Should The FCC Be Abolished?

stwrtpj writes "CNET is running an interesting commentary from its chief political correspondent explaining why the FCC should be abolished. When I saw this link from NewsForge, my initial reaction was that he was full of it, but after I RTFA, I have to admit that he makes some interesting points. So how about it? Should the FCC be abolished? Can the market regulate itself yet?"

fcc is a necessary body

[quelrods]

The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist and companies are protected from each other. Without proper regulation, and I highly doubt the industry can do this alone, things like satelite tv would be irredic at best. Things like computer monitors, cordless phones, stereos would not have regulations on the interference they put out and cause lots of havoc.

The fcc does do harm such as making money off selling radio spectrum but it's purpose is well defined and one not easily replaced.

Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all. National tv with children watching and people feel the need to "push the envenlope."

Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.

Further the writer's theory of owning spectrum is even sillier than the current system. As an amateur radio operater some times I'm a primary and other times a secondary user of spectrum. Primary means that I must not be interfered with a nd secondary means I better not interfer. The lack of spectrum would only be in crease if sharing was halted.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[garcia]

I am pretty certain that we don't need a governing body telling us what is decent and what isn't.

I think that it should be up to the people to decide through boycott and public displays of disapproval.

Keep government control out of our lives.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[KarmaMB84]

History has proven that the minority requires protecting from the majority. The "there's more of us so fuck you!" policy does not make for smooth operation.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't care if it makes for a smooth operation or not. The government was not originally meant to control us in the way that it does now.

The FCC was not created to decide when and how "free speech" can be exercised.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Anonvmous Coward]

"The FCC was not created to decide when and how "free speech" can be exercised."

I fail to see how what happened is a case of free-speech. Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship.

I think we do more or less have the same frame of mind (I don't like the gov't dictating what is good or bad, i.e. Vice City), but man, please, don't turn this into free-speech. You'll lose.

I will though...

[PaulBu]

I fail to see how what happened is a case of free-speech. Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship.

The classic example of possible cause for supressing free speech is "shouting 'Fire!' in the full theater", which puts others in the situation of some "clear and eminent danger". PLEASE tell me what clear danger comes out of the broadcasting of the aforementioned boob of Ms. Jackson?

If you can not, a bonus question for you: How "one particular type of broadcast" is different from *THAT* other one? ;-)
Paul B.

P.S. I can understand (thgough not necessarily agree with the existance) of a Gov't body impartially providing the applicants licenses on a 'first come, first served" basis, but the amount of the discussion of J.J.'s tit in this context makes me wonder if it is the /, I am reading...

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[EvilAlien]

"

Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship."

That is exactly why it is about freedom of speech and censorship. Your idea of what constitutes" decency" is not absolute. Decency is not a measurable thing, but a concept. It is a judgement that is entirely qualitative in nature. What, objectively, is indecent about Janet Jackson's breast? Is it more or less indecent than showing the towers in New York falling live on CNN? Is it more or less indecent than the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan? Is it more or less indecent than simulated rape on a TV drama?

I'd like to know how people actually think Janet Jackson's lame stage show is actually dangerous and in need of punishment. I hate to break it to you, but most babies see more boob on a regular basis than most men on /.... I'd use the tired old "there is stuff way worse than that on European commercials" example too, but I'm sure that would turn into a round of good ol' RAH RAH U S A.

The secret to the rapid increase in wealth in the USA isn't due to puritanical phobia of nudity, and I'd like to hear a good reason for the FCC to be interested in content rather than something real like ensuring communications infrastucture stays operational.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[SimplyCosmic]

You said: "They're telling her 'Don't do it on broadcast television.' (Note: It'd be fine on cable tv.)"

Just an honest question here, but why is cable acceptable and broadcast not? I know the obvious answer is that "anyone" can see it on broadcast, but that's not true, at least in the sense that "anyone" could see it as easily if they were flipping through the cable channels as they would through the regular broadcast channels.

It's not like a television broadcast forces the images it caries straight into your brain, you still have to actively purchase a television, actively turn it on and actively turn it to the channel in question.

So why is cable so radically different than broadcast television that you would allow something on one, but not the other?

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[NanoGator]

"Just an honest question here, but why is cable acceptable and broadcast not?"

I think the basic difference is that you have to pay to have cable installed. If the content is objectionable, you can stop paying and halt the service. You can't hault broadcast TV.

Hope that helps.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Tin Foil Hat]

The answer has to do with ownership. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such, may be regulated by the government. Cable networks are not public resources (though one might argue that they should be, much like phone lines) but are owned by the company that operates the network. That means that the government has less recourse to make decisions governing their content because the government generally cannot regulate private resources the same way it does public resources.

At least, that's the way it was explained to me.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[CrimsonAvenger]

Basicly the only rules you need are those that ensure that a society runs well: e.g - killing is bad - stealing is bad - free speach is good - x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public

A society that "runs well" requires both more and less than you might expect.

"Killing is bad" isn't required, for instance. Most historical societies had rules about who you could kill, and when, without societal sanctions. But very few took the stance that "killing is bad". I note that a Code Duello existed in many (if not most) societies up to the 19th century. Killing was allowed, and even encouraged, in some specific conditions. The societies didn't especially suffer from this lack of "killing is bad".

Likewise for stealing. Some societies forbid it (USA, as an example), some allow it under certain conditions (England in the 1500's, as regards Spanish property), some encourage it (most Plains Indian cultures respected horse-thieves). Whether the society ran well was irrelevant to its stand on "stealing is bad".

That said, societial rules, in general, reduce to

(1)who you can kill, and when,

(2)who you can screw, and when,

(3)what you can own, and under what circumstances,

(4)what you can say, and to whom,

(5)who you can turn to for redress of grievance in case any of the above are violated by anyone. (some societies require you to turn to the government, at one level or another for redress, some allow you to seek redress personally)

Note that case (3) actually creates the largest part of "law" in almost all societies. The rest of it, no matter the specific implementation, is really quite straightforward.

Note also that a society can "run well" with almost any answer to those five cases, if the people of the society accept the "rules" (~90% acceptance is typical in a stable society).

Issues come up when there are divisions within a society where a very large minority cannot, in good conscience, accept one or more rules. An example - slavery in the nineteenth century USA. ~2/3 of the population did not support it, ~1/3 did. Both sides considered their positions to be a matter of "rights". Result - Lincoln's election, secession, War Between the States (I refuse to call it the Civil War - there was nothing "civil" about it).

Note that up till the nineteenth century, slavery was legal, if not common, in virtually all societies. There were, in almost all societies, minor elements who considered slavery "evil/wrong/sinful" (pick one), but not so many as to force the issue into contention.

Since then, slavery has been illegal in almost all societies. There are minor elements who consider slavery "good" (or at least acceptable), but not enough to force the issue into contention.

And, finally "x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public" is probably a far broader concept than you thought when you proposed it. It includes such things as smoking (dangerous to the smoker, at least), fast food (dangerous to the fat slob who overindulges, though that is true of any food), lack of exercise (dangerous, I expect, to most of /.). Did you really think that the "basic rules for society" should allow the government to regulate the amount/kind of food/exercise you must get?

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[dasmegabyte]

You're right. Asking for decency during a sports broadcast isn't the same as censorship. If they were merely asking, I don't think anybody would be upset.

But mandating and enforcing decency through unfair fines *IS* the same thing as censorship.

I think it's obvious that certain broadcasts go to far. If we were ASKING the broadcasters to please tone it down a bit, they probably would. After all, they NEED people to feel that they can watch programs without being offended, or they will lose advertisers. Ever notice how FEW advertisers there are for the Howard Stern program? They must be paying well, because the big guys won't touch the show. It's too edgy to associate with.

But a lot of the time, we aren't asking. We're letting them slide, and then fining them well after the fact for violating regulations we didn't tell them we had. And that, my friend, is CENSORSHIP. It's saying, "we don't like what you did, so we are going to use economic sanctions to stop you from doing anything in the future."

right.

[NanoGator]

"Do you actually look at girls and say to yourself "I know what is underneath her clothes". Its disturbing that you even think that way. Spooky."

Are you telling me you don't know what a naked woman looks like? Heh.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[DunbarTheInept]

Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship.

Yes, it is. Certain social and political ideas are considered "indecent" by some.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Unknown Poltroon]

"Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship."

It isnt?
60 years ago, people ould have been outraged about the decency of a white man dancing with a black woman on a public stage. Who decides whats decent?

How much of the outcry now was about the fact that it was a white guy and a black woman? None? Wanna bet?

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[TGK]

Whoever moderated this as Troll needs to be dragged out into the street and shot.

KarmaMB84 (and what the hell kind of a username is that?) is simply restating the opinions of a Mr. Alexis de Toqueville. de Toqueville argued that one of the inherent dangers of democracy was the tyranny of the majority. In short, that those who are in the majority can and will create laws which are designed not only to keep themselves in the majority but to oppress those that disagree with them.

While it's a stretch to argue that this really applies in the case of television viewership, it certainly does apply in cases like the War on Terror (PATRIOT by its very nature stifles opposition).

Troll indeed. Next thing you know we'll be modding Thomas Jefferson and John Locke down for "All men are created equal."

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[IronChef]

In short, that those who are in the majority can and will create laws which are designed not only to keep themselves in the majority but to oppress those that disagree with them.

Huzzah. And on a side note, this is why we have the Electoral College. After the last election many said "it's gotta go!" But if you read about the system and really think about it, you will see that it is truly elegant.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[autopr0n]

Yeah, well. Without the FCC, there's nothing stopping me from buying a 80 megawatt radio and television transmitter, and broadcasting porn on every channel.

