Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
:(){
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.
"A small country devastated by the economy of communist rule is recovering rapidly, and has a smaller government than the US. Therefore we should eliminate the FCC."
What?!
I agree with most of the article, but that's quite the non sequitur.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The FCC isn't just about regulating commercial telecom. It fulfills many other roles, such as manager of the HF spectrum. It licenses users of said spectrum. How good would it be if the mobile phone companies couldn't agree upon how to allocate frequencies for their cell phones, and ended up trashing each other. Or, commercial interests began trashing the spectrum, to the dismay of the red cross and others who can no longer communicate when a tornado rips up main street. Even if landline telephone companies no longer need regulation, an independent (though even the FCC seems to lack this trait) organization is needed to maintain and police other things, even if they are not regulation.
On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
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!!
Sure, until frequency-hopping radios and TVs are perfected and commonplace, we probably still need someone to decide what transmission frequencies to use for what purposes.
But the FCC is an overgrown bureaucracy that does much, much more than that. Better to ditch the FCC and establish a new, small body to allocate spectrum than to continue to feed this enormous beast that by-and-large does more harm than good.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
The FCC is a division of the executive branch of the US Government, which means its job is not to make laws, but to enforce and administer laws passed by the legislative branch.
FCC rules come in when the law doesn't make a definitive instruction, but tells the FCC to use its rulemaking process to make the call, and review its own decision periodically.
The FCC only has the powers Congress gives it. If you don't like what they're doing with it, tell Congress to change the law to override their mistake.
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...
Change the staion!
I fyou don't like what you hear or see, turn the damn thing off! It's really simple.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
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.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The frequencies under 30Mhz can be heard and can interfere beyond country boundaries. These frequencies are coordinated by international treaties. A fine way for the United States (of which I am a citizen) to find yet another way to piss off the rest of the world would be to ignore the enforcement of these treaties by disbanding the FCC.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
The article says:
"Once the standard parcels are defined, they can be sold to the highest bidders," Huber writes. "To keep for how long? Forever. Just like land." If just one UHF (ultrahigh frequency) television station in Los Angeles were permitted to transfer its spectrum to a third cellular provider, Huber estimates, "the overall public gain would be about $1 billion, or so the government itself estimated in 1992." Wireless technologies would be huge winners, if the spectrum were privatized.
I'm not sure how well this would work; we'd need new legislation to make sure one wealthy person wasn't hogging a large slice of the spectrum. And it probably would result in temporary anarchy as different private owners grabbed different sections of the spectrum. I still think it's a bad idea overall; the FCC needs some sort of reforming, but this is not the way to do it.
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...
Get rid of the FCC....?
Welcome our new master... Clearchannel...
It's an intriguing idea, and it would be interesting to see how it might work on a new frequency being opened up for commercial use. Some wild startup might come up with a use far more compelling than any bigger potential competitor. I think it would be an experiment worth running.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Can I invent a new word?
SpectrumSpam?
RadioSpam?
EMSpam?
Stop the world; I need to get off.
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.
Why not just reduce the FCC to only license the RF spectrum?
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.
Half of the material supposedly on hand was missing or mis-shelved. I am led to wonder how the FCC itself conducts research into its own regulations. Honestly, I have seen better libraries in third world dumps than what passes for the FCC's official library in its own headquarters building.
And you wonder how the patent office could be so bad . . .
Peace
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?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
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
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If there was no FCC licenses, then RF bandwidth would purely be on a first-come, first-serve basis under the common laws system that the courts were ironing out.
The problem is, in order for a court to shut down an offending station, that offending station would already have to be on the air and causing the pre-existing station a problem such that the pre-existing station deems it worth going to court, and the problem would continue until the case is heard.
The FCC system requires that those who want to broadcast have to ask for permission before starting. Anybody caught broadcasting a strong signal who didn't ask permission first is presumed to be a troublemaker instantly, and therefore is worthy of being shut down before we figure out what exactly you're bothering.
Any consumer electronics that uses RF signals has the potential to be mis-manufactured to the point that it becomes a strong unintentional radio station. Part of the FCC's responsiblity is to get such things off the market immediately so that the more important users of the RF space don't get bothered by those things going into mass production... imagine the mess we'd have if D-Link put out a WiFi router that bled signal so badly it put noise on the Air Traffic Control channels. Those things might be everywhere before people realize what's going on if the FCC wasn't keeping an eye on those things.
