Michael Powell to Leave FCC

Anonymous Slashdotter writes "Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC, will be stepping down from his post soon. 'Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters, planned to issue a statement Friday but was not expected to hold a formal news conference, these officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.'"

Comments

What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get to listen to Howard Stern anymore but he a Michael Powell had some confrontations, at least from Howard's side, from indecency fines causing Howard's' show to go to Cirrus (at least Howard says which may be a marketing ploy). I wonder if Howard has addressed this on his talk show yet and if he is declaring victory or just going to sweep it to the side a go wild on the uncensored airwave?

It is funny how CBS is against pay $555,000 in fines for the Janet Jackson garbage yet Michael Powel pioneered the effort to fine the perpetrator - this is where Howard Stern falls into play because his company would pay the fines in the past as he couldn't have payed the millions he has racked up. Do you think it is fair to fine the broadcaster or the real criminal? Think before you answer - have you ever heard an F bomb on TV at a football game; imagine getting fined for yelling at a game simply because it was on the TV. Me I think Powel did some good things in deregulation and if the F bomb isn't acceptable on TV then it should be fined in a public forum too. If nipples aren't acceptable in public then it is a criminal act upon the individual that should pay.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Triumph The Insult C]

you can grab the torrents of the stern show if you still want to listen. i think they're on loki. he spoke about it today

or, hit up marksfriggin.com. his coverage of today's show was up a few hours ago

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[spiritraveller]

What the fuck is an "F-Bomb"?????

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[oldave]

First... Stern's going to Sirius... that'd be the correct spelling.

Second, the Commission is limited in who it can fine for what reasons. Since Stern is not a licensee, is not deliberately or inadvertantly interfering with other communications and isn't operating radio transmitting equipment without a license, the FCC can't fine him. They can only fine the "person" responsible for the broadcast - the station owner, who *is* a licensee, and as a condition of licensing, agreed to follow FCC rules.

Remember, Infinity chose to employ Stern and broadcast his program. Clear Channel chose to carry his show. Other groups/stations chose to carry his show.

Similarly, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake are not Commission licensees, were not operating any type of transmitting equipment and weren't interfering with anything. So neither could be fined by the FCC.

The licensee is the one with the burden of preventing indecent material from reaching the air, not the performers.

Now, I don't personally agree with fining them. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

or dont be some damn prudeish about what your kids watch.

"ohhh noooo i a tiny bit of violence swearingand nudity will destroy their hopes and dreams"
is idiotic

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[stratjakt]

. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.

The Jackson incident is a glaring example of why that doesn't work, when normally I'd agree.

If I don't want my kids listening to or watching Stern, it's easy enough to lock them out of the E! channel when his show comes on.

But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show. The problem is the Superbowl was rated for all ages.

It pissed a lot of people off, and don't go off on some "well in Europe its ok.." rant. To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals. People also knew it wasn't an accident, it was dead obvious that it wasn't. It was some washed up old skank trying to be shocking and prop up her failing career.

I'm all for leaving it up to the people, and a ratings system. If a show says they're rated for all ages, and then start cussing and showing nudity, they should be fined because IMO that's fraud.

The TV industry has been hammering the point that we pay by watching commercials lately. Fine, I accept that. Then if you advertise your program as rated all ages, and I pay for it by watching your commercials, and then you cross the line into adult content, well in the marketplace we call behavior like that a bait and switch.

What they did was wrong, and whether or not you personally were offended isn't the point.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Ryan Stortz]

What the fuck is an "F-Bomb"?????

When someone says Fuck on the air.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[bendawg]

I heard it this morning, and wrote about it here

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Now, I don't personally agree with fining them. My own view is that there are two buttons on a radio or television -- one changes the channel, the other one turns it off. Use them, monitor what your children listen to/watch and don't expect the government to babysit for you.

I agree, but in what was ostensibly a family show (Superbowl), you're watching with the expectation of no boobs. There is no chance to switch the channel. If that game had been aired on the Playboy channel, I'd agree with your sentiment about babysitting and channel switching.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow.

That boom you heard was that joke doing Mach 2 over your head.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Marco_polo]

Don't forget the bill that is sitting on presiden't desk. The one that will allow the FCC to fine 'individual radio personalities'. I'm all for moderate regulation of our airways, but going after the actors/DJ's is a dangerous precedent.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Ryan Stortz]

I considered it could be a joke, but you never know.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[oldave]

Hence the new reliance on delay systems. It gives the broadcaster a chance to review what's going to air before it does, and if something inappropriate comes along, they can (and should) hit the dump button.

I'm not suggesting that people are too prudish, and I'm not arguing that "anything goes" should be the policy, either.

I agree with the idea that if a show is advertised as for all ages, that's what it should be. But I also understand that things sometimes happen in live events that the broadcaster cannot predict.

If I were king, the solution would have been to propose fining CBS affiliates - all of them - unless they proved that they had installed delay systems and trained operators to use them, within 30 days of the order. So as to help prevent a similar situation in the future.

In other words, people make mistakes, and offering a chance to fix the problem is better policy than simply punishing for the sake of punishment.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[YrWrstNtmr]

SO then NBC does the same thing a few months later. Then Fox, then ABC. "Oh well...no problem. NOW we have installed the delay system. (After getting all that extra publicity)" The fine is also to prevent others from going down that same road.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[duffbeer703]

Hardly anyone saw it during the superbowl -- her breast was flashed for a couple of seconds.

Most children spend their first months or years sucking on their mother's breast. Its no big deal anyway.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[sahonen]

The fact is that CBS did not intend to violate broadcast decency standards. It was the responsibility of Justin, Janet, and the costumer to make sure that their performance lived up to the standards, because that was what they were hired to do as *professional* performers. Why fine CBS, who had no part in it beyond hiring MTV to put on a half-time show? They had no say in the content of the show. You might as well fine the cameraman who was on the air at the time.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[happyfrogcow]

The problem arises when the FCC also gets to decide what is indecent.

That is not the place of a virtually unregulated department of the government.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is amazing how violence never made into your list of things to protect ourselves from.

You do not pay by watching commercials. Commercial content funds what is on our public airwaves - except for public TV.
You can have your voice heard by refusing to purchase products from the vendors advertise. This is what a free market is.

There was no law broken, and nothing overtly adult was presented. If you consider flesh to be evil, then you do. But not everyone else does. This is especially interesting considering the violence that is involved in the game. OK for you to see someone get hauled off in a stretcher, I guess.

Also, I am amazed that when you saw that it was sponsered by MTV that you allowed your children to watch it. Anyone who has watched MTV in the last 10 years knows how far the performers push the limits, and MTV has been in the past mentioned as an evil channel by religious conservatives such as yourself.

What was done was not a bait and switch. A bait and switch is advertising a product for a low price, but not having any in the store to sell - the bait. When a customer comes in, you 'switch' what they want.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals.

It is more like breast-feeding kids with the Happy Meals. How horrible is that?

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most reasonable people would not consider the Superbowl a family show. Hypocrites would, but I wouldn't consider them reasonable.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[pixelpusher220]

A family show...with 15 commercials for Viagra and Levitra?

Sorry they can't have it both ways.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like an H-Bomb, but no one gets killed and all the Christians get angry.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to all of the smart, safe things that have been going across the president's desk...

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[dmarx]

What they did was wrong, and whether or not you personally were offended isn't the point.

You're right, whether or not I or anyone else was offended isn't the point. The point is whether or not the Consitution give the federal government the power to regulate television content, when said content isn't liableous or slanderous. It doesn't, and there is a part of the Constitution that could be taken to forbid such regulation.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[myside]

Stern's official quote this morning on this issue was "I want to sleep with Kelly Ripa".

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most children spend their first months or years or decades sucking on their mother's breast.

You're sick. ;-)

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Jagasian]

What kind of sick parents do you have? Everyone knows that a good consumer feeds their babies commercial brand formula food.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[oldave]

Actually, NBC instituted a delay on live events after Dale Earnhardt, Jr, said the S word live.

Fox and ABC have implemented delay as well.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

stratjakt: "But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show."

Right, they just expect to see half naked cheerleaders and scantily-clad pop stars singing sexually suggestive lyrics. But Janet had to ruin that wholesome endeavor by, gasp, flashing her breast.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

qoute
[What they did was wrong, and whether or not you personally were offended isn't the point.]

Whether or you were offended is the point. What is right or wrong is a personal opinion. So if you took offence to it it was wrong...to YOU. I don't want the government deciding what is right or wrong for me, but they do all the time. Oh you can listen to this but not that. Oh you can take these drugs...but not those. And by drugs I mean anything that alter you state of being. Such as caffiene, beer, nicotine, marjiuana, ect. Never except constained thoughts and limited views set in place by others.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[drooling-dog]

Surely the sky will fall, and the Republic with it!

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[learn fast]

To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals.

