I used remote rig with my TS480S.
Once I got the remote router configured (write up was more confusing but turned out to be a simple fix),
I connected the base (where the rig base with transmitter enclosed) I hooked up the Remote (head of ts480)
to the internet. Nothing to configure on the internet at the remote location. I just powered on the
TS480 SAT and the remote rig black box and away I went.
I later hooked up a Netgear WIFI unit instead of connecting directly to the Internet hard wired.

It worked great. I could go all over the house and plug in the 12 volt 1amp wall wart to power the
Remote Rig and Ts 480 head.

Another fellow has run local nets from 2000 miles away. We did not know he was remote.

There is a forum on the remoterig dot com website that has a lot of expertise.

Like most of the "new toys" once I got it working, played with it for 2 weeks and then
unplugged it. I have to harden the lightning isolation circuit and just have not gotten around
to that yet. There are also remote boxes to disconnect antennas and power via internet.

I looked at what I would use more.
I have an MFJ 269, CIA-HF, and Analyst HF. along with AIM 1470C
I now have a Rigexpert 54. It goes up to 50 MHZ
I think. Above 50 mhz I can use the MFJ 269.
I have the sweep capability.

But I think I like the Rig Expert 54 and I will probably
use it before the others just because of the ease of use.

I don't goof around with 2 meters and above enough to
use the analyzer for those frequencies. SWR is a good enough
indication of whether it is OK.

But, with HF antennas, I try different ones looking for the
"Holy Grail" of antennas and there is more that can go
wrong. The Rig Expert 54 gives a lot of bang for the $350 bucks.

Watching the sweep and having the multi-band sweeps of an antenna
is a plus. And it uses AA batteries.

Not sure I answered the question fully. Having been a ham for nearly half a century, an avid AM radio fan. Watching regulations change over the half century or so, in the past, most of the decisions made by the FCC were driven by public opinion for the better well being of the public. Today, along with other laws coming out of Congress, public opinon seems to be a formality or just "dressing" where public opinion is just a courtesy and the FCC, in this case, just went through the motions and BS'd the public when the decision had already been made, before the ruling and meetings in favor of Corporations well being.
Under this kind of decision making, do you think Ham Radio, the 600,000 hams are shielded from this kind of ruling? I think not. The FCC not only regulates TV, Newspaper, telephones, Cell phones, Spectrum, but also, Ham Radio. As Commissioner Copp pointed out, the newspapers are soft shoeing this major ruling as not to draw public attention which is wrong.

Question is" What does this have to do with Ham Radio?
In my opinion, having been around as a ham and also working for a short time in Commercial broadcasting, there has been dramatic changes in how Media of all types from Radio, TV, and Newsprint is interpreted by the FCC, Congress, and regulatory entities.
BPL, Selling of Spectrum, the removal of the fairness in broadcasting, the public input to the commission before major changes are made, and digital devices in violation of Part 15. The loss of Spectrum, and the pressures on ham radio spectrum the ARRL is standing up to. If you will take the time to read the Commissioners Copp response to the ruling, in particular, or watch CSPAN, it will become apparent, something is amiss here. The three FCC commissioners ignored public input. A major decision was made, affecting millions, where the FCC appears to be making the decision in favor of Corporations and NOT the well being of the public.
Please take the time to read it all, you might see what I read. I think this is the beginning of the end to newspapers in large markets.

I realize this is a long winded post like most FCC rules but you should read this. Here is one statement the FCC member Copp made that tells the jist of what this ruling is about. See his full statement at the FCC site.

"Local news, local music and local groups so often get shunted aside when big media comes to town. Commissioner Adelstein and I have heard the plaintive voices of thousands of citizens all across this land in dozens of town meetings and public forums. From newscasters fired by chain owners with corporate headquarters thousands of miles away to local musicians and artists denied airtime because of big media’s homogenization of our music and our culture. From minorities reeling from the way big media ignores their issues and caricatures them as people to women saying the only way to redress their grievances is to give them a shot to compete for use of the people’s airwaves. From public interest advocates fighting valiantly for a return of localism and diversity to small, independent broadcasters who fight an uphill battle to preserve their independence. It will require tough rules of the road to redress our localism and diversity gaps. Do you see any such rules being passed today? To the idea that license holders should give the American people high quality programming in return for free use of the public airwaves, the majority answers that we need more study of problems that have been documented and studied to death for a decade and more. Today’s outcome is the same old same old: one more time, we’re running the fast-break for our big media friends and the four corner stall for the public interest.

It is time for the American people to understand the game that’s being played here. Big media doesn’t want to tell the full story, of course, but I have heard first-hand from editorial page editors who have told me they can cover any story, save one—media consolidation, and that they have been instructed to stay away from that one. But that’s another story."

Here is the links to look at the FCC comments:

12/18/07
FCC Adopts Revision To Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule.
News Release: Word | Acrobat
Martin Statement: Word | Acrobat
Copps Statement: Word | Acrobat
Adelstein Statement: Word | Acrobat
Tate Statement: Word | Acrobat
McDowell Statement: Word | Acrobat

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
DISSENTING

Re:   2006 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Cross-Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers; Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets; Definition of Radio Markets; Ways to Further Section 257 Mandate and To Build on Earlier Studies; Public Interest Obligations of TV Broadcast Licensees; MB Docket Nos. 06-121, 02-277, 04-228, MM Docket Nos. 01-235, 01-317, 00-244, 99-360, Report and Order (Dec. 18, 2007).

Unprecedented media consolidation in recent years has allowed giant multinational media conglomerates to dominate growing numbers of local news markets from coast to coast.  These media giants have swallowed up locally owned newspapers, TV and radio stations across America.  This has presented challenges to both our culture and our democracy by undercutting the American tradition of a local press, rooted in and responsive to their own communities.  

