive elements disappeared
and were replaced by a formula. Homogenized just like Top 40 radio was.

And of course, it becomes bland and boring. CLever paradigm they had.
Problem is, it is a bad paradigm.

Both the technical quality and the programming quality of FM in
those days pulled a lot of people away from AM.



If you want to hear some of Michael Savage's compassionate
conservatism, go to:

http://tinyurl.com/5ywcw

and check out the Michael Savage, Tsunami no tragedy clip.


I'll take a listen.

FM around here is not a lot better



Deregulation has homogenized both of them. Neither is a big
moneymaker nor job-creator, because the markets are saturated and
there's a limit to advertising revenue. The receiver technology is
mature and there are no ongoing user fees. BC TV is in a similar state,
compounded by the limping move to HDTV.

You left out an important part, Jim. Let us take AM for example. It is
now the purveyor of Cranky talk radio. While the people who want to
listen to that sort of thing are simply wild about their shows, most
people are not. So while the marketing drove itself in the new
direction, a lot of people simply stopped tuning in at all. Less
listeners. Bad idea to turn off half of your listener base, but there
you go!

It is the same thing as the reality based TV show craze. That was the
final straw in my shift away from network TV. Those who like REality
shows just LOVE them. Many of the rest of us find it odd that people
would want to sit around and watch shows glorifying "average".

But now even these shows are wearing thin. The trend of less people
watching network TV will probably accelerate.

Hey, I have an idea! How about some quality programming? Put on a few
science shows. Maybe some shows glorifying real heroes instead of crack
smoking entertainers. Don't show the same ten movies over and over again
- how many times do we need to see Kindergarten Cop, She-Devil, or Dirty
Dancing? Those movies are often on multiple channels at the same time on
any given weekend. My XYL is content to watch Dirty dancing over and
over, but I think she has a thing for Patrick Swayze. 8^)

The audience is there, all they have to do is attract them with dome
decent programming.

Remember the "21st Century" show with Walter Cronkite? That commercial
with putting the baby chick in the insulating container, then dropping
it into the boiling water, after which it was retrieved unharmed,
entranced me as a child.


Into this mess comes satellite radio, internet and cable TV, BPL,
etc. All promise lots of new jobs and revenue sources. Plus the FCC
doesn't have the headaches of trying to regulate them.

Ah, the unintended consequences! Who is going to satisfy the Prigs need
for getting the trash off the airways?

some more snippage

All as a result of short-term focus and diversion by hot-button
red-herring issues.




73 de Jim, N2EY

"Kokava aro, kokava tua, te igoa o te akuaku, erua"

I'll bite... What is?


Do you know who Thor Heyerdahl was?

Yeah, he was the Kon-Tiki guy. I'm not up on my Norwegian tho! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

N2EY wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Of course! Just in case you didn't see the "letter to Dr. Laura, I'll
post it he

Dear Dr. Laura,

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I suggest moving. My neighbors never object to the aroma of barbecued
beef, grilled over an open fire, fueled with hickory.


Hey! Why can't we own Canadians? ;^)

They are on the endangered species list and are in short supply. There
is, on the other hand, a surplus of Mexicans.


When a person wants to have strong unshakable conviction, it is very
important that they don't know a lot about the subject.

There is a strong temptation to take this back into the morse code test
wars.


Deregulation has homogenized both of them. Neither is a big
moneymaker nor job-creator, because the markets are saturated and
there's a limit to advertising revenue. The receiver technology is
mature and there are no ongoing user fees. BC TV is in a similar state,
compounded by the limping move to HDTV.

AM broadcast radio is basically a wasteland. Spinning the dial in the
daytime from here shows wall-to-wall talk except for low powered station
in the Wheeling-Steubenville area which plays easy listening hits of the
'40s through the '70s. It can be heard here during the day but not at
night. The nights reveal a few music stations, including one in Canada.
Our local Clear Channel powerhouse, WWVA (which runs talk radio during
the day) sells its time to fundamentalist preachers except for Saturdays
when it airs the Jamboree.

I quit limping as regards HDTV last year. I went for it full bore.
Neither of the two local TV stations is using enough power to reach me
and I'm only 25-40 miles away. They aren't yet transmitting HDTV, just
digital TV. Remember that I'm at a little over 1500 foot though. I
installed a new TV antenna and modest preamp and use quality RG-6
coaxial cable. I receive Pittsburgh CBS, ABC and Fox affiliate HDTV
along with PBS HDTV from Cambridge, Ohio and Morgantown, WV. I get
sporadic HDTV signal from the Pittsburgh NBC affiliate. When it ups its
power, I'll have the major networks covered. The received picture is
phenomenal.

You left out an important part, Jim. Let us take AM for example. It is
now the purveyor of Cranky talk radio. While the people who want to
listen to that sort of thing are simply wild about their shows, most
people are not.

I like Glenn Beck, who mixes conservative talk with humor. I sometimes
listen to Rush or to Hannity to balance the left-leaning stuff from NPR.

So while the marketing drove itself in the new
direction, a lot of people simply stopped tuning in at all. Less
listeners. Bad idea to turn off half of your listener base, but there
you go!

There's room for both music and talk on AM and FM The AM band is much
better for cross country driving. Yeah, I know, there's always satellite
radio. I'm not paying to listen to the radio in my car.

It is the same thing as the reality based TV show craze. That was the
final straw in my shift away from network TV. Those who like REality
shows just LOVE them.

I find little of reality in them but much of stupidity. We find that we
watch perhaps four shows from the big three networks. We have Dish
Network here though if they keep jacking the prices, I'll investigate
their rival or scale back.

Many of the rest of us find it odd that people
would want to sit around and watch shows glorifying "average".

You'll remember my line as used concerning amateur radio testing,
"Strive to be mediocre!"

But now even these shows are wearing thin. The trend of less people
watching network TV will probably accelerate.

There's always a market for good drama, good comedy, good music and good
discussion. The trouble is, it is a small market.

Hey, I have an idea! How about some quality programming? Put on a few
science shows. Maybe some shows glorifying real heroes instead of crack
smoking entertainers. Don't show the same ten movies over and over again
- how many times do we need to see Kindergarten Cop, She-Devil, or Dirty
Dancing? Those movies are often on multiple channels at the same time on
any given weekend. My XYL is content to watch Dirty dancing over and
over, but I think she has a thing for Patrick Swayze. 8^)

There ya have it but who's going to watch it.

The audience is there, all they have to do is attract them with dome
decent programming.

I don't think the audience is there in large enough numbers, Mike.

Remember the "21st Century" show with Walter Cronkite? That commercial
with putting the baby chick in the insulating container, then dropping
it into the boiling water, after which it was retrieved unharmed,
entranced me as a child.

I'm old enough to remember "Omnibus" and "Wide, Wide World". I was
enthralled with "Watch Mr. Wizard"--enough to whine my parents into
getting me two of Don Herbert's science experiment books.

There's some quality television available today though. Philadelphia
vs. Atlanta and Pittsburgh beating the Patriots for the second time.

Dave K8MN