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?"

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

They should not.

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

[thayner]

They aren't deregulated now so how do you draw the conclusion that has what caused a few companies to dominate? I'd argue the opposite point that those companies control the FCC and the FCC is making regulations that have helped these companies increase their dominance.

Face it, the FCC isn't going to improve. Government has shown repeatedly that it is, in general, corrupt and incompetent, so it's just not a realistic expectation. Abolishment has it's downsides, but better nothing then what is now.

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:No

[pe1rxq]

Lets abolish property rights to....
It is not the provence of the government to censor the use of land. It is not appropriate that only the rich and the priviliged are able to afford building a house and able to farm.

Does that sound stupid yet? Its the same with the RF spectrum.... If you let anybody use it unrestricted you get mini (or not so mini) wars were neighbours are fighting over who can use a piece of land to plant roses.

Jeroen

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let them rule the frequencies and that's all. I don't see why they are allowed to bitch around VoIP, wired telephone networks, or the fine details of DRM in HDTV. That should be all outside their scope and market can regulate that without problems.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't RTFA, did you?
Basically, what it said is that the FCC is redundant, and the job of protecting airwave property and regulating against airwave monopoly can be easily done with other parts of our legal system.
Certain congressmen are already suggesting this.

Re:No

[chaoticset]

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.

At first, perhaps. Eventually, as standards are created and applied to the airwaves just as they've been applied to the Net, things will settle down without a governing body of old farts who are easily bought. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DOD could just coordinate its own friggin' efforts and commercial interests could operate according to standards, kinda like Net standards.

Eric Idle phrased his sentiment differently, but the message is still there.

Re:No

[Atryn]

Eventually, as standards are created and applied to the airwaves just as they've been applied to the Net, things will settle down without a governing body of old farts who are easily bought.

OK, now I'm just as big a fan of standards as the next guy, but standards would NOT work in this case. What we are talking about is the use of a limited resource -- you need laws, regulation and enforcement. We aren't talking about getting your cell phone to talk to your computer, we're talking about when a misguided startup launches a new wireless internet service that interferes with the local air traffic control tower's broadcast and causes a plane collision.

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...

Re:No

[Colonel Cholling]

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.

Isn't this something that could be accomplished by a private entity, or even a mutual agreement among manufacturers? After all, it's in the best interest of the dishwasher manufacturer to ensure that their product won't adversely affect the customer's other products. Enough such interference, and people will stop buying their stuff.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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, yes, but not ones without solution. For instance, the court system can also be used to "protect companies from each other." Although I think that society has become too litigious, it is technically correct that the judicial system is equipped to handle this problem. For instance, one could certainly establish a law which regulates the amount of power that a device transmits. You don't actually need an entire department to make sure devices don't violate such a law, all you need is a monkey with some sort of signal detector (and a lawyer). The threat of litigation for non-compliance (and the inescapable delays to product deployment) would be more than enough to restrain companies in the first place. And if they don't, well, you've got an attorney.

Consider as an interesting but wholly unrelated analogy, civil rights laws. Because there are laws in place, we've been able to get away with having private organizations like the ACLU sue when appropriate. For the most part, it's worked.

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 could insert a Soviet Russia joke here, but it would actually make sense. This is just blatant censorship. I agree that children shouldn't have to be exposed to questionable material if their parents so desire, in which case there is justification for some sort of a notification/control system (e.g., v-chip). But to say that Howard Stern is just not allowed to broadcast anymore is absolutely ridiculous (this coming from a person who can't stand Stern).

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.

This is more of a reason to eliminate the FCC. If the FCC is so easily duped into listening to the MPAA/RIAA axis of evil, then it serves no purpose.

Look, I'm as skeptical of the article as you are. But I would be careful to immediately conclude that there's no other way, because there always is.

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

[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

[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

[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 bands, is a whole different venue altogether. That's a very public space because the receiver technology for those bands requires no authorizations and are very cheap and common. It's presumed kids could be watching, which is why there's content regulation there.

Freedom of speech gives you the right to express whatever you want, but it doesn't promise you the means with which to express anything. If you speak in private, you can definitely say anything you want to whomever's there to listen. However, if you are performing in front of a public audience, your presentation had better conform with the standards of the venue or you'll be pulled from the stage...

