Slayer Posted November 25, 2003 Report Posted November 25, 2003 Yesterday, I was listening to the Don and Mike and they were pestering some woman off-the-air to get on-the-air with them. This isn't really unique in-and-of itself, but it made me think of something... I used to listen to their kind of radio years ago (mid-90's), then stopped listening to anything except sports radio for a couple years, then came back to this recently. I remember back in the day when D'n'M and other type shows could just call people and throw them on the air and do things like "wacky morning prank calls" and such, but now I'm hearing assorted radio hosts (new stuff I'm listening to) having to get (sometimes badger) for people's permission to get on the air now. So my question is: What law changed this, when did it happen and what incident caused it (since most US laws nowadays come from people getting pissed off and suing)?
CanadianChris Posted November 25, 2003 Report Posted November 25, 2003 It falls under section 73.1206 of FCC regulations (Broadcast of Telephone Conversations), which was most recently amended in 1988.
Slayer Posted November 25, 2003 Author Report Posted November 25, 2003 1. Why is it then that apparently it was okay to throw unsuspecting people on the air as recent as '98 (which I've heard from best of shows that go back that far) but it's not okay today? Something had to have happened in there 2. How does a Canadian know about US communications law?
CanadianChris Posted November 25, 2003 Report Posted November 25, 2003 1. I don't think it was ever OK per se, but not everyone who gets on the radio unsuspecting files a complaint with the FCC. 2. I did some research. It's not hard to find on the Web, as long as you know how to use Google most effectively.
Slayer Posted November 25, 2003 Author Report Posted November 25, 2003 I did some research. It's not hard to find on the Web, as long as you know how to use Google most effectively. I suppose then I should thank you for expending effort on my behalf
The Czech Republic Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization.
CanadianChris Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization. See, now THAT I didn't know.
The Czech Republic Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization. See, now THAT I didn't know. It's a waste of tax dollars and oversteps its boundaries as a government agency, in my opinion. Can Dr. Tom chime in on this?
CanadianChris Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization. See, now THAT I didn't know. It's a waste of tax dollars and oversteps its boundaries as a government agency, in my opinion. Hey, cool. We've got one of those ourselves (CRTC). And I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to say ours is much, much worse.
The Czech Republic Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization. See, now THAT I didn't know. It's a waste of tax dollars and oversteps its boundaries as a government agency, in my opinion. Hey, cool. We've got one of those ourselves (CRTC). And I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to say ours is much, much worse. Doesn't the CRTC require a certain percentage of "exclusively Canadian content" on all programs in or from Canada? So that if Joe Lowbudget from California wants to make a movie in Vancouver, he'd have to stick some Canadians on screen for them to be cleared to film there? Or even any domestic program needs Canadians? That would be easier to do though.
Slayer Posted November 27, 2003 Author Report Posted November 27, 2003 So that if Joe Lowbudget from California wants to make a movie in Vancouver, he'd have to stick some Canadians on screen for them to be cleared to film there? Just grab some Seattle kids and throw touques on their heads, no one'll know the difference
Nighthawk Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 If you're making a movie in Vancouver, the city itself is exclusively Canadian.
The Czech Republic Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 If you're making a movie in Vancouver, the city itself is exclusively Canadian. I'm talking about cast or crew. They film in Canadian cities because it's cheaper, and Toronto and Vancouver can pass for any large metropolitan area in North America, whether real or a fictitious one for the movie.
Nighthawk Posted November 27, 2003 Report Posted November 27, 2003 With varying degrees of effectiveness. Rumble In the Bronx was shot in Vancouver, and you can see mountains in the background. Just like the real Bronx.
CanadianChris Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 The FCC is an extraneous organization. See, now THAT I didn't know. It's a waste of tax dollars and oversteps its boundaries as a government agency, in my opinion. Hey, cool. We've got one of those ourselves (CRTC). And I don't think I'd be going too far out on a limb to say ours is much, much worse. Doesn't the CRTC require a certain percentage of "exclusively Canadian content" on all programs in or from Canada? So that if Joe Lowbudget from California wants to make a movie in Vancouver, he'd have to stick some Canadians on screen for them to be cleared to film there? Or even any domestic program needs Canadians? That would be easier to do though. Not quite. It requires that a certain percentage of "prime-time" programming on all Canadian networks/stations be Canadian. So, every TV network has to air Canadian-produced shows during desirable time slots, and Canadian radio stations have to play a certain number of songs produced or performed by Canadians (a lot easier in the past 20 years...used to be that you'd hear an Anne Murray or Gordon Lightfoot song every hour). The things that REALLY suck, though, are: - that Canadian stations airing American programming are allowed to override the feed on the American channel (sucks most during the Super Bowl, because we can't see most of the new commercials), and - that American cable networks airing similar content to existing Canadian networks are not allowed on Canadian airwaves (i.e. no ESPN, no Fox Sports Net, no HBO, no TV Land, no Nickelodeon, no Comedy Central, etc.) We live in a broadcasting wasteland...and there's no way out.
The Czech Republic Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 We live in a broadcasting wasteland...and there's no way out. A wasteland with a spunky little oasis I like to call DeGrassi Junior High.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now