I mean, how are people going to choose what's 'decent' and what's not when anyone with a lot of electricity can broadcast anything on any channel whenever they feel like it? Most likely, they won't get anything at all.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There should be laws regarding the maximum power transmitter one is able to use on a particular frequency, and that's all. OK, reserve some limited bands for aircraft and emergency use. Everything else is up to individuals to work out between themselves, the markets, the courts, and their gun collections. Just kidding on the gun collections part. Sort of. Maybe they could televise a 'frequency allocation duel'.

Anyway, if the airwaves are not suitable for relatively high power AM, FM, and TV broadcasts, then those uses should fall into oblivion. Other uses for the airwaves to transmit the same information will quickly replace the old dinosaurs.

The major uses of the radio frequencies are the very same uses that were envisioned when radio was invented. Those were 1) talking between ship and shore, 2) entertainment broadcasts, and 3) replacing the telegraph. I'll give you #1, which is necessary for ships, planes, etc. But 2 and 3 are better served by other technologies, or different radio technologies.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[JWSmythe]

Read the article.

They're suggesting frequencies be sold like property. If you're broadcasting between 54Mhz and 216Mhz, and I own that property in the area (VHF TV channels 2-13), I'll sue you, and I'll get a restraining order to get your equipment unplugged or seized.

For the owner of those frequencies, it's a valuable asset. It'd be like owning property on Wall Street, and opening a peep show theater. I could make a whole lot more money selling the space as executive office space.

I don't agree with the idea of abolishing the FCC, but I do feel that they need to be reorganized.

I'd like to buy a 100W transmitter, and do a mix of talk and local group/band/dj music. It's not going to happen though, the FCC is getting too much for their licensing. I'm sure the ASCAP, BMI, etc, etc, would want a substantial cut of my profits too.

In the case of the boob flash at the Superbowl, the sponsors pulling their money hurt them more than the FCC throwing fines around. The sponsors control what gets broadcast way more than the FCC does.

Consider what gets more viewers, Friends, or a local talk show about county government? People are going to watch Friends, rather than hear about zoning changes in the ghetto. The sponsors throw their money to where the viewers are, and broadcasters are going to try to put up more content that is favorable to making more money. More housewives want to watch soaps than sci-fi horror movies. If more people were watching higher channels with their movie reruns during the day, you'd see more movies showing up in the lower channels during the day. Thank you Nielsen [nielsenmedia.com].

Even the cable industry knows when to cash in. Sure there's a bit of soft-core porn on at night, but it's available 24/7 on PPV channels, where they can make a real buck.

If getting a 80MW transmitter and broadcasting whatever you want gets you off, do it. You can buy transmitters online from overseas vendors. Right now you worry about the FCC. Without the FCC, you worry about the owners of those frequencies suing the pants off you. I'd worry more about 83 lawsuits, than I would about 1 FCC fine. Don't forget to make sure that porn you're transmitting is licensed for distribution purposes, or you'll be sued by all those porn companies too.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[autopr0n]

For the owner of those frequencies, it's a valuable asset. It'd be like owning property on Wall Street, and opening a peep show theater. I could make a whole lot more money selling the space as executive office space.

You might think so, but porn is very popular. A single strip club on wallstreat would be a cash cow, I'm sure.

But good luck buying one. City governments have a lot of control over what gets built. Just look at the porn shops in times square. They got shut down and replaced with Disney shit by Gulliani.

The FCC is like the city government of the airwaves.

That said, treating the airwaves like property is a bad idea. Why? Because it's a very limited resource. People like clear channel could buy up every radio frequency, and then turn them silent, to save money in a certain market. Or a radio business could fail and keep their frequency for years for the hell of it, or whatever.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[JWSmythe]

I agree. I could definately see Clear Channel spend millions (billions?) buying the property, which shouldn't really be sold in the first place. Why should a company now get something that should be open to everyone, and have the rights to it indefinately? It would be like selling the rights to speech? It's sound waves, at a lower frequency. But hey, this is the world we live in (for now), anything can be bought and sold. Even the land you're sitting on is owned by someone. It was there for millions of years, til some genius said "This is mine", and then made it available for sale. Why? Because they could, or more importantly because they were allowed to. There are *HUGE* tracts of land that are "owned" and undeveloped, that I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't mind moving to. Why? Because someone got a sweet deal years ago, and isn't willing to share. In many areas, that keeps the commodity of land at a high value.

Until the Europeans invaded North America, the concept of land ownership was unknown. Now ask the Native Americans what they think of land ownership.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[nick0909]

The problem is not every person wants to make money off airwaves. Amateurs use it for fun, public services use it because they have to to be effective. Would you buy the space for the portable phone in your house? Who would pay for the WiFi frequencies you are using? Bluetooth? All those other little fun things people use but no one body controls to buy the frequency for would go away. Sometimes things need to be set aside for people that don't have a way to pay for them but have a very good use. Should people have to buy their own roads because they want to drive around, or have a managed system of distribution and sharing? Land is limited in NYC but people can go elsewhere. If they sell all the usable spectrum (and no it isn't infinite) there is no where else to go, you just don't get wireless.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[NachoDaddy]

So who 'buys' the spectrum for low power unlicsened devices like radio control? Whoops, some big telecom just bought 72MHz, buh-bye radio control toy industry. How about that 144-146MHz band? OK it's up for auction. I see the amatuers came up with $132.78 between them, and looks like FedEx came up with $15 million for the same band. We have a winner. Oh, and that 100W FM station you wanted. There used to be a thing called low power FM, available cheaply to non-profits and average people, but under the new rules, you will have to buy it from Clear Channel for $26 million. Too bad. The guy who wrote that article is a bofoon that has no real concept of the variety of services the FCC provides. The FCC, in spite of all thier pad press, is a great equalizer, making wireless spectrum available to great large audience, big and small organization alike. Next time you key up you FRS radio to find your kids, say 'thank you' on prime real estate in the UHF band.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[LostCluster]

The US Government isn't based entirely on the concept of "majority rules". There's a secondary concept that the minority must also be given rights, even if that's not what the "majority" wants.

Basically, the market can decide if Playboy Radio on XM is something they want to support or not... but nobody is forced to listen to that, you can't even accidently tune it on an XM device unless you're paying a monthly fee and then an extra monthly fee for that one channel.

"Broadcast" radio, as in the AM and FM ba

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[cshark]

I'm all for disbanding the FCC.

Decency regulations are shit.

Don't want them don't need them.

I think it's time we started putting pussy on TV. Lots of it. In fact, we could even have a whole channel devoted to nothing but big fat sloppy wet pussies. Or better yet, ten of them...

Spectrum regulations?
Yes, I don't mind being radiated by both my monitor and my microwave, not to mention a dozen or so other devices that the FCC regulates.

I wonder if it radiation whitens teeth...

C'mon, did you really want to watch TV on your TV anyway? I would personally much rather mod my TV to listen to people's cell phones, which is the first place all that handy new unregulated bandwidth is going to go.

We didn't need AM or FM to be regulated anyway, and I'm sure there are several interesting kinds of broadcasting we can do over FM is the FCC is abolished.

I could record a tape of myself saying "fuck fuck fuck" for about ten minutes, loop, and broadcast to california. Okay, maybe not from my car, but if there's no regulation on the band, what's to stop me from building an antenna on my roof? I'd call it, the fuck channel. One word, all the time!

Getting rid of the FCC would force everyone to buy new technology and get rid of their old shit which only half works anyway! Besides, all that old stuff is missing important DRM technology anyway. It's really in our best interests that we buy the new stuff that's locked down for our own protection.

It will be great!

It would be a boom the economy... in India!

Think of it like all that trickle down economics. It's like a tax break for the super rich, but better!

Just as the tax breaks have arguable benefit for the working American, this idea would have no tangible benefit at all!

Just think of it, we would automatically hand over billions of dollars to giant transnational companies, which will turn around and pay no taxes, ship more jobs over seas, and all that fun stuff.

I hope they abolish the FCC.
And while we're at it, let's abolish the FDA (arsenic anyone?). And any other useless thee letter government agency.

Re:Not that I support government, but...

[garcia]

Do you seriously think this would ever work?

Who knows? Currently the driving forces behind deeming media displays as indecent are powerful government lobbies from conservative right-wingers who believe that the world should be sugar and spice.

Do I want small interest groups deciding for me what is decent for me? Nah. I think that people are quite capable to make those choices for themselves.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[red floyd]

\i{The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist}

I think Mr. Maxwell already took care of that.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[BWJones]

There are other issues in addition to regulating radio spectrum that the FCC has undertaken. Namely, business management and media consolidation and "morals" are only one part of that aspect they feel they have to "regulate".

Should the FCC be abolished?

In a word,.......No. However, under the current director, Michael Powell (sorry Colin) I would argue there needs to be more oversight to ensure they are actually doing their job and protecting the peoples right to media and information. It could simply be a result of the overall current Whitehouse administration, but big media certainly does have an ally in the FCC right now. The current FCC supports large media consolidations to the point where we now have just FIVE large giants of commercial control in this country. Because media has become big business and not about reporting all the news that is fit to print or doing a journalists obligation to report facts, diversity of coverage becomes a monetary decision. Will it fit within the bottom line of the company? What will it do to our profit margins? I myself am rather disgusted with the way CNN has gone in the last few years after having started as THE source for my news. However, in the last few years they have decided from a business perspective, it makes more sense to report on the news mostly, but also a bit on stuff like who Jennifer Lopez is marrying now. Please.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[earlgreen]

Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all. National tv with children watching and people feel the need to "push the envenlope."

