Slashdot Mirror
FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio
SirTwitchALot writes "The FCC has announced that Satellite radio services
do not have to comply with the same indecency requirements as traditional broadcasters. Apparently this decision was brought forth by the complaint of a traditional radio station owner, stating that the FCC needs to "level the playing field." Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services."
Does FCC control content of any privately owned over-air media medium that requires a closed (black box) type of equipment to access it?
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked
Michael Powell making a sensible decision? Is the apocalypse nigh?
I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
Pay a premium to have a medium that is slightly freer, yet the medium itself is just as controlled and subvertible.
I don't see how they COULD apply. It's not public.
Well good for them ... I can't imagine the backlash if they had tried to control subscription-based services like this.
I used to care about what happened on regular radio, whether it was begin censored, etc, but regular radio sucks so horribly bad I just don't give a [censored].
I joined XM and never looked back.
-- (Score:i , Imaginary)
This makes me wonder why the FCC has such power over TV. Not that I liked seeing Janet Jackson's breast or anything...
The FCC rules that FCC rules do not apply to things outside of the FCC's domain.
Again.
I can't decide whether I find it comforting these kinds of rulings keep showing up so often or worrisome these kinds of rulings are even being CONSIDERED.
Kind of funny (and rather sad) how instead of fighting the censorship they would rather just have everybody under the same censorship...yey everybody loses.
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest.
Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.
The coolest voice ever.
It's like Cable TV. They don't have to adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast stations. On comedy central they use language like "Pussy" and "Dick" sometimes, you're not likely to hear that on CBS any time soon.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
At least Conner Peterson thinks its great.
What's next, NBC complaining about HBO? Too bad for Saul Levine that he didn't have Clear Channel on his side. I wonder if that would have given his claim any more weight.
Comedy Central regulates it.
The basic summary of the decision is that because you pay for the service you are inviting the information in (ahhh, reminds me of "Lost Boys" :) and therefore anything "indecent" is your fault.
... and by going to a library can do so for free. I can turn on the radio or TV today and still see stuff that is considered indecent by many yet not by me. By equating subscriptions with privacy, we are forced into a culture where to get information we want we have to pay for it. It is the "new" thing today but it will likely be standard tomorrow.
... we shouldn't have to pay to get freedom of expression and we shouldn't have to be subject to what someone -else- considers decent/indecent.
I think the whole state of affairs is flawed.
1) If I am a well-off under-18 I likely have access to some form of credit account (even if it is just my debit card attached to my allowance). I can subscribe to one of these services much easier than I can to a satellite TV service because I don't need to deal with an installer.
Is it likely? No, and even then most parents aren't going to care as much. Doesn't change the lack of validity in the presumption.
Plus it doesn't stop me from listening to the music / talk / whatever being played by my friends and simply put satellite radio is a lot more portable than the Playboy channel.
2) I can get access to whatever content I want on the Internet
3) It should be up to the adult or a parent and no one else what is indecent. I personally would MUCH rather have a teenage boy listening to Howard Stern enact boyish fantasies than to have that same teenage boy listening to a radical fundamentalist preacher telling him his thoughts are evil (and I know that the reverse is true for many). I may not consider the preacher indecent (though it gets close sometimes), but that just highlights the point AFAIK.
Point is
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
"The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview." Oh come on. Rental car customers are such a small sample they shouldn't even be considered. Besides, what a company decides to give away to their customers shouldn't make the difference between government censorship of it or not.
Isent indecency regulations unconstitutional? It sounds alot like censorship to me, something that is constitutionally banned in Denmark.
We may not censor anything for whatever reason, i though America had similar laws.
But now that i think of it, i remember all the "bleeps" in imported shows from America, i think indencency laws are oretty dumb, because who has the right to determine what is decent and what is not?
Comedy Central needs these things called advertisers. They can't do anything too offensive for fear of scaring away viewers and thus the advertisers. They do show several movies completly uncut late at night.
That guy that complained needs to be taken out an beaten. Rental cars? Please... if the customers of rental cars don't like the service so much, and find it so obscene, then they don't rent from that rental company any more.
/sigh
Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it. You have to actively and willfully make an attempt to listen to it, and thus the FCC has absolutely NO grounds to censor it.
That guy is just a chump and can't compete in the market place, so he wants big brother to step in and fight his battles for him. People like that need to be removed from the gene pool.
I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation.
very well written ! fits right in, I find it kind of funny when this is pulled off well, such as this, however the copycats that will lamely attempt more spoofs such as this will of course make it annoying..
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Satellite Radio you pay a monthly fee and is free from the FCC's censoring. My Cable Television is also paid per month. Is this not a subscription? The only difference is satellite radio owns all the stations they provide. They control 100% of the content. Cable television is individully owned and operated. The cable providers can not control what is shown on a specific channel other than not providing it or block it from viewers during certain times. I often wonder why is it such a big deal anymore. Society accepts a lot of behavior on television that is indecent. Indecent is an opinion of the viewer. If you don't like it, turn it off. I do.