Once again, someone arguing that breasts are actually dangerous. Good thing we can only rely on the government protecting us from them. Give me a break.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I only had some mod points, you'd get em.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Soporific]

You mean something out of the ordinary happened on live television? The horror. Isn't that why live television is so great?

~S

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Soporific]

Maybe her brother should have had pictures of boobies on his Dangerous album and then he would have appeared really really dangerous.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

Don't forget the bill that is sitting on presiden't desk. The one that will allow the FCC to fine 'individual radio personalities'. I'm all for moderate regulation of our airways, but going after the actors/DJ's is a dangerous precedent.

Obviously I've not been keeping up on things, can someone point me to a reputable report on this?

The obvious question is, if this is the way things are going, how can this fit in with freedom of speech? To me this sounds like speech being less free for those who have gained a large audience and they are to be penalised for not conforming to what a governing body considers acceptable. If that's not censorship, I don't know what is.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Having viagra and levitra commericials isnt having it both ways. They in of themselves are not obscene. You dont see penises or diagrams thereof in the commericials, and most people under age wouldnt even pay attention to the commercials.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a person driving a vehicle without a license is imune from getting any traffic tickets? The person that broke the law is the one that should be fined.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[tomcode]

Yeah, like I'm going to watch a Janet Jackson half time show instead of getting more beer.

It's just a trick to get me to watch Hillary Duff next time!

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[winwar]

"But, no one expected to see that kind of shit during the Superbowl half-time show. The problem is the Superbowl was rated for all ages."

Well then, the show was rated incorrectly. That would be a good reason to impose a fine.

But no one expected it? Yes and no. I mean, come on, what is the point of cheerleaders in skimpy outfits if not for T and A. I wouldn't say the halftime show was G rated anyway (without the "malfunction").

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[pixelpusher220]

Then perhaps you should try playing 20 questions with a 5 year old about what exactly Viagra is for.

Or why the women on the sidelines in skimpy outfits are dry humping and shaking their breasts all over for the camera.

I'm not a prude and I actually don't mind such things ;-) but getting upset over Janet's breast popping out, when there's just as many sexual overtones in the rest of the show is what I mean by having it both ways.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Gi77 B4t35]

To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals.

You're totally correct, apart from one little thing: the fact that it's nothing of the fucking sort, you spacktard.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[BUTT-H34D]

"having it both ways"

Huh huh. Heh heh. Huh huh. That's like, called a DP or a chocolate sandwich or something. Heh heh.

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a trick to get me to watch Hillary Duff next time!

Is she gonna show her tits? :) Even one would do!

Re:What does Howard Stern Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Her brother likes little boys, not boobs.

No Conference?

[ackthpt]

but was not expected to hold a formal news conference,

Strategically eliminating the chance for a wardrobe malfunction?

Re:No Conference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, when daddy Colin Powell didn't keep his job in the Bush Administration he couldn't get dubya to keep his son employed in the adminstration anymore?

This guy was never qualified for the job; and if it weren't that Dubya needed a black guy in his cabnet to go along with the black girl who's running the country now; Colin wouldn't have been there and therefore neither would Michael.

Praise Bob

[zeke-o]

of course, his replacement might be even worse ..

Re:Praise Bob

[DaHat]

I for one am hoping that Bush does not give the nod to Jonathan Adelstein, while he is from SD and that certainly gives him points in my eyes... a number of years ago I had the opportunity to hear him speak and answer a number of questions. Never in my life have I met a man such as he who is so devoted to the corporate agenda at the expense of the consumer and not willing to admit it and seemingly happy to have the consumer be screwed over.

As a brief example: I has asked him about the broadcast flag issue, and he dodged the question with a "on one hand this, on the other hand that"... and never concluding anything.

Re:Praise Bob

[Ryan Stortz]

I'd say the replacement will be just as bad (or good, if you're into VoIP). Powell was appointed by Bush on Bush's 3rd day as president, although Powell did expand the chairman's power to levy fines. Much like Truman expanding the President's ability to wage war; it's going to set a (dangerous?) precident.

Re:Praise Bob

[nebaz]

I hope they replace him with Howard Stern.

Re:Praise Bob

[dwbryson]

As a brief example: I has asked him about the broadcast flag issue, and he dodged the question with a "on one hand this, on the other hand that"... and never concluding anything.

If you are trying to paint him as an irrational corporate lap dog you did a bad job. Showing that somebody understands trade-offs in situations makes them appear very credible.

Re:Praise Bob

[Anonymous Coward]

Before he joined the FCC Michael Powell was getting awards for being an advocate of free speech, but afterwards he feels obligated to enforce 'the law as it's written' (paraphrased, not a real quote).

Re:Praise Bob

[Anonymous Coward]

>> of course, his replacement might be even worse ..

Everyone (myself included) was so happy when Ashcroft left... then our president nominated a man who condones torture. Ugh. Ashcroft was a jackass, but at least he was an incompetent jackass. I'm worried Abu Ghraib Gonzalez might be competent.

Re:Praise Bob

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our censoring overlords.

Re:Praise Bob

[Bachus9000]

It doesn't matter how "credible" someone is if they won't tell you where they stand.

Re:Praise Bob

[danbeck]

Your brief example was pretty piss poor in conveying any sort of information as to how this person was devoted only to corporate interests.

Re:Praise Bob

[DownTownMT]

Ba Ba Booey

Re:Praise Bob

[edrain]

Michael Powells resigns, saying, "Bababooey, bababooey!"

Re:Praise Bob

[NateTech]

It'd be much more fun if Mr. Powell had a "Wardrobe Malfunction" on Friday, but I'm sure he doesn't have a sense of humor about such things.

In other news...

[marcusss]

Howard Stern holds considered 'Happiest Man Alive'

Re:In other news...

[KingPunk]

i refer to him as my "dad" hell, i even got my mom doing the same. lol.
he rocks. i love his personallity, and his whole outlook on stuff.
my mom says that we're nearly identicle, ..she so sweet :)

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Howard is not happy,he knows prezident shrub will only appoint or arrange for someone worse and even more likely to infringe on our rights

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you sound intelligent too - just like him. Rock on dude!

Re:In other news...

[operagost]

Howard Stern was being harassed by the FCC long before Michael Powell. As I was a Stern listener from about 1987-2003, I should know. And so does he, but instead he'd rather blame it all on the Bush administration for some reason. It's truly sad to see a guy who used to be open minded turn into another belligerent political animal.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fag

Re:In other news...

[randallpowell]

Too true. With "moral values" (too generic) winning the vote, we may wind up with broadcasting that is even more dumbed down. Imagine 700 Club being considered "racy" by new FCC chairman's standards.

Re:In other news...

[Zen Punk]

Wow...if Slashdot had a "mouth-breathing imbecile" list, you'd be on mine right now.

Knifin around

[Gizzmonic]

I would have gotten FP, but consolidation has forced me out of the market!

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

blah :D

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead.
Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

Will they censor him?

[The_Rippa]

Just curious, since assholes aren't allowed to be shown on network tv, when they air the press conference will he be pixelated or completely covered with a black dot?

Re:Will they censor him?

[cabra771]

If I had mod points they'd go to you

Re:Will they censor him?

[killjoe]

Sad thing is that he is likely to be replaced by an even bigger asshole just like what happened to his father.

The Powell family has not had a good run in this administration. Both of them have lost whatever credibility and respect they might have had and are discarded after their usefulness has ended.

Good...

[ellem]

A worthless skinflap in a worthless, failed Commission.

Useless and impotent since its inception it is time to abolish the FCC.

The only better news would be that he got ebola and gave it to the rest of the Commissioners Freedom Kissing them.

Fuck him.

Re:Good...

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I'd call that flamebait except it seems to be true in this case.

Just as an example, the whole ludicrous fuss about Janet Jackson. Fining the TV company big bucks over that was the act of a total moron with absolutely no sense of priorities. I wonder how he behaves at home (assuming he is married).

Re:Good...

[EggMan2000]

I agree completely. I don't think Powell did anything of benefit for the country during his tenure. He made a bunch of crazy christians happy I suppose. But I think he pissed off more people than he pleased with the censorship crusade.

Did anyone read about Fox pixelating a cartoon butt that they aired 5 years ago, so as not to get FCC complaints?

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Powell Cheats on His Taxes!!!

Re:Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless and impotent since its inception it is time to abolish the FCC.

There is one thing and one thing only that the FCC is useful for. You have to have some sort of regulation, otherwise everyone would be trying to broadcast on the same frequency.

Of coarse the FCC as we know it is preoccupied with enforcing "decency" and deregulation/privatization (read: handing over the airwaves to large corporations).

So yeah, fuck him.

Re:Good...

[Rude Turnip]

There's no need to get rid of the FCC altogether...just to bitchslap it back into only doing what it was created for, which is the allocation and licensing of EM frequencies. Nothing more, nothing less. The First Amendment and the market will take care of the rest.

Stern..

[th1ckasabr1ck]

So did Howard Stern win or lose?

