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.
:(){
"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
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?"
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...
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...
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...
Why not just reduce the FCC to only license the RF spectrum?
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."
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?
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.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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."
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.
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.
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.