...how about laying off cable TV? I've never understood why the Comedy Channel has to edit their damn movies. They're not broadcast transmissions. You have to pay to get them, you can't stick a coathanger antenna out your window and receive them - so what's the problem?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There are two major types of satellite in the US. One is TVRO, or "BUD" which uses a large dish and receives mostly on the C band (although I believe it can do ku band) - it uses fairly open standards. The other is DBS (Direct Broadcast System) which uses a mini-dish and receives I believe exclusively on the Ku band - it uses very closed standards. Originally TVRO was more popular, but DBS has become more popular over the years. DirecTV, Echostar's DISH network and a new service called Voom are three American DBS companies.
Looking at broadcast maps, it occurred to me that signals seem to be confined to a continent. European porn channels are mostly confined to Europe, American porn channels are mostly confined to North America. I didn't see any satellite that spanned the Atlantic with its signal. Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah or Tennessee and the City of Cincinatti, Ohio have laws against the content of American porn satellite channels, so satellite companies won't sell to subscribers there (or will limit what they can get). Southern states legislatures probably have an effect on the rest of the country, European satellite TV can show a lot of content that American TV can not. But the adult content Americans can get from Europe is limited, if any, at least from what I could see - correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyhow, I'll look up some specifics about the various channels (like TEN, Playboy etc.) and post it as a reply to this message a little later.
(parent Anon:0 if you don't seem who I am replying to)
I understand the idea of public trust, I just don't see the system as working anymore.
Simply put there are alternative transmission methods now. I have no problem with the FCC managing the spectrum but the time when they could have any relevant effect on content is gone (very different from when there was no internet, no cellphones, no satellite media and so everyone watched or listened on public analog signals).
If the FCC's content decisions don't stop people from seeing what is subjectively considered "indecent" then all their decisions really end up doing is artificially propping up the pay-for services when the traditional media are restricted. Further they are then mandating that we pay for such services and providing a twisted idea that privacy allows indencency.
In the end I agree with the radio owners who say that the FCC should level the field since the FCC is the one making that field so unplayable. However I don't feel that the FCC should be restricting the pay-for services, rather they should -not- be restricting the others.
Otherwise under the guise of protecting a public asset they are in reality trying to legislate morality and in my final prediction destroying the value of that public asset.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Its just like HBO on TV. You are payine for it so if you dont want "nauty content" don't buy it.
"The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
You missed the point of the previous post. The purpose of the FCC is _not_ to "stop people from seeing what is subjectively considered indecent", but rather to manage a publicly owned good. As the manager acting for the owner, they have a right to veto anything they want, subject to the rules of the owner.
I don't agree with the FCC either, but your argument is entirely beside the point and wrong. Especially when you insist that the FCC should be able to control things it doesn't own, simply because it controls things that it DOES own.
-Billy
A tasteless form of hot ceral. Also, used to refer to anything without form or substance that is foisted upon people.
Childproofing is the task of running around your house to make it "safe" for an unmonitored child so they can't start fires, can get at poisons (which they will eat) and can break things.
This is what you get when people utterly refuse to raise their children. Parents today want the schools to do it for them. And, want the government to help. And anybody else they can get - as long as they are left out of the process. So, we end up with a society that has been "childproofed". That is really what we are talking about here, isn't it?
The side effect of this is until our society is completely childproofed, we have abberations where children are incompletely raised. The result of this is rampent welfare ("The government OWES me, man!"), theft ("I want, I want NOW!") and vandalism. So, shops put in expensive theft-prevention equipment and police end up dealing with 20-year-old children that never grew up.
How many older or adult children killed their parents this year? How many killed their parents before 1960? How about adjusting this as a percentage of the population and seeing if there is any growth? This is a sure sign of parental abdication.
Comedy central does not get all of its money from cable subscribers (like HBO does), so it must get sponsorship. That means it must have shows that sponsors are willing to pay for. Since sponsors tend to get a bit gunshy around swearing and nudity, most cable stations have to avoid it.
Unfortunately, sponsor censorship is just a fact of life. If you want to pay for all of your own programming, subscribe to HBO (it's well worth it, IMHO), and get all the sex and swearing you can handle. If you want Proctor & Gamble to pay for your programming, you have to let them dictate what will not be part of it.
aQazaQA
Or try http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/646eba25e2702099a 5deb8fda44bfd07/index.html
Sorry for the long URL
Freedom or George Bush
No, my argument is well within the point.
... I agree ... but it is not my fault that the FCC has tried to move into the realm of business controls.
Why? Because the FCC is a government entity and was created to protect and serve the people.
I, and many people with the same opinions, am one of those people.
Then realize that you're talking about an organization that has moved from managing the technical usage of an assett used by non-governmental private companies to managing the content that is distributed over said asset.
In other words, the FCC is no longer acting in what I see as a proper method for a governmental entity, it is acting as a super corporation and improperly influencing the actions of the private market.
If you insist on not seeing it any other way, then consider this the voice of a shareholder (I pay taxes and vote) speaking out against company policies.
If you think the analogy is flawed
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
There should be a level playing field. Censor everything or censor nothing. It is ridiculous to distinguish between over the air and satellite radio. They are both using public airwaves.
