Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the slashdot-still-doesn't-have-a-wireless-topic dept.

gummint writes "Radio is becoming more important to the Internet (Wi-Fi, etc.) and to software (software defined radios, under the right conditions, could be very important). Unlike the Internet and software, there's no excuse for not recognizing right away huge public policy issues. To foster broader and more informed public discussion of radio regulation, I've posted a preliminary discussion paper on my website, galbithink.org. The abstract and outline are below. I hope that even persons without particular expertise in radio will take time to think about these issues and discuss them. Douglas Galbi, FCC Senior Economist."

Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation

National and international broadband strategies should include radical changes in radio regulation. Radio technology is the key to rapid broadband development that reaches even geographically remote areas of the world. To get radical changes in radio regulation, a new world-wide conversation is needed around three questions.
  • First, what is a good separation and balance of powers in radio regulation?
  • Second, how should radio regulation be geographically configured?
  • Third, how should radio regulation understand and respect personal freedom?
Most persons understand revolutionary ideas that answer these three questions. The challenge is to recognize this common knowledge and apply it to radio regulation.

Check out an outline of the contents.

10 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Just give me my Loveline. by Viewsonic · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I dont care what it takes, just give me my shoutcast stream of Loveline back. The RIAA can all go burn in hell as far as im concerned.

    1. Re:Just give me my Loveline. by sheepab · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There was a stream of Loveline? When, where? What happend to it, I would LOVE to see a shoutcast stream of loveline!

      --


      In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
  2. Winders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    1997: I got Winders Ninedy Eight!
    2000: I got Winders Doodousand!
    2001: I got Winders EckPee!
    2002: I got Linders? What da hell is Linders?

  3. Bletch! by dacarr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm not even bothering. Poor site design. It is interesting though that an FCC economist is doing a writeup on this though.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  4. Re:Douglas Galbi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Nonsense. Troll.

  5. YHBT. YHL. HAND. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic


    Dis page [fcc.gov] says WHO ARE THE ECONOMISTS AT THE FCC? Chief Economist, FCC Joseph Farrell Deputy Chief Economist, FCC Chief Economist, Common Carria' Bureau Grego'y Rosston Dere are 6 Bureau Chief Economists Bo-Jangles Coldarp Wireless Telecommunicashuns Bureau Jerry Duvall Competishun Division Doug Galbi Internashunal Bureau Dan Hodes Cables Services Bureau Tom Spavins Competishun Division Doug Webbink Mass Media Bureau

    Jackass!

  6. Wanna know what I think? by sam_handelman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My opinions are becoming more and more important to all of you. Unlike other people, there's no excuse for not listening to me. To foster broader and more informed public discourse on my opinions, I've been posting comments to slashdot with fair regularity. I hope that everyone in the slashdot community will take the time to become informed on the vital question of what I think.

    One piece of advice for Doug - split this into three papers. No one wants to read "what Doug thinks - a comprehensive guide." Okay, I just read it, so not nobody, but not people in general.

    I happen to think your ideas in Section IV of the paper are thought provoking (more substantial comment maybe later,) but my friends in the free radio community aren't going to read this paper unless it's about "Personal Freedom and Licensing in Radio." I know you must think that your ideas have some common element or underlying relationship that justifies lumping them together into one paper, but they look pretty disparate to me.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  7. Re:radio rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Thanks for modding it down. Thanks also for nullifying your moderation. Smart.

  8. Re:radio rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Oops, damn newbie moderator that I am, I didn't realize that my comment nullified the moderation. My point stands, however.

  9. Campaigning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    "See cases where the non-incumbents vastly outspent the incumbents. It'd limit the incumbents' campaigning just the same."

    Incumbents get to campaign on the taxpayer dime. Look at the trips, the "franking", and everything else. Non-incumbents do not have this advantage.

    Getting rid of consecutive re-elections might help this problem; kick the ruling class into the real world for at least a couple of years. They can come back, but at least the power is broken.

    Otherwise, you get guys like Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy who are vast money-wasting industries onto themselves. Corrupt princes who are able to rig the rules and buy just enough votes every 6 years. It's not democracy with these guys; it is the rulers using the power of their rule to stay in power.

    (They should get rid of all congress pensions along the way. Let them earn pensions in the real world... or live on social security. If they can't live on social security, whose fault is that... they wrote it themselves).

    I'm not too worried, though: the parts of McCain Feingold that explicitly censor political speech right before elections cut to the very heart of the intent and wording of the 1st Amendment. Even someone like Darth Bader Ginsberg will have a hard time supporting it.