Do you seriously think this would ever work?
Who knows? Currently the driving forces behind deeming media displays as indecent are powerful government lobbies from conservative right-wingers who believe that the world should be sugar and spice.
Do I want small interest groups deciding for me what is decent for me? Nah. I think that people are quite capable to make those choices for themselves.
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?
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.
-
...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.
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...
How many millions of women expose themselves to infants so they can breast feed! This is intolerable! I implore the FCC to require blindfolds for babies.
P.S. I am not a kook.
Problems such as the broadcast flag are more a fault of intense lobbying from the MPAA and very little opposition because people either don't understand or don't care. The fcc cannot be faulted for blunders to fair use.
I'm usually the first to say, "Never assume malice for what can reasonably be attributed to ignorance", but when billions of dollars are being thrown around, it has to look pretty fucking obvious it's the former.
I do agree that privatizing the radio spectrum will promote an even worse situation where only the highest bidder will be able to transmit. That $1 trillion market will only take effect after ClearChannel, Infinity, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, take control of what they want.
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.
/. hates them. Go buy cable if you want porn whenever you want - it's entirely legal by the horrible old FCC, you know?
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
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
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
It should do nothing but see that licensed radios do not interfere with other licensed radios. Period.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
TV executives couldn't give a crap about what anybody thinks. Why? Because they want money. But if nobody watches their shows or even worse boycotts products from advertisers on a show, they lose money. This is something they understand very well.
English is easier said than done.
Does the FCC need to be redefined? Sure it does. Is it too intrusive? Sure it is, but we do need some competent agency to manage the limited resource known as our electromagnetic spectrum.
Do you want the CB operator down the street to have a 5 KW transmitter and operate on whatever frequency he wants? I very seriously doubt it. There's enough of that sort of thing going on now with the FCC in place. It was a problem back in the first two decades of the Twentieth Century let alone what would happen if there was no regulation now.
IMO most of the governmental agencies need a house cleaning, a return to their original limited purpose, but it has to be done in a logical fashion or you end up with a much worse mess than you had.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
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.
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.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
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.
The FCC isn't just a big censorship machine, it has good points too. That whole Howard Stern thing is ridiculous, and it would be hilarious if Oprah got fined, but don't overreact and decide to get rid of it just for that reason.
You're complaining about the wrong guy. The FCC commissioner who is pushing this "indecency" thing is Michael Copps. Copps is the former chief of staff to South Carolina's Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings.
Howard Stern was only thrown off the air in a small number of cities to begin with. Clear Channel took him off of every station that they own... but the station that produces his show and a majority of the stations that air it are owned by Viacom. Not one Viacom station has touched the show at all.
The logic of a slashdot reader: 1. [reads link] no way 2. [clicks link] how will i be pursuaded today? 3. [reads the first sentence] "The reason is simple. The venerable FCC, created in 1934, is no longer necessary." 4. [convinced] "I have to admit that he makes some interesting points. So how about it? Should the FCC be abolished?" 5. [takes action] "i'm starting a petition!"
McCullagh's position on CNET is wrongheaded, and highly anticompetitive. His article actually cites Huber's book, which proposed converting existing radio station licenses into property, so that the licensee of an FM radio station instead ends up with chattel ownership of 200 kHz, to do what they want with it. It's a wingnut's fantasy, a huge transfer of public wealth (the radio spectrum) to private interests (licensees), with the current need to serve the "public interest" replaced by a total obeisance to shareholders' interests, in the name of doctrinaire laissez-faire capitalism. The current licensing system is obsolete, and the FCC's anti-indecensy crusade is nutty, but "property rights" just transfer the problem to courts that lack the FCC's technical staff expertise (some of which does still exist).
But it's the telecom area that really needs attention. Yes, the Powell FCC is profoundly broken. It regulates by indirection, picking winners and losers privately and coming up with indirect ways to favor them. Its main beneficiaries are the lawyers who try to pick up after them. So one might think that the FCC's charter is broken, but that's not it at all. It's simply the leadership and the politics behind it; this FCC, much worse than its predecessor, is clearly led by a celebrity princeling who just doesn't get it. A change in leadership is necessary, not abolition.