Same goes for the recent VOIP rulings. Why tax the poor and give to the rich? Either tax phone calls or don't tax phone calls. If a business is viable it will succeed, if it isn't it deserves to fail.
The Government/FCC should stop playing favorites. There should be a level playing field. Let broadcasters and phone companies compete on equal terms.
What a load of bullshit, this reminds me of the senator who after seeing the video of a marine shooting an injured insurgent in a mosque was outraged and said that embedded news teams should be banned! This is totally ridiculous - OF COURSE the playing field should be levelled, otherwise what is the fucking point of the FCC? The field should however (and this to me is like explaining that the earth goes around the sun) be levelled on the totally opposite direction - get rid of the bloody censorship altogether! WTF are these people smoking?
Now could someone please explain why a V-Chip like system (that either blocks out the audio/video when it gets the signal OR unblocks a scrambled audio/video when it gets the signal) has not been standardised to solve this stupid problem? All the FCC needs to do is find out how many people oppose censorship vs how many are in favour and then decide which system to use and therefore who has to buy new radios/tvs or adaptors if they want to take advantage of it, it really is that simple. Or just do what the rest of the world does and not get so anal about hearing people swear.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
All I have are my pathetic attempts to draw a distinction between private and public - that is, Howard Stern saying those oh-so-naughty! words on the public airwaves vs. Stern saying what he wants on subscription radio, or Hustler Honey sex-shows in the Superbowl half-time vs. private rentals from the satellite hot-mama feeds. I suppose it comes down to this: you should have to seek these things out instead of having them come to you. Otherwise the coarsening of the public arena continues unabated, and the good & decent fathers who fought hard for Howard Stern's right to say shit - literally - find themselves without an argument when the billboard across from their kid's elementary school uses the same words. Today's crusading moderate is tomorrow's prude.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Is it mainly technology (satellite vs. land-based), or is it that one is pay-based, and the other is free? This is important.
If it turns out that pay-based is the criterion, then would we start to see some land-based broadcasting systems encrypting their signals and then charging a subscription fee, in order to skirt FCC rules? Or would we start to see the FCC clamp down on any free satellite-based broadcasting companies?
If it's technology-based, what's to stop the FCC (other than Congress) from saying later on, "You know what? We got the satellite stuff too. STFU Howard Stern."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
The big difference between terrestrial broadcasting and satellite radio is that the latter is not, in fact, "broadcasting." You have to pay to receive it. All of the arguments that have been posted have not taken this into account. Because it involves a contract, no minor can sign up for service on their own, so the whole idea of empowering parents to shield their children from naughty concepts, should they choose to, remains intact. And both services will, if you request it, block any channels you wish from your receiver.
A child can buy an AM/FM radio - there is no contract involved. That is the fundamental difference.
That is also true of TVs, but they're significantly more expensive, making it much more likely a parent would know if his child had a personal TV set.
TVs now must, because of type acceptance rules, have ratings enforcement mechanisms (the so-called "V" chip). The reason that the rules have not been loosened significantly is that those rules do not apply universally - TVs smaller than a certain size are exempt. If we *knew* that every TV had a parental control mechanism, then TV-MA programming *should* have no decency rules at all.
The first ammendment does not allow content based censorship unless it is the least intrusive means available to achieve the end of allowing parents to keep offensive programming away from their children. We are rapidly approaching the time when it won't be anymore. I'm looking forward to it.
And by the way, before anyone brings up Cable / Satellite TV channels... I believe that they actually do *not* have to abide by the same decency standards. I believe they do voluntarily (except for the premium tiers, of course, like HBO, Showtime, etc).
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and several subscriptions.
You don't pay a cent for broadcast TV or Radio. Apparently this guy's beef is that people that rent cars don't pay for the service, much like people that get broadcast radio. Problem is, he's using circular logic. The people renting the vehicles ARE paying for the service in the car by way of the rental of the same. They didn't subscribe themselves, but the rental agency DID.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Okay, terrific!"
Of course traditional radio wants to "level the playing field". They've spent so many years making radio generally unlistenable, along with the record labels and their whole payola system, that they have an old, outmoded product that nobody really wants anymore. It just happens to be "free". So when somebody comes along and creates a premium service that, suddenly, people are willing to pay for, the traditional outlets refuse to adapt, and thus complain to the government that their business plan is now obsolete and someone should help protect it.
Didn't broadcast television try the same thing regarding cable television when it first came out?
We've seen it in various forms in lots of different industries. Especially recently. Go figure. And feel free to draw your own parallels.
Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
On both sides.
On one side are those who would just make every other word in a script a four letter one. South Park did a great parody of this in their "shit" episode. It started as one network show saying the word "shit" once, to an episode of Drew Carrey where people just yammered "Shit shit shitty shitter shit shit..."
And on the other side there's the people whose heads explode if someone uses the word "hell" even in an academic context, or the letters c, o, n, d, o and m are used in close proximity to one another.
So you have to find some balance. It seemed like we had it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make it all start resonating.