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 and blaming everyone except themselves.....that pisses me off more than government interference.

Which brings up another point. I love football but what in thee hell are this stupid bands doing at the halftime shows? Football and nsync or Justin Timberlake do not mix. Stick with hard rock groups or country and western. Boy band pop has no place at a football game.....or in public in general for that matter.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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."

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"Showing her breast in this scenario isn't free speech."

Of course it is! You don't want to admit it because it interferes with your notion that somehow speech is free.

So you rationalize your desire to stifle free speech when it offends by saying "Well, bare breasts are not free speech".

Sonny boy, when Lady Godiva rode naked through the streets, it was a political statement. It was political speech.

When somebody burns the flag, the supreme court has ruled this is protected political speech.

SO again, I ask, how is this not free speech? It is artistic expression, which is by definition free speech.

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

[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

[Anonvmous Coward]

"allows you to choose the content by pushing a button. It's my personal opinion that you have control of the TV, therefore you are responsible for what is on it"

This cannot possibly work without the content being regulated. Why? Because if a naked man suddenly appears on screen, you have to see it before you can change the channel or turn away. Damage done. You cannot be responsible for that.

"Perhaps channels should be in control of their own "moral code."

I mostly agree with this. The problem you can't expect tpeople to become an expert on every channel. I have a simple suggestion that'll make your idea work, though. Digital tv is finally making this possible. Fire up your decoder box, and go through a check list of what's allowed and what isn't. If the video is encoded properly, you can watch any channel and have personally configured decency programmed into your tv. Neat, huh? When we get to that point, then I feel it's a good time for the gov't to pull out.

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 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

[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

[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

[MourningBlade]

Excellent post.

Let me add that it isn't necessary for the government to own certain spectra besides that needed for military and civic use (police, fire department, etc). When you create a standard such as GSM, it is created by a consortium of companies who want to implement the standard. If they were to band together and purchase the bands needed, they could ensure interoperability.

Further, when they license others to implement the standard (and all the patents, etc), they could inclue a license to broadcast in the spectrum. You can use your cell phone because the company you subscribe to owns a share in the spectrum that you're using. And anyone who interferes with the signal is liable to the owners.

The same idea can be further applied to things such as amateur radio: get a group of interested people together and form a foundation with a charter. Get enough money together and have the foundation purchase a spectrum. The charter then would cover the functioning of the spectrum. Interference is still a no-no, while free and public usage is allowed.

A good example of a similar structure is the Debian group (I know, cue jokes about how slow Debian is, but you haven't seen their legal group go after it).

Re:fcc is a necessary body

[Anonymous Coward]

underwear tents != damage

These are just ideas that you are throwing out. Underwear tents are bad, boobs in all contexts cause immediate sexual desire, nobody should see boobs.

Challenging these ideas by SHOWING a boob and SHOWING that it doesnt cause little Billy to explode is exactly the point of freedom of expression.

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:We need order.

[jcr]

If you roll the FCC back to a function like the IANA, where *all* they get to do is keep track of who owns which spectrum in which areas, that would be a dandy start.

They should never have been anything more than a registrar of certain property, and enforcement of property rights should have been left up to the owners and the courts.

-jcr

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 libertarian fantasies (as implied in the subject of the post) about business self-regulation run aground. Spectrum is, in some sense, a common good, and it needs a more neutral overseer than business necessarily provides. One could retort that a libetarian scenario exists where businesses are not recognized as individuals. I agree that in such a scenario a kind of individual libertarianism could coexist with a regulatory body that oversaw the electromagnetic spectrum. But the point is that there needs to be a body that is, if not 100% politically neutral, transparent and open to input from various interests in society.

The question should be: what is wrong with the FCC and what should its role be in the future, not should we ban it. What should our vision for the role of the FCC be?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit.

I've seen an FCC raid on an illegal transmitter go down, and trust me, it's no "let's go have a look around here" local cop investigation. They call in the FBI. When they call the FBI, the FBI storms in with a tactical assault team to take it down. It's fast, it's overwhelming, and more than anything, it's over and done before any of the average people in the street even know it started. The FCC guys stand in the background watching as if it's circus act while the FBI removes the problem.