Central to our American democracy is a rich and varied supply of news and information.  An informed citizenry requires the “uninhibited marketplace of ideas,” where there is an open exchange of communications regarding music, news, information and entertainment programming over the public airwaves.  Broadcasters, along with newspapers, still produce, disseminate, and ultimately control the news, information, and entertainment programs that most inform the discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas.  As the Supreme Court has observed, “it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences.”   That right is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

By moving forward now with relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, the majority ignores the repeated pleas of the American people and their representatives in Congress.  There is no time-sensitive issue that compels us to act today.  In fact, we were asked by leaders in Congress, including our oversight committees, to defer today and conduct a more inclusive process.  That we are moving forward when the voices that matter are asking us to refrain defies the imagination.      

The FCC has never attempted such a brazen act of defiance against Congress.  Like the Titanic, we are steaming at full speed despite repeated warnings of danger ahead.  We should have slowed down rather than put everything at risk.

The reasons for Congressional concern were underscored by the frantic scramble to make major policy changes at the last minute to this item.  Late last night, there was a brand new proposal to provide waivers to 42 newspaper-television combinations.  And not until early this morning, we learned of massive changes to the waiver standards – an issue of grave concern to me and a number of leaders in Congress.  The majority argues this item is the product of long and careful deliberation.  But after an odyssey through the Commission and the Courts, massive changes and new, previously unseen waivers were adopted in the dead of night on the eve of a vote.  That hardly inspires confidence that this was an open, transparent and deliberative process.

The choices made by the majority are stark.  The only entities asking for relief are the very media giants we are charged with overseeing.  As we were reminded on Capitol Hill, the law does not say we are to serve those who seek to profit by using the public airwaves.  The law says we are to serve the public interest.  And the public has repeatedly told us they are not interested in further media consolidation.  

Traveling across the country, we have heard this message in community after community.  It is a nonpartisan chorus.  Americans from all walks of life and all political perspectives, whether right or left and virtually everybody in between, do not want a handful of companies dominating their primary sources of news, information and entertainment.  American distrust of the concentration of power is as old as our nation itself, and is rooted in the American spirit.

The millions of Americans who have spoken up scored a solid victory in forcing the majority to back away from further changes to the Commission’s remaining TV and radio ownership rules.  Nevertheless, by rolling back the cross-ownership rule, today’s decision will open a nationwide bazaar of consolidation that flies in the face of overwhelming public sentiment.  Today’s decision says to all those people who spoke to us across the country, in churches, synagogues and city halls, “you were wrong.  We here inside the Beltway somehow know what is best for you -- better than you know for yourselves.”  It is a big mistake for big government to say big media is good for you.  

Well, I for one believe in the people who pleaded for us to stop further media consolidation.  They have extensive experience in the field, devouring media at an enormous rate.  The statute governing media ownership is unusually broad in allowing us leeway to define the public interest.  Of course, the FCC cannot make these decisions solely by popular opinion, but we walk a dangerous course when three out of five unelected bureaucrats overrule the American people, a much better judge and jury.

People understand what study after study confirms.  Despite the growth of other media delivery systems, broadcasting and newspapers are still the most pervasive of all platforms.  When people look for local news and information, they turn to their local newspapers and TV stations.  For example, 89 percent of people say traditional media are their most important sources of news and current affairs.   Free over-the-air broadcasting licenses are scarce, and broadcasters still have an enormous impact on the free exchange of ideas.  
 
This debate is fundamentally about priorities.  As we solicited the views of citizens across the country, we did not hear a clamor for relaxation of the cross-ownership rules.  We only hear that from media company lobbyists inside the Beltway.  

The public is concerned about the lack of responsiveness of their media outlets to what is happening in their local communities, their local artists, their local civic and cultural affairs.  They are concerned that people of color and women own too few outlets to have their unique voices heard over the airwaves.  They are furious about the level of sexual, violent and degrading material they are seeing and believe media consolidation has something to do with it.  And they want us to address the public interest obligations of broadcasters first.

That is why I have insisted that we address and implement improvements to localism and diversity of ownership before – not after – we address the media ownership rules.  
To get it right, I called for an independent, bipartisan panel to guide us on a course to implement improvements in the level of ownership of media outlets by women and people of color.  Many members of Congress and leading civil rights organizations joined that call.  And I have demanded, along with many members of Congress, that we finalize the Localism Report and implement real improvements in the responsiveness of media outlets to local concerns first.  

Instead, today we are offered half-measures, setbacks and draft proposals in place of real improvements to diversity and localism.  While there are a few useful ideas put forth, for the most part these are half-baked gestures clearly intended as cover for the media consolidation agenda.  Rather than take this in order, and address these lingering crises first, the Commission moves obsessively to allow more consolidation, notwithstanding congressional and public concern.  

Most troubling, we are not dealing with the problems created by past media consolidation – loss of localism and diversity – before allowing even greater concentration.  Allowing newspapers to merge with broadcast outlets only takes more opportunities out of circulation for local owners, women and people of color.  And it even further raises the already exorbitant price of station ownership, the biggest barrier to new entrants and aspiring local owners.

The proposal, though portrayed as “modest,” is fraught with substantive problems that should have been addressed through more thoughtful Commission consultation and negotiations.  The majority’s decision actually opens the door to dominant local newspapers buying up broadcast outlets in every market in America and potentially of any size.  

Even if the proposal were limited to the top 20 markets, that would account for 43 percent of U.S. households, or over 120 million Americans.  But the details reveal loopholes that would permit new cross-owned combinations from the largest markets down to the smallest markets, potentially affecting every American household.  

There was an effort to tighten the waiver standards, but only very little progress was made, and the implications remain unclear.  Unfortunately, we were not shown these changes until the last minute, with little time to respond or offer improvements.  Those suggestions we offered were rejected.  Despite these eleventh hour changes, the Commission historically has been so lax in granting waivers, even under the current stronger standards of a blanket prohibition on cross-ownership, there is little encouragement that the new waiver language will help.  It will be open season for consolidation in markets of all sizes for those who engage in mergers that test our determination to hold the line on these waiver standards.