The reason is simply that the telecommunications industry is highly concentrated. The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers have monopoly power. In the European Union, IIRC, a company with a 25% market share is suspected of having monopoly power, and scrutinized for abuses thereof. The USA is very, very loose on antitrust regulation, and the ILEC monopolies were granted legally, so the antitrust laws only (per the Supreme Court's recent Trinko decision) apply to attempts to extend the monopolies into new areas. Demonopolization is entirely the province of the Telecom Act, not antitrust. And the Telecom Act puts the FCC in the lead. Without regulation, a monopoly will simply squash competitors. This is particularly true in telecom for two reasons. One is the "natural monopoly". This refers to the case where a given industry has large economies of scale and a dominant provider. The unit cost of the dominant provider is thus lower than that of a new competitor, so the economics of competition are dismal.
The other reason is the network effect: A network's value rises with the number of users that it reaches. Federal regulations, enforced by the FCC, require *interconnection* between networks. A CLEC with ten customers can interconnect as a peer with the incumbent. The incumbent, of course, has no interest in allowing this. The incumbent, absent regulation, would shut off interconnection to its competitors in a heartbeat. This wouldn't occur if the incumbent's market share were small, but it's necessary to force interconnection *until* the monopoly is broken, and the ex-monopoly has a pecuniary interest in retaining interconnection.
The Internet has no dominant player, so everyone willingly interconnects. Worldcom wasn't allowed to buy Sprint, largely for that reason. In an FCC-less fully-deregulated world, Verizon and SBC would not be so kind. They might deign to permit competitors to purchase access to their networks, as premium-priced customers rather than peers, if they thought it was profitable enough. That's hardly a way to get competition though.
Remember, the only reason the public Internet exists is because the FCC, over the *strenuous* objections of the Bell System, overrode restrictions on "sharing" of leased lines. Before that, non-common-carrier networks (like the Internet) could not be run between customers. Leased lines, necessary for high-speed data, were limited to intra-company use. And the FCC, over the *strenuous* objections of ILECs nationwide, overrode restrictions on "foreign attachments", devices like modems, answering machines, telephone sets, and PBXs. Before 1
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.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Sadly in the America of 2004, it does. A lot of Americans seem to have a completely skewed view of what the word really means. It's no longer about being able to say what you want or think what you want, it's about being able to buy what you want when you want it.
We are all taught about Washington chopping down cherry trees, but precious little about Patrick Henry.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Now correct me if I'm wrong but News.Com is part of the Fox network isn't it? And Fox is owned, well controlled at least, by Rupert Murdoch and his progeny.
Murdoch was known in Australia to be ruthless if you didn't toe the company line.
To me this is manipulation of public opinion by another corporate soveriegn territory. It may get through but I think it's a bad idea. But I'm against such moves by GE, Sony, M$, Siemens, SAP, HP, IBM, add favourite monolithic giant here.
"There is magic in the web." - Othello Act 3 Scene 4.
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.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
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 am reading...
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
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.
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...
There's no place like
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.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The right to liberty is one of the things generally held to be self evident. In fact, I believe words to that affect played a major part in the creation of a certain large semi-rectangular nation that we all know and love/hate.
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.
What if someone (out of the kindness of their hearts!) would decide to give away XM radio receivers to anyone asking? No, I do not mean anyone associated with the apparently indecent ones on this mentioned radio program, just _someone_? Will your argument still hold? Can you still give your old 386 to a kid knowing that it can be used for indecent purposes?
And, after all, where is the boundary between "public" and "private" in something neither of us can hold in our hands or show to others and say "this is mine!"?
Paul B.
The Civil Aeronautics Board was abolished. Look what the resultant deregulation did to the airlines. How many have gone bankrupt since 1980? And of course, we're all seeing what wonderful customer service and convenient schedules and routes the deregulated airlines are providing.
We tried trusting the DMA to meet with the Internet community to define what spam is, and work with said community to promote anti-spam legislation with real teeth in it (unlike the YOU-CAN-SPAM act). The DMA paid lip service to the concerns expressed at the meeting, and then later betrayed everyone except their own members and interests by endorsing spam as "commercial free speech."
They continued on to promote the idea that the industry could regulate itself. Look where E-mail is today with the DMA's much-hyped idea of "self-regulation" of E-mail "marketing."
Even the Amateur Radio Service, supposedly self-regulating, is having its share of problems.
Do we really, REALLY want to trust the broadcasters and mass media to regulate themselves?