I can only imagine that he will be replaced with someone just as conservative/religious/etc.

Re:Stern..

[ackthpt]

So did Howard Stern win or lose?

Howard actually won big assuming Sirius keeps the checks coming to him and they don't bounce.

...a five-year, $500 million deal...

Re:Stern..

[mdw2]

So in other words you don't know anything about the man?

Re:Stern..

[bendawg]

Stern went on a 10 minute rant about it this morning.
Basically he said that Powell didn't deserve to be there, and was only there because of his dad (which he's said many times before). He also said that it probably wouldn't make any difference, because the Bush administration is still in power, and they will probably find someone who is just as bad or worse than Powell was about trying to enforce "indecency standards". That was followed up by calling Powell basically a two-faced liar who said that indecency should be controlled by the market, then "cowtowing" to pressure from the large conglomerate radio organizations, and allowing a few organizations to become very powerful in radio.

Re:Stern..

[zutronics]

Well, frankly Howard Stern is a diva/hypocrite. Mr. "Freedom of Speech" has shackled rival DJ's with orders not to say his name on air, namely popular rivals "Opie & Anthony" when they were both working for Infinity. Stern made Mel Karmazin muzzle them with threats of being fired if they uttered his name. I'm not saying Stern was being unjustly targeted by the FCC or not, but lets take what big mouth says with a grain of salt.

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it's not conservative/religious/etc. Remember Tipper Gore? She was laregly responsible for the explicit lyrics warning lables on music. Tipper Gore is not conservative at all from a political standpoint, she is known as a liberal. Conservative, liberal, they're all a bunch of Bill of Rights hating fools. I am becoming convinced that the sole purpose of the US government is to stifle to people, crush innovation, buy our food, and think for us. Any idiot across the whole right to left wing spectrum is capable of being worse than Michael Powell. Bush and Kerry are exactly the same, but that's another topic.

Re:Stern..

[NonSequor]

Yeah, censorship comes from both sides, but you really need a newer example than Tipper Gore.

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Lieberman

Re:Stern..

[tmhsiao]

Joe Liebermann & Video games.

Re:Stern..

[Reality Master 101]

Howard Stern lost. Michael Powell was one of his favorite people. Stern got endless mileage out of using Powell as a marketing gimmick, especially when he was heading to Satellite.

Now that Powell is gone, Stern can't do his fake whining anymore, although it's possible that Stern will continue to stalk him in whatever job he goes to next, just so he can do more satellite advertising.

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, I hate this Tipper Gore crap. She didnt censor ANYTHING!!! Hell if anything she opened the way for more explicit lyrics/recordings. All she did was force record companies to put labels on their records to warn parents of possible objectionable material. You can always tell the republicans in the crowd because they just cant understand what the hell is going on around them. Bush has done more to censor media in this country than anyone else period, he is positively Victorian.

Re:Stern..

[freqres]

Fritz Hollins (D-SC), nuff said.

Re:Stern..

[operagost]

Anyone who has listened to Stern for more than a few years knows the FCC has been on his back no matter who is in the White House, and blaming all his troubles on the Bush administration is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.

Re:Stern..

[operagost]

Stern complained about the FCC incessantly while Clinton was in office, yet the President's name never came up then. He's a hypocrite, and it's a shame because it made me stop listening to him after about 16 years.

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we stop calling it the "Bush administration" and start using it's more appropriate title the "Bush Regime"??

Re:Stern..

[jav1231]

And how has he done that? NO really....how?
BTW: I do agree that warning labels are not censorship. What is wrong with saying what the content is? Liberals hate this because they can't stand for truth to be known about anything they do. No one is saying "Don't listen to this!" or "You can't listen to this." The warning labels are there to say, "This product contains this content." In light of all of the hooplah over the MPAA and folks saying "I don't want to buy the whole CD, I want one song so I download." Well, think about buying your son or daughter a CD only to find out it contains lyrics about raping people and screwing animals. Don't they have some right to know about the product before buying it?

Re:Stern..

[WaxParadigm]

"That was followed up by calling Powell basically a two-faced liar who said that indecency should be controlled by the market, then "cowtowing" to pressure from the large conglomerate radio organizations, and allowing a few organizations to become very powerful in radio."

If you've ever read interviews with Michael Powell or heard him speak, you'd know he is a very pro-freedom anti-regulation person. I'm pretty sure if he had his way there would be no indeciency acts. However, he doesn't get to make that call...lawmakers do. He's there to enforce them. If Stern wants to attack Michael for the laws Congress writes, I want to watch him even less than I did before. Stern is a jackass.

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

Another blind follower of this century's Hitler.

I bet you listen to right wing radio and believe all of their garbage too. I mean, do you people actually take those fuckers seriously?!?!

Re:Stern..

[drinkypoo]

Maybe he didn't feel that clinton made the FCC worse while he was there... But then I wouldn't know because the howard stern show is like the sitcom "Friends" - mind-numbing stupidity punctuated by frequent periods of agonizing boredom and brief instants of hilarity. If stern were a third as smart and/or funny as he thinks he is, I'd tune in. However, that would make him unappealing to the majority of his fan base. You know, the same thing that quality would do to "pro" "wrestling".

Re:Stern..

[jafac]

"Small Government" Free Market Conservatives are diametrically at odds with the "Pro Morality" Christian Fundamentalist Conservatives.

I'm personally sure that MONEY (Content Morality Deregulation) will win-out in the end. But sooner or later, this conflict is going to have to play out to resolution within the Republican Party. There's only so many Big Lies you can throw at two diametrically opposed ideologies. And the Repubs don't have the Dems to blame for it anymore. Guess who's in power now? Guess who's made themselves a big ol shit sandwich they're gonna have to take a bite of?

Re:Stern..

[TheoMurpse]

Jesus Christ (D-NAzareth)

Re:Stern..

[Anonymous Coward]

He's there to enforce them. If Stern wants to attack Michael for the laws Congress writes, I want to watch him even less than I did before. Stern is a jackass.

Stern may be a jackass, but Michael Powell is worse. If Michael Powell is serious about enforcing "indecency standards" he ought to actually HAVE standards and apply them to everyone across the board. If indecency exists , there must be a way to define it, and clear criteria for actionable violations.

The way Powell seemed to enforce the law was to target certain individuals and situations - Janet Jackson, etc, or to say that complaints will result in fines, as long as the people complaining are older than 50.

And for Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake was WAY more offensive than that millisecond long flash of "I could almost see a boob". Big f-in deal. Name one child that hasn't seen a boob. Most sucked on one for a year or two of their lives alread. Justin Timberlake, on the other hand, promotes gay-ass boy band singing, so he should be blacked out from the TV. We've got it completely backwards.

I'm not crying for Howard through, his ratings went through th e roof as a result, and now has the most lucrative contract in radio history.

Perhaps Michael Powell was getting kickbacks from Stern all along?

Re:Stern..

[ezeri]

People who run for public office aren't there for the money (well at least not the government paycheck) and very few are doing for love of country, so that leaves us with those who are there because they love power, or view the government as a way to force thier views on others, and people who love power aren't going to let that power go to waste, they have to use it for something.

Re:Stern..

[jseale]

You said a mouthful. CARY IN '08, DONKEYS RULE!!!

Re:Stern..

[Schmendr1ck]

Liberals don't hate this at all. As a Bush-loathing Democrat and a parent, I fully support the labelling of explicit music, the movie ratings system, and the ESRB ratings on video games. These systems protect an adult's right to watch porn, listen to profanity-laden rap, and play violent video games. They also give parents and retailers a yardstick to help determine what is appropriate for children. If I decide it's okay for my kid to see an R movie or play a Mature-rated game, that's MY decision, not the government's.

Don't confuse ratings systems with censorship, to which I am strongly opposed.

Re:Stern..

[djupedal]

People who run for public office aren't there for the money [clip] that leaves us with those who are there because they love power

I'm just curious...did that also sound like total BS on your side, when you reread it?

I want some of the 'simple world' juice you've been drinking - and those puce colored glasses...hand 'em over :)

Re:Stern..

[ezeri]

With out the part that you cliped, yes it does, that why I put it there. If thats not what your refering too, please explain.

I for one...

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

... shan't miss him.

Check out his on-air confrontation with Howard Stern from a couple of months ago... riveting stuff.

Re:I for one...

[R2.0]

Funny, I heard it when it first happened. Powell sounded articulate and reasoned; Stern sounded like a buffoon. While what Powell was saying may still have been disagreeable, he didn't attack Stern personally, whereas that is all Stern did.

Riveting? Hardly.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that's enough. Online dorks using the word "methinks" is bad enough but there needs to be a law to protect us against pretentious use of the word "shan't"

Re:I for one...

[Brandybuck]

Any tiny morsel of respect I might have had for Stern vanished when I heard that "interview". There's right, there's wrong, and then there's stupid. I don't care if Stern was right or wrong, he's stupid, and that alone got him in trouble.