Exhibit A of a failed waiver process is what occurred just last night at the Commission.  After all the time and debate that has occurred over this rule, we learned late last night, on the eve of this morning’s vote, that the Commission would grant waivers to six new newspaper-broadcast combinations, and 36 grandfathered stations, for a total of 42 new waivers.  I doubt my colleagues in the majority engaged in much deliberation on how the public interest was served in those communities, ranging from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to Phoenix, Arizona. Yet this late-night decision will affect the people of these communities profoundly on a daily basis for years to come.  Anybody who thinks our processes are open, thoughtful or deliberative should think twice in light of these nocturnal escapades.

Exhibit B is a newly devised Chinese menu of ways to create newspaper-broadcast combinations in markets outside of the Top 20.  Under the draft that was circulated around dawn, there are now at least three ways to merge a newspaper with a broadcast outlet in non-top 20 markets.  Now, in addition to the rebuttable presumption factors announced in the Chairman’s November 13th press release, there will be a strong presumption in favor of more consolidation if a proposed combination meets our existing failing stations standard or results in a new source of local news in the market.  I have serious questions about these new proposals.  For example, I have real doubts about the Commission’s willingness to enforce the seven-hour weekly news requirement.  Also, such a requirement could have a negative impact on the total amount of news through the media.  As a study from Free Press and Consumer Union has shown, while the newspaper-broadcast combinations increase its news output – in this case, seven hours per week – news production market-wide diminishes.  The Commission should more closely examine this proposal to ensure that it will produce the desired effect.

These loopholes in the Order also undercut the assertion that the proposal would prevent a newspaper from buying one of the top-four rated stations in the same market.  That protection does not apply in markets below the top 20, and can be dismissed with the wave of the Commission’s hand in the larger markets.  In reality, under this proposal a newspaper could buy any TV station in any city, no matter how large.

A main public interest justification for newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership has been the claim that relaxing the rule would create more local news.  A path-breaking study by leading consumer organizations, using the FCC’s own data, demonstrated that claim to be wrong.  They found that the data underlying an FCC-sponsored study finding more local news by cross-owned stations actually reveals that there is less local news in those markets as a whole, taking into account all news outlets.  It remains unclear exactly why the overall level of local news available diminishes.  Perhaps it is because other outlets choose not to compete with the local leviathan or maybe they lose equal access to the newspaper’s investigative and news resources.  But the fact is the Commission’s own data reveals the other outlets in those cities reduce their news coverage more than the cross-owned outlets increase it.  So not only is less news produced in the market, but an independent voice is silenced when the dominant local newspaper swallows up a broadcast outlet.  We should have examined the root causes of this problem and addressed it before relaxing the cross-ownership rule.  

We also failed to study the relationship between inappropriate programming for children, such as excessively sexual or violent programs, and the concentration of media ownership.  A 2005 report found that 96 percent of all the indecency fines levied by the FCC in radio from 2000 to 2003 (97 out of 101) were levied against four of the nation’s largest radio station ownership groups.  The remaining 11,000-plus stations were responsible for just four percent of all FCC radio indecency violations, a fraction of their national audience share.  While the radio report did not prove a causal link between ownership concentration and broadcast indecency, I believe the Commission has an obligation to study and understand the relationship between media concentration – station ownership and program ownership – and indecency before we permit more consolidation.  Further, a study last year by the Parents Television Council found that, in the midst of an unprecedented wave of media consolidation between 1998 and 2006, violence on TV during the evening hours of 8:00, 9:00 and 10:00 grew by 45, 92 and 167 percent, respectively.  Commissioner Copps and I requested a full FCC field hearing to explore the relationship between media consolidation and the rising volume of material inappropriate for children in the media, but not one was held.

For many years, the underpinnings of the Commission’s public interest analysis with regard to media have been to promote localism, competition, and diversity.  Yet it is clear from the record that this decision undermines all of these goals.  As a result of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, there is less local news in the market as a whole and there is less competition for stories and ideas since two competing entities become one.  There is also less diversity, as a voice in the market is lost, and broadcast outlets are taken even further out of reach of women and people of color.

The ostensible reason to ignore all of these detrimental consequences was the importance of saving the newspaper industry that would otherwise wither on the vine.  As many have pointed out, we are not in the business of guaranteeing newspaper profits.  Perhaps if we were, we would better understand why relaxing the cross-ownership rule is not the right prescription for addressing real issues and opportunities newspapers face as the internet rapidly becomes the means of distribution for news.  The record shows that news content is still largely generated by newspapers and TV stations, even though the means of distribution are changing with the emergence of broadband.

In fact, the newspaper industry is quite healthy, with profit margins of around 20 percent, exceeding the average of S&P 500 companies.   The problem for newspapers is that those margins and revenues are declining, and Wall Street looks askance at the trends, despite the huge continued cash generation of newspapers.  The problem is that broadcasters are also seeing slow growth or revenue declines, again despite very healthy, if shrinking, margins.  Wall Street analysts have recognized what the majority apparently missed.  You cannot address the financial problem of shrinking margins of newspapers by combining them with broadcast outlets that also have shrinking margins.  The real challenge for both outlets is to better monetize their news-gathering functions from the growing audience who views them for free on the Internet.  

In the final analysis, we could have achieved a bipartisan agreement on a reasonable process to finalize the media ownership proceeding that addressed the many concerns raised by the public, leading consumer advocates and Congress.  I worked to achieve that goal by offering to follow the bipartisan path laid out by Members of Congress and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.  

Sadly, that was a road not taken, and Members of Congress have clearly signaled there will be consequences for this breakdown of deference and cooperation.  We ran so many red lights it would make Mario Andretti blush.  It is now up to Congress and the courts to address the pileup that resulted.  With the encouragement of the American people, who are certain to share the outrage over this decision, I certainly hope and believe that others will have the final word on this issue.