You don't don't want to censor to the point where only two year olds are served by the airwaves, and you don't want zero restraint that allows the airwaves to degrade into a river of shit. Neither state serves the public interest. Both cases are catering to a lowest common denominator, albeit different types- idiots who are idiots because they are 2 years old, or idiots who are idiots because they are dumbfuck asshats.
The solution is to kill more people.
--- Ban humanity.
Is the comment still here? Then freedom of expression is being fulfilled. We also have a moderation system in place, which means that opinions not expressed by the majority are often going to be modded down to -1 due to the moderators' freedom of expression. If you want to see bigotry and racism in real life, go to a kkk rally. If you want to see it on slashdot, browse at -1.
Your brain is not a computer.
Mr. Levine asking the FCC to level the playing field has more than a bit of irony. He appears to complain about indecency, but I sense it is more than that.
Leveling the playing field IMHO involves making sure that all capitalists are able to get an equal shot at the financial pie. He is therefore asking the FCC to censor the freedoms given to satellite so that he can make a profit.
Stern will draw a substantial audience, and garner substantial profit. Levine clearly understands that when the gloves are taken off, Stern will be able to draw that much more revenue, potentially damaging his own revenues.
This is not about indecency. If it was, things far more indecent than a weekly session with the robospanker and liberal use of the f-bomb would never see the light of day. The FCC does not see fit to censor violent images eminating from Iraq or broadcast television.
And any regular listener of Stern with half a brain undestands that he is merely bringing the underbelly of society- a bizarre (and yet occasionally poignant) truth into the open. If you really listen to the man you can see the intelligence behind the show.
befuddled (noun) 1. Unable to create a pithy sig
And on Internet radio last night (over my Treo, driving in my car, listening to the world @56Kbps), a DJ was rocking the mic with tales of his own recent sex-for-hire adventures. Stitching together the 70s funk and 80s protohiphop as Nasty As He Wanna Be. He doesn't even have to show up in a broadcast office, or put on pants. When the source is distributed, the host is anywhere, the transmitter is anywhere else (maybe distributed in a DNS roundrobin pool) and the listeners are global, the FCC can "Go Fuck Itself" (TM).
--
make install -not war
I was unclear on what the bounds of the FCC's mandate actually are, so I did some checking. According to the FCC:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
The FCC has 16 bureaus and offices, including the Enforcement Bureau, which enforces the Communications Act. The Bureau sees its mission thusly: Through firm, fast, flexible and fair enforcement of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, promote competition, protect consumers and foster efficient use of the spectrum while furthering public safety goals.
The FCC reports directly to Congress, and it seems Congress has given the FCC the responsibility of policing the airwaves on certain matters: t is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. 1464). Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material.
I'm not sure if this fits into the original mandate of the FCC, but since it was established as an agency that reports directly to Congress, and Congress gave it the power to watch out for indecency, it seems that the FCC is about more than spectrum management.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This looks more like a "wedge strategy" by the Republican FCC to further their media consolidation to their base, just enough Americans to at least appear to win elections. With this stroke, they send Howard Stern and other "controversial" programmers into a better market, with their approval. Leaving behind the majority of Americans, in a different publishing technlogy controlled by a few corporations like ClearChannel, which are completely connected to the Republican Party and its pet projects, like promoting the Iraq War. The brain drain and ghettoization of publishing means that poorer people, in less media-saturated regions, get only the monolithic media messages that keep them voting for their local global monopolies, with their dollars and their ballots.
Of course the FCC decree that their recent puritanical campaigns won't be prosecuted against satellite networks is, at face value, a win for freedom of expression. But how long before the FCC, its constituency consolidated literally beyond question behind biblical/corporate values, "changes its mind", to stop the "minority" from beaming "their" culture across "our" country? To keep this newly protected freedom, we must use it. We must reach out and connect with our neighbors, family, strangers. Help them find how liberating diversity of info and entertainment can be. They'll want it for themselves, use it for their own purposes. And we'll all get as many channels of diversified crap as we can possibly stand.
--
make install -not war
Exactly. If the dude wants a level playing field by applying the indecency standards, we would then have to continue making it level by requiring listeners to subscribe to his station. How many people would be willing to pay and how much revenue would he make compared to the traditional model of ad sales? Sounds like he either didn't think this one through or he was just hoping he could trick the FCC into giving broadcast radio an unfair advantage by placing unconstitutional speech restrictions on a private network.
""The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions," such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview." Just like people who rent Motel Rooms get to see Cinimax afterdark.
As of five minutes ago, Demonoid was returning this for all http requests:
"Server shutdown in progress".
So they might be puking under the weight of thousands of new users an hour no longer able to access SuprNova et al... Too bad there was no warning, this could've been an (almost) smooth transition. Oh well, score one for the lawyers.
Who did what now?
So basically in the US you have to pay extra to get the right to free speech.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Actually, I think (at least for U.S. customers), it's more of a supply and demand issue.
I think different countries tend to make their porn "fit their tastes". EG. I've seen some things commonly found in German porn that most U.S. viewers would label more along the lines of "bizarre" or even "a little disturbing", rather than "erotic/sexy".