The "common knowledge" about the FBI is true. The FBI fuckin' hates the mob. If the FCC called the FBI with a mob protection racket based on an illegal transmitter, the entire local FBI field office would be running around with wood.

IF your story is true and your friend didn't call BOTH the FCC AND the FBI, maybe your buddy isn't very competent, or didn't describe his problem in a way that motivates anyone to want to help him.

One believable word about 'mob extortion' and the FBI is in there with the FCC, and your problem is over.

But I still don't believe your story.

Re:Uhh

[keraneuology]

So, the FCC has great utility in that they allocate spectrum. OTOH, they are absolutely *useless* because they absolutely refuse to enforce it

The enforcement actions taken by the FCC are frequent and part of the public record. Want to modify your two-way and transmit across the entire 10m band? $10,000 fine. Local cable company won't plug a leak that is blocking local Skywarn, RACES and EOC traffic? The FCC enforcement guys will take on the most powerful corporations in the US - and will win.

The FCC is the domestic agency charged with enforcing the international laws that prevents Canada from jamming all of the radio stations in Seattle with local farm reports and Swatch from beaming ads for Beat Time 24/7 from an orbiting satellite in the middle of the recreational bands.

The Internet is nifty, but amateur radio operators still handle large amounts of emergency traffic - during the big blackout last year the hams around here helped coordinate the evacuation of a hospital that had a burning emergency generator. During major earthquakes and hurricanes international cooperation and the FCC makes sure that the needs of the affected are taken care of and that some trucking company can't jam the signals.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ provides public access to field citations, NALs and NOVs (Notice of Violation) and (Notice of Apparent Liability). People like McCullagh know nothing of the FCCs activities beyond the front page or the financial section: they don't care much that some boat in Hawaii turned on their emergency transmitting beacon and left it on while docked, and I'm sure he thinks that the local police will care if the TV tower's anti-plane-crash beacon lights are burned out.

While - like everything else in government - there are massive imperfections, McCullagh simply doesn't have a clue and isn't thinking beyond immediate shareholder returns. Under his plan Clearchannel would be allowed to own 88MHz through 108MHz coast to coast - improving competition and public choice, right?

Do it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, kill the FCC. That way I'll be able to snoop in on cell phone calls, broadcast on fire/police/air traffic/air plane/military/government/commercial(e.g. commercial FM and AM stations) frequencies, and setup a general access 50,000 watt AM station so people can hear my blane view of life. Yeah, kill the FCC, good idea!!

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.

WTF?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

Change the staion!

I fyou don't like what you hear or see, turn the damn thing off! It's really simple.

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.

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 too.

Ugh.

(PS: Not a Republican. Independent.)

No FCC?

[HockeyPuck]

Get rid of the FCC....?

Welcome our new master... Clearchannel...

It is just broke

[noctrnl9]

I think the real issue is that the FCC needs be be redefined. I am not going to try to link to the story due to the sight redesign issues, but as was noted on the ScreenSavers goes to DC, the FCC provides a large amount of standards testing. Although the arguement can be made that the areas the FCC has kept out of (2.4 G Wireless spec) are success stories for businesses, I think this commission needs get a new mandate that focuses on Digital Communications. (Using Digital RULES.) I am not saying the solution is to stop opperating Digital Communications with analog rules. The time has come to make the commission protect communications the way the EPA protects the environment.

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.

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.

Sure

[CaptainSuperBoy]

Yeah, I tend to think the FCC does more harm than good. They've certainly screwed up in their quest to micromanage the airwaves, allowing a handful of conglomerates to control most radio and TV stations while imposing strange and arbitrary censorship rules on broadcasts. A little freedom could be what we need here.

As with any deregulation there are a lot of doomsayers who think the death of the FCC would be dangerous for emergency services. But this is a crutch argument, obviously we can protect emergency services and essential frequencies while opening the rest up for use by anyone. No, the doomsayers are mostly hams and big-radio statists, grasping at any argument that could save their obscene swaths of spectrum. Ham operators have huge bands all to themselves, for what amounts to a glorified boys' clubhouse. Open it up. Let us in.