Hey, my breast-fed toddler was watching and she not only noticed but pointed and said "daaaa!!!". Why exactly anyone would decide that exposing a mammary gland is half time entertainment, and why anyone would actually care afterwards, is still a mystery to both myself and my daughter.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[damiam]

Mammary glands cause underwear tents.

Not Janet Jackson's.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[conradp]

The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist and companies are protected from each other. Without proper regulation, and I highly doubt the industry can do this alone, things like satelite tv would be irredic at best. Things like computer monitors, cordless phones, stereos would not have regulations on the interference they put out and cause lots of havoc.

This is absurd, a bunch of computer geeks ought to know better than this. Satellite TV exists *in spite* of the FCC, why you think your satellite dish wouldn't work without the FCC, I have no idea.

• It's not the FCC that keeps motherboards compatible with memory and processors.
  
• It's not the FCC that keeps monitors compatible with video cards.
  

Private industry makes those things compatible voluntarily. Just as no one wants to buy a monitor that won't plug into your video card, similarly no one will want to buy a cordless phone that that interferes with your TV reception. We don't need big brother to take care of us.

If this tiny smidgen of what the FCC does is so important, Congress can always pass laws mimicking the current FCC regulations that prohibit devices from outputting enough power to interfere with other devices. The problem with the FCC is that this tiny 5% of what they do that might be useful gives them cover for the other 95% of what they do that actually restricts progress.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[mlyle]

Satellites put out rather small amounts of output power compared to terrestial transmitters; and the inverse square law means the strength of the signal from, say, a DirecTV transponder is greatly diminished. The fact that satellite operators are guaranteed spectrum that will be clear from interference is one of the many necessary economic conditions to make communications satellite launches profitable/worthwhile.

In addition, the FCC helped fuel DBS satellite TV adoption by pre-empting local laws, and codes, covenants, and restrictions (all those long restrictions on land's use generally put in place by the original developer) from prohibiting satellite dishes/antennas smaller than 1m. Prior to that, most developments and tract houses (and some entire cities) were banning their use. This is another thing that the FCC did that helped make DBS worthwhile.

It doesn't take much output power to mess other things up.. A few hundred milliwatts is enough to interfere with GPS with everyone you have line of sight to (including airplanes). Regulation preventing everyone from stomping on everyone else is good.

This doesn't mean I agree with everything the FCC does; policy on the ISM band is lackluster, and the FCC leans way too hard to protect existing licensees in AM, FM, and TV broadcast applications at the expense of new services and local operators.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Spy Hunter]

That analogy to computer part compatibility is flawed because computer parts aren't a limited resource in the same way spectrum is. If I go out and buy a computer part that's incompatible with yours, it doesn't cause your part to stop working. With radio, things are different. Regulation of some sort is without a doubt necessary to ensure that the spectrum doesn't become hopelessly polluted with competing products and therefore useless.

In an ideal world, the FCC would realize that 99% of current and future communications needs would be better served by a standard high-speed wireless IP network instead of the amazing mishmash of specialized protocol bands [doc.gov] we have now. It would rearrange current spectrum allocation to phase out legacy systems and give almost all the useful communications bands to a new protocol (or small set of protocols) based around IP communication. This new wireless network would become part of the Internet. Efficient compressed digital data could replace jillions of old inefficient analog technologies (police radios, CB radios, AM/FM radio, TV, etc) and unify tons of existing digital standards (HDTV, CDMA/TDMA/GSM/3G cell phones, DirecTV/Dish network satellite TV, 802.11x, etc). With all of those bands available to it, the new IP network would have insane amounts of raw bandwidth to play with.

Before this could become a reality, some work would have to be done to adapt the ideas of IP QoS and multicasting to the realities of radio transmission so that things like TV and radio could be done efficiently over a wireless IP network. I haven't been following developments in IP multicasting technologies; are they mature enough to be useful for things like TV?

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Jack Schitt]

>>Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't
>>make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all.
>>National tv with children watching and people feel
>>the need to "push the envenlope."

I really don't think that a breast is going to kill a child, or even traumatize him that much. Just remember, in all likelyhood, he was sucking on one daily for several months before he could even talk.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What a complete load of tripe.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you allow government to acquire power over communications, who do you THINK is going to wield that power? It's not going to be those of us who want to preserve our fair use rights, because we can't afford million-dollar bribes to politicians.

Power is held by those most interested in attaining it. Mostly this means the greedy, uncaring, control freaks of the world. Those of us more interested in making sure it's used correctly never get it in the first place.

Liberty

[Infonaut]

Liberty requires no justification.

Sadly in the America of 2004, it does. A lot of Americans seem to have a completely skewed view of what the word really means. It's no longer about being able to say what you want or think what you want, it's about being able to buy what you want when you want it.

We are all taught about Washington chopping down cherry trees, but precious little about Patrick Henry [ou.edu].

Re:What a complete load of tripe.

[John Miles]

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Janet and Justin are the ones who took that choice away from everybody, not the FCC.

Many people, especially Americans, are offended by nudity, for whatever reason, and choose to pass on that sensibility to their children. (I don't personally find that worldview very healthy or sensible, but nobody asked me.) The FCC manages the open airwaves and their content on behalf of all Americans, and since a broadcast like this one appears on network TV across the entire country, it is expected to meet the "community standards" of the entire population represented by the FCC.

Otherwise -- if the public's sensibilities are being offended -- the FCC isn't doing its job as the custodian of a shared public resource. The American audience watching the Super Bowl that day had a reasonable expectation that they were going to see a normal football game and halftime show, but they got something entirely different, and the more prudish of them are justifiably up in arms about it. Their point is the same as yours: the TV audience that day was denied its right to choose what it wanted to watch.

There are numerous entertainment venues in which nudity and sexual themes are legal and accepted, even in the most puritanical corners of the USA. But all of these venues have one thing in common: if you want to see that stuff, you have to go looking for it. Very few people, from preachers to porn purveyors, think it's a good idea to shove unsolicited content of this nature in Joe Six-Pack and Jane Boxwine's faces when it's not requested or expected.

The Great Wardrobe Malfunction was essentially an act of civil disobedience, and that implies a willingness to pay the price to get your message across. In this case, the price is a neo-Puritan backlash that's caused a lot of collateral damage to people like Howard Stern who were known for pushing the community-standards envelope. Your quarrel is with Janet, Justin, and their unwilling audience... not the regulatory agency that is chartered to represent that audience.

Re:What a complete load of tripe.

[tfoss]

the TV audience that day was denied its right to choose what it wanted to watch.

Huh? It chose to watch an event with a half-time show produced by MTV. That was far from a secret, in fact it had been advertised as such. What it got was, frankly, pretty tame for MTV. Had it been a half-time show produced by PAX TV or ABC Family, then perhaps they'd have a reason to complain.

not the regulatory agency that is chartered to represent that audience.

Was there a survey I missed? Did we somehow establish that the 1.5 seconds of barely distinguishable nipple actually upset more than 50% of the super bowl watching population? Or, more to the point, when was the last time the FCC actually asked the audience what it was upset by? This regulatory agency administration has no mandate from the public whatsoever. It has an appointed leader who gets to decide when to what he thinks is ok, the public has essentially no input or recourse.

You keep saying the FCC has a duty to be the maintain a level of decency for population, but there is nothing to suggest it determines that level by anything more encompassing than its leader's personal opinion of indecency. So while Mr Powell may take issue with a *gasp* nipple, it remains to be determined if the majority of us were offended (& the prevalence of barely clothed cheerleaders as a common promo background seems to suggest otherwire).

-Ted

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[bobhagopian]

I'm not fully convinced either way about this issue, but I would like to comment on a few points raised in the parent:

The fcc exists primary to ensure radio waves continue to exist and companies are protected from each other. Without proper regulation, and I highly doubt the industry can do this alone, things like satelite tv would be irredic at best. Things like computer monitors, cordless phones, stereos would not have regulations on the interference they put out and cause lots of havoc.

Valid points,

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[perlchild]

I wonder just how many people will react to a government body failing to do it's most important mission(as a principle, and not necessarily in the letter of the law) as a reason to abolish said government body. I wonder if we'd do the same thing with other fields. Insufficiently-tested medicine is still making it to the market and harming Americans, let's abolish the doctor's association.

Replacing the FCC with a body whose task is to monitor the Media and other for from undue politicial influence(yes tha

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Oculus Habent]

If, when the auctioned off the spectrum, some frequencies were kept by the government and maintained as public - much the way the government purchases lands for parks and preserves - would this satisfy that issue?

What if the FCC was reduced to ensuring public safety by regulating device emission standards, owning the public spectrums, and doing some small part in coordinating the beneficial use of technology? Wouldn't that be better than spending taxes mandating that in 2005 we won't be able to record anything on TiVo because Warner Brothers is worried about their copyright?

The private frequency ownership doesn't work out quite as perfectly as the author suggests. Sure, opening a single UHF frequency up could mean billions in additional revenue. What if we opened up nine frequncies, in different parts of the spectrum, in different regions? Then the benefit is largely negated by the same difficulties we deal with in cellular today. The reason we buy tri-band phones is because there isn't a clear standard, and that, in some ways, drives an increase the cost of the products & services.

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[SmilingBoy]

The private frequency ownership doesn't work out quite as perfectly as the author suggests. Sure, opening a single UHF frequency up could mean billions in additional revenue. What if we opened up nine frequncies, in different parts of the spectrum, in different regions? Then the benefit is largely negated by the same difficulties we deal with in cellular today.