I don't think so. The biggest problem with the FCC right now is that its chief commissioner, Michael Powell, is a Bush crony who has no more of a grip on common sense and technical realities than the Shrub himself. Get rid of Powell, and replace the commissioners that are part of his little circle, and I would wager that things would start improving practically overnight.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
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.
Ham operators have huge bands all to themselves, for what amounts to a glorified boys' clubhouse.
You, sir, are both incorrect and offensive.
First off, many of the frequencies that ham radio operators have access to are shared. Also, for the radio spectrum below 1.3GHz, ham radio operators have access to less than 130MHz of spectrum. That's less than 10 percent. I think "huge" is an overstatement.
Second, ham radio is much more than "a glorified boys' clubhouse." That you should suggest such a thing is an insult to all of the ham volunteers who have assisted in natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, fires) unnatural disasters (terrorist attacks), and public events (parades, etc.). Ham volunteers play a vital role in large-scale emergency situations, and organizations of ham operators exist for this explicit purpose. Public service is, in fact, one of the most (if not single most) critical tenets of ham radio.
Furthermore, some the core ideals and culture of ham radio are experimentation and exploration, to push the limits and find new ways of doing things. Ideals that are very similar, I think, to the hacker (in the original sense) culture.
So, before you make such statements, check your facts and and consider what you would lose if you had your way.
~~LightForce, KC8EPG
No. At least not like that.
WTF. Seriously. Selling carrier frequencies like land? That only works in theory.
First of all, in radio communications, there's a thing called propogation. Suppose I own 144.000MHz, what happens to me if I "bleed" over into 144.100? Who will tell me to stay in my band? For how far of a distance do I own this 144.000MHz? What's to stop me from bumping up my power from a few watts to 5kW and blasting out my corner of the state?
Who will police amateur radio? Give/Restrict access? Or will the airwaves become like CB became, full of know-nothings that just bought the right equipment? Will companies just have to keep stepping up their power to drown out RFI?
Obviously this man has done very little with radio, and is just the policical columnist for CNet.
I applaud the idea to question the current structure of hte FCC, but bad way to go about trying to fix it.
(...and, yes, I am. My callsign is N5DUX.)
The US is required to enforce the treaties. It would be virtually impossible to rely on international courts to silence a treaty violating transmitter in the US without the help of the government. The courts/judiciary are not well equiped or willing to handle it
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
In fact the exact opposite of this is true, all of the ills that you mention are happenning right now under current FCC regulation! In fact current FCC regulation is giving us this horrible consolidation that has six or seven comparies owning all the media. As the famous P. J. O'Rourke quote goes,
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
Mega companies like Clear Channel own so many stations precisely because they can wine and dine the FCC whereas small companies can't. Cleaning out the commissioners as you suggest is a short-term solution, the real solution is to eliminate the positions of power that are being wined and dined in the first place. Eliminate the FCC and their myriad of regulations and companies like Clear Channel with have to compete in the marketplace with other companies large and small, instead of buying rulings from the FCC.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
The original purpose of the FCC was to do one thing and one thing only - make sure that people weren't allowed to 'war' over the broadcast spectrum by trying to get in the way of each other's signals. That was their only purpose. The demarking of the radio dial into discrete 'channels' was for this purpose only. The necessity of needing to register to be allowed to use a channel was for this purpose only. It was purely to make sure that if big bully company X wants to compete on the airwaves with little company Y, it cannot use the technique of drowning out company Y's signal. It has to compete on content instead. This is where the original ban on a company owning more than a few channels in an area came from - Since there are a limited number of them, one could use the tactic of buying them all up to prevent a competitor from being able to register them. This is also where the original requirement on broadcasting your callsign every so often came from. If you want to buy the licensing to use a limited resource, you have to prove you are actually making use of it and not just buying it for the sake of keeping it out of someone else's hands. So they made the requirement that you must broadcast at least your callsign if nothing else, a certain number of times a day, in order to keep using that channel and keep your license valid. (This is why radio stations are constantly butting in to tell you what station you're listening to, by the way.)
If *that* was all the FCC did, then they wouldn't be a problem. They'd be no more dictatorial than your local county registrar that you have to post your title deed to as proof you own a piece of land in the event of a dispute.
