Talk:Brinkley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Still needs work
I just saved a substantial revamp of this article. However, there are some things I'm still not comfortable about....
- The dates. According to the notes in the United States Code, this provision was enacted as an original section of the Communications Act of 1934. However, the article on John R. Brinkley suggests that he was still operating the studios in Del Rio as late as 1939. What gives? Did the newly-created FCC actually grant him a permit the first time around, or was there a legal challenge, or what?
- International comparisons. I'm not sure the British comparison belongs here, particularly as it is the only one and it is so removed in time from the passage of the Brinkley Act. If it's going to stay, it should be joined by similar cases from other countries. I'd particularly like to see a summary of the situation with respect to Canada in the heyday of CKLW, which is the only obvious candidate from about the same time as the British situation. (There's also the more modern case of CKEY-FM, which has gotten in hot water with the CRTC about its relationship with stations in Buffalo.) Are there any examples from other countries (say, China and pre-handover Hong Kong, or Malaysia and Singapore, or Venezuela and the Leeward Islands)?
121a0012 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ....as late as 1939
> still operating the studios in Del Rio as late as 1939.
The Act bans programming via telephone wire over the border.
I believe his first move would be to move the studio to Mexico.... after all, much of his empire had already gone down there. He could also record shows and commercials in the US and ship the disks to Mexico, as was done for Radio Luxembourg. 16" transcription disks were already of quality comparable to a long phone line to an AM transmitter. Some of his talent would have consented to work in Mexico: it was the depression, jobs were thin, Mexico mighta been a good place to live with US dollars.
I doubt exact operational details are available. Whatever logs and construction records existed 1934-1941 have probably been lost.
"purpose of the Brinkley Act was to shut down a broadcaster"
Like many laws, it didn't work. The studio can just move. There are cost and quality issues, but if a radio station is doing well then outlawing the wire is an annoyance, not a problem.
As WWII loomed, larger global politics got the US and Mexico together on many local issues. Border Blasters were on the table, if only so that the US and Mexico could reach their citizens in an emergency. A similar BB, Crosley's monster, was irritating Canada. "WLW was required to cut back to 50,000 watts during the nighttime hours due to interference caused to CFRB." Wiser heads came together. Out of this came international coordination of power and channel, with a few 50KW main stations, many smaller stations, and no more 500KW beasts in regular operation.
http://www.matthewmusial.com/brnkpgs/pg16.htm says Brinkley fought the confiscation of his transmitter but suffered a heart attack the same month. He was bankrupt and sick and died the next year. We can speculate (not on Wikipedia) that if US/Mexico tensions had not thawed, and if Brinkley had stayed strong, he'd have been throwing a megawatt up the US's butt for many more decades, despite the Brinkley Act.
The BA didn't shut-down Brinkley. The BA remains useful to irritate "legitimate" cross-border broadcast operations. As mentioned it has been used to enforce US-politics ownership rules which attempt to reduce monopolistic media. But that's another article....
165.230.87.131 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
