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?"
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.
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...
There are other issues in addition to regulating radio spectrum that the FCC has undertaken. Namely, business management and media consolidation and "morals" are only one part of that aspect they feel they have to "regulate".
Should the FCC be abolished?
In a word,.......No. However, under the current director, Michael Powell (sorry Colin) I would argue there needs to be more oversight to ensure they are actually doing their job and protecting the peoples right to media and information. It could simply be a result of the overall current Whitehouse administration, but big media certainly does have an ally in the FCC right now. The current FCC supports large media consolidations to the point where we now have just FIVE large giants of commercial control in this country. Because media has become big business and not about reporting all the news that is fit to print or doing a journalists obligation to report facts, diversity of coverage becomes a monetary decision. Will it fit within the bottom line of the company? What will it do to our profit margins? I myself am rather disgusted with the way CNN has gone in the last few years after having started as THE source for my news. However, in the last few years they have decided from a business perspective, it makes more sense to report on the news mostly, but also a bit on stuff like who Jennifer Lopez is marrying now. Please.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
History has proven that the minority requires protecting from the majority. The "there's more of us so fuck you!" policy does not make for smooth operation.
Things like Janet Jackson at the super bowl don't make me feel sorry for the guilty parties at all. National tv with children watching and people feel the need to "push the envenlope."
Hey, my breast-fed toddler was watching and she not only noticed but pointed and said "daaaa!!!". Why exactly anyone would decide that exposing a mammary gland is half time entertainment, and why anyone would actually care afterwards, is still a mystery to both myself and my daughter.
I really don't care if it makes for a smooth operation or not. The government was not originally meant to control us in the way that it does now.
The FCC was not created to decide when and how "free speech" can be exercised.
This is absurd, a bunch of computer geeks ought to know better than this. Satellite TV exists *in spite* of the FCC, why you think your satellite dish wouldn't work without the FCC, I have no idea.
Private industry makes those things compatible voluntarily. Just as no one wants to buy a monitor that won't plug into your video card, similarly no one will want to buy a cordless phone that that interferes with your TV reception. We don't need big brother to take care of us.
If this tiny smidgen of what the FCC does is so important, Congress can always pass laws mimicking the current FCC regulations that prohibit devices from outputting enough power to interfere with other devices. The problem with the FCC is that this tiny 5% of what they do that might be useful gives them cover for the other 95% of what they do that actually restricts progress.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
Yeah, well. Without the FCC, there's nothing stopping me from buying a 80 megawatt radio and television transmitter, and broadcasting porn on every channel.
I mean, how are people going to choose what's 'decent' and what's not when anyone with a lot of electricity can broadcast anything on any channel whenever they feel like it? Most likely, they won't get anything at all.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"The FCC was not created to decide when and how "free speech" can be exercised."
I fail to see how what happened is a case of free-speech. Asking for decency during one particular type of broadcast is not the same as supressing free speech or censorship.
I think we do more or less have the same frame of mind (I don't like the gov't dictating what is good or bad, i.e. Vice City), but man, please, don't turn this into free-speech. You'll lose.
Read the article.
They're suggesting frequencies be sold like property. If you're broadcasting between 54Mhz and 216Mhz, and I own that property in the area (VHF TV channels 2-13), I'll sue you, and I'll get a restraining order to get your equipment unplugged or seized.
For the owner of those frequencies, it's a valuable asset. It'd be like owning property on Wall Street, and opening a peep show theater. I could make a whole lot more money selling the space as executive office space.
I don't agree with the idea of abolishing the FCC, but I do feel that they need to be reorganized.
I'd like to buy a 100W transmitter, and do a mix of talk and local group/band/dj music. It's not going to happen though, the FCC is getting too much for their licensing. I'm sure the ASCAP, BMI, etc, etc, would want a substantial cut of my profits too.
In the case of the boob flash at the Superbowl, the sponsors pulling their money hurt them more than the FCC throwing fines around. The sponsors control what gets broadcast way more than the FCC does.
Consider what gets more viewers, Friends, or a local talk show about county government? People are going to watch Friends, rather than hear about zoning changes in the ghetto. The sponsors throw their money to where the viewers are, and broadcasters are going to try to put up more content that is favorable to making more money. More housewives want to watch soaps than sci-fi horror movies. If more people were watching higher channels with their movie reruns during the day, you'd see more movies showing up in the lower channels during the day. Thank you Nielsen.
Even the cable industry knows when to cash in. Sure there's a bit of soft-core porn on at night, but it's available 24/7 on PPV channels, where they can make a real buck.
If getting a 80MW transmitter and broadcasting whatever you want gets you off, do it. You can buy transmitters online from overseas vendors. Right now you worry about the FCC. Without the FCC, you worry about the owners of those frequencies suing the pants off you. I'd worry more about 83 lawsuits, than I would about 1 FCC fine. Don't forget to make sure that porn you're transmitting is licensed for distribution purposes, or you'll be sued by all those porn companies too.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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!"
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Janet and Justin are the ones who took that choice away from everybody, not the FCC.
Many people, especially Americans, are offended by nudity, for whatever reason, and choose to pass on that sensibility to their children. (I don't personally find that worldview very healthy or sensible, but nobody asked me.) The FCC manages the open airwaves and their content on behalf of all Americans, and since a broadcast like this one appears on network TV across the entire country, it is expected to meet the "community standards" of the entire population represented by the FCC.
Otherwise -- if the public's sensibilities are being offended -- the FCC isn't doing its job as the custodian of a shared public resource. The American audience watching the Super Bowl that day had a reasonable expectation that they were going to see a normal football game and halftime show, but they got something entirely different, and the more prudish of them are justifiably up in arms about it. Their point is the same as yours: the TV audience that day was denied its right to choose what it wanted to watch.
There are numerous entertainment venues in which nudity and sexual themes are legal and accepted, even in the most puritanical corners of the USA. But all of these venues have one thing in common: if you want to see that stuff, you have to go looking for it. Very few people, from preachers to porn purveyors, think it's a good idea to shove unsolicited content of this nature in Joe Six-Pack and Jane Boxwine's faces when it's not requested or expected.
The Great Wardrobe Malfunction was essentially an act of civil disobedience, and that implies a willingness to pay the price to get your message across. In this case, the price is a neo-Puritan backlash that's caused a lot of collateral damage to people like Howard Stern who were known for pushing the community-standards envelope. Your quarrel is with Janet, Justin, and their unwilling audience... not the regulatory agency that is chartered to represent that audience.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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 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
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
So who 'buys' the spectrum for low power unlicsened devices like radio control? Whoops, some big telecom just bought 72MHz, buh-bye radio control toy industry. How about that 144-146MHz band? OK it's up for auction. I see the amatuers came up with $132.78 between them, and looks like FedEx came up with $15 million for the same band. We have a winner. Oh, and that 100W FM station you wanted. There used to be a thing called low power FM, available cheaply to non-profits and average people, but under the new rules, you will have to buy it from Clear Channel for $26 million. Too bad. The guy who wrote that article is a bofoon that has no real concept of the variety of services the FCC provides. The FCC, in spite of all thier pad press, is a great equalizer, making wireless spectrum available to great large audience, big and small organization alike. Next time you key up you FRS radio to find your kids, say 'thank you' on prime real estate in the UHF band.
- 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.