To rephrase Voltaire, I disgree with what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it, But if you're an asshole about it don't expect me to be your character witness.

Re:I for one...

[Soporific]

I don't know what you are talking about, he was asking legitimate questions. Asking Powell about his job experience is totally related as was actually getting to grill a public servant about his perceived cronyism. Like the thing about Oprah, he said there wasn't a double standard, but if that isn't then I don't know what is. Stern never called him a moron or anything like that, if asking him some tough questions is rude well then I guess he's rude but give me a break.

~S

Re:I for one...

[coopaq]

. While what Powell was saying may still have been disagreeable, he didn't attack Stern personally, whereas that is all Stern did.

In other words: Stern was being Stern and Powell was being Powell?

Do you want Stern to be somebody he isn't?

One is a controversial windbag and the other is a politically correct issue dodger.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have sounded "articulate and reasoned", but Michael Powell lied his ass off throughout the interview. Off-mike, his assistant screamed bloody murder at the producers until they shut Howard off.

And why is it that a public servant does not have any time to answer questions from a member of the public, especially one who has been personally attacked by the public servant's actions?

Re:I for one...

[drinkypoo]

I heard the same thing both of you did; what I heard was Stern rudely asking what were entirely legitimate questions and powell refusing to address them. He answered some of them but he lied; specifically, he said there is not a double standard when there clearly is, and that the FCC is not stopping them from doing business while the fine is unpaid, when that is clearly a penalty that was applied to them. In other words, Powell thinks it's completely acceptable for one station to be fined and prevented from doing business while another station with essentially identical content is only threatened with a fine and an investigation is carried out, and he doesn't feel he is accountable to the American people for the injustice.

Now, you might [or might not] say that Stern and Oprah are using the same words with different intent. If not, please ignore this paragraph, but that is a load of bullshit. I've heard the argument made that this justifies this particular breach of our first amendment rights before, but there is no functional difference whatsoever between Oprah and Stern. They are both entertainers who use aggressive marketing to increase the value of their most important product: themselves. The difference? Their audience. Oprah's probably votes, and writes letters to their congressmen. Stern's? Not so much. Just a guess, though.

Re:I for one...

[R2.0]

I know I shouldn't do this, but I'll go ahead anyway.

In your main point (such as it is) you put great emphasis on the word "clearly" when asserting that Powell lied. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

In your first example, the "double standard" seems to refer to your comparison of Oprah "tossed salad" episode and Stern. Stern claimed a double standard, Powell responded that it is under investigation. You seem to think that since Stern and Oprah weren't fined at the same time, therefore Oprah is being favored. How is this "clear". That is akin to arguing that one is being unfairly punished for running a stop sign because the guy who ran it right in front of you has a later trial date. Perhaps if you wait until a decision is made by the Commission regarding the complaint against Oprah, you might have a point. But then, if the stations that ran the Oprah "tossed salad" show get a whopper fine too, what will your argument be then?

Regarding the "clear" penalty against Infinity by "stopping them from doing business while the fine is unpaid," that was a statement by Stern of what his corporate overlords said to him. Is it "clear" that Stern wasn't lying? Is it "clear" that the Infinity people weren't lying to Stern? I don't think so, especially when the FCC *doesn't* freeze license applications while a case is under appeal. They will do it if a fine gets unpaid, just like people with unpaid parking tickets get cars impounded. One can appeal judicial decisions one doesn't like, but one can't simply ignore them.

My opinion? (And that is all it is - opinion - as opposed to your blunt assertion of fact.) Infinity made a business decision to pay the fine instead of appeal. Cheaper, less publicity - whatever. Stern pitched a fit, and in order to redirect his ire, the Infinity suits blamed it on the FCC, making up a story about licensing and being put out of business. Stern, either gullibly or cynically, they goes after the FCC instead of his corporate overlords. Conjecture? Certainly, but just as "clear" as you assertions - that is, not at all.

Re:I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

The quality of the messenger cannot deter the truth of the message.

For shame.

his vision

[lubricated]

Michael Powels vision judging by his actions would be a few large fat companies showing the same bland stuff on every channel.

Re:his vision

[smooth wombat]

What do you mean by his vision would be? You mean it's not already here?

I can't tell you the last time I heard a song from Molly Hatchet or Quiet Riot let alone a song from Judas Priest other than 'Breakin the law' or 'You got another thing coming'. If I hear Stairway to Heaven one more time. . .

This on our supposed 'classic rock' station. The same station who just yesterday played a song from NickelBack.

NickelBack is classic rock? I have pants older than they are!

Re:his vision

[Tassach]

NickelBack is classic rock? I have pants older than they are!

Swing pretty much died out at the end of the 40's as a popular form of music. Does that make the Cherry Poppin' Daddies any less of a swing band? Bach died in 1750, yet people are still composing new classical music.

It's not the age of the band, but the style of the music which determines the genre. I've never herad NickelBack, but if they play music which sounds like Classic Rock, then they belong on a classic rock station, regardless of their age.

Re:his vision

[FlimFlamboyant]

On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations.

If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed. After all, isn't that how large, successful corporations got to where they are today? They are in the business of selling a product that the public wants. If that happens to be smut, then they will push the envelope as far as they can until the free market or the FCC says enough is enough.

Re:his vision

[EvilTwinSkippy]

By that measure I should be pleased that all I hear at folk festivals are Beatles and Cat Stevens covers.

Just 'cause it sounds similar doesn't mean it belongs.

Re:his vision

[EarwigTC]

For the current Right, the corporations are just a path to the real currency, socially conservative voters. And harnessing the outrage of religious voters is the single most important factor in their election success. That's better than campaign money in the bank.

Re:his vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would an FCC chairman so intent on deregulation of the industry want to regulate the industry's content so tightly? Republicans are just fucking nuts.

Re: his vision

[mcc]

On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem "inappropriate". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations. If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed.

Well, this is only the case if you view the Christian Coalitian as something other than a large corporation, right?

^_^

Anyway, what you seem to be gesturing at is that the FCC is currently in favor of "moral decency" standards on television, and also currently in favor of corporate-owned consolidation in the media market. Whereas the consensus viewpoint on Slashdot seems currently to be that we should have diversity of ownership and diversity of content (i.e., low regulation of 'obscenity') in the media market.

If you oversimplify the viewpoint commonly seen on slashdot to "OMFG CORPORATIONS ARE THE EVIL", then perhaps it doesn't really make sense. The trick here is that "OMFG CORPORATIONS ARE THE EVIL" is not the viewpoint actually being particularly expressed by anyone; it's just a straw man. Back in reality, meanwhile, it's reasonable to be opposed to policies that turn the FCC into a moneymaking scheme for an increasingly small number of corporate players at the detriment of both the citizen and the citizen's good derived from the public airwaves; and it is reasonable to be opposed to policies which allow a small vocal minority of self-appointed morality police to determine how the citizenry as a whole makes use of the public airwaves; and these two things are not in any way incompatible.

Re:his vision

[jthayden]

I think you have to consider the order of payoffs though.

The hypocritical 'not the Christian values I learned' Christian right writes a very large check both in votes and in money. Media also writes large checks in both, but they aren't going to get upset by a few 'moral' regulations as long as they get the relaxed market regulations.

Re:his vision

[Hal9000_sn3]

The problem is that only the large corporations are able to pay the fines. The effect is that the small independent broadcasters suffer a complete chilling effect. CBS/Viacom, GE, NewsCorp, etc. continue whatever decadent drivel the market seems to demand, and pay whatever fines as if it is just a marketing expense. But any of the viewer supported, or purely local shows would be immediately bankrupted and so the back off from anything edgy.

Re: his vision

[Johnny5000]

"OMFG CORPORATIONS ARE THE EVIL"

You spelled "teh" wrong...

and now the lameness filter isn't letting me post this.

(probably for good reason.)

Re:his vision

[lubricated]

I mean more so even. You are just getting a taste. The playlists will get even shorter.

Re:his vision

[EvilNTUser]

"On the one hand, people complain about the FCC slapping fines on large corporations for broadcasting media that they deem \"inappropriate\". Then in the very same breath, they complain about the FCC supporting large corporations."

This is not contradictory. The government wants to be able to control things, but it does not want the people to have the same power. How do you think a dictatorship works?

I have a sinking feeling....

[tinrobot]

That his replacement will be even worse.

Don't celebrate just yet.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[irving47]

About time someone else figured this out. The whole Devil you know, vs. the one you don't know concept seems to be lost on quite a few...
OK, so he banned a few "bad" words and a little nudity.
What's the next guy going to do to fair use rights? Is he going to hop in bed with the networks?
I may like Bush (ok, yeah, hit my karma) but I am scared to death of who he will put in charge...

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[garcia]

I may like Bush (ok, yeah, hit my karma) but I am scared to death of who he will put in charge...