There is a slight confusion here. The billions of additional revenue would not be the good thing for society - the good thing would be that the frequency would be used by someone who values it at billions of dollars. If spectrum was tradebable, the scenario that you describe would not happen. It is most advantageous to have mobile phones running in the same frequency band throughout the world. So, for example, without regulation, the mobile providers in the USA would most likely have settled on the standard that is used in the rest of the world, GSM-900/1800. This would be so much more profitable that the mobile phone companies would be able to buy out the previous owners of these frequencies.

Markets usually work - but some, like the one for spectrum, need to be created first by tearing down artificial regulatory barriers to trade.

Think of the children!

[Micro$will]

How many millions of women expose themselves to infants so they can breast feed! This is intolerable! I implore the FCC to require blindfolds for babies.

P.S. I am not a kook.

Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.

I'm usually the first to say, "Never assume malice for what can reasonably be attributed to ignorance", but

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[rspress]

You are correct without the FCC the interference by these on tested devices would not only cause interference to the end users but could cause interference to public safety radios and communication networks as well.

As far as Janet Jacksons boob shot well, I don't like the government telling me what I can watch but MTV knew the rules before putting the show on, so they should not be too surprised by the reaction. At least they could have stepped up and taken the blame for it instead of lying their way out a

We need order.

[jmoore2333]

Without regulation, there would be no order. The FCC is in place to help corporations deal with issues that they cannot be trusted to deal with on their own, a la wireless spectrums and licensing certain frequencies... This can't possibly be serious. Although, I do believe I violate FCC regulations with having my case not properly secured as I may be interfering with other radio devices, such as the fileserver next to it.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Misleading Summary

[Oculus Habent]

"A small country devastated by the economy of communist rule is recovering rapidly, and has a smaller government than the US. Therefore we should eliminate the FCC."

What?!

I agree with most of the article, but that's quite the non sequitur.

Re:Misleading Summary

[KarmaMB84]

The part about their growth rate is funny. The guy obviously doesn't understand the basics of immature VS mature economies.

FCC isn't just telecom

[jlaxson]

The FCC isn't just about regulating commercial telecom. It fulfills many other roles, such as manager of the HF spectrum. It licenses users of said spectrum. How good would it be if the mobile phone companies couldn't agree upon how to allocate frequencies for their cell phones, and ended up trashing each other. Or, commercial interests began trashing the spectrum, to the dismay of the red cross and others who can no longer communicate when a tornado rips up main street. Even if landline telephone companies no longer need regulation, an independent (though even the FCC seems to lack this trait) organization is needed to maintain and police other things, even if they are not regulation.

Let me think....NO

[SatanicPuppy]

Having worked for a number of radio stations I am well aware of the inherently evil nature of the FCC. If you have to work with them on a regular basis, you cannot help but come to the conclusion that they suck.

However, the chaos that would result from everyone and their mother grabbing whatever bandwidth they felt they needed and filling it up with whatever the hell they felt like putting in it is less palatable still.

Last thing we need is to make it easier for people who can afford bigger equipment to force the little guys out. On top of that, there are actual safety issues involved, with radio telemetry for airplanes and all the emergency bands.

Such a bad idea.

Re:Let me think....NO

[TheViewFromTheGround]

The way this article is framed is really lame. Obviously, the FCC has a few major areas that are significantly broken. Powell has pushed an agenda that is allowing a lot of concentration of media power. The dubious censorship practiced by the FCC in a legalistic way is secondary to the self-censorship that can come when you have a handful of powerful news sources with incredibly broad audiences.

But the question should not be an all/nothing, either/or question. Spectrum is precisely an area where libe

Uhh

[lancomandr]

I understand the points in the article about why the FCC should be abolished and I disagree with the FCC's regulations about content on public broadcasting channels and the like, but who will be there to stop me from playing Eminem on the frequency of the local police department that I love so much? Who will people complain to when their eleven o'clock news is intermittently interrupted by images of the Goatse man ready to go, because I'm driving through suburban neighborhoods with a transmitter in my car? And thats without even bringing the market into consideration... I think the FCC has an important role in the stability of our telecommunications that couldn't be taken up by the market itself simply due to the nature of business. Try putting the FCC on some tigher reins first before getting rid of them completely.

Re:Uhh

[ragefan]

I understand the points in the article about why the FCC should be abolished and I disagree with the FCC's regulations about content on public broadcasting channels and the like, but who will be there to stop me from playing Eminem on the frequency of the local police department that I love so much? Who will people complain to when their eleven o'clock news is intermittently interrupted by images of the Goatse man ready to go, because I'm driving through suburban neighborhoods with a transmitter in my car? And thats without even bringing the market into consideration... I think the FCC has an important role in the stability of our telecommunications that couldn't be taken up by the market itself simply due to the nature of business.

There is nothing stopping anyone from doing those things now, except for breaking FCC regulations. The point the article was trying to make is that the slices of spectum would be treated just real estate is now, some areas are public ( roads, parks, etc) and others private. If you are illegally broadcasting in a particular spectum then you are trepassing just like if you jumped over a fence into someone's land. These 'titles' for area of the spectum could be bought and sold just like real estate is now.

Re:Uhh

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Good point - but I have to take exception to it, because the implication that the FCC enforces the allocations is false.

My cohort scored some spectrum in the midwest, and set up a wireless ISP in a mid-sized community. All was fine for a couple months... then he started to suffer outages. Quite literally, a ten mile swath would just fall off the planet over here one day, over there the next.

Four days later, some "Tony" shows up and offers to consult, and "fix" the outages. My cohort sent him packing, but the guy walked out the door laughing.

The next day, the outages were back... and the cause was obvious. Cohort finds the center of the outage, and drives there. And lo and behold, there's a van! No driver, but full of equipment, doors locked with the engine running. Cohort writes down the vin and license plate, calls the FCC on the cell phone, and boy... they're rabid about it. Then he told them the name of the consultant, and they instantly shifted to "we'll get back to you."

He called some counterparts in other areas for suggestions. The "consultant" had visited all of them as well, and they all paid him about 60k / yr EACH for his "consulting". Like my cohort, they'd all called the FCC when he'd first showed up, and like with my cohort, the FCC did nothing, because this "consultant" is a cousin of some mob boss in NY.

The outages eventually stopped after about half a year, but the damage was done. The business folded.

So, the FCC has great utility in that they allocate spectrum. OTOH, they are absolutely *useless* because they absolutely refuse to enforce it... and they cannot be held accountable for their lack of dilligence.

Having authority with no accountability = abuse. They need to go.

Separation of powers...

[LostCluster]

The FCC is a division of the executive branch of the US Government, which means its job is not to make laws, but to enforce and administer laws passed by the legislative branch.

FCC rules come in when the law doesn't make a definitive instruction, but tells the FCC to use its rulemaking process to make the call, and review its own decision periodically.

The FCC only has the powers Congress gives it. If you don't like what they're doing with it, tell Congress to change the law to override their mistake.

Re:Separation of powers...

[conradp]

The FCC only has the powers Congress gives it. If you don't like what they're doing with it, tell Congress to change the law to override their mistake.

And that's exactly what we're doing here, expressing our opinion that Congress should change the law to override the mistake of creating an FCC. Or at least to correct the anachronism that is the FCC.

It doesn't take $300 million a year to allocate spectrum, the current activities of the FCC go way beyond that; like any bureaucracy, it's main interest lies in expanding its power.

the spectrum is a scarce resource

[ChipMonk]

The RF spectrum is truly a pie, and the slices are handed out by a central body. Since the spectrum is an interstate resource, it properly falls under federal (and, by treaty extension, international) jurisdiction. Without the FCC, enforcement of spectrum allocations would be left to other bodies that already don't have the resources to understand things like Internet crime.

OTOH, when it comes to things like content regulation...

Re:the spectrum is a scarce resource

[Doppler00]

The spectrum is only a scarce resource because it's used so very, very, inefficiently. Often, there is just one omni-directional broadcast antenna occuppying a certain frequency covering several miles, which may only be used by a few people. For example, CB frequencies waste lots of spectrum, and most of the time the channels are empty until someone actually talks on one of the channels.

If the majority of wireless transmittions were required to be digital, that would significantly reduce wasted spectrum. Also, wireless devices should be able to automatically hop to available frequencies instead of allocatting them to begin with.

Yes

[ArchieBunker]

When did the FCC go from making sure your transmitter was operating properly to fining people for saying words they find "indecent"? It boggles the mind at how Janet Jackson flashing a nipple on tv gets Howard Stern thrown off the radio.

Re:Yes

[Erwos]

To be fair, the FCC DID NOT throw Howard Stern off the radio. Indeed, his employers did - in order to avoid being fined by the FCC. This is not an insignificant distinction, and efforts to portray the FCC as censoring Howard Stern's political views are laughable, especially considering he was a rather ardent supporter of the administration beforehand.

The simple fact is, I really believe that most of the American public doesn't mind public decency standards, and in fact, encourages them. They're not offended by the lack of pornography. And, since we're a democracy, and the standards are not curtailing any personal rights (only the rights of corporations!), I'm not sure why all of /. hates them. Go buy cable if you want porn whenever you want - it's entirely legal by the horrible old FCC, you know?

If the FCC ever starts censoring _ideas_, we have problems. But they're not doing that, and people who portray them as doing so are misrepresenting the issue.

Personally, I think our society could do with less sex and violence on TV - it could make us a little more civilized.

-Erwos

Re:Yes

[LostCluster]

Howard Stern was only thrown off the air in a small number of cities to begin with. Clear Channel took him off of every station that they own... but the station that produces his show and a majority of the stations that air it are owned by Viacom. Not one Viacom station has touched the show at all.