When you couple that with people's "girl next door" fantasies and the like, it just makes sense that Americans would tend to prefer watching porn featuring other Americans and familiar situations/backdrops.
There's probably also some technical issues though... Providers like Dish or DirecTV don't even have a paid subscription model set up for viewers outside the United States. That's why so much of the satellite card hacking comes from Canada. Canadians *want* to watch these satellite networks but can't even order a legal subscription because of where they live.
The FCC says the broadcast bands are a common good owned by the public and vulgarities ought not corrupt it. The FCC says so, provided the antenna emitting those photons is located on the ground and those photons' frequency is HF or UHF.
But that's not true if the antenna is located in the heavens and the photons are in microwave bands. In such case, those considerations of a public good and civil discourse go to hell.
Sure, it all makes perfect sense.
If American culture is coarse and vulgar then broadcasts to the American public should reflect this on both terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. The FCC should be consistent, applying one standard to the AM & FM and satellite bands.
If the resultant content is coarse and vulgar, that reflects the marketplace's demand for corruption. Don't like it? Improve yourself and those around you. Not enough? It tells you you're failing at the job of being salt and light.
The FCC will leave satellite radio along until Howard Stern creates a big splash by broadcasting on Sirius. Then, we're going to see the same sort of religious-right-backsplash we've seen all along, and the FCC will respond. They seem to have it in for that dude, especially after he stopped supporting Bush. This is going to continue until the entire media is one big Sinclair/Clear Channel/Republican ghetto. I accidentally surfed the AM band recently in Chicago, and couldn't believe what I found. Three 50k watt Christian stations, FOUR totally conservative talk stations, and the one station that could be relied upon to stay sane, WCFL (Chicago Federation of Labor), broadasting ESPN! So there. Anybody who believes in freedom, it's time to kiss your ass, or your country, goodbye.
You could say that Cable TV is a private subscription system, but it is regulated in that, for example, Cigarette ads are NOT alowed.
FCC has a lot of power..
http://www.hawknest.com/
Maybe this helps Howard Stern, because he is already popular enough, but this does NOTHING for new people trying to break into the system with innovative and potentially culturally challenging content. For that, thankfully we have numerous internet publishing sites.
I guess you've never listened to satellite radio. It really is like having 100+ streams of internet radio in your car/living room/pirate ship. There's plenty of music on Sirius that you won't find on FM radio, and since they aren't beholden to advertisers, they choose the music they play based on the recommendations of listeners like me.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
If you purchase a license to decode a satellite radio broadcast, you're on a list. Just mentioning that because, in free radio, no method exists to database the listeners.
It's just a small step to set up a method to catalog when, where, and who was listening to a given broadcast. It's a microscopic next step for the government, or your boss, or your local private investigator to have access to that data.
If this isn't important to anyone, then I am truly sorry for the nation I used to be proud of. Look, anonymous speech is protected by law, but anonymous listening is not. The freedom to speak to power anonymously is useless if the intended listeners are afraid that their attention would be noted.
Right now you need a license by the Feds to publish works on American soil written by "terrorist sympathizers" abroad. They give that a broad definition. The FBI and other intelligence services are definitely infiltrating anti-administration groups to take down names, and in some cases to incite the groups to illegal activity.
Free radio and TV made the 20th century's flowering of new thought possible. Take it away, and there's no medium for people to listen anonymously to "subversive" thought. Monitored internet and satellite radio ain't no substitute.
In space everyone can hear you scream "f*ck"
AT&ROFLMAO
On the radio? That's sad.
and run afowl of freedom of the press? :O
I agree with the ruling, but that does not change the fact that Howard Stern is a disgusting pig.
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
Why? Because the FCC is a government entity and was created to protect and serve the people.
This is where you miss the point. The FCC was not created to protect the people; it was created to fulfill a specific area of the law. The discussion we're having is regarding the publicly "owned" airwaves, the management of which is part of the FCC's mandate.
The owners of an asset have the absolute and uncontestable right to manage it as they see fit.
If you insist on not seeing it any other way,
I do; any other way to see it would be false and useless.
then consider this the voice of a shareholder (I pay taxes and vote) speaking out against company policies.
You don't have to use stockholder language to make sense. What you are is one of the owners of the airwaves, and I understand and respect that you disagree with the management (FCC). My point, and the previous poster's point, is that your disagreement doesn't give the management the right to manage OTHER companies as well. Nor, in fact, does it take away their right to manage what we own. Someone has to manage it!
The only way, the ONLY way to take back control from the tyranny of inoffensiveness is to turn the airwaves over to private property.
-Billy
And if you want to see misogyny and poor taste, read Slashdot. Look, my point was that there is a bit of hypocrisy in screaming about how the FCC is a bunch of fascist prudes for not allowing all the vulgar language and nudity that the typical adolescent would like to see (which many people find offensive), yet modding down another topic that they find offensive.
No, I'm not fond of racism or bigotry, and I would have modded that post down myself had it appeared under another topic, but it's just too funny that with all the rants about free speech going on people fail to see their own hypocrisy when it comes to something they disagree with. You made the statement that the comment was still here, but I will make the point that modding down is the equivalent of shouting down, of trying to drown out that voice. That's not exactly freedom of expression if you are censured for it, is it?