   Finally, I want to recognize and thank the many groups and individuals who have provided me with important counsel during this difficult proceeding: Free Press, Media Access Project, Consumers Union, Institute for Public Representation, Consumer Federation of America, Communications Workers of America, the Writers’ Guilds of America, the Media and Democracy Coalition and the tens of thousands of volunteers and members of the public who have reached out to this Commission to express their concerns.

STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
DISSENTING

Re. 2006 Quadrennial Media Ownership Review – MB Docket 06-121, et al.

Today’s decision would make George Orwell proud.  We claim to be giving the news industry a shot in the arm—but the real effect is to reduce total newsgathering.  We shed crocodile tears for the financial plight of newspapers—yet the truth is that newspaper profits are about double the S&P 500 average.  We pat ourselves on the back for holding six field hearings across the United States—yet today’s decision turns a deaf ear to the thousands of Americans who waited in long lines for an open mike to testify before us.  We say we have closed loopholes—yet we have introduced new ones.  We say we are guided by public comment—yet the majority’s decision is overwhelmingly opposed by the public as demonstrated in our record and in public opinion surveys.  We claim the mantle of scientific research—even as the experts say we’ve asked the wrong questions, used the wrong data, and reached the wrong conclusions.      

   I am not the only one disturbed by this illogical scenario. Congress and the American people have done everything but march down to Southwest DC and physically shake some sense into us.  Everywhere we go, the questions are the same:  Why are we rushing to encourage more media merger frenzy when we haven’t addressed the demonstrated harms caused by previous media merger frenzy?  Women and minorities own low single-digit per centages of America’s broadcast outlets and big consolidated media continues to slam the door in their faces.  It’s going to take some major policy changes and a coordinated strategy to fix that.  Don’t look for that from this Commission.

Instead we are told to be content with baby steps to help women and minorities—but the fine print shows that the real beneficiaries will be small businesses owned by white men.  So even as it becomes abundantly clear that the real cause of the disenfranchisement of women and minorities is media consolidation, we give the green light to a new round of—yes, you guessed it—media consolidation.  

   Local news, local music and local groups so often get shunted aside when big media comes to town.  Commissioner Adelstein and I have heard the plaintive voices of thousands of citizens all across this land in dozens of town meetings and public forums.  From newscasters fired by chain owners with corporate headquarters thousands of miles away to local musicians and artists denied airtime because of big media’s homogenization of our music and our culture.  From minorities reeling from the way big media ignores their issues and caricatures them as people to women saying the only way to redress their grievances is to give them a shot to compete for use of the people’s airwaves.  From public interest advocates fighting valiantly for a return of localism and diversity to small, independent broadcasters who fight an uphill battle to preserve their independence.  It will require tough rules of the road to redress our localism and diversity gaps.  Do you see any such rules being passed today?  To the idea that license holders should give the American people high quality programming in return for free use of the public airwaves, the majority answers that we need more study of problems that have been documented and studied to death for a decade and more.  Today’s outcome is the same old same old: one more time, we’re running the fast-break for our big media friends and the four corner stall for the public interest.  

   It is time for the American people to understand the game that’s being played here.  Big media doesn’t want to tell the full story, of course, but I have heard first-hand from editorial page editors who have told me they can cover any story, save one—media consolidation, and that they have been instructed to stay away from that one.  But that’s another story.  

Today’s story is a majority decision unconnected to good policy and not even incidentally concerned with encouraging media to make our democracy stronger.  We are not concerned with gathering valid data, conducting good research, or following the facts where they lead us.  

   Our motivations are less Olympian and our methodology far simpler—we generously ask big media to sit on Santa’s knee, tell us what it wants for Christmas, and then push through whatever of these wishes are politically and practically feasible.  No test to see if anyone’s been naughty or nice.  Just another big, shiny present for the favored few who already hold an FCC license—and a lump of coal for the rest of us.  Happy holidays!

   If you need convincing of just how non-expertly this expert agency has been acting lately, you couldn’t have a better example than the formulation of the cross-ownership rule that the majority is adopting today.  I know it’s a little detailed to see how the sausage is made, but it’s worth a listen.

   On November 2, 2007—with just a week’s notice—the FCC announced that it would hold its final media ownership hearing in Seattle.  Despite the minimal warning, 1,100 citizens turned out to give intelligent and impassioned testimony on how they believed the agency should write its media ownership rules.  Little did they know that the fix was already in, and that the now infamous New York Times op-ed was in the works announcing a highly-detailed cross-ownership proposal.  

   Put bluntly, those Commissioners and staff who flew out to Seattle with staff, the sixteen witnesses, the Governor, the State Attorney General and all the other public officials who came, plus the 1,100 Seattle residents who had chosen to spend their Friday night waiting in line to testify were, as Rep. Jay Inslee put it, treated like “chumps.”  Their comments were not going to be part of the agency's formulation of a draft rule—it was just for show, to claim that the public had been given a chance to participate.  The agency had treated the public like children allowed to visit the cockpit of an airliner—not actually allowed to fly the plane, of course, but permitted for a brief, false moment to imagine that they were.  

   The New York Times op-ed appeared on November 13, the next business day after the Seattle hearing.  That same day, a unilateral public notice was issued, providing just 28 days for people to comment on the specific proposal, with no opportunity for replies.  The agency received over 300 comments from scholars, concerned citizens, public interest advocates, and industry associations—the overwhelming majority of which condemned the Chairman’s plan.  But little did these commenters know that on November 28, two weeks before their comments were even due, the draft Order on newspaper-broadcast cross ownership had already been circulated.  Once again, public commenters were treated as unwitting and unwilling participants in a Kabuki theater.  

   Then, last night at 9:44 pm—just a little more than twelve hours before the vote was scheduled to be held and long after the Sunshine period had begun—a significantly revised version of the Order was circulated.  Among other changes, the item now granted all sorts of permanent new waivers and provided a significantly-altered new justification for the 20-market limit.  But the revised draft mysteriously deleted the existing discussion of the “four factors” to be considered by the FCC in examining whether a proposed combination was in the public interest.  In its place, the new draft simply contained the cryptic words “[Revised discussion to come].”  Although my colleagues and I were not apprised of the revisions, USA Today fared better because it apparently got an interview that enabled it to present the Chairman’s latest thinking.  Maybe we really are the Federal Newspaper Commission.