Your wording is vague on whether you do or not but how could you possibly like a President that repeatedly puts your Constitutional rights at risk and may appoint people to high-ranking posts that might further endanger those rights?

When you vote for the office of President you aren't voting for just that single seat. You are voting for all the possible seats that President might appoint (ie the Supreme Court).

No matter how I feel about a particular individual I have to pay close attention to how that individual might change the course of history and the rights Americans have grown to ignore during his tenure.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you forget that for most Bush supporters, it comes down to attacking brown people because they're afraid after 9/11. Anything else is secondary.

Hey, what do you know, the terrorists really have won, haven't they?

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[freqres]

Ok, disclaim, RANT_MODE_ON:

And you think voting for the alternative would have any different outcome? When you realize that politicians, D or R, only care about getting (re-)elected and will whore themselves out in any way they can to get there, then you will understand the bi-party system for what it has become. The system we have now is like having heads and tails on a turd. Whatever side lands up, it's still a turd.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[ultramk]

Maybe it's just me, but I hope it someone who makes Ashcroft look like Dan Savage.

Why, you ask? Because people will only freak out and do something when it hits them personally. I.E. I hope it's some Oral Roberts wannabe who immediately bans "Desperate Housewives" and shows featuring women working outside the home, because that's what it's going to take before people realize what's happening to us.

m-

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Paradoks]

Well, yes, but a vote for Kerry was a vote for split government, and a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock and lack of "progress".

As for the FCC... Short of having Boucher(R-VA) as president, I'm thinking that hoping for an appointment that pleases the Slashdot crowd is just hoping to get lucky and have a fair-use advocate sneak in.

So, I'm happy Powell is gone(and I'm happy that Hollings is gone), their replacements probably won't be better, and there still aren't many people in government who grok why fair use is important to protect.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Johnny5000]

Well, yes, but a vote for Kerry was a vote for split government, and a vote for split government is a vote for gridlock and lack of "progress".

You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of the neo-con Republican party agenda, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, I'd love to see some of that gridlock.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Doomdark]

OK, so he banned a few "bad" words and a little nudity.

And what else is censorship but banning few things here and others there, one at a time?

It just perplexes me how it's not considered to be against 1st amendment to do this kind of direct censorship. :-/

Also, although I'm sceptic as the next guy WRT Bush' nominations, I guess it's better to change the bad guy as often as possible (I mean, if one can not get decent ones): longer ones stays in a given position, more damage he can do. Power generally grows over time; they know more people: J. Edgar Hoover was powerful thanks to his very long reign. Just changing him to another similar drag queen would actually have helped things a lot; even if that person was an "asshole of same caliber".

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Paradoks]

You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of the neo-con Republican party agenda, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, I'd love to see some of that gridlock.

That was my point. I guess I'm so used to talking about "progress" in a negative way I didn't state that clearly enough. I dislike both parties, not because they're the same, but because they're awful in two different ways. I've personally taken to calling people like Fritz Hollings(because of the SSSCA/CBDTPA, among other things) and Michael Powell(Because of the broadcast flag, among other things) "enemies of freedom", using Bush's over-the-top terminology to express how people in both parties do not have consumer interest at the front of their mind.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[I Be Hatin']

That his replacement will be even worse.

Yeah, Ashcroft's out of a job now, isn't he?

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[tylernt]

"It just perplexes me how it's not considered to be against 1st amendment to do this kind of direct censorship."

Tell you what, go Google for the video "Unknown Russian Soldier" and watch it all the way through with your speakers turned on. Then come back and tell us that it's a violation of your 1st amendment rights that you can't broadcast that video on TV, and that you're still perplexed by censorship.

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Stiletto]

And why SHOULDN'T it be on TV?

Is there something noble about pretending that things you don't like don't exist?

Is it honest to hide the gruesomeness of war from American viewers who then, not surprisingly, become bloodthirsty and war-loving?

When should little spoiled Johnny be taught how horrible war is? On the 7:00 news, or when he's drafted and has an enemy's knife to his throat??

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[Doomdark]

I don't really get your point in any way or form: I assume the video is brutal and gruesome, but... So? I wouldn't want to watch such crap, and I assume most other people wouldn't either. And as a result major TV channels wouldn't broadcast it. But if enough people did want to, and there wasn't anything illegal (and I don't mean just immoral, but actually illegal) about the video, why should the government prevent it from being broadcast?

And if people still did want to ban such material, it should be done by making it criminal to create and broadcast (ultra-)violent stuff; not by allowing some government organization use its powers to ban whatever its leaders pet peeve (tits) happens to be.

Finally, you do realize that you do not have to fucking watch everything that gets broadcast, right?

Re:I have a sinking feeling....

[pi_rules]

You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of the neo-con Republican party agenda, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, I'd love to see some of that gridlock.

I'm with you on this one, and I voted for Bush. I'm a conservative person on the personal level, but more of a libertarian on the political level. Hence, rabid "neo-cons" in office and holding postions of power aren't THAT offensive to me, personally, but I see a whole lot of abuse that could crop up if we don't get a little gridlock going. Yes, I'm serious.

With a Republican House, Senate, and President its quite possible that we'll get somebody in the FCC now that's MORE conservative than his replacment. Without gridlock there's really no limits. The Republicans will stand behind their president unless he does something entirely insane and given a majority in both houses... well, we might end up with something MORE conservative than Powell. I'm thinking somebody that'd make John Aschcroft (didn't like him as AG either) look like a moderate.

Yeesh, I don't like that.

Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Powell, who is a decent and devout Christian, probably objected heavily when both Jeanna and President Bush announced their allegiance to Satan during yesterday's ceremony.

Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue. Actually, Bush was giving the "Hook 'Em Horns" hand sign to the University of Texas Longhorns marching band as they passed by.

Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I know that, but it's been recognized in many places as a Satanic Hand Symbol for longer then the Texas Longhorns have been around.

If you flashed that hand symbol people where I grew up, nobody would think "Longhorns", and you might get beat up by some young Christian men.

Of course, those same people yelled at using the Sign Language symbol for "I Love You".

Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[kid_wonder]

and you might get beat up by some young Christian men.

Yup, that sounds real Christian like to me.

Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually read somewhere that the Longhorns' trademark hand sign is traditionally given with both hands. Of course, I think this was on the site of some guy who literally believes that Bush is the Anti-Christ (as opposed to the rest of us who just mean it figuratively), so take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Powell is Christian, Bush is a Satanist

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought this was the secret satan hand signal (see the midget in the dark shirt at the far left).

unfortunately ..

[Triumph The Insult C]

he's not leaving immediately. he will hang around for a few months until his successor is named

frankly, i think he is full of shit and it's good he is leaving. he never had the experience to be put on the commission in the first place, nevermind being named the commissioner later on. yes, i know clinton (a democrat) put him on the commission on the first place, and i also know that bush (a republican) named him top dog

secondly, i find it highly suspicious that now that his daddy is leaving, junior is leaving too. so michael, maybe you'd like to recant some of the statements you made to stern, when pressed by him, when you were a 'guest' on ronn owens a few months back?

that said, i'm happy to see him leave. i'm sure bush will use this opportunity to install some "all media must love jesus and hate faggots" pentecostal in there and protect "the children" from dangerous influences like barney and spongebob squarepants. but getting rid of powell junior is at least one good thing

Re:unfortunately ..

[Anonymous Coward]

more idiotic bush blaming, do you have a life or do you just live to be antibush.

you my sir, are a useless tool.

Re:unfortunately ..

[JWW]

I don't mind if they put someone religous in his place.....

As long as that person also realizes that the copy bit is the devil's work!

Re:unfortunately ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the entire Bush administration is a satanic cabbal working in the guise of christian fanatics; that also explains the copy bit, don't you think?

Re:unfortunately ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound upset that someone criticized the Dear Leader.

Calling someone a "Bush Basher" is not an arguement, it's a cop out.

Re:unfortunately ..

[Anonymous Coward]

it is that they have no life and feel this need to constantly do it without even bothering to come up with something coherent. regardless of whether there are things to bash, these people just do it out of habit since they are retards.

Re:unfortunately ..

[Triumph The Insult C]

so, what you're saying is those that disagree shouldn't be able to voice their opinion?

Re:unfortunately ..

[randallpowell]

more idiotic bush blaming

As though conservatives bashing liberals for having a different political philosophy is any different. Sorry that he insulted your savior but people have to grow up. Bad enough our politicians act like children, we don't need the entire nation to do so either.

FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not content.

[Slime-dogg]

At least, that was the original design. Someone needs to take them to court over the 1st ammendment. If someone's sign language is governed by free speech, then it follows that the broadcasts should also be governed by the same. They both travel over electro magnetic waves, right?

Coincidently...

[Anonymous Coward]

A 6.5 ft, long, dark-haired individual http://www.howardstern.com/ was seen doing cartwheels and handstands with bikini-clad models in Time Square around the time of the story.

Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[nganju]

I wonder if Colin Powell's exodus is not unrelated to this.

Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[mgs1000]

I hear the two of them will be starring in a new sitcom this fall!

Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[Mantorp]

I wonder if Colin Powell's exodus is not unrelated to this.

No, I don't find it unbelievable.

Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[jd]

I hope it's better than the old one they've been in.

Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It will be aired on NBC. It will be called "Tool and Fool". Each week, the viewers can login to www.nbc.com\toolandfool\choice.asp and vote which one was the tool -- and which the fool -- in that particular episode.

Re:Michael Powell is the son of Colin Powell

[davidescott]

I take it you use windows.

nice to see a failure to mention...

[minus_273]

his focus on promoting HDTV and digital communcations, deregualtion of the internet,etc. I suppose there is no point in giving him any credit in any of that since he is a republican. Since this is a tech site, check the Cnet article. I think that is more news for nerds.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[stratjakt]

This is not a "tech site". This is just another partisan political blog.

None of the editors, posters or submitters understand anything remotely technical.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

Minus, you are an idiot.. Why do people assume that because guy getting ripped on is part of my party, anything they leave out is because they are partisan..

IDIOT..

BTW.. I am a republican.. I still think your an idiot.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[elhondo]

Maybe he doesn't get credit for HDTV because he forced the industry into adopting DRM and people here are a bit resentful. Does the broadcast flag ring a bell? And what the hell does deregulation of the internet mean?

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Cylix]

Oh right...

The only interest in moving to the ATSC standard for DTV was to free up spectrum to sell off.

If they were truely interested in promoting HDTV.... standard definition would not have been an option. The industry was regulated into this movement for no other reason then profit.

The simple fact is the government has something to gain at no cost to themselves. It's virtually a win win situation.

Also couple this with near last minute adjustments and a draconian adoption stance and it leaves some of us with a really bad after taste.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Monkelectric]

HDTV is one of the biggest screws ever put to the american public! Forcing the replacement of hundreds of MILLIONS of working TV's and equipment so the FCC can auction off the spectrum? It's a payday for everyone involved except the US public.

Companies get to: Sell tons of new TVs, DVD players/Recorders and Tuners (yours isn't compatible anymore!), implement DRM (I can't wait until someone goes to jail for recording Enterprise), and the FCC gets to auction off a prime piece of the specturm for an ungodly sum.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Jeffrey Baker]

Reader beware: in the above post "deregulation of the Internet" means Powell allowed the cable companies to censor their Internet service, in opposition to decades of common-carrier policy. In GOP speak, "deregulation" means rich white guys get all the money, and the customer gets a nice dick in the ass.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[mzwaterski]

And the general public gets nothing...errr...wait, better quality sound and image. hmmmm.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, let go of NTSC. It was fifty years old, or 500 years in tech-time. It's time for it to die. Move on, already. Buy your converter box and STFU.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[garcia]

And the general public gets nothing...errr...wait, better quality sound and image. hmmmm.

And that would be VERY important if it was necessary. Why is our government mandating what happens in the market? They should not have wasted our tax dollars forcing this change to occur.

Buying tuners and TVs gives money to the wrong people and takes it away from the wrong people. Personally it pisses me off that technically oriented people fail to realize the nonsense that HDTV is.

You were fucked in the ass by the government and private industry and now you are thanking them for it?

No thanks.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Ironsides]

He forced them to adopt DRM? The content publishers said adopt some form of control or we won't supply HD content. Since his job was to promote HD, he felt he had to do it or get bashed for not doing his job.

I don't support the broadcast flag, but he didn't force the industry to accept it. The content creators are the ones who wanted it. They are already pissed about SD shows on the net, this is all their decision.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[javaxman]

And the general public gets nothing...errr...wait, better quality sound and image. hmmmm.

If you can get it.

The FCC's chosen DTV allocation methods and lack of receiver standards pretty well assure that DTV coverage isn't going to be as good as predicted in a large number of markets.

This is because they're not engineers at the FCC- they're lawyers working at the behest of media companies and politicians. As such, they're far less concerned with the realities of signal strength and community service and much more concerned with media corporation profitability ( i.e. ownership rules and DRM media flags ) and political ploys such as bowing to religious extremists through _unspecified_ content censorship.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Ironsides]

If you don't want to replace your TV buy a D/A converter box.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Big_Al_B]

Yeah! It's the same as when the phone company went to touch tone and my pulse phones didn't work anymore! Oh, wait...

Look, your TV isn't going to be useless anytime soon. Heck, that day is so far out that it'll probably break before then anyhow.

Relax. No one has suggested that everyone discards their TV on any give date. The regulatory date given to TV stations to upgrade their signal doesn't mean they'll terminate analog broadcasts that day too.

I have an old TV that only has RF in, but this trivially cheap dongle let's me watch cable in the garage. I won't be taking it to the transfer station until it cacks.

And what does HD broadcasting have to do with DVD player/recorders? I don't get what your beef is.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[mzwaterski]

Last I checked, no one has been forced to buy an HDTV compatible TV yet, but suddenly everyone is getting them...

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Steve B]

The content publishers said adopt some form of control or we won't supply HD content.

Given that the whole point of the HDTV transition is to clear a chunk of spectrum for auction (i.e. the transmission channel for the old format won't exist any more), the proper response is to shrug and call their bluff -- they either supply HD content or they go out of the media business.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[garcia]

Last I checked, no one has been forced to buy an HDTV compatible TV yet, but suddenly everyone is getting them...

You have a screw loose. Not "everyone" is getting them. Hell, I have only seen them in stores and on display at the State Fair.

They aren't impressive, they certainly aren't worth the tax money that was spent forcing their creation, and they certainly aren't worth the money we will have to plunk down when we want to watch TV.

But then again I'm not brainwashed by TV marketing...

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[bill_mcgonigle]

Forcing the replacement of hundreds of MILLIONS of working TV's and equipment so the FCC can auction off the spectrum?

Tell me with a straight face that there are hundreds of millions of TV's in the US that are recieving over-the-air signals. Seriously.

When is the spectrum auction set for? I understood NTSC signals would be broadcast for a while yet. After that people will need a $60 converter. And the FCC is working on allowing unallocated UHF/VHF in rural areas to be used for wireless internet access.

Aren't things working as they should?

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a "tech site". This is just another partisan political blog.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahAHAAHA HA HAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahHAHhHHSASHAHAHAHahahahhah HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHahahahahhHAHAHAH AHahahhahahahHAHAHAHHAhahahahahhaha!!!!!!!!!! hahahah!!!!!! aaaaaahhhhahahahahaHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHah hah hahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahahahAHAHAHHA HAH AHHHAHHaha hah ahhahahahahahaha!!

Oh fucking God!
HAAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAAHHAhahahahahahahahaahah haHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Jesus let me catch my fucking breath for a second!
hhahahahAHHAHAAHAhahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHahah ahahaHAHA AHAHAHAhahahahahAHAAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahH AHhHHSASHHahahahahh gag sputter cough cough AHAHAHahahahhahHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHa hahahahhHAHAHAHAHahahhahahahHAHAHAHHAhahahahahhaha !!!!!!!!!!

hahahahahahahahah!
hahah!
hehehehe!!
heh!
hu h
Ooooh..

OK.. breathing better now. ...

BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAhaha ha hahahaHAAHAHAHAHAHaahahHHAhahahHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH HAHAhaahahahaHAHAHAHAHahahHAaa!

Oh man..

You must be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet.

HAHAHAHAHAHAaHAHAhahahahahaah! hahahHAHAHAaaHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaahah!!!!!! aaaaaahhhhahahahahaHHAHAHAhahaHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHah aaAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHah hah hahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahahahAHAHAHHA HAH AHHHAHHaha hah ahhahahahHAHAHAHAahahahAHAHAhahahahahaahahHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAhahahahahaahahaha!!

Damn, you're fucking stupid.

Wow..

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Ironsides]

They cand still supply it in SD content which is still DIGITAL. DIGITAL is the new medium, no HD. HD is merely one of the perks.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a republican? Wow. I didn't know that. Of course, I didn't care about that, either. Where M.Powell is concerned, people hate his guts because he's a fucking tool who lets a small group of television viewers dictate how he should act. That's got nothing to do with his political party. In fact, why the fuck did you bring it up? Evidently, you're too enraptured by the fact that he's a republican to see that he did perform some pretty monumental fuck-ups during his time as Head Dick Head. If he wants the things you claim, that's fantastic. If he wants to take away the rights of citizens in the process, then fuck him in the ass with a giant Gretzky bobblehead.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[mzwaterski]

You have a screw loose if you think no one is getting them. More accurately I should have said many people are getting them. Maybe things are different with us city-folk, but anyone that I know buying a new TV is purchasing an HDTV even if they can't get HDTV broadcast yet. I've seen the difference between SD and HD and I think that there is a huge quality difference. Further, I think that the technology is extremely useful when you talk about connecting your computer to your television set. If you've ever done that you should know how much of a quality difference there is. Its like reading a new book compared to a book that was left out in the rain. I'm sorry you don't think that HDTV is worthwhile. I do. I must be brainwashed because I couldn't have possibly done my own research and evaluations and come up with a preference that is different than yours!