My point here is that everyone seems to be ranting about how the FCC shouldn't be disallowing words like fuck and shit or the showing of nudity, yet when someone uses the word nigger suddenly that's not OK. And I'm fine with part of that since I hate racism, but where are you going to now set the definition of what is acceptable?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
I'm sorry to whoever construed my above post as a troll. I was merely hoping to instigate some introspective thought regarding our inconsistencies of thinking, even among otherwise intelligent people. I think that we are all was less rational than we like to think we are, and that for the most part we simply want what we want when we want it.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Why not just get rid of these phone taxes and instead fund emegrency services (911 etc) via a property tax of some kind. (e.g. every property owner must pay a fixed tax or perhaps a %age of the value of their property or something).
I've wondered if the issue of airspace would enter into the discussion. That is, are the satellites in question over US airspace, and if not, can they fall under US jurisdiction? This was the crux of the problem in Arthur Clarke's short story, "I Remember Babylon," where a country hostile to the US determined to destroy the US from within, by cleverly mixing propaganda ("news") with live bullfights, explicit programming, and so on.
Tim
The FCC is part of government, it inherits the responsibility of the government it belongs to and was created by.
You can not create a governmental institution and then have it go against the root purpose of the government (well, yes you can, but that doesn't make it correct or in our case constitutional).
As for making all airwaves private property, while I don't disagree with that idea (the FCC would still be needed to make sure frequencies don't stomp on each other and possible regulate monopolies though I dislike that), that doesn't address the niggling point on this thread.
Why? Because the satellite providers are still using regulated (and I believe most often leased) spectrum. The difference is in that they use a subscription model and/or proprietary equipment to get around being regulated. If it is purely because these services are on AM/FM/VHF/UHF/HDTV that would be different, but the way the decisions read it seems that if you encrypt and then require a subscription (one of the uses that has been discussed for the HDTV partial freqs has been for data services) then the FCC say "oh, ok".
The FCC isn't being clear about the who/what/why/how of content regulation. They are being just vague enough to make all of the satellite folks wonder if they will get yanked later.
Based on your "tyranny of inoffensiveness" comment I think we agree on the core principles of where the market should be allowed to go and this is rambling, so I'll drop it.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
When you have mod points, that's when.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
I don't know much about how Sirius and XM work, but I'd imagine that it's similar to how any other broadcast system works. You never need to send back what station you're listening to to tune into it, you just need to be listening on the right frequency. I don't imagine that the satellite is sending down the specific station you want directly to your receiver, it's sending down all the stations and you just tune the one you want.
Now, it's possible it does talk back to the service to let them know when you change the station, but I don't think that's a requirement for a system such as this. It's certainly not as likely as your internet activities being traceable, and you don't seem to have a huge problem with that, being on the internet and all.
Would you need people to help you settle this new nation? I'll sign up to help.
Meow what do we have here?
In the article, Saul Levine states: "The commission is saying it's fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions." It would appear to me that his complaint about the free service in rental cars is a bit like "FREE HBO IN EVERY ROOM" at the Day's/Holiday/Ramada Inn, etc.
If you don't want to listen to something, change the channel. There's so many choices on Satellite Radio that are clean, family oriented entertainment. Sure, there's some questionable content every now and again on SOME stations, but for the most part, the on air talent is pretty clean. ---- Just because you have one, doesn't mean you have to be one.
Indeed, he is a disgusting pig, that, somehow, has turned out to be on my side of upcoming Freedom Wars.
It doesn't mean that I like him. It just means that he and I both understand: he has a right to exist, and I have a right to dislike him. And both of us will defend each other's rights, because if I let the (capital R) Right take him then I know I'll be next.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Ya know... I never quite looked at Stern in this light.
You're right.
Defecation occurs.
that a country with practically a full length lead over the entire modern world in gun violence cares so much about nipples.
Can we say, "Misguided?"
Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services.
Well isn't that just wonderful! Perhaps next we'll get to pay to read what we like. Or maybe we'll get to pay to vote.
If you have to pay for freedom, you're not free.
Suck a dick.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Steve Pordon
evolution and the big bang are how the universe actually began
The scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate origins. Since it is not observable, nor repeatable, we cannot postulate and test those postulates about origins.
We collect evidence and develop theories about the meaning of the collected evidence, but then both the naturalistic scientist and the creationist are on the same footing.
So-called scientific theories about origins are not testable, nor falsifiable. Should they be taught as 'truth' in the classroom?
I don't think so. Our culture's elevation of science to the position of arbiter of absolute truth is quite bothersome to me.
Don't misunderstand. Science is good, and valuable in its place. Where we go wrong is when we extend what we can know about the universe through good science to what we think we can know through science. When science oversteps its boundaries, it should not be taught in schools as fact.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Well, we could rape the dead bodies. ;-)
--- Ban humanity.
> There are certainly some smart folks at the FCC
Prove it.
Even if you prove it, you'd also need to prove that they have any interest in doing the right thing.