International issues

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

The frequencies under 30Mhz can be heard and can interfere beyond country boundaries. These frequencies are coordinated by international treaties. A fine way for the United States (of which I am a citizen) to find yet another way to piss off the rest of the world would be to ignore the enforcement of these treaties by disbanding the FCC.

FCC should stop censorship

[dartmouth05]

I am not qualified to comment on Declan's points about whether the FCC should be dissolved entirely--I don't know a great deal about frequency interference and the like--but I do believe that the FCC should get out of the censorship business.

Since Howard Stern seems to be a popular example of FCC regulation of content, I'll touch on that. While Howard Stern's show is offensive to many and has been so for many years, he has a huge following. He is popular, people tune in to listen. If what he is doing is sufficiently distasteful, ratings will fall and he'll get kicked off the air by the radio stations. This is not an area in which the Government should be dictating what is on the air.

Yes--it's the public's airwaves and all, but hey--the public is listening to it! The public likes it! Not everyone to be sure, but this isn't some guy who broke into a radio station and started shouting obscenities into a microphone. There is substance here, and the Government should not be interfering.

Radio and TV is an area where the free market of ideas should reign. We have V-chips and similar technology to stop your kids from seeing what you don't want them to see. (Without even mentioning that the best. and most appropiate method is to watch TV with them instead of using it as a babysitter).

Again, I can't speak to Declan's main point, as to whether or not the entire FCC should be abolished, but I'd certainly like to see that happen to the division that enforces broadcasting standards...

Re:FCC should stop censorship

[Evil Adrian]

There's also too many Americans, like you, that will give the Left whatever they want just because you think the Right is so EVIL. Before you forget, let me remind you -- the Democrats historically attack First and Second amendment rights.

The GOP does some things right, and the Democrats do some things right. The way you're talking, though, you sound just as bad as the "Jesus vote", blindly jumping on the "Bush does everything wrong" bandwagon. Hey, I guess you'd better stop breathing, since Bush does that

No FCC?

[HockeyPuck]

Get rid of the FCC....?

Welcome our new master... Clearchannel...

Ayn Rand's Idea: Spectrum "Homesteading"

[Nova Express]

In Capitalism: The Unknown Idea, Ayn Rand had an interesting idea: Let anyone who wanted to "homestead" frequencies. After a few years of chaos, those using the frequencies inefficiently wou;d go out of business; those that were still around would receive the "homestead rights" to use that particular frequency.

It's an intriguing idea, and it would be interesting to see how it might work on a new frequency being opened up for commercial use. Some wild startup might come up with a use far more compelling than any bigger potential competitor. I think it would be an experiment worth running.

How about just reducing the FCC?

[Dwonis]

Why not just reduce the FCC to only license the RF spectrum?

Well..

[sinner0423]

This is about as good as the police argument...

You don't like them when they are busting you, pulling you over, or otherwise generally making your life a pain in the ass.

You DO like them when they arrest somebody who is causing you or someone you love, physical harm, or otherwise trying to be a pain in your ass.

Which do you choose? I'd say the FCC needs to enforce some regulations, but seriously, taking somebody off the radio for talking about something risque, is ridiculous. They have gone farther than just making sure companies stay in line, now they want to control everything you see & hear.

I'd say they are just about as good as the RIAA. And we all know exactly how much the RIAA is loved around here.

In a word, YES...

[midifarm]

but there are some things that go with this thought. The current structure that the FCC operates under should be disbanded. However there should be a governing body that regulates frequencies etc. Essentially the FCC should operate like InterNIC, and license out broadcast frequencies in each city etc. But as far as regulation of what get broadcasted, no. Leave this to sponsorship and public opinion. Free speech needs reign supreme in this situation.

Peace

Reform, yes, eliminate, no

[BCW2]

Look at the recent history (20 yrs). Any regulated industry that is deregulated turns into a chinese firedrill, or clusterfuck. We can deregulate savings and loans, these guys are conservative bankers they won't do anything stupid. $50 billion later, that mess is almost straightened out. Cable TV, prices are only going up at 10X the rate of inflation. Airlines, talk about failed business models, they can't survive without taxpayer subsidies. The list goes on and on... The cost of deregulating is unbearable because of endless greed and basic stupidity.

Can you imagine the traffic jam in the airwaves without the FCC?

Re:Reform, yes, eliminate, no

[Registered Coward v2]

Look at the recent history (20 yrs). Any regulated industry that is deregulated turns into a chinese firedrill, or clusterfuck. We can deregulate savings and loans, these guys are conservative bankers they won't do anything stupid. $50 billion later, that mess is almost straightened out. Cable TV, prices are only going up at 10X the rate of inflation. Airlines, talk about failed business models, they can't survive without taxpayer subsidies. The list goes on and on... The cost of deregulating is unbearable because of endless greed and basic stupidity.

Or you could look at it as a needed market correction after years of governmnet intervention.

Airline fares, for example, were set by the government, instead of market prices. As a result, airlines built route structures to make as much as possible within those rules. Once the rules went away, other airlines with new business models came in and lowered prices - look a jetBlue/Airtran/SWA - they seem to be making money.

Regulation benefits the regulated, and once free market forces are introduced, those that have bad business models will die.

Interesting but weak argument...

[stienman]

One fear is that some predatory monopolist, a Microsoft of the airwaves, would end up owning all of the spectrum. That won't happen. First, the market value of the spectrum would approach $1 trillion, out of the reach of any individual corporation. Second, antitrust laws would remain on the books. The Department of Justice could wield the Sherman Antitrust Act to challenge unlawful conduct and block mergers.

First, a decade or two ago we thought that a company approaching a few billion was out of the reach of an individual corporation. Companies will only get bigger.

Second, antitrust laws are not currently effective. Using MS as an example in the same paragraph where you claim that antitrust laws work is rather painful.

There are other problems with the article.

However, it is time for a good review of the FCC's mandate. Remember, they have a mandate and they are following it to the best of their abilities. If you want them to change, call your congresscritter.

I can understand the argument that spectrum should be handled like land (purchased and owned) but since radio spectrum is inherently public it cannot simply be run under land management laws. There would be no ability for small consumers to buy spectrum, and without efficient management you may end up with a few big chunks, and then millions of tiny inefficent chunks - consider hard disk fragmenting.

It's an unworkable idea, but it is thought provoking, and I'm certian that was his real intent.

-Adam

Ask permission or beg forgiveness?

[LostCluster]

If there was no FCC licenses, then RF bandwidth would purely be on a first-come, first-serve basis under the common laws system that the courts were ironing out.

The problem is, in order for a court to shut down an offending station, that offending station would already have to be on the air and causing the pre-existing station a problem such that the pre-existing station deems it worth going to court, and the problem would continue until the case is heard.

The FCC system requires that those who want to broadcast have to ask for permission before starting. Anybody caught broadcasting a strong signal who didn't ask permission first is presumed to be a troublemaker instantly, and therefore is worthy of being shut down before we figure out what exactly you're bothering.

Any consumer electronics that uses RF signals has the potential to be mis-manufactured to the point that it becomes a strong unintentional radio station. Part of the FCC's responsiblity is to get such things off the market immediately so that the more important users of the RF space don't get bothered by those things going into mass production... imagine the mess we'd have if D-Link put out a WiFi router that bled signal so badly it put noise on the Air Traffic Control channels. Those things might be everywhere before people realize what's going on if the FCC wasn't keeping an eye on those things.

Interesting but Mistaken Points

[william_lorenz]

The author raises some interesting points, but as an FCC-licensed amateur radio operator (as one of the previous posters) and someone who considers himself to have more knowledge than the average person in this area, I must respectfully disagree with his opinion.

The FCC does more than just assign spectrum. It also runs enforcement and regulation [fcc.gov] for our radio frequencies and guards against things such as harmful interference, stepping in with action when needed. Which other governmental organization would keep the technical know-how in house that allows them to track down harmful interference based on field reports?

Furthermore, the FCC guards our markets and prevents monopolies from snatching up too much of a particular spectrum, service, or market. The author seems to think that market dynamics would themselves guard against monopolies with high pricing of spectrum and our current monopoly-prevention laws, but I disagree with this. I don't think the spectrum will be priced out of reach of many corporations. There was recently a desire on the part of various corporations to consolidate the FM broadcast spectrum [usatoday.com], and I remember this being heavily debated in various publications. Also, the FCC does already regulates our spectrum based upon our monopoly laws. Which other government agency would handle this for us?

Anarchy is the alternative..

[the_rajah]

Does the FCC need to be redefined? Sure it does. Is it too intrusive? Sure it is, but we do need some competent agency to manage the limited resource known as our electromagnetic spectrum.

Do you want the CB operator down the street to have a 5 KW transmitter and operate on whatever frequency he wants? I very seriously doubt it. There's enough of that sort of thing going on now with the FCC in place. It was a problem back in the first two decades of the Twentieth Century let alone what would happen if there was no regulation now.

IMO most of the governmental agencies need a house cleaning, a return to their original limited purpose, but it has to be done in a logical fashion or you end up with a much worse mess than you had.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Undue market influence caused the FCC's problems

[puppetluva]

The article states that FCC doesn't work. . . but doesn't acknowledge that innappropriate market influence is the CAUSE of its problems. Knowing that, why not fix it instead of aboloshing it?

Just because it is currently run by crooks doesn't mean that we don't need this regulatory body to watch over our shared communication resources. . . actually it means that market forces have actually CORRUPTED a regulatory body that was meant to defend the people's trust. . . and we should insulate it further from the markets.