   At 1:57 this morning, we received a new version of the proposed test for allowing more newspaper-broadcast combinations.  I can’t say that I fully appreciate the test’s finer points given the lateness of the hour and the fact that there was no time afforded to parse the finer points of the new rule. But this much is clear: the new version keeps the old loopholes and includes two new one pathways to cross ownership approval.  So please don’t buy the line that the rule we adopt today involves fewer loopholes—it adds new ones.  Finally, this morning at 11:12 a.m. as I was walking out my office door to come to this meeting, we received an e-mail containing additional changes.  The gist of one of these seems to be that the Commission need not consider all of the “four factors” in all circumstances.

This is not the way to do rational, fact-based, and public interest-minded policy making.  It’s actually a great illustration of why administrative agencies are required to operate under the constraints of administrative process—and the problems that occur when they ignore that duty.  At the end of the day, process matters.  Public comment matters.  Taking the time to do things right matters.  A rule reached through a slipshod process, and capped by a mad rush to the finish line, will—purely on the merits—simply not pass the red face test.  Not with Congress.  Not with the courts.  Not with the American people.

It’s worth stepping back for a moment from all the detail here to look at the fundamental rationale behind today’s terrible decision.  Newspapers need all the help they can get, we are told.  A merger with a broadcast station in the same city will give them access to a revenue stream that will let them better fulfill their newsgathering mission.  At the same time, we are also assured, our rules will require “independent news judgment” (at least among consolidators outside the top 20 markets).  In other words, we can have our cake and eat it too—the economic benefits of consolidation without the reduction of voices that one would ordinarily expect when two news entities combine.  

But how on earth can this be?  To begin with, to the extent that the two merged entities remain truly “independent,” then there won’t be the cost savings that were supposed to justify the merger in the first place.  On the other hand, if independence merely means maintaining two organizational charts for the same newsroom, then we won’t have any more reporters on the ground keeping an eye on government.  Either way, we can’t have our cake and eat it, too.

Also, since when do unprofitable businesses support themselves by merging with profitable ones—and then sink more resources into the money-losing division simply as a public service?   Think about it this way.  If any of us were employed by a struggling company, and we suddenly learned that a Wall Street financier had obtained control, would we (1) clap our hands with joy because we expect the new owner is going to throw a bunch of cash our way and tell us to keep on doing what we’d been doing, except more lavishly or (2) start to fear for our jobs and brace for a steady diet of cost cutting?  

Here’s my prediction on how it will really work.  Mergers will be approved in both the top 20 and non-top-20 markets—towns big and small—because the set of exceptions we announce today have all the firmness of a bowl of Jell-O.  Regardless of our supposed commitment to “independent news judgment” the two entities’ newsrooms will be almost completely combined, with round after round of job cuts in order to cut costs.  It’s interesting to hear the few proponents of this rule bemoan the lost jobs that they say result from failing newspapers.  Ask them this: in this era of consolidation in so many industries, isn’t cutting jobs about the first thing a merged entity almost always does so it can show Wall Street it is really serious about cutting costs and polishing up the next quarterly report?  These job losses are the result of consolidation.  And more consolidation will mean more lost jobs.  Newly-merged entities will attempt to increase their profit margins by raising advertising rates and relentless cost-cutting.  Herein is the real economic justification for media consolidation within a single market.  

The news isn’t so good for other businesses in the consolidated market, either.  Think about the other broadcast stations there.  It’s just like Wal-Mart coming to town—the existing news providers look around at the new reality and figure out pretty fast that they ought to head for the exit when it comes to producing news.  Now, it may not be as stark as actually cancelling the evening news—it could just mean doing more sports or more weather or more ads during that half hour.  But at the end of the day, the combined entity is going to have a huge advantage in producing news—and the other stations will make a reasonable calculation to substantially reduce their investment in the business.  This is why, by the way, experts have been able to demonstrate—in the record before the FCC, using the FCC’s own data—that cross ownership leads to less total newsgathering in a local market.  And that has large and devastating effects on the diversity and vitality of our civic dialogue.  

Let’s also be careful not get too carried away with the supposed premise for all this contortionism, namely the poor state of local newspapers.  The death of the traditional news business is often greatly exaggerated.  The truth remains that the profit margins for the newspaper industry last year averaged around 17.8%; the figure is even higher for broadcast stations.  As the head of the Newspaper Association of America put it in a Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post on July 2 of this year: “The reality is that newspaper companies remain solidly profitable and significant generators of free cash flow.”  And as Member after Member Congress has reminded us, our job is not to ensure that newspapers are profitable—which they mostly are.  Our job is to protect the principles of localism, diversity and competition in our media.  

Were newspapers momentarily discombobulated by the rise of the Internet?  Probably so.  Are they moving now to turn threat into opportunity?  Yes, and with signs of success.  Far from newspapers being gobbled up by the Internet, we ought to be far more concerned with the threat of big media joining forces with big broadband providers to take the wonderful Internet we know down the same road of consolidation and control by the few that has already inflicted such heavy damage on our traditional media.

In the final analysis, the real winners today are businesses that are in many cases quite healthy, and the real losers are going to be all of us who depend on the news media to learn what’s happening in our communities and to keep an eye on local government.  Despite all the talk you may hear today about the threat to newspapers from the Internet and new technologies, today’s Order actually deals with something quite old-fashioned.  Powerful companies are using political muscle to sneak through rule changes that let them profit at the expense of the public interest.  They are seeking to improve their economic prospects by capturing a larger percentage of the news business in communities all across the United States.  

Let’s get beyond the weeds of corporate jockeying and inking up our rubber stamps for a new round of media consolidation to look for a moment at what we are not doing today.  That’s the real story, I think—that the important issues of minority and female ownership and broadcast localism and how they are being short-changed by today’s rush to judgment.