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

What a complete load of tripe.

[jcr]

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."

If you don't like it, don't watch it. You don't have to put a gun to anybody's head over a matter of taste.

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.

Why is it that you good little apparatchiks never recognize that the major factor in this kind of abuse of power is the existence of the power in the first place? 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.

Liberty requires no justification. It's the advocates of force like yourself who have the burden of proof.

-jcr

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.

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:Misleading Summary

[KarmaMB84]

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

Can the market regulate itself yet?

[Fizzol]

Has any self-regulating market ever worked to the benefit of the public? I've yet to see or hear of one.

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 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, 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?

Deregulation Does Not Work

[Game Genie]

I was about to post my gut reaction to this posting right off, but I RTFA, and my gut reaction turned out to be well founded. The article begins with an overused logically broken analogy to the USSR. Classic right wing FUD. Then arguing to let the courts decide disputes over the spectrum? Sure the FCC is a slow and backwards bureaucratic nightmare, but the legal system is just as bad. And the idea of selling pieces of the spectrum outright is absurd. One can no more 'own' part of the spectrum than they can own the right to speak at a certain intonation, and regardless, future advances in technology will render current methods for breaking up the spectrum arcane and useless. Finally, we cannot allow such reckless deregulation; allowing industry to police itself is like the fox guarding the henhouse. I agree that the FCC is a wreck, but killing it is not the answer.

-

Re:As Grandpa Al Lewis Once Said...

[endlessoul]

...during a Howard Stern rally in 1987:

F*K the FCC!!! F*K the FCC!!! F*K em'!

Finally, I see a Howard Stern reference. I personally try to listen to Howard Stern on a regular basis and find him quite amusing. Before you find me offtopic, I bring up a radio personality for a reason. The FCC has overstepped it's bounds more than any American should tolerate. The United States constitution states every American should have free speech. Howard Stern is not being allowed that right.
That is bullshit .
He is an entertainer. If you don't want to listen, feel free to turn the radio dail to some re-packaged pop music by Ms. Tits-Too-Big. Or even turn it off. Ever thought of that, Michael Powell? No. You're too busy squashing a God- and Goverment-given right to say whatever the fuck I want. So you'll take a man off the air, along with many others, because he's "indecent," even though you have no clear description of indecency.
Bottom line: Fuck the FCC.

How about health implications

[fingerfucker]

The electromagnetic spectrum is densely utilized, but FCC also instills regulations on the emitted power.

If there was no regulation of transmit power, then all three little piggies would be fucked, because a brick house would not protect them from having their brains fried or dying of cancer or leukemia when the big bad wolfs around the house decide to play "who has a stronger transmitter" across the neighborhood...

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

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.

Or so you think

[aussie_a]

What gives you (or anyone else) the right to decide what is or isn't on television? The only people deciding should be the creators and distributors. If you don't like what you see, change the channel or, god forbid, turn it off. People don't need to be protected from content. People need the ability to choose what content they view. Censorship takes away my ability to choose.

Locke and Jefferson *should* be modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are equal too, you know.

Re:Ayn Rand's Idea: Spectrum "Homesteading"

[nomadic]

What are you talking about, "efficient"? And how the hell will a compelling use trump a noncompelling one? It always come down to whoever has the most powerful transmitter.

Rand was a fruitcake, the best thing to do is automatically assume anything she suggests is wrong, until it's been rigorously proved otherwise.

2 shining examples

[blueforce]

1. 2-way radio Licensing
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.

Re:International issues

[davejenkins]

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

I`m sorry, but I do not see how the two issues are linked. If the FCC were disbanded (sooner the better), then why would that interfere or break international treaties? Private owners of spectrum slices would have to comply with international treaties or face legal suits or repercussions, just as a private oil tanker that tresspasses in Spanish waters faces suit/impoundment by the Spaniards. Tresspassing is tresspassing, as the article rightly points out-- and t he courts/judiciary are well equiped to handle.

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...