It's obvious. . . as far as media regulation goes, Michael Powell is the most popular girl in school. . . and its not because he's pretty.

I don't think so

[Nonillion]

Abolish the FCC? I don't think so. If deregulation has taught us anything is that company's are incapable of regulating themselves. When the airwaves were in use before the FCC it was a war zone. Commercial, government and amateur radio operators were constantly fighting over RF turf. The FCC is there to regulate the spectrum so that everyone can have their chunk. The broadcast industry, government, amateur radio and unlicensed users can all have their pieces of RF spectrum and not interfere with each other. If the FCC were abolished, the RF spectrum would sound just like the CB band when the skip is in. The FCC needs to be given the funds to enforce the current rules, not to be abolished.

A necessary function, very badly run at present

[isdnip]

McCullagh's position on CNET is wrongheaded, and highly anticompetitive. His article actually cites Huber's book, which proposed converting existing radio station licenses into property, so that the licensee of an FM radio station instead ends up with chattel ownership of 200 kHz, to do what they want with it. It's a wingnut's fantasy, a huge transfer of public wealth (the radio spectrum) to private interests (licensees), with the current need to serve the "public interest" replaced by a total obeisance to shareholders' interests, in the name of doctrinaire laissez-faire capitalism. The current licensing system is obsolete, and the FCC's anti-indecensy crusade is nutty, but "property rights" just transfer the problem to courts that lack the FCC's technical staff expertise (some of which does still exist).

But it's the telecom area that really needs attention. Yes, the Powell FCC is profoundly broken. It regulates by indirection, picking winners and losers privately and coming up with indirect ways to favor them. Its main beneficiaries are the lawyers who try to pick up after them. So one might think that the FCC's charter is broken, but that's not it at all. It's simply the leadership and the politics behind it; this FCC, much worse than its predecessor, is clearly led by a celebrity princeling who just doesn't get it. A change in leadership is necessary, not abolition.

The reason is simply that the telecommunications industry is highly concentrated. The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers have monopoly power. In the European Union, IIRC, a company with a 25% market share is suspected of having monopoly power, and scrutinized for abuses thereof. The USA is very, very loose on antitrust regulation, and the ILEC monopolies were granted legally, so the antitrust laws only (per the Supreme Court's recent Trinko decision) apply to attempts to extend the monopolies into new areas. Demonopolization is entirely the province of the Telecom Act, not antitrust. And the Telecom Act puts the FCC in the lead. Without regulation, a monopoly will simply squash competitors. This is particularly true in telecom for two reasons. One is the "natural monopoly". This refers to the case where a given industry has large economies of scale and a dominant provider. The unit cost of the dominant provider is thus lower than that of a new competitor, so the economics of competition are dismal.

The other reason is the network effect: A network's value rises with the number of users that it reaches. Federal regulations, enforced by the FCC, require *interconnection* between networks. A CLEC with ten customers can interconnect as a peer with the incumbent. The incumbent, of course, has no interest in allowing this. The incumbent, absent regulation, would shut off interconnection to its competitors in a heartbeat. This wouldn't occur if the incumbent's market share were small, but it's necessary to force interconnection *until* the monopoly is broken, and the ex-monopoly has a pecuniary interest in retaining interconnection.

The Internet has no dominant player, so everyone willingly interconnects. Worldcom wasn't allowed to buy Sprint, largely for that reason. In an FCC-less fully-deregulated world, Verizon and SBC would not be so kind. They might deign to permit competitors to purchase access to their networks, as premium-priced customers rather than peers, if they thought it was profitable enough. That's hardly a way to get competition though.

Remember, the only reason the public Internet exists is because the FCC, over the *strenuous* objections of the Bell System, overrode restrictions on "sharing" of leased lines. Before that, non-common-carrier networks (like the Internet) could not be run between customers. Leased lines, necessary for high-speed data, were limited to intra-company use. And the FCC, over the *strenuous* objections of ILECs nationwide, overrode restrictions on "foreign attachments", devices like modems, answering machines, telephone sets, and PBXs. Before 1

2 shining examples

[blueforce]

1. 2-way radio Licensing [fcc.gov]
2. my DSL connection.

Any person can walk into the local Walmart Super store or the local five and dime and purchase a pair of "5-mile, 22 channel (8 GMRS, 14 FRS) 2-way radios" and a pack of batteries for about $30 US, walk out to the parking lot and start using them - all at risk of fines, and possible federal prison time because you have to be 18 and obtain an FCC license for the GMRS bands. From fcc.gov "The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is a land-mobile radio service available for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members, including a spouse, children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and in-laws (47 CFR 95.179). Normally, as a GMRS system licensee, you and your family members would communicate among yourselves over the general area of your residence or during recreational group outings, such as camping or hiking."

Here's the list of prohibited uses of the GMRS band: (For your reference, a station is defined as any unit, stationary or mobile, capable of broadcasting on the GMRS frequencies.)

(a) A station operator must not communicate:
(1) Messages for hire, whether the remuneration received is direct
or indirect;
(2) Messages in connection with any activity which is against
Federal, State, or local law;
(3) False or deceptive messages;
(4) Coded messages or messages with hidden meanings (``10 codes''
are permissible);
(5) Intentional interference;
(6) Music, whistling, sound effects or material to amuse or
entertain;
(7) Obscene, profane or indecent words, language or meaning;
(8) Advertisements or offers for the sale of goods or services;
(9) Advertisements for a political candidate or political campaign
(messages about the campaign business may be communicated);
(10) International distress signals, such as the word ``Mayday''
(except when on a ship, aircraft or other vehicle in immediate danger to
ask for help);
(11) Programs (live or delayed) intended for radio or television
station broadcast;
(12) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and
transmitted by a GMRS station;
(13) Messages (except emergency messages) to any station in the
Amateur Radio Service, to any unauthorized station, or to any foreign
station;
(14) Continuous or uninterrupted transmissions, except for
communications involving the immediate safety of life or property;
(15) Messages for public address systems.
(b) A station operator in a GMRS system licensed to a telephone
answering service must not transmit any communications to customers of
the telephone answering service.

I guess "Jimmy's a big fat doodie-head violates #3 and who's advertsing jobs on their walkie-talkie anyway?

Lastly, my DSL connection. My local telco is Verizon and the CO is just under a mile from here. Verizon won't offer DSL in our area - I have to get it through a local ISP. The ISP charges me $35 per month for access; Verizon pops $37.50 + $5.70 tax on my monthly phone bill for "Advanced Data Services Charges" for a grand total of $78.20 per month to get 768/128 ADSL. Whether I get it from Verizon or a third-party, I'm paying Verizon's monthly fee. There is no other broadband choice around here and Verizon must know it. I called them one day to ask why I can't purchase the DSL from them or why they won't offer it in this area, the response was "Our circuits are all full so we can't offer it in your area." I'm pretty sure that fits Webster's definition of extortion.

Not the whole thing

[Durandal64]

But its censoring powers should certainly be taken away. Here we have a body of unelected officials telling the American people what they can and can't see/hear over public airwaves that their tax money supports. Run those asshole censors out on a rail, I say. This whole Janet Jackson breast clusterfuck has shown that these people are Draconian Puritans who make a living off of being fucking uptight prudes. They need to get real jobs.

Sometimes censorship is called for, but the Moral Police have abused it to further their own right-wing Christian agenda. I'm fucking sick of it.

Don't abolish. Just put it back the way it was.

[DunbarTheInept]

The original purpose of the FCC was to do one thing and one thing only - make sure that people weren't allowed to 'war' over the broadcast spectrum by trying to get in the way of each other's signals. That was their only purpose. The demarking of the radio dial into discrete 'channels' was for this purpose only. The necessity of needing to register to be allowed to use a channel was for this purpose only. It was purely to make sure that if big bully company X wants to compete on the airwaves with little company Y, it cannot use the technique of drowning out company Y's signal. It has to compete on content instead. This is where the original ban on a company owning more than a few channels in an area came from - Since there are a limited number of them, one could use the tactic of buying them all up to prevent a competitor from being able to register them. This is also where the original requirement on broadcasting your callsign every so often came from. If you want to buy the licensing to use a limited resource, you have to prove you are actually making use of it and not just buying it for the sake of keeping it out of someone else's hands. So they made the requirement that you must broadcast at least your callsign if nothing else, a certain number of times a day, in order to keep using that channel and keep your license valid. (This is why radio stations are constantly butting in to tell you what station you're listening to, by the way.)

If *that* was all the FCC did, then they wouldn't be a problem. They'd be no more dictatorial than your local county registrar that you have to post your title deed to as proof you own a piece of land in the event of a dispute.

What made the FCC bad is when they used their licensing power to start dictating other things about a broadcast. Instead of just regulating the demarkation of the radio spectrum so that people don't step all over each other's signals, they started withholding licenses purely for content reasons, and that's what needs to be repealed.

Take away the regulation by content, but keep the regulation that separates RF frequencies from each other.

Foolish and obnoxious

[nysus]

This blinding faith in the free market is so obnoxious. Deregulation shall save us! Set the corporations decide! The free market is all knowing!

This eagerness to loosen all reins on corporations is just plain fucking stupid. I'll gladly take a bureaucratic institution over a mindless, souless corporation any day of the week. The FCC has to listen to and abide by the philosophical concerns of Presidents, Legislators, the Courts, and the People. By contrast, all corporations have to listen to is the sound of the cash register. As long as they hear it, they could give a flying fuck about what the rest of society thinks.

This is a no brainer. Just look at what happnened with the deregulation of the electric grid. Do we really want to do the same thing wiht telecommunication so AT&T can become the next Enron?