Minority and Female Ownership

Racial and ethnic minorities make up 33 percent of our population.  They own a scant 3 percent of all full-power commercial TV stations.  And that number is plummeting.  Free Press recently released a study showing that during just the past year the number of minority-owned full-power commercial television stations declined by 8.5%, and the number of African American-owned stations decreased by nearly 60%.  It is almost inconceivable that this shameful state of affairs could be getting worse; yet here we are.
In most places there is something approaching unanimity that this has to change. Broadcasters, citizens, Members of Congress, and every leading civil rights organization agree that the status quo is not acceptable.  Each of my colleagues has recognized, I believe, that paltry levels of minority and female ownership are a reality—which makes today’s decision all the more disappointing.  There was a real opportunity to do something meaningful today after years of neglect, and we blew it.

It didn’t have to be this way.  I proposed both a process and a solution.  We should have started by getting an accurate count of minority and female ownership—the one that the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office both just found that we didn’t have. The fact that we don’t even know how many minority and female owners there are is indicative of how low this issue is on the FCC’s list of priorities.  We also should have convened an independent panel proposed by Commissioner Adelstein, and endorsed by many, that would have reviewed all of the proposals before us, prioritized them, and made recommendations for implementation. We could have completed this process in ninety days or less and then would have been ready to act.

Today’s item ignores the pleas of the minority community to adopt a definition of “Eligible Entity” that could actually help their plight.  Instead, the majority directs their policies at general “small businesses”— a decision that groups like Rainbow/Push and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters assert will do little or nothing for minority owners.  Similarly, MMTC and the Diversity and Competition Supporters conclude that they would rather have no package at all than one that includes this definition.  Lack of a viable definition poisons the headwaters.  Should we wonder why the fish are dying downstream?  

So while I can certainly support the few positive changes in this item that do not depend on the definitional issue—such as the adoption of a clear non-discrimination rule—these are overshadowed by the truly wasted opportunity to give potential minority and female owners a seat at the table they have been waiting for and have deserved for far too long.  My fear now is that with cross ownership done, the attentions of this Commission will turn elsewhere.

Localism

At the same time that we have shamefully ignored the need to encourage media ownership by women and minorities, we have also witnessed a dramatic deterioration of the public interest performance of all our licensees.  We have witnessed the number of statehouse and city hall reporters declining decade after decade, despite an explosion in state and local lobbying.  The number of channels have indeed multiplied, but there is far less local programming and reporting being produced.
Are you interested in learning about local politics from the evening news? About 8 percent of such broadcasts contain any local political coverage at all, including races for the House of Representatives, and that was during the 30 days before the last presidential election.  Interested in how TV reinforces stereotypes?  Consider that the local news is four times more likely to show a mug shot during a crime story if the suspect is black rather than white.
The loss of localism impacts our music and entertainment, too.  Just this morning, I had an e-mail from a musician who took a trip of several hundred miles and heard the same songs played on the car radio everywhere he traveled.  Local artists, independent creative artists and small businesses are paying a frightful price in lost opportunity.  Big consolidated media dampens local and regional creativity, and that begins to mess around pretty seriously with the genius of our nation.
All this is a travesty.  We allow the nation's broadcasters to use half a trillion dollars of spectrum—for free.  In return, we require that they serve the public interest: devoting at least some airtime for worthy programs that inform viewers, support local arts and culture, and educate our children—in other words, that aspire to something beyond just minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.  
Once upon a time, the FCC actually enforced this bargain by requiring a thorough review of a licensee's performance every three years before renewing the license. But during decades of market absolutism, we pared that down to “postcard renewal,” a rubber stamp every eight years with no substantive review.
To begin with, the FCC needs to reinvigorate the license-renewal process.  We need to look at a station's record every three or four years.  I am disappointed that the majority so cavalierly dismisses this idea. And we should be actually looking at this record.  Did the station show original programs on local civic affairs?  Did it broadcast political conventions?  In an era where too many owners live thousands of miles away from the communities they allegedly serve, do these owners meet regularly with local leaders and the public to receive feedback?  Why don’t we make sure that’s done before we allow more consolidation?
In 2004, the Commission opened up a Notice of Inquiry to consider ways to improve localism by better enforcing the quid pro quo between the nation’s broadcasters and the public.  The Notice addressed many of the questions raised by earlier, dormant proceedings dating from years before.  Today’s Localism Notice asks more questions and tees up meritorious ideas—but again my question: why the rush to vote more consolidation now, consolidation that has been the bane of localism, and why put off systematic actions to redress the harms consolidation has inflicted?  
Our FCC cart is ahead of our horse.  Before allowing Big Media to get even bigger—and to start the predictable cycle of layoffs and downsizing that is the inevitable result of, indeed the economic rationale for, many types of mergers—we should be enforcing clear obligations for each and every FCC licensee.  
Conclusion
Those who look for substantive action on these important issues concerning localism and minorities will look in vain, I predict, once the majority works its way on cross ownership.  We are told that we cannot deal with localism and minority ownership because that would require delay.  But these questions have been before the Commission for almost a decade—and they have been ignored year after year.  These issues could have been—should have been—teed up years ago.  We begged for that in 2003 when we sailed off on the calamitous rules proposed by Chairman Powell and pushed through in another mad rush to judgment.  Don’t tell me it can’t be done.  It should have been done years ago.  And we had the chance again this time around.  Now, because of a situation not of Commissioner Adelstein’s or my making, we are accused of delaying just because we want to make things better before the majority makes them far worse.  I see.
When I think about where the FCC has been and where it is today, two conclusions:

  First, the consolidation we have seen so far and the decision to treat broadcasting as just another business has not produced a media system that does a better job serving most Americans.  Quite the opposite.  Rather than reviving the news business, it has led to less localism, less diversity of opinion and ownership, less serious political coverage, fewer jobs for journalists, and the list goes on.  