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

So then I guess the lowest command denominator, Joe Sixpack, knows what is best for society, knows what is decent and indecent, and knows what should be on tv/radio?

I for one can't wait for TV and Radio programs that feature a curse word every ten seconds!

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Steve B]

They can still supply it in SD content which is still DIGITAL. DIGITAL is the new medium, no HD. HD is merely one of the perks.

OK, so they can transmit at the old resolution on the new channel. This doesn't stop the government from reclaiming and auctioning the old spectrum, so the threat (of refusing to broadcast HDTV unless they get their demanded restrictions) is still empty.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe things are different with us city-folk, but anyone that I know buying a new TV is purchasing an HDTV even if they can't get HDTV broadcast yet.

I suppose that me living 20 miles from downtown Minneapolis makes me some sort of backwater shithead. Well, I just bought a TV and it didn't have HDTV... It didn't have a HDTV tuner because I don't agree with it and I hope it dies.

It's people like you who fall for marketing hype and the glitz of the new that get suckered into supporting something and paying for it twice.

Me? At least I got my principles. TV doesn't matter that much to me and I'm glad that I'm not a slave to the government and the corporations every technological whim when it has to do with my tax dollars.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[mzwaterski]

I wouldn't buy a television with an HD tuner in it either. I would buy one that is HD compatible (supported HD resolutions). I just can't understand why you would be so adamately sp? against having a television with higher resolutions. Further, if you just bought a new tv you can't say that the gov't is making you go out and buy all new equipment. HDTV may progress to a higher quality digital signal or some sort, but its not going to go away. I have yet to hear one good argument as to why SD is better than HD.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that me living 20 miles from downtown Minneapolis makes me some sort of backwater shithead.

I don't know what makes you a backwater shithead.

I live just a few miles further from the IDS tower than you, and I enjoy the hell out of my widescreen TV. Even if you don't need the extra resolution, the ability to watch movies in native (not pan & scan) format is worth the price of admission to me.

My home theater experience beats the hell out of a theater full of assmonkey's who can't STFU during a feature.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[tomcode]

Millhouse: No one who has an HDTV would say that!
Nelson: Get him!

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Johnny5000]

This is just another partisan political blog.

would it offend you less if the politics of the board more closely matched your own?

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was backwards compatible with the earlier B&W television sets so if people had old TVs and didn't want to buy a new one to get color, they could continue using it until it broke. HD forces people to upgrade to either a new set (which aren't cheap), or get a converter box to continue to watch TV. The availability of HD broadcasts and the time at which that the SD broadcasts will cease is too short. Not everyone has the 'gotta buy a new gadget every year' mode that many geeks are in.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[uptownguy]

I'm not really sure why I'm chiming in here but I'll bite.

I live about 2 1/2 miles south of the IDS tower -- in Uptown. There's enough interference from all the buildings downtown that it isn't possible to get a decent signal here without cable. Which is fine with me because most TV is crap, right? Except that the ex-girlfriend liked watching TV and Time Warner was running a special so in November I got cable. Having not watched TV in a year or two, I was amazed by the commercials. Lots and lots of commercials. People trying to cram things down your throat. Constantly. Wow.

(this story doesn't have a point, by the way, so you can just skip ahead to the next message...)

Anyway, like I said, the exgirlfriend. Things didn't work out but I kept the cable for a few weeks. Then on New Year's Day, I'm sitting on my couch and I say to myself, "What am I doing?" So I call Time Warner and say to the customer service rep, "I'd like to cancel my cable."

She asks me why. "Well," I reply, "It's nice and everything but I'm watching too much TV and I'm not comfortable with so many commercials constantly telling me why I am missing something in my life. I like my life like it is..."

Silence. For about thirty seconds. Then: "Sir, could you please hold..."

...about four minutes later, she comes back on the line with a worried tone in her voice and says, "Sir, there isn't anyplace on this form for 'too many commercials'. Is there any other reason why you are canceling?"

I choke down a laugh. I was being a dick and didn't even realize it. She was getting paid $8/hour and I was making her talk time on a routine call go through the roof... "Is there any place to mark 'other'?" I ask helpfully. There was.

Now the TV is back on the floor of my messy bedroom, covered in clothes. And I am much happier.

Again, I didn't really have a point here. Just thought I'd share.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[drinkypoo]

You just got done saying you're not a slave to your entertainment and then bitched about people not wanting to buy into a new format. Well, boo hoo hoo. You don't need a TV but progress is inevitable and it was extremely late in this case. The nominal expected resolution of broadcast television has not increased in a seriously long time, until HD. Having backwards compatibility is preferred but just not feasible when we're talking about moving from analog to digital, something all forms of long distance communication do eventually, if for no reason other than fault tolerance. Now that it's going digital, the long-term upgrade schedule of television implies that by the time we upgrade again, decoding HD will be something one chip can do in our new set.

Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Alsee]

He forced them to adopt DRM?
he didn't force the industry to accept it.

Are you smoking crack? That is EXACTLY what he did!
He used the force of government to impose it on manufacturers, and thus impose it on the public as well. As of August non-complianance will be illegal.

The content publishers said adopt some form of control or we won't supply HD content.

That's nice. In a free market no one is forced to offer anything they don't want to. My local supermarket is perfectly free to decide they don't want to sell milk. Fine. They have every freedom to decline to enter that market and to pass up any profits from that market.

That's one of the wonderful things about free market competition. If some company FAILS the market, there are always plenty of others who will absolutely jump at the chance to make a buck WINNING that market. Winning companies in the television business stealling market share away from losing companies.

There's really two possibilities here. The most likely alterative is that those lobbiests were lying about reffusing to enter the market with HD programming, in which case the FCC abused it's power to use the force of government to distort the market and impose a DRM system on manufacturers and the public. The far less likely alternative is that those lobbiests were telling the truth in which case the FCC abused its power in a protectionist measure to pick winners and losers, to keep those companies from losing out to market winning competitors. If some competitors abandon the market and lose market share, fine. Other competitors will eagerly serve that market and earn and win market share. Let winners win and losers lose.

You do not change the fundamental rules of TV broadcasting and make nomral TVs illegal to prohibit natural market competition, to prevent winners from winning and losers from losing.

Why should it be illegal for me to get a normal TV? Why should I be forced to buy a more expensive and less functional TV? Why should I be forced to buy a more expensive and less functional VCR? Why should innovation and new technologies and new products be subject to what amounts to MPAA approval? This obviously makes innovation and new technologies and new products more expensive and delays their introduction, but it also going to hold them back. It will be a drag and drain on innovation and new technologies and new products. It will inevitably outright KILL at least some percentage of innovation and new technologies and new products.

And it is IMPOSED by the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT.

-

Powells are out...

[rsborg]

His father, Colin, is also stepping down. I wonder what this means in terms of GOP internal power struggle?

Re:Powells are out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh nothing. The enemies of liberty and justice remain in power, and the Powels get to move to the private sector where they can earn some real money.

Re:Powells are out...

[MasterOfUniverse]

Powells were never considered to be a strong GOPs. Infact, in the 90s, when colin powell was thinking about running for office, he was not sure if he should run as a republican and democrat. Also, don't forget that he was not at all part of the "conservative gang" from the Bush's first time. One of the reasons he is leaving is b/c his believes do not alighn with that neo-conservatives, i.e rice, cheney, rumsheld etc..

So who's replacing him?

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Rupert Murdoch
B) CEO of Clear Channel
C) Some random hispanic guy who thinks torture is A-OK

The possiblities are endless!

Well...

[wcitechnologies]

Well, from what I hear that guy can be a real (censored).

You're so off base

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "criminal" here. Showing a middle aged saggy boob isn't criminal. Somebody saying "fuck" isn't criminal.

[as an aside, I'll tell you what's criminal... spending billions of dollars a week in Iraq for no reason, and then running a budget deficit that is destroying our economy. . That's criminal, but that requires thought to actually figure out]

Michael Powell was and is wrong because he tried to use his own personal standards when it came to fines. He was and is a believer in the market...except when it came to "decency".

Meanwhile, he pioneered some of the biggest corporate givaways of spectrum... Ask Nextel who got billions of dollars in free space.

Good riddence to possibly the worst thing to happen to free speech in quite a while. Michael Powell proved himself over and over again to be incompetent. He proved over and over again that he got his job because of his daddy.

If there is a god and karma, he'll get sick before he gets to spend a penny of the money he hopes to get in private industry. He's exactly what's wrong with government these days.

Re:You're so off base

[Anonymous Coward]

Showing a middle aged saggy boob isn't criminal.

Yes it is. Showing young, pert ones isn't though.