The FCC is still useful

[AB3A]

Just because the FCC is doing its job poorly does not mean the job shouldn't be done.

I've seen similar trollish opinion pieces before. In Mr. McCullagh's piece he makes arguments based upon "what would have beens" and blames bad policies on the FCC though they were clearly instructed by Congress how to act.

As far as broadcasting is concerned, we need standards so that others can manufacture radios. One of the big problems with the Software Defined Radio designs is that the more bands you try to cover, the harder it is to keep the sensitivity and dynamic range performance (never mind the price) reasonable. We need some organization to take care of allocating and standardizing band usage so that we can expect a certain performance from our radios. We also need to protect communications for things such as air traffic control, marine distress frequencies, police, fire, and other such emergency activities. There is also a need to reserve bands for radio astronomy.

The idea that we can simply let the market run things is utterly unworkable. Who do you call if and when interference happens? At what point is it simply inadvertent radiation and at what point is it truly interference?

Most courts of law are ill equipped to handle the
technical details of describing interference intensity and it's effect on signal to noise ratios, coverage areas, and so forth. That's why the FCC regulates things.

On another note: The FCC didn't write the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1996. Congress did. Likewise, the FCC looked to Congress for clarification of how far the jurisdiction of the federally backed Bell System should extend.

Mr. McCullagh has it wrong. Though there are plenty of things they do poorly, the problem isn't so much with the FCC. The problem is Congress. And because he didn't take the time to look up the facts, Mr. McCullagh's trollish opinion piece does nothing to illuminate the situation.

Re:As Grandpa Al Lewis Once Said...

[deanj]

You're complaining about the wrong guy. The FCC commissioner who is pushing this "indecency" thing is Michael Copps. Copps is the former chief of staff to South Carolina's Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings.

Re:No

[LBArrettAnderson]

The logic of a slashdot reader: 1. [reads link] no way 2. [clicks link] how will i be pursuaded today? 3. [reads the first sentence] "The reason is simple. The venerable FCC, created in 1934, is no longer necessary." 4. [convinced] "I have to admit that he makes some interesting points. So how about it? Should the FCC be abolished?" 5. [takes action] "i'm starting a petition!"

Re:No

[uncoveror]

Some have suggested that the FCC should be abolished because the market can regulate itself. They are smoking crack. Deregulation gave us the horrible consolidation that has six or seven companies owning all media. How many radio stations in your market are owned by Clear Channel? The real problem is the FCC has become completely irrelevant. All current commissioners need to be replaced. You can't regulate and industry, and let it wine and dine you at the same time. That's a conflict of interest.

Re:No

[dasmegabyte]

I don't think that people understand everything the FCC does. It's not all sucking up to radio stations and keeping cuss words off TV. In fact, TV and Radio make up a very, very, very tiny portion of the spectrum, the rest of which is full of army and civillian communications, navigation information, satelite telemetry, cell phones, etc.

The reason the FCC exists is to force everybody to play fair with the airwaves. Without them, everybody would just take the easiest-to-use wavelengths, right now those in the 700 Meg - 3 GHz band. After all, nobody really wants to use old low bandwdith communications...they all want shiny, new digital systems, but there just isn't the bandwidth for it (no, not even with spread spectrum). Try to push all of these discordant systems into the same band would be like a hundred people trying to leave through the same small door. And none of them wants to be the guy who's last out because he lets the others through.

Scrapping the FCC would lead to complete anarchy which would in turn result in very bad things for consumers, such as cell phones that only worked half the time or in certain parts of the country, or radio stations trying to muscle each other out by broadcasting static on each others' stations. Yes, maybe it is a little annoying that the FCC allowed radio consolidation, but really that should have been under the auspice of the FTC, right? The FCC should stick to what it does best -- regulating airwaves -- and leave the anti-monopoly protection to somebody who knows how to do THAT.

Re:No

[Asterisk]

What we are talking about is the use of a limited resource -- you need laws, regulation and enforcement.

Which is exactly why the FCC ought to be abolished. The article makes note of the fact that in the early days of radio, laws were gradually being developed based on the reality of circumstances in the industry, but the creation of the FCC stifled that process. If things had been allowed to devlelop naturally, we'd today have a good body of common law covering all aspects of radio transmission rights, etc. Instead we have a centralised decision-making body which has inhibited the natural development of technology and stunted its integration into the economy.

All of the problems you're citing with abolishing the FCC are a direct result of the FCC's existence inthe first place: if we'd allowed laws to develop properly, the wireless start-up wouldn't be interfering with the control tower in the first place; but because we've depended on the FCC to sort these issues out, those laws don't exist.

It takes time for new technologies to develop into something economically useful. But laws work the same way; trying to jump-start the introduction of a new techonolgy by applying some artificial schema as a substitute for the gradual development of law will in the long run be as much of an impediment as forcibly standardising an immature technology before all of its problems have been completely worked out.

To say that there aren't limited resources on the internet is a mistake, as well. There are a limited number of IPs and domain names available; there's a finite amount of badwidth available at any given time. But those problems have largely been solved with a minimum of political interference, and the internet works today by mutual cooperation according to constantly developing standards, not by direction from some central authority. If radio waves were treated the same way, we'd be better off.

Think of national parks. We don't NEED the US Forest Service, right? We should just open the parks, abolish all the current rules and let all the tourists/loggers/environmentalists work out standards amongst themselves to protect the land and best use it? RIIIIIIGGHHT...

The problem of working out "standards" for land use has been soved for centuries: it's called private property. The disputes between the groups you mentioned exist only because the land in question is owned by the government and considered "public" -- everyone feels that they have some claim on it. Let loggers chop down their own trees on their own land, let tourists visit wilderness parks run privately as co-ops or for-profit businesses, and either close off land earmarked for environmental conservation as wilderness, or turn it over to conservation groups.

Leaving it in the hands of the Forest Service leaves all the groups involved unsatisfied and makes us deal with the consequences of mismanagement, such as the recent Los Alamos fires.

In both cases the problem is the same: rather than establishing rights in several property in a finite resource, the state decides to view the whole resource as belonging to the public at once, so we wind up trying to balance all possible uses simultaneously. No one can ever be completely satisfied that way.

What do you mean "deregulation"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Deregulation gave us the horrible consolidation that has six or seven companies owning all media.

Since when was that "deregulation"? That's like saying the electrical rate crisis in California was caused by "deregulation", when it was actually caused by changes to regulations that resulted in mandating a trap for the distribution utility and the consumers.

The FCC still controls the licenses - and effectively bans the entry of new broadcasters. You can't buy a license for any price, though there are plenty of slots available and (the last time I checked) broadcasting has THE highest return-on-investment of ANY industry.

Complicated problems result from applying complicated solutions to simple problems. This is nowhere more visible than in government.

When you have a complicated web of regulations, removing one of them while leaving the rest in place can be like removing one brick from a tottering building. The result can be FAR worse than either what preceeded it OR the complete removal of the building. But the real problem was nevertheless the result of the regulations / tottering building, not the lack of still more patches.

Re:What do you mean "deregulation"?

[Technician]

That's like saying the electrical rate crisis in California was caused by "deregulation", when it was actually caused by changes to regulations that resulted in mandating a trap for the distribution utility and the consumers.


For those who don't know, the issue with California power was a rate cap imposed on providers of power. There was not enough profit to build capitol (build new plants & transmission lines to meet demand). This was followed by rising fuel costs and a heat wave. The non-cost effective power plants were simply scheduled for repairs/maitenance/upgrades as running them on high cost fuel to produce low price electric power made absolutely no sense. It was cheaper to import power from states that could produce the power cheaper (NW hydro from Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc). Unfortunately the heat wave created a hydro shortage and the transmission system couldn't handle moving huge amounts of power long distances, hence the in-ability to handle the demand. This is a good example of how regulating a price in a free market economy creates over-demand for a product that can make more money elsewhere and therefore a shortage in supply. The shortage in supply was due to price regulation and compounded by lack of online generation and transmission capacity (caused by price regulation). Without the price regulation, many utilities would have increased capacity, not planned a shut-down for repairs during high fuel cost.

Try price caps with automobile gas prices and you will suddnly be faced with rationing. (remember the gas lines of the '70's. The $2 limit simply meant sitting in 5 or 6 lines to get a tankful for your trip. (each station now had 6X the cars queuing up for gas as they hopped from station to station to fillup) Rationing by rising prices would have eliminated the long lines.) The supply will go elsewhere and we will be left fighting for the scraps of domestic supply. Price controls create problems in a free market that would otherwise adjust to supply and demand. When gas prices become unreasonable, then alternatives will start to compete. This includes ethanol, natural gas, vegitable oil deritives, fuel effecient cars, and other currently expensive alternatives. (I've already got a hybrid to cut my fuel use in half.)

It is true that fraud and market manipulation will need to be watched by regulators (Enron) when there is not enough competition between suppliers.

Re:What do you mean "deregulation"?

[Technician]

The problem is that most companies simply don't care about anything but profit, and that's wrong.