What made the FCC bad is when they used their licensing power to start dictating other things about a broadcast. Instead of just regulating the demarkation of the radio spectrum so that people don't step all over each other's signals, they started withholding licenses purely for content reasons, and that's what needs to be repealed.
Take away the regulation by content, but keep the regulation that separates RF frequencies from each other.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Let's get rid of the FAA while we're at it. I'm sure the airlines will "self regulate" and Do The Right Thing (tm).
- 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."Do you actually look at girls and say to yourself "I know what is underneath her clothes". Its disturbing that you even think that way. Spooky."
Are you telling me you don't know what a naked woman looks like? Heh.
"Derp de derp."
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.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
For full disclosure, I'm a libertarian writing a series of articles on how badly the FCC has fucked up over the years. I'm not finished yet, but I'm planning on getting IBOC wrapped up sometime this week. It's very nice to see that slashdotters are getting into this, maybe I'll send the article to one of the editors.
Let me first say that Dean is a very smart guy, and for somebody that apparently doesn't know about the guts of the FCC he is definetely pointing in the right direction. Though I wouldn't say the FCC should be completely abolished (the FCC is, after all, more like hundreds of regulatory systems rolled into one entity than a single one doing a couple things). The FCC does do -some- good things, and the idea of policing the radio spectrum isn't neccessarily a bad one, but the FCC is a terrible bungler of policy and the no-compromise command-and-control system is a horrible one at best. Low power radio licenses that would have otherwise been available are denied, not because there isn't space, but simply because the FCC doesn't want to lose their control over the bands, coupled with lobbyists pushing rat bills through congress telling the FCC what to do. They recently adopted a digital radio system (IBOC) that in hybrid mode increases per-station bandwidth by up to 50% thus increasing interference and reducing range, while at the same time signifigantly reducing quality on the only band where audio could actually be improved, the AM broadcast band (and possibly even reducing the quality of the FM one). As for moral regulation, the organization is a total joke and a gross slap in the face of the concept that government shouldn't regulate speech and content.
Not to mention that some services are not susceptible to these regulations, thus giving cable and satellite an upper hand over broadcast. Telecom regulation is perhaps the biggest joke of all, and will be obsoleted by voice over IP systems anyways, which are again not susceptible to these regulations and thus have an upper hand and prosper quickly due to the fact that they are a technological improvement and the FCC isn't there to grind progress to a halt. I remember reading an article a while ago regarding phone numbers that can change with service, where the author said that greedy companies would keep it from working. I got a good laugh out of this, considering that Hong Kong allowed for the same thing years ago and it's worked stellarly for them (I then had somebody suggest that Hong Kong commerce wasn't heavily regulated because their companies are "less evil" than US ones, which was equally hilarious). Another great thing about the telecom industry is that it has become another way for stupid politicians to tax you: Last time I checked, my phone bill had a $5-$10 tax on it. Enough with broadband tax, let's get rid of the phone tax too!
Why does the FCC act like this? Firstly, because it is run by morons. Its commissioners are rejects of higher positions in Washington politics, dominated by businessmen and lawyers rather than technocrats and engineers. It's not their fault, in my opinion, they do the best they can, but you need to thoroughly understand your trade before you attempt to regulate it. Also, with things like IBOC, you are absolutely correct about lobbyist powers being the primary influence: IBOC increases interference big time, -WAY- more than Low Power FM would have caused, so why isn't the NAB raising a stink about it? Simple: Because most of these big radio monopolies have investments in Ibiquity, the company that made IBOC and holds its patents and licensing. When Americans are forced to throw away hundreds of millions of perfectly good radios, it's these companies that are going to get the royalties.
Here's my libertarian catch-all: the FCC is too big, stupid, and corrupt to handle most of its regulation properly, and there's a lot of things it shouldn't be regulating at all. One thing's for sure, the FCC is overreaching at best, and society as a whole would benefit if a very large amount of the FCC was broken apart.
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!
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
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?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
He did not mention the work of Lessig and others on using the spectrum as a commons and how that may be done with no real interference or problems and why that is better. A useful URL leading to some links is at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/spectrum/
The FCC has a hand in far too many things that could be done as well or better (to the extent they need doing) by the private sector and the courts. In particular neither the FCC or any other part of government has and right to determine what is "decent" a la a simple breast being viewed. Only in America (and other backwards fundie dominated countries) could such a furor arise over so little.