Privatizing Spectrum is a Terrible Idea

[Dr. Mu]

This country has a legitimate interest in owning and regulating radio frequency spectrum. Privatizing it and selling it off to the highest bidders would be like selling our national parks to private industry. Consider this: frequency is but one way to carve up this limited resource. And such partitioning is based on analog electronic thinking, using passive filter methods dating back to the 20's. The dawn of digital radio techniques, including spread spectrum, CDMA, and ultrawideband, makes manifest how old-fashioned an idea frequency allocation is. If we carved up and sold off spectrum based on frequency allocations, we'd be denying access to these new technologies forever.

Emergency Services

[darkpixel2k]

Maybe I didn't entirely understand the article, but I work for a county ambulance service. We couldn't afford to spend tons of money to purchase the four or five radio frequencies we currently use.

The local fire departments are all volunteer. The one in my town has a yearly budget of just over $15,000. They couldn't afford to bid against companies like AT&T for a slice of radio spectrum...

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"?

[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: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"?

[stanmann]

If you make it worthwhile(through price caps, subsidies, or welfare) to not work or produce, people will not be productive. A "free" market makes it so that those who wish to eat must be productive.

Should we give a "leg up" to people in a hole, sure! Should it have strings, Absolutely! IF after a reasonable time period the person, business or industry continues to nurse at the government teat, however it is time to cut them off.

In many parts of the country, it is more immediately financially rewarding to have an illegitimate child every 38 months than it is to go to college and get a job. So there is a large sector of society that does just that.

Re:What do you mean "deregulation"?

[Asterisk]

When and how do you think you'll ever get government regulations that aren't captive of the industries they purport to control?

You won't. Which is why the regulatory approach to resolving disputes will always be inferior to the common-law approach.

What about non-commercial or military spectrum?

[jim_deane]

So who will regulate the non-commercial (amateur radio, Part 15 devices such as 802.11, medical comm equipment, public safety like police and fire/rescue, space communications, radio astronomy, etc.) parts of the spectrum? Who will be in charge of ensuring that some freeloader on 21cm doesn't ruin a once-in-millenia chance to capture a particular radioastronomical event?

Radio is NOT LIKE LAND. What you use here can leak right over somewhere else you might not even imagine possible. CB radios are local communications only--maybe ten miles. Ever heard of "skip"? HUNDREDS of miles, sporadic, transient, and a product of the atmospheric and solar radiation conditions.

Unlike almost all other public commons, the EM spectrum actually needs top-down policing. I'm not saying the FCC is doing everything right--but discarding it outright is not the solution.

Jim kc0lpv

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.

LPFM

[jlanthripp]

The article doesn't go into this, but the current state of LPFM (Low Power Frequency Modulation) radio broadcasting is truly sad. Want to set up your own LPFM station? Sorry, only "noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations" qualify for a license. Individuals and commercial organizations need not apply.

In any case, good luck finding an unused spot on the FM band. Oh, and you have to prove to the FCC that your school's station won't interfere with any existing stations within a frequency range from 0.6MHz above to 0.6MHz below your operating frequency. Is your school's station broadcasting material that doesn't cast a flattering light on the government? Be ready for the letter from the FCC notifying you that your state's Department of Highway Safety is taking your frequency over, so you can't broadcast anymore - and since you're no longer licensed, you must dispose of your broadcasting equipment within 90 days or be fined for possessing unlicensed broadcasting equipment. By the way, nobody will buy the stuff that you paid big bucks for because they can't get licensed for it either.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. See the FCC's page on LPFM for what the FCC themselves say about LPFM.

Regulate what?

[rinks]

The FCC, like the Environmental Protection Agency, are ostensibly designed for the benefit of the citizens. This, obviously, has not been the case. Both of these agencies have been used to further very distinct agendas- from excising passages on global warming from its year end reports to giving Rupert Murdorch Carte Blanche while attacking XM Radio and Howard Stern... Would that the FCC actually regulated the market. That could prove useful. What it's doing now, however, is tilting scales with gold. Get rid of it.

Compare the FCC to the British situation.