Oh you mean the corporate america is willing to work for less and pay the workers wages, health insurance, retirement, vacation, etc.? Get real. If you believe that, drop your lifestyle that gets you a computer and internet access, hot and cold running water, and get a real job picking lettuce for the good of mankind. The job usualy doesn't pay enough to cover lifestyle things like buying a house, buying a car and insurance, broadband Internet, etc. Not many americans will sign up for jobs without benifits. Corporate america is no different. Make an industry a loser and the talent moves on. When the talant moves on, expect poor or no service and a failure to meet demand. Migrant workers are taking jobs the american workers won't even apply for. Without them, much of the american crop would go un-harvested which would cause a cheaper to harvest crop to be planted next year (corn or hay). Then you would be finding your big mac might start not having lettuce due to the shortage. You are asking the power company to do the same. The result is the same, a shortage of supply. Fuel must be bought. Generation and distribution systems need designed, installed, and operated. You don't find the qualified talant for this in the minimum wage and you don't find the fuel in the next to free prices. Caping the electric prices means that only cheaper fuel is used, cleaner burning high price fuel is not used, and high cost system rudancy and surge capacity is simply not built. Why build a couple extra plants for capacity when 90% of the time they make no money? It's cheaper to shed 10% load during peaks than have 10% of plants idle 90% of the time. Price caps do influence planning.

Contrary to popular conception, most corporations face competition and do not get huge margins.

The problem is that most companies simply don't care about anything but profit, and that's wrong.

The bad news is if they didn't make a profit, they would fail to continue producing. Sorry to break it to you, but that is how a free economy works. Competition is what keeps the prices reasonable. Gasoline is still cheaper than bottled Pepsi.

Re:What do you mean "deregulation"?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The california energy crisis was caused by Enron gaming the system. Plain and simple.

The California energy crisis was caused by new regulations forcing Pacific Gas and Electric to:
- Divest itself of generators.
- Refrain from signing long-term contracts with suppliers.
- Sell as much electricity as the consumers wanted at a capped price.
- Buy electricity on the spot market for whatever was asked.

What this meant was whenever the demand outstripped the supply, PG&E was forced to bid the price up into a spike, draning its resources until it bankrupted itself.

Of COURSE it was in the interest of the suppliers to charge arbitratrarily high prices, and take generation out of service to create the pinch.

Enron apparently ADDITIONALLY broke a law by shipping some of their generated-in-California power out of the state at a pre-contracted low price and then shipping it back in at a high price. But that was an added straw. The results would have been only slightly less bad if Enron (and all other suppliers) had stayed strictly within the law. The situation was created by the regulations, NOT their lack.

Of COURSE the suppliers "gamed the system". But the government SET UP THE RULES OF THE GAME. To the extent that they played WITHIN the rules the government has NO GRIPE if they play hard and win big time.

Companies are in business to MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. It's the job of governments to set the rules of the game so that maximizing profit creates social goods, rather than social bads.

Re:No

[conradp]

Deregulation gave us the horrible consolidation that has six or seven companies owning all media.

In fact the exact opposite of this is true, all of the ills that you mention are happenning right now under current FCC regulation! In fact current FCC regulation is giving us this horrible consolidation that has six or seven comparies owning all the media. As the famous P. J. O'Rourke quote goes,

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

Mega companies like Clear Channel own so many stations precisely because they can wine and dine the FCC whereas small companies can't. Cleaning out the commissioners as you suggest is a short-term solution, the real solution is to eliminate the positions of power that are being wined and dined in the first place. Eliminate the FCC and their myriad of regulations and companies like Clear Channel with have to compete in the marketplace with other companies large and small, instead of buying rulings from the FCC.

Re:No

[TurboTime]

Only a political correspondent would suggest such a thing. If the policies of the FCC are problematic, then fine, work through the system to petition change. Start letter writing campaigns to your congressional representatives (after all, congress does oversee the FCC, not the other way around). But to dismantle them completely would ignore the work they do.

• Go ahead and pick up any device with a battery in it that's more complicated that a flashlight. Right now. Look under your mouse or your computer. See that FCC ID on there? You can look it up on the FCC's website. Manufacturers selling stuff in the U.S. are required to submit products to the FCC for evaluation to make sure that your mouse won't mess up your walkman's reception, to make sure your dish washer won't wipe out TV reception for your entire neighborhood, and to prevent your cordless phone from causing your router to reboot. Despite that odd article a few weeks back about how interference is just a myth, interference is a real problem that would otherwise require cost-prohibitive technology to completely eliminate all possible interference.
• Okay, say I want to sell my broadcast (radio/TV/etc) station's frequency to a wireless phone/data company. Now every receiving device in the city will pick up clear reception of a signal of different modulation (in other words, junk). Say several other providers in the area decide to do the same thing. Now you've got a bunch of consumer devices that receive nothing useful. Now any new broadcast stations would have to use different frequency bands that would require consumers to purchase a new receiver for the band that just happens to have a frequency for sale. For each area.
• The Federal Communications Commission has federal authority. No city or state is permitted to make any law governing the use of the radio spectrum. For example, a town cannot pass a law saying that amateur radio operators cannot operate, or require that no one is permitted to listen to the local police radios while at home.

I agree that the author raises some valid points about the FCC's policies, but why cut off the leg for a broken toe? Any half-serious article should also talk with some electrical engineers, professional and private radio operators, and consumer groups to fully assess the impact of such a rash decission.

Re: IEEE too.

[rudeboy1]

I agree. I'm in the RF industry, and I can tell you from first hand experience that, while the FCC has many negative attributes, it carries some crucial resposibilities. The FCC governs the wireless spectrum; everything from defining bands for various devices, to ensuring the safety of the public. Look at Nigeria. As far as I have been informed, there is either no governmental regulation on RF, or the public doesn't pay any heed, (neither would surprise me, as the country rates in the top 5 as most corrupted countries). In Nigeria, the broadband spectrums, (2.4, 5.8GHz) are so unorganized that they are building long distance, high power links right on top of each other. Instead of working with an agency like the FCC to coordinate different company interests, they simply turn up the volume. Almost every piece of wireless broadband equipment has an amplifier on it, even those reaching only a few hundred yards, to say nothing of the ones going 10-20 miles.
The FCC not only organizes this effort, but also enforces it. Sure, we frown on them for coming down like a ton of bricks on Janet's boob, (who wouldn't - frown I mean. :) but on the other hand, when someone acts up, and puts up a pirate radio station, or causes interference into a legitimate channel, the FCC is generally there to bite them in the butt.
I agree that the FCC is slowing our technological progress down, but they also provide crucial services. I suppose my suggestion might be to melt them down and start over, creating, (immediately) an organization who can administer the airwaves, (and phone lines, etc.) and then figure out what else NEEDS to be included, without giving them free reign over all things communication related.

FCC should get a new charter, not be abolished.

[Gr8Apes]

There are several things about this story that bother me. I do believe the FCC provides useful and very important services. I also agree with this story that the FCC has become something it should never have been, the censor of "all that's right"[tm] and a tyrant dictator of the airwaves.

What's good:

• Regulates frequencies to be used by various entities.
• Sets standards on EM radiation

What's currently bad:

• Regulates corporations on what they can broadcast
• Requires corporations to seek FCC approval before mergers/acquisitions can occur (since when are they the FTC?)
• Gives effective monopolies to corporations
• Creates unfair taxes without representation (violation of some minor detail in the Constitution, if I recall correctly)
• etc

Personally, I think the broadcast spectrum should be leased, with companies that have leased having the right to release a frequency band at a maximum increase per year, 5 years, whatever (something for Congress to decide). This leasing should occur through the FCC (one of its only functions, or even sole function, in the "new order")

The FTC should be the watchdog for monopolistic practices on the airwaves. They should already be all over ClearChannel, as they own far too much in certain market areas. Of course, the FCC "monopoly" definition is reaching more than 80% (it's some x%) of the nation's population, not holding all the stations in a single locale. Which is more monopolistic, and more readily accomplished? Monopolies are not necessarily nationwide, if I own all the gas stations in Chicago, I am a monopoly, regardless of whether you can drive 50+ miles to get gas elsewhere.

Re:Sure

[LightForce3]

Ham operators have huge bands all to themselves, for what amounts to a glorified boys' clubhouse.

You, sir, are both incorrect and offensive.

First off, many of the frequencies that ham radio operators have access to are shared. Also, for the radio spectrum below 1.3GHz, ham radio operators have access to less than 130MHz of spectrum. That's less than 10 percent. I think "huge" is an overstatement.

Second, ham radio is much more than "a glorified boys' clubhouse." That you should suggest such a thing is an insult to all of the ham volunteers who have assisted in natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, fires) unnatural disasters (terrorist attacks), and public events (parades, etc.). Ham volunteers play a vital role in large-scale emergency situations, and organizations of ham operators exist for this explicit purpose. Public service is, in fact, one of the most (if not single most) critical tenets of ham radio.

Furthermore, some the core ideals and culture of ham radio are experimentation and exploration, to push the limits and find new ways of doing things. Ideals that are very similar, I think, to the hacker (in the original sense) culture.

So, before you make such statements, check your facts and and consider what you would lose if you had your way.

~~LightForce, KC8EPG

Re:the FCC is a necessary evil

[Anita Coney]

Currently the FCC does not protect our interest. The sole purpose of the FCC is to protect the status quo of corporate America.

Content producers wanted broadcast flags mandated on every TV device, including even public domain content, the FCC gave it to them.

Content producers want to plug the analog hole, i.e., keep us from even recording analog copies of our shows. Even though our US Supreme Court ruled that such copying is legal, after 2006 the FCC has mandated that no TV device will have analog output. With no analog output, there will be no ability to record onto analog devices. All those VCRs out there will be useless.

Internet cable companies did not want to be defined as common carriers, i.e., they want to be able to limit what you can access and do on the internet. So, the FCC capitulated.

And as the editorial pointed out, the FCC attempted to scale back competition rules related to the phone industry.

It's a simple fact that the FCC is anti-consumer and is utterly and completely pro business. How exactly does that protect us?!