[opendtv] Re: Sinclair should be proud...
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:29:00 -0700
I take back my characterization of you, and I apologize for it.
So, let me see, you're going to file comments in a localism proceeding (you
obviously know little of what you talk about, since the localism Task Force
is not the title of the proceeding, but who expects polemicists to be
accurate?) where, presumably you are in favor of localism, and you are going
to oppose a broadcaster who exercises localism?
And, you are doing this because you do not want a Pulitzer prize winning
journalist to be able to air a program that you have never seen? Are you
aware that the FCC is wholly in favor of stations airing news and
documentaries (Michael Moore claims to do comedies.) and cannot regulate
programming that is not indecent or profane?
I think it's VERY funny how the news reports on this have changed. The
first news reports said that Sinclair was suggesting that it's local
stations air the program. Later news reports are now saying (and I haven't
checked with anybody at Sinclair (my buddy Mark Hyman doesn't return my
calls) but I'm willing to bet they haven't changed their instructions to
their stations one bit.
Here's the bitterest irony: localism means, in large part, preempting
national programming for programs of local interest. Sinclair's foot-print
is the battleground states. I've heard other Democratic stooges say the
problem here is that Sinclair is going to pre-empt national programming, for
...
So, you want to support localism by criticizing a broadcaster who exercises
it?
All you are going to do is to insure that the localism proceeding becomes
mired in illogical, politically-based off-point, off-topic, idiotic filings.
Having practically lived at the Commission for almost a decade (a few
decades back), and having many friends at the Commission, here's what's
going to happen: Some poor grudge is going to count the effluvia. In the
old paper days, such formulaic comments would be counted and copied.
However, the "merits" of the form responses would never amount to anything:
they would be summarized in the final report as if they were a single
filing! It's much easier to ignore idiotic filings in the electronic era:
in the paper days, there would be a pile of unread documents in the corner.
Some times, there would be several stacks.
At best, these comments could be treated as informal objections and not
official comments. If your intent is to make sure that the proceeding bogs
down, you might achieve it.
Be sure to caption the proceeding "Localism Task Force." That will be an
extra laugh for the drudges. At least, the first time they read it.
(Improperly captioned filings can be ignored under the rules.)
This will be as less fun for the paralegals and other researchers (like I
was at the time) than the phone-sex proceedings of the late 1980's. At
least in those proceedings, we could pass around the "best" transcripts of
phone-sex calls. There were some doozies.
You know, Eric, I tend to be something of a pack rat. I have almost four
years of OpenDTV postings in the deleted items folder of my computer. To
the best of my knowledge, this is your second posting to OpenDTV. It will
be interesting to see how you acquit yourself as a member of this list.
I've never seen Dermot in person, and I've only been to one OpenDTV meeting.
I tend to think that his railings were more about him than reality. Perhaps
that can be applied to me, but I'll let others do that.
So, you were active in the 1990's, Eh? Why the burst of activism now?
And, are you personally responsible for the crappy to non-existent PSIP
implementation in Sony DTV sets?
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Eric Rehm
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:36 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Sinclair should be proud...
John Willkie writes...
> Gee, just what docket item would you file the comments in? =20
Docket 04-233 is the FCC Localism Task Force.
=C2=93I created the Localism Task Force to evaluate how broadcasters are se=
rving their local communities. Broadcasters must serve the public interest,=
and the Commission has consistently interpreted this to require broadcast =
licensees to air programming that is responsive to the interests and needs =
of their communities.=C2=94
- Chairman Michael K. Powell=20
http://www.fcc.gov/localism/
>I also note that this is the first posting to this list from Eric Rehm. =
=20
> He is obviously a stooge.
No. I was on ATSC T3-S17 (DASE) circa 1998, helped Sony get its DTV PSIP c=
ode right in their first ATSC receivers (1999), and I have been a reasonabl=
y prolific contributor to metadata standards in MPEG (MPEG-7), trying to ha=
rmonize things with SMPTE MXF metadata. I've been a Member of Technical S=
taff for Equator Technologies and Thomson (nee Thomson multimedia). I even=
went to one of the early NAB OpenDTV dinners as Dermot railed on against 8=
-VSB. We might have sat next to each other at that dinner, who knows? I=
n any case, try Google with "Eric Rehm MPEG-7" if you think I need a litmus=
test.
It seems our country's President has passed on his skills to at least one o=
ther U.S. citizen: shoot from the hip when you have no or incorrect informa=
tion, discredit others who threaten you, ...
/eric rehm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