[jb.hl.com]

In the 70s, we had one muthafuckin' huge regulator: the IBA (Independent Broadcasting Authority). Rather than accepting complaints about a programme after the broadcast, the IBA pre-vetted its programmes. All was good, and the IBA regulated commercial TV (in the UK, ITV and Channel 4-NOT the BBC), commercial radio (again, not the BBC) and radio waves. This system worked well, and under it, everything worked brilliantly-some truly excellent programming was made under the IBA by ITV and the array of independent contractors that made up Channel 4's output. This went on until the early 90s when...

Thames TV showed a programme heavily critical of the Thatcher government called Death on the Rock, which referred to the army shooting two IRA men-Thatcher petitioned the IBA to not let Thames broadcast it, but they still did so in the interests of free speech. Thatcher was not best pleased, and in 1991 she kicked the living shit out of the IBA and aplit it up into several shitty little mini-regulators, like the ITC (Independent Television Commission), Radio Authority. These did not pre vet programmes, and instead accepted complaints after the event, after the damage was done, so to speak. This, coupled with Thatcher's deregulation, led to ITV becoming a veritable piece of shit. Think NBC is bad? Come over and watch ITV. It SUCKS PENIS. You need regulation and to go with it a good regulator, else things degenerate. All that the FCC needs is its rules updated and a good kick up the ass. They need to pre-vet programmes, but not to the AmeriPuritan standards-how about OUR standards? Standards which fucking WORK? Tell the jackasses who scream "ITS FOR TEH CHLDIFREN!!!!1" to fuck off and die, and not to get so cranky or pissed off when their kid sees a tit, and feel better when their kid sees blood, gore and aching death in The Passion Of Christ. Dammit, call for change!

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?

Yes!

[GlenRaphael]

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

/sarcasm ON/
And this would be different from our current system HOW?
/sarcasm OFF/

Seriously, though, the FCC caused the problem of cellphones "that only work half the time or in certain parts of the country". Deliberately, by design. Irrational fear of monopoly led to auctions in which only local providers could bid for only a couple of slots per region. It took a huge effort for providers to stitch together enough coverage to sell the coast-to-coast plans people wanted, starting from the mess the FCC created with the initial cellphone auctions.

Bad coverage and poor reception is something a freer market would be good at fixing. The FCC is sand in the gears: the way it makes it difficult for people to consolidate frequencies, exchange lower-valued uses for higher ones and offer new services outweighs any reasonable estimate of the good they might do.

Yes.

[Queuetue]

And the patent office, too.

Re:Think of the children!

[pommiekiwifruit]

Local govt. in the US does control real estate allocation (via planning regulation) and look what a mess that has produced! They allocate it to look pretty on a colour coded map (with no contour lines) instead of being practical.

Americans are forced to own cars, since to buy a loaf of bread they would have to walk for three days through identikit suburbs to find the nearest shop.

Re: IEEE too.

[rekarc]

The FCC does much more than relegulate who buys and controls the frequency spectrum that the public sees, both comercial and public use (Amature Radio, remote control cars, etc). It also deals a lot with RF safety, boundaries, military and civilian spectrum boundaries, actually defining on maps where the towers are and how much power they output. Who else is going to say my remote control for my TV shoulded interfer with my next door neighbors mobile phone? Who is forcing the phone companies to let me keep my phone number when I change carriers on my mobile? The industry certainly doesn't want us to. Granted I'm biased by my father working there, but he was one of those engineers that does much of the research on RF safety harzards and geospatial mappings that everybody seams to like. I for one like that fact that there are fences are the microwave dishes so I don't litterally cook.
Yes, the FCC should get out of the censorship business, the sponsors do a much better job at it as another commentor stated. Besides, 1st amendment ring a bell. The FCC should stick what it was intented to do: make sure everybody plays nicely together. With an industry with this many big money players, there is a need for some one to play mother to a bunch of greedy little children who don't know yet how much they really affect everyone else.

-tom c.

The Industry, Not the Market, Would Run the Show

[reallocate]

Abolish the FCC and it is the industry, not the market, that would regulate itself, meaning, they'd do anything they wanted to do. We'd very likely see an ever-increasing aggregation of production and distribution in a very few, very large corporations. The Clear Channel phenomenon would spread until most profitable TV and radio stations, as well as local newspapers, were owned and programmed by a very few media giants. Content would deteriorate to the lowest common denominator. The remaining, unprofitable stations and newspapers would struggle to stay afloat while facing constantly decreasing revenue.