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
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I think the important thing is to prevent the FCC from applying its traditional regulations to the Internet. The Internet is the future of communications, both wired and wireless. The great thing about Internet is it integrates all physical means of communication. Once you put something in IP, there's no telling what physical medium it will travel over... copper, coaxial, fiber or wireless.
What can you do on traditional airwaves that you cannot conceivably do over IP? Talk on the phone? Watch TV? Broadcast live events? Listen to the radio? If you look at the current IP solutions to these options, the only limitation today is bandwidth, IP allocation (IPv4) and accessibility (price/location). These problems can be resolved if we focus on them instead of trying to keep traditional communication pipes alive.
This is not to say that there will not be traditional niche uses of analog airwaves, such as emergency police, fire and military as well as civilian emergency channels like HAM radio. The law can protect these channels, and the FCC can continue to help the electronic components industry to ensure the devices do what they were created to do without interfering. But regulate airwaves the way it does today?
The only issues we have today are not enough bandwidth and low or free Internet accessible to everyone everywhere in the US. These are the problems we should be solving; while also preventing unnecessary regulation of the Internet.
Cable companies already have digital TV. They are doing this to preempt the inevitable. Video and audio will be available by, for and from the masses soon, including large companies, small organizations and individuals, as soon as bandwidth enables it. You'll soon be able to use the Internet to watch THOUSANDS of TV stations from anywhere in the world with the bandwidth to broadcast, just as you were able to use it to listen to THOUSANDS of radio stations, although I'm not sure how much of an impact recent regulations on web broadcasting has had to-date.
The regulations on Internet radio favoring large traditional media companies over free home-based broadcasting stations are a perfect example of how regulations of the Internet are our only concern today. To learn about this problem, google for "save Internet radio". You'll discover a lot of concern over the issues by a lot of.
Build a bigger pipe (Internet II?). Prevent unnecessary expansion of regulation on the Internet. Ensure that everyone can access it anywhere, including rural residents.
If you do this, what will you lack on the Internet that traditional analog airwave-broadcasting spectrum can offer? Imagine any use today, and imagine how IP can enable it.
Look at CBs, for instance. With IPv6, even CBs can have their own IP addresses, and use any frequency that allows them to connect to the Internet. You can create "virtual" ranges to simulate physical proximity, while also permitting the CBs to talk to anyone on the world at any time using VoIP or whatever.
The FCC's lack of relevance isn't because of where they are today. It's because of where tomorrow's Internet will take us. Traditional spectrum is becoming digital quickly, and traditional communication mediums are converging as they become nodes on the Internet. The physical spectrum the device uses only becomes relevant to connect them to the Internet. It will have very little to do with the actual communication (voice, web, video) that then commences.
Open Standards Portal
And this would be different from our current system HOW?
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.
I play Nerd-Folk!
And the patent office, too.
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.
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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: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.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
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...
Come play Moral Decay!
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.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
I agree. I'm in the RF industry, and I can tell you from first hand experience that, while the FCC has many negative attributes, it carries some crucial resposibilities. The FCC governs the wireless spectrum; everything from defining bands for various devices, to ensuring the safety of the public. Look at Nigeria. As far as I have been informed, there is either no governmental regulation on RF, or the public doesn't pay any heed, (neither would surprise me, as the country rates in the top 5 as most corrupted countries). In Nigeria, the broadband spectrums, (2.4, 5.8GHz) are so unorganized that they are building long distance, high power links right on top of each other. Instead of working with an agency like the FCC to coordinate different company interests, they simply turn up the volume. Almost every piece of wireless broadband equipment has an amplifier on it, even those reaching only a few hundred yards, to say nothing of the ones going 10-20 miles. :) but on the other hand, when someone acts up, and puts up a pirate radio station, or causes interference into a legitimate channel, the FCC is generally there to bite them in the butt.
The FCC not only organizes this effort, but also enforces it. Sure, we frown on them for coming down like a ton of bricks on Janet's boob, (who wouldn't - frown I mean.
I agree that the FCC is slowing our technological progress down, but they also provide crucial services. I suppose my suggestion might be to melt them down and start over, creating, (immediately) an organization who can administer the airwaves, (and phone lines, etc.) and then figure out what else NEEDS to be included, without giving them free reign over all things communication related.
Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
There are several things about this story that bother me. I do believe the FCC provides useful and very important services. I also agree with this story that the FCC has become something it should never have been, the censor of "all that's right"[tm] and a tyrant dictator of the airwaves.