Oh, I'm not saying that it can log your listening habits; it can't -- now. But it means $$ to the advertisers to track cu$tomer$, and the services will slowly add on the capability, probably rolled up with roadside assistance with GPS capability.
Then future agents will track what you listen to. They can't help themselves. The Patriot Act and the intelligence "reform" bill wet their appetites for monitoring subversives. With digital cable boxes watching what you watch, and satellite radio logging what you listen to, Fatherland Security listening to your internet and telephone traffic, how exactly are we "free"?
Of course there is change over time. I'd be a fool to suggest otherwise.
My point is that we can make assumptions about the previous step in the process, but we cannot test the origin. Origins, by definition, cross the boundaries of what is testable within this framework of knowledge. As a result, something apparently supernatural (more than natural, or outside the understood bounds of nature) occurred to establish the universe as we know it.
Science cannot test origins.
WRT the development of species, I have numerous problems:
1. MacroEvolution (change from one type to another - as opposed to adaptation - variation within kind) requires that things move from less ordered to more ordered without something to put them in order. This seems to run contrary to the principle encapsulated within the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that things tend to move from order to disorder. If evolution is true, life moves opposite the natural tendency of the universe.
2. Irreduceable complexity - How can complex biological structures have been developed when individual components would not have been beneficial? Even if a human-type eye developed, it would have had to develop at the same time that the optic nerve and brain components that receive and interpret those signals. It seems unlikely to me.
3. Occam's razor tells me that if I find a watch on the beach, the most likely explanation is that there was a designer, manufacturer, and some cause for the manufactured item to be transported to that location, rather than the parts appearing by chance, and they fell into the correct order by chance.
4. The cambrian explosion shows a huge number of distinct species all at the same time - and no clear transitions - this was so compelling that Stephen Jay Gould developed the punctuated equilibrium theory. As he said, speaking of the fossil record: "Phyletic gradualism was never seen in the rocks"
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The FCC was set up to monitor radio and television because there is a set number of frequencies that can come into the home. Digital cable and satellite radio should not be under the guidelines of the FCC because there is no such restriction on the amount of channels there can be as there are with traditional television and radio. It was not so much a victory for subscription's freedom of speech as much as it was just a rehashing of what the FCC is actually set up to do.
WRT my comment about the 2nd law, I still think I must not be clear. The universe is the system. We may have only seen a small part of it, but we've seen more than enough to observe order and disorder, and to know that all that we observe tends to go from order to disorder. Evolution claims that biology does the reverse, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.
You believe the world was created by someone named God who had a human son named Jesus and so on...
I might say I believe the universe was created by someone named Joe who built the most basic sub-atomic particles to obey certain rules, created energy, mixed it all together and let the whole thing go on its own course with no intervention.
Yes, but what evidence do you have that Joe did it? I have history, archaeology, written records and changed lives that speak in concert with my beliefs.
You can't really proove one way or the other. I believe you believe in Christianity (or whatever popular faith you follow) simply because it is popular among those around you and you were raised that way.
And I think that you believe in evolution because that is what you have been taught is 'fact.' Most people have not critically examined whether evolution is true or not - they accept it as fact in the same way that they accept that gravity works. The evidence for gravity is compelling. I submit to you that development of different kinds of creatures through mutation and time is not well supported by the evidence, and that many who hold to that view do so because of a prior commitment to the philosphy of naturalism, not because the evidence exists for it.
If you say "there's no way it can be proven" then you're really saying, "I refuse to accept any proof."
These are not the same.
It's intellectually easy to suggest that Christians are lemmings that follow the cultural norms for their family, but that point of view neglects the evidences for the Christian faith and the contributions of intellectual giants who were Christians.
Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined evolution?
Have you ever thoughtfully, critically examined Christianity?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I think that you've set a false dichotomy between faith and the exploration of science.
Does science give a better model for reality? It works - as far as it goes - but as you point out it is insufficient to describe anything more than the material world.
Our life experience is of course substantially material, but comprises a huge number of experiences that are more than material. Duty, honor, love, passion, repentance, forgiveness, joy, shame, peace - all are experiences that are immaterial.
Science is completely unable to describe those things in any terms other than merely biological expression. It can describe what, but cannot describe WHY.
I believe that an ordered universe, created by a designer provides a platform for our ability to reason and study. In my world view, science is possible because of the ordered design.
My faith is not in opposition to science. My faith bolsters exploration and confidence in reason, not the opposite.
In fact, I have to say that while some people find faith to be a mindless comfort, I find that it's far more challenging to live my life in the face of a Holy God who shows mercy, but who will judge sin than it would be to live without that accountability.
Living with no absolute truth would be easy, albeit completely without meaning.
Why do you think that your prophet Sagan lived in the fantasy of finding other intelligent life and comforted his pain in meaninglessness through drug use? He knew that his model was insufficient.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Archaeology doesn't proove the correctness of any religion either.
We agree on this point. However, you could say that you are a poached egg, and I would know that this is not the case. How? I have some tests that I can use to verify that you are something other than a poached egg.