Eventually, the pendulum would swing back, and the public's dissatisfaction with the industry's behavior would propel the creation of FCC v.2.0.

the FCC is a necessary evil

[rtphokie]

The FCC is needed to ensure that the public airwaves are used fairly. They've done a pretty poor job of it lately but that doesn't negate their need. The airwaves are a limited resource so some regulation is necessary or the big guys will squash the little guys.

A reformed FCC should do 3 things:

1. regulate the power and frequency which transmitters broadcast on. Make sure everybody works a plays well with each other.
2. license transmitters (rather than individuals) for broadcast to ensure that everyone works and plays well with others. However, some frequencies should be left open for all to use for all common purposes (that includes 2 way communications, television, radio and data) for experimentation or personal use.
3. Foster (and if necesary help fund) efforts to make intelligent use of available bandwidth.

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?!

"Self Regulation" of the Cable Industry

[AnalogDiehard]

The FCC deregulated the cable industry years ago expecting it to regulate itself.

Time Warner bought up all the independent cable providers and created their monopoly. That is not the definition of self regulation.

The FCC acted under the influence of corporate media interests back then; I have little doubt that the move to abolish the FCC is another conspiracy of the same.

A major media giant now owns the broadband cable into your home. If you're not satisfied with the service, you don't have any alternatives - Time Warner owns them all, you're stuck with them.

Replace "broadband cable" with "radio bands" and "wireless communications" and ask yourself if you really want those resources in the hands of a sole media conglomerate. If you thought popular radio was bad today, then it'll get much worse when the "self regulating" wireless industry moves to barricade the independent radio stations out of existence.

A near insider comment

[Ektanoor]

Frankly I can tell you that this is the most stupid idea I ever heard for the last time. Anyone who thinks that dissolving such organisations like the FCC will make the world better is either a complete outsider or is completely nuts. And I can tell you this because I am working at something very similar to FCC. No matter the differences from country to country, I know that we both meet similar situations at our work. Let me present you some:

Frequency fistfights - this is not only a case of walkie-talkies and radios. It is a case of mobile phone corporations degradating its neighbors while playing tricks with base stations. Sometimes it reaches a serious fight where two or even three corporations create a complete blackout over a whole city.

Internet wars - Your traceroute shows a "Yves Rocher" path to reach your neighbor next block? The Berlin-Paris-New York routes are the result of eternal fights that go much further away from a simple economical reason. It is enough for two CEO's to hate each other for you to see peering not being made for years.

The super-pooper routers/switches/etc. - You buy something with hope that will make what is shown on the box. However it works badly or does not work at all. It occurs that developers messed protocols or just a byte in the middle. In a supervised market this looks much as an occasional nuisance. However any deregulation will bring the market to its knees and end in a mess of "made in USA - roughly near Ho-Chi-Min city". Example: In the highly deregulated market that Russia had in the 90's, after USSR's fall, this was the Hell in Flames.

Black Holes popping over the net - You come to a provider and find that he even does not know half of the network. The founders have gone long ago and the current admin is a fast promoted technical support guy with minimal knowledge of reality. Something goes wrong and we find tens of thousands of users hanged in a black hole as no one knows configs, projects, designs, schemes or even the names of the network systems...

That's the reason for such things as FCC should exist. By itself, the "Ephir" will turn into something worser than Dark Ages. However I do agree that most FCC's of this world are badly adapted to the realities of modern life. I would even say that they are horribly adapted to it. Besides they are overweighted by mega-corporations, high politics, corruption and cellulose bureaucracy. Besides many inside FCC's are not so "overlord" as they may seem to an complete outsider. They are people, sometimes that still live in the 70-80's of their youth. So their knowledge has serious gaps for our days. And this creates all the problems for which the FCC's are known. But if we dismiss them, there will be no self-regulation. There will be Megasofts and Meghards trying to eat every cent in our pocket.

Frankly the reasonable solution is always in the middle... Reform the FCC. Right now, that is what is happening here. Not as one would like, but still it is better than nothing.

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.