Second, I think we have learned that the purest form of commercialism and high quality news make uneasy bedfellows.  As my own hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, put it in a letter to Joseph Pulitzer, “I have always been firmly persuaded that our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public from the counting room.”  So, too, for broadcast journalism.  This is not to say that good journalism is incompatible with making a profit—I believe that both interests can and must be balanced.  But when TV and radio stations are no longer required by law to serve their local communities, and are owned by huge national corporations dedicated to cutting costs through economies of scale, it should be no surprise that, in essence, viewers and listeners have become the products that broadcasters sell to advertisers.  

We could have been—should have been—here today lauding the best efforts of government to reverse these trends and to promote a media environment that actually strengthens American democracy rather than weakens it.  Instead, we are marking not just a lost opportunity but the allowance of new rules that head media democracy in exactly the wrong direction.

I take great comfort from the conclusion of another critic of the current media system, Walter Cronkite, who said, "America is a powerful and prosperous nation. We certainly should insist upon, and can afford to sustain, a media system of which we can be proud."  
Now it’s up to the rest of us.  The situation isn’t going to repair itself.  Big media is not going to repair it.  This Commission is not going to repair it.  But the people, their elected representatives, and attentive courts can repair it.  Last time the Commission went down this road, the majority heard and felt the outrage of millions of citizens and Congress and then the court.  Today’s decision is just as dismissive of good process as that earlier one, just as unconcerned with what the people have said, just as heedless of the advice of our oversight committees and many other Members of Congress, and just as stubborn—perhaps even more stubborn—because this time it knows, or should know, what’s coming.  Last time a lot of insiders were surprised by the country’s reaction.  This time they should be forewarned.  I hope, I really hope, that today’s majority decision will be consigned to the fate it deserves and that one day in the not too distant future we can look back upon it as an aberration from which we eventually recovered.  We have had a dangerous, decades-long flirtation with media consolidation.  I would welcome a little romance with the public interest for a change.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-278932A3.doc

Here is CSPAN link to the FCC presentation on the Consolidation of TV and Newspaper ownership. Unfortunately I do not have the "streaming software" rtsp. This link is only functional for 15 days until the 28th of December. Hopefully, someone on this forum will be able to translate it. It is over two hours long, but worth hearing. Now I understand why the ARRL is having such a tough time wit BPL and needs Spectrum defense funds.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e121307_fcc.rm

Link to verbal description:

http://www.c-span.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=fcc+media+&StartDateMonth=&StartDateYear=&EndDateMonth=&EndDateYear=&Series=&ProgramIssue=&QueryType=&QueryTextOptions=&ResultCount=10&SortBy=bestmatch

Here is an email I sent to the FCC regarding this subject. You do not have to agree with the comments but should spark some thought on the subject. I suggest you send your own comments to the fcc.gov website.

Dear Consumer,

Thank you for contacting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This is an automated message to confirm that we have received your correspondence. We will review your information to determine how we can best serve you.

If you need to send additional information, you may reply back with this email, leaving the case number (example: CIMS0123456789) in the subject line, or contact us at our toll free phone number 1-888-Call-FCC (1-888-225-5322) and reference the case number.

The Federal Communications Commission

________________________________

<http://www.dtv.gov>

 
  At midnight on February 17, 2009, federal law requires that all full power television stations will stop broadcasting in analog format and will broadcast only in digital. Go to dtv.gov <http://www.dtv.gov>  or call us at 1-888-CALL-FCC to learn more about how this may affect you.  

________________________________

 
Visit us at our Web Site located at www.fcc.gov, where you will find a wealth of information on a wide variety of communications-related topics.
 
----------   Original Message   ----------
________________________________

From:          k7cf@msn.com
Received:   12/22/2007 7:24:01 AM
Subject:      Consolidation of FCC controlled Media
 