Not so - religion can't be proven simply because that is the nature of religion. It can't be prooven, it requires faith. If it could be prooven it wouldn't be religion, it would be science and we wouldn't need to take it on faith.
Well, it depends what you mean by proven. Science is good - as far as it goes - but it is limited to a description of the universe in purely material terms.
Science offers a model of the universe, but not the universe itself. For example, an accurate news program gives us a 2D, low resolution, visual and audio portrayal of events. This portrayal is accurate and valid, but no one would suggest that seeing something on TV is the same as being there.
Science is a similar limited representation of the human experience. There are many life experiences that move beyond materialism - passion, love, concern, duty, honor, compassion - science offers no model for these things. It can provide a model for the physiological impacts of these things, but cannot model the things themselves.
Materialism is a useful but insufficient explanation of human experience. It is unable to answer the "why" that humanity seeks.
The why question appears to be uniquely human.
Does your world view provide any model for answering questions about the humanity of human kind? We appear to be unique among the animals in our self-awareness and our emotions. It is true that other animals mate for life, and that other animals appear to experience some forms of emotions, but humanity is different in so many ways.
Why is that? Superior evolution? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Why do I mate with one woman and choose to stay with her to raise children? Why did I get out of a cold bed in the middle of the night last night to rock a sick toddler back to sleep? Is there an evolutionary explanation for that?
Why do we see an almost universal acceptance that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' Does any other creature experience conscience? Remorse?
All world views have to answer at least three questions:
a) where did we come from?
b) what went wrong? (if anything)
c) what can we do to fix it?
The Christian world view answers those questions in a way that is in harmony with what I observe in the world around me.
Where did we come from? A designer, creator established a phenomenally complex universe which is predictable. This predictability is the foundation for scientific experimentation.
What went wrong? God created man with the ability to choose relationship with Him or not. Man chose to rebel against God - because he wanted to be God.
How do we fix it? God loved mankind so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
If you're really thoughtfully examining Christianity, how do you explain Jesus Christ? Who was he?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I agree that there is defnintely a hypocrisy as far as racism vs. cursing is concerned. I'm not qualified to set a definition of what is acceptable for the general population - i'm only qualified to define what I find acceptable. Here are my thoughts (assuming this thread is still live enough for anyone to care):
Get rid of TV censorship alltogether. Yes, this includes censoring racist viewpoints. However, I don't think that protected free speech includes protection from backlash that you may bring upon yourself. I'd elaborate, but I hope the idea is pretty clear--if you air racist material, expect protests. Same goes for "immoral" or "unethical"--people have the right to let you know that they're offended.
It's a pretty libertarian stance, but if you look at cable TV it's been effective, as cable channels aren't regulated like broadcast stations are.
Your brain is not a computer.
I find myself sort of agreeing with you. I agree philosophically even though I know that it means there will be little left for me to watch. I certainly don't think Sex and the City is quality and I have absolutely no desire to watch a show about a family of sociopathic criminals. But in the end it's really a moot point since I gave up TV in 1991.
I disagree because TV is over the public airwaves and I think we have some kind of obligation to children (during appropriate hours) to keep things sane. Yes, they will eventually find out that people aren't that great, but that's no way to raise a kid. It's popular around here to make fun of "But what about the children?" but I think there are plenty of times when you have to do exactly that. For a healthy society at least. With cable you have the option of not paying for it, but with regular TV it comes in free to whoever has a set. The access is way different.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Ok, so they decided that (for now, at least) they won't control what we hear on satellite radio, but that doesn't mean they haven't already stepped out of line a long time ago. First, have you ever noticed that no one that has come under fire by the FCC is Republican? Like that's a coincidence. Also, how can they decide what is and isn't "obscene"? Many of the things they define as such would be defined as "unimportant" by the average American (think the "Desperate Housewives" towel drop). With parental control systems such as the V-Chip, is censorship even necessary anymore? Think about it, are any of the "obscene" images or words going to hurt any adults? Not that I think it even hurts children, but if the parents are really worried, they can spend the 2 minutes to read the TV owners manual and activate the V-Chip. Plus, aren't most of the "offensive" things only offensive to Christians? Making laws based on this should be against the freedom of religion part of the 1st amendment. I think the FCC should only exist to control things like making sure radio stations don't overlap each other and that our cell phones aren't giving us cancer or something, and that it should be stripped of its ability to censor free speech.
They also are there to be sock puppets for the politicians that put them there as well as whatever company pays them off. Did you know that there is not ONE technical person on the board of the FCC? Doesn't seem like a very good lot to be making decisions about our radio spectrum and electronic devices. This is why Broadband over Power Lines is going to flop horribly, as well as costing everyone millions of dollars. It may also result in the loss of many lives, since the FCC, who is just SO in tune with our spectrum, thinks they can govern physics. See, the BPL spectrum is the same as our fire, police, airline, and emergency radios. BPL will interfere because unlike the cable TV system that is closed, BPL will radiate all over the place through those power lines. Anything in its RF spectrum will be interfered with. This is why we need technical people in the FCC instead of the political sock puppets we have now. Many large companies pay off the FCC to support their ideas, so their "fair" judgement is not as fair as one may think.