What's good:- Regulates frequencies to be used by various entities.
- Sets standards on EM radiation
What's currently bad:Personally, I think the broadcast spectrum should be leased, with companies that have leased having the right to release a frequency band at a maximum increase per year, 5 years, whatever (something for Congress to decide). This leasing should occur through the FCC (one of its only functions, or even sole function, in the "new order")
The FTC should be the watchdog for monopolistic practices on the airwaves. They should already be all over ClearChannel, as they own far too much in certain market areas. Of course, the FCC "monopoly" definition is reaching more than 80% (it's some x%) of the nation's population, not holding all the stations in a single locale. Which is more monopolistic, and more readily accomplished? Monopolies are not necessarily nationwide, if I own all the gas stations in Chicago, I am a monopoly, regardless of whether you can drive 50+ miles to get gas elsewhere.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
"What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter. Trespass is hardly a new idea, and courts are well-equipped to deal with it."
In general, I agree that the FCC does too much and is far too swayed by politics., especially in the picking of technology. HDTV and BPL are both losers, for the way that the FCC is trying to force them where they don't serve the interests of the public.
However, there are a number of radio services that are not 'owned' by anyone, like the amateur spectrum, who need to have the power of business limited. Believe me, the spectrum would vanish overnight if left to the free for all of deregulation. Government oversight, in the public interest is always better than the current scheme of government picking winners and losers so that the commissioners have nice places to land in private industry when they leave.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
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.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Radio however... If the DoD is using 810Ghz, then for all intents and purposes nobody else can use it because to do so creates interference between the two. The Net doesn't need someone to adjudicate between commercial and DoD operations because it does not care by design. Radio needs such adjudication because the laws of physics for us to care.
Problems with such overlaps can already often be seen in Navy towns. Gargage door openers are Class 'B' devices, which means they don't interfere with anyone else, and accept interference by anyone. It also means that they don't have to adhere to FCC standards/guidelines so long as they don't cause and do accept interference. However the Navy has a radar that uses the same band as many garage door openers, (this is quite legal as that band is assigned to radars, and Class 'B' devices are required to accept interference). The end result? When the Navy lights off that radar in port, (which it rarely does), garage doors all over town open or close randomly.
zymano touched on this a bit, but I think it needs to be stressed: In the USA, the airwaves do not belong to the government or the corporations. The airwaves are public property, just like National Parks. The FCC's job is to administer them to serve public interests. While government is not to be totally trusted, as there is such a thing as corruption, they are the best ones to manage public property. If they screw up, US citizens can bring pressure to bear and make them behave nicely. We have no such control over super-corporations and the "market".
Regarding the AC's remark about no equipment without corporations: It is obvious that you are a bit too removed from the era of do-it-yourself electronics. Guglielmo Marconi invented radio in his dad's attic after having failed a university entrance exam. His company, the Nobel prize, and the first transatlantic wireless communication came later.
It's amazing what you can do without a big corporation. Why people have had their very own grocery stores, grown their own food, composed music, invented stuff, etc.: all without a single corporation in sight!
"Ridiculous, you have no claim. I'll sue you for interfering with private enterprise."
Kumoyama, Happy Enterprises, "Mothra vs. Godzilla", 1964
(HE's private enterprise = kidnapping, holding two deities hostage inside their egg, and attempted slave traffic.)
I think asking "Should the FCC be abolished?" is a bit silly. There are too many functions of the FCC to abolish it. What needs to be done is that the FCC needs to change how it is run. Right now there is no fair appeals process. When the FCC makes a decision or fines a person, corporation or group that it is. If the corporation tries to appeal that process the FCC then denies licenses to them or gives them hassles. This is a known problem, thus most Corporations choose to just suck it up and take the ruling. This is totally unacceptable. The FCC should be run more like a court system. They shouldn't be able to have ultimate control. I can't say I know everything that is right or wrong about the current system but I can say when I heard this is how the system works I felt it didn't seem right. The government has too much control here. They shouldn't have this much control over our media. While I don't love Howard Stern, I will stand up for his right to say the things he says on the radio. It's been there for years and years, it's not changed. Freedom of speech should not be tampered with by the US Goverment. The FCC should not be able to shut this down. Censorship is dangerous and the FCC is leading the war on our free speech.