I came across the CSPAN hearing of the recent decision of the Consolidation of Media Outlets in the largest market. It seems this decision is a political one, with Republican members of the FCC justifying the Consolidation and Democratic members, only two, representing the people.
First of all, I am an old time radio collector. I love AM radio. I used to enjoy learning about a local community as a kid, thousands of miles away like the local crop report, the local parade, the local community forums. Sure, the reporting was "amateur"and unpolished but it was honest and spontaneous.
There are only 170 Channels, 540KHZ to 1700 KHZ on AM and the other night, late night, I heard the same program, Art Bell and late night on 15 stations on a portable radio. I hear the programs of Rush Limbaugh, sponsored by $30 million a year from Corporations, the guy Hannity spewing a politically motivated agenda, day in and day out, including our Armed Forces Networks broadcast overseas. Where is the "fairness" of these types of broadcasts, where is the voice of opposition? When someone comes on the air to promote a view different from these radio personalities, they hit the "mute" button. There is no opposing view. When I talked to media personalities, the theme of the "Republican" Commission is "Let the market decide". What a dangerous thing, the "Let the Market Decide" especially when there is not other viewpoint.
Over four decades ago, I worked at an Armed Forced TV station in Germany, as a young man. I learned in those three years as a young man working at the TV station in Germany, about the power of TV. There were 3 of us, broadcasting to an audience of 25,000. Nothing like today's numbers.
The changes to our precious "Spectrum Real Estate", in my opinion, has shifted from Public Good to "Private Corporate Ownership". Kind of reminds me of the Nazi ownership or Dictator ownership of a very influential source of an entity that enters every household in the USA, namely TV and Newspaper.
I agree with Copp and Adelene and what I heard from the Republican members of the FCC is a serious division. The Democrat members are really on target with their concerns. The Republican members are NOT on target, McDowell and Martin reminds me of a media owner, looking out only for himself.
Why are you concerned about the profits of Large Corporations? By allowing consolidation, you are only making media like Clear Channel and Fox(owned by an Australian who recently bought the Wall Street Journal) to gain more power.
In our market, the advertising has decreased from newspapers to the internet. The Tribune and Deseret news advertising pages have decreased. Where did they go? KSL television is offering FREE(for now) advertising of "For Sales" that has grown by thousands of free ads and away from the newspaper. I was wondering why the pages I receive in the daily newspaper had dropped to fewer and fewer pages while there are thousands of "Free Ads" on KSL.COM. Of course, we know what is coming down the pike is the free ads will go away at KSL. I remember when the "Free Satellite" media came into existence, when the public paid thousands of dollars for the equipment and Big Ugly Dishes in the early 70's, then came the Scramblers, then came the fees once the public was hooked. I suspect the grand plan will be shifting from Newspapers to internet based media and fees. The decision to consolidate will probably cause the demise of Newspapers and the start up capability of new newspapers will be forever, unfortunately, be gone. Gone will be the "venue" of low cost diversity.
In this case, KSL is offering a free service that is doing away with revenue for the newspapers.
When I was a voting district chairman, when I would call to get people to out to vote, they would ask me who they should vote for. It really bothered me. They wanted me to tell them how to vote. They were too busy and most did not take the paper, only relied on TV where most of the air time is advertisement selling something.
I agree with Commissioner Copp, consolidation of media is wrong. The decision was not made in the best interest of the public and only in the best interest for Corporations.
The Republican entity appears to be driven by Corporations, like our Congress and President.
The message to the Republican FCC members.....your kids, your grandkids, are going to be affected, dramatically by the consolidation. Sure you, as individuals will receive personal remuneration, not sure how, but I am sure your bank accounts will swell as a result, maybe not you, but maybe a family member or friend or future employer will benefit. Where the rest of us, the United States Public will be short changed.
I disagree with the upcoming "auction" of Spectrum when the analog TV channels go away. Don't you realize, they are not making any more of "spectrum"? It is like Real Estate and should be treated like our National Parks, preserved and leased and not sold. I also disagree with the advertising of Lawyers, "One Call, that's all" and we will get you "Thousands of dollars" and the Drug ads in my Readers Digest and on TV.
The fact that 38 Drug Corporations in the Fortune 500 have more profit than the other 462 Corporations combined. In Utah, the majority do not drink, but they sure take pills and the Doctors prescribe them, with a check from the Pharmacies coming back to the doctors in the form of a kickback monthly from prescribing drugs. I know that this may or may not be under control of the FCC, but the public, is not being served by these "Let the Market decide" mentality like this latest decision by the FCC three Commissioners.
By the way, when did you hold these meetings on this subject? I read my paper from cover to cover and cannot recall any notice of a meeting.
Kevin Martin, stated that he is helping with this Consolidation to prevent the loss of newspaper presence. This decision will speed up the death of newspapers and reduce any counter voice in our communities. TV stations will rule. Like KSL has done with their FREE advertisement of for sale items taking revenue from the newspapers.
My concern is the Republican FCC Commission is driven by Corporate interest and not public interest.
Shame on you guys. You are selling our country down the tubes to Corporations that may or not be USA owned.
Mike Saville
Utah

I just caught the CSPAN broadcast of the justification of Consolidating media of TV and Newspapers in markets. I think it is the 20 largest market. What was interesting was the division politically and how the ruling came about. The two Democratic appointees, Copp and Adeleane, gave a very informational presentation of why the Consolidation should not be allowed. On the other hand, the Three other Republican appointees including the head of the Commission Kevin, gave a shallow reason that was built around Profit and "Let the market decide" rather than the good of the public.
If you can, see if you can catch the CSPAN video. There were pink ladies protesting and escorted out of the FCC chambers saying the decision was not in the best interest of the public. I agree.
I am also worried, the three Republican members appear to be Corporate appointees. What is going on here. This decision will probably speed up the demise of newspapers as an alternative to over the air media or internet media which really limits the voice of the people. The infrastructure for internet and over the air media is only possible with big bucks, where printed media is a cheap form of media requiring less infrastructure. Once it is gone, however, it will be gone.
Anyway, you can go to fcc.gov and express your opinion. Really sad what is happening with our public officials aligned to Corporate interests rather than Public Interest.

Had the same problem, same model as yours. Since there was no fix, removing the CU301 and putting in a larger tank, and having a sensor put in like in the good ol days is supposedly going to fix it. The pump is an SQE and according to the manufacturer, the pump and the CU301 send packets back and forth to each other at 130 KHZ or so, continuously as to whether there is turn on of the pump required. The CU301 and the SQE pump both have transmitters in them.  
The Groundfos engineers say, eliminating the CU301 control box will make the problem go away. Will have to see.
All those folks who are putting out "transceivers" that harmonically interfere with Commercial AM radio and others from Pumps, furnaces, and others, are like General Motors did with the Corvair car, where they said the cost to fix is less than the cost to litigage as long as we allow them to get away with it, they will.

I talked to a contractor and the furnace wiping out the Commercial AM band
is an American Standard model AUX 100R948W5
Not sure of the model number yet.

 November 28, 2007 American Standard and TRANE merged as one company. As
near as I can tell, American Standard's furnaces and TRANE are the same
furnaces with different logo's.

If the TRANE XV90 is a RFI nightmare, then what model of TRANE or American
Standard would NOT have the RFI problem?

You mentioned the inducer fan is the problem. I am not sure what an "inducer
fan" is or it's function. Is that the forced air fan?
The furnace I am used to, when the thermostat says it is cold, clicks on the
gas, ignites the gas with a pilot light, then the fan turns on forcing air
into the ducts. Simple but effective and quiet RF wise.

I was listening to a D cell powered AM radio, noise was happening as long as
there was AC applied to the furnace. The noise from the furnace wiped out
Commercial AM stations and hash over the entire AM band. I was 100 feet away
in another building using a D cell powered portable radio not attached to
the power line.

What I want is like my present furnace in this house, I have two gas powered
furnaces, when they turn on, no AM radio noise and when they turn off, no
noise.

Is there any furnace that is of new manufacture that has a "no noise"
characteristic preferably keeping with the TRANE or American Standard brand?

Thanks

Please email the instructions also.
k7cf at arrl.org.
thanks