BaBaBooey

[Anonymous Coward]

Boff?

Too harsh

[numLocked]

I think you all are too harsh on my man Mikey P.

He heads an organization that is ostensibly about regulating new technologies, but employs almost 10 times as many lawyers as engineers, and the average age of the engineers is quite high (in the 40s, if memory serves). He has done a surprisingly good job of staying moderate in terms of amount of regulation. He generally knows when to stay out of the fray, and has been quick to officially adopt standards that have been cemented internationally.

He really has an impossible job, and I think he has been doing as well as anyone could have expected.

Re:Too harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

Were not harsh enough. The deregulation that occured during his tenure followed by the massive consolidation of media companies right after has had very visible results, at least in my area.

Re:Too harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that when Powell was specifically asked to get into the fray, he declined as well. For example, ABC specifically asked the FCC whether it would consider the airing of Saving Private Ryan to be in any violation, Powell refused to answer. He did the same more recently with another request. In essence, when a broadcaster asks Powell to do his job and tell them in advance whether something will be considered offensive, he declines, which hangs the broadcaster out to dry. This is not "doing as well as could be expected."

Re:Too harsh

[Anonymous Coward]

that's a problem caused by CongressCritters

Re:Too harsh

[theLOUDroom]

He has done a surprisingly good job of staying moderate in terms of amount of regulation.

Moderate in terms of record breaking politcally motivated fines, or moderate in terms of expaning the FCC's power beyond it's legal mandate into the forced implementation of the "broadcast flag"?

As an electrical engineer curretly involved in RF related work I think it's bullshit that the guy in charge of regulating the electromagnetic spectrum knows pretty much fuck-all about it.

A GOOD FCC chairman would fix problems with stupid regulations that give analog cellphone users a false sense of security, block open source 802.11x drivers, and pretty much make parts of the GNU radio project illegal. He would be something more than a total corporate puppet, and place the public interest above that of whichever corporation is currently lobbying him.
For example, this means that Clearchannel would not be able to put reaters on stations that I can't start a low power FM station on.

Re:Too harsh

[drinkypoo]

Why would you want to block parts of a software radio project? Are you one of those fools that believes in security through obscurity? If we outlaw software radios, only the biggest criminals will be able to have them - you know, the mafia and the u.s. government.

Re:Too harsh

[Alsee]

block open source 802.11x drivers, and pretty much make parts of the GNU radio project illegal

#1: WHY whould you want to do that?

and #2: How the heck do you think you could/would accomplish it?

-

Re:Too harsh

[theLOUDroom]

#1: WHY whould you want to do that?

I don't want to do it, it's what the gov't is already doing.

Here's the same statement again, formatted more clearly:

A GOOD FCC chairman would fix problems with stupid regulations that:

• give analog cellphone users a false sense of security
• block open source 802.11x drivers
• pretty much make parts of the GNU radio project illegal.

How the heck do you think you could/would accomplish it?

The current FCC rules make easily-hackable, broadband receivers illegal. In essence you can only sell a broadband, software defined radios if the software cannot be modified by the end user.

Re:Too harsh

[theLOUDroom]

Why would you want to block parts of a software radio project? Are you one of those fools that believes in security through obscurity?

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or if you misunderstood what I was saying. The current set of FCC rules blocks certain aspects of the GNU radio project, and I think it sucks.

Up until about 10 years ago, it was legal to build a "dc to daylight" receiver and listen to anything you could hear. Now it is illegal to sell a receiver that can receive the analog cellular phone bands. AND there is a requirement the it be difficult to modify, so ifdef=in_us is out.
This is exactly what is meant by security through obscurity. It should be the responsibility of those transmitting over the public airwaves to keep their private communications secret.

Re:Too harsh

[drinkypoo]

I see, I think what happened is that I missed your sarcasm. :)

Re:Too harsh

[numLocked]

I would encourage you to read this article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/view.html ?pg=5

While it doesn't completely reflect my views, it should give you an idea of what im saying.

Re:Too harsh

[Alsee]

Ahhh. Damn english language with ambiguous operator precedence and groupings. I didn't spot that the "stupid" was supposed to be multiplicatively distributed across the sum terms. Stupid*(X + Y + Z).

If programmers ruled the world we'd YACC the damn language. Chuckle.

-

Re:How many Satanists?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many others!....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005 /2 10105devilhand.htm

Howard Stern calls into Michael Powell interview

[Aryeh Goretsky]

Hello,

Howard Stern actually called into an interview Michael Powell was doing with KGO radio in San Francisco last October. Interesting enough, one of Howard Stern's main complaints was the FCC was preventing Viacom from buying stations.

More information (MP3, transcript) can be found at Boing Boing.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

The FCC Proudly Presents Mikey Powells Replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Here's the new FCC slogan

It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[EmagGeek]

I don't know whether it's too late to un-do all the damage he has done to Amateur Radio by coating BPL with teflon and ramming it through - but hopefully common sense will prevail and BPL will be shelved...

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Support for BPL is the one thing Powell got right. It is the only chance I have of getting broadband access and there are a lot of other people in rural areas who are in the same boat.

Nothing against ham radio, I hope the two technologies can co-exist. But things change, technologies become obsolete. Ham radio is just not relevant to most people, broadband is.

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[Martin Blank]

Unlikely. If BPL works as expected over large-scale trials, much of the grid is going to be turned into internet connections, which plenty of people out in the boondocks are going to really appreciate, and which will introduce more competition for the cablemodem and DSL companies.

At the risk of the wrath of ham radio community, this is something that may well prove to be of more use than amateur radio. I'm aware of the various social and emergency uses, but BPL would affect millions, possibly tens of millions, while there are less than one million licensed operators in the United States.

How much of the amateur radio spectrum is affected by BPL? And is there any way of filtering the noise generated by BPL?

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[Ironsides]

You can't filter out the BPL, but there is still going to be a shitload of frequecies that BPL does not interfere with. I think under 10% if the ham freqs are going to be affected.

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[finkployd]

It is a long read, but this is probably the best explination of the issue (focus on technical aspects) that I have found.

Finkployd

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[dynamic_cast]

bpl is not going to bring internet access out to the boondocks. It requires tons of repeaters to be put on the poles because the signal degrades so fast. This requires money. This is the same reason you don't have dsl. It requires an invesment, a large one, by the pwer companies.

You may notice that the power companies DO NOT use this technology for their own data signalling to and from the boondocks.

I to live in the boondocks, and I get my connection from a wireless ISP (WISP). Buy a T1, put an 802.11 AP (or wimax pretty soon) box on top of a water tower and sell service to your neighbors to cover your costs.

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[Martin Blank]

The author seems to be pretty severely biased against it. While he does have some good arguments, some of them are phrased so as to make it seem like this will leak interference at every frequency known to man. In addition, his admittedly BOTN cost comparison amortizes the cost of equipment over two years when it's much more likely to be factored over ten years, and I think both has a lower than expected customer uptake (30%) and customer availability in all except the most extreme cases of farmland (10 per mile).

I'm still not convinced of either side. I know that BPL has serious potential issues, but I'm not sure that either side has addressed them properly, either by under- or over-playing their particular concerns.

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[wowbagger]

Actually, I was just wondering if Mr. Powell will be going to work for one of the BPL equipment providers as a "consultant"....

And as for "... coating BPL with teflon and ramming it through...." - It seems more like he coated it with Tabasco and rammed it into HF operator's ... well, I leave the rest of the image to you.

Re:It may not be too late for Ham Radio

[Lxy]

Powell has done quite a number on BPL. I heard an engineer from the ARRL give a very detailed explanation of what the FCC is doing.

The jist of it is, the developers of BPL built devices that violate part 15. The FCC is still collecting data on this, to verify that it really is a part 15 violation. Yes, BPL clobbers HF and HUNDREDS of other services, but the question remains what is "harmful interference", and does the interference that BPL creates considered harmful? In reality, the FCC has added regulations to part 15 specifically for BPL. BPL devices are more regulated than any other device by part 15 rules.

What I still don't get is why the FCC has a hard on for extending broadband. Apparently you can break their rules, ANY of their rules as long as you're giving more people in the middle of nowhere access to faster internet. Why? Who knows. Hopefully someone will get in there and start to diminish the FCCs' role in rolling out high speed internet. I would think they have better things to do, like maybe protect the frequencies they've already allocated.

As for the future of BPL, the FCC is listening. They are collecting data and actually LISTENING to people, especially the ARRL. The ARRL has taken on the job of collecting data in test cities and submitting it to the FCC. The FCC is listening, and BPL will probably die once the FCC has a strong enough case to kill their hoirribly designed devices.

The Wicked Witch!

[ackthpt]

The Wicked Witch!

Please.. that is so 1930's. These days evil is characterized by , Voldemort and anything RIAA/MPAA are up to.

Re:The Wicked Witch!

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA = MP(uahahaha)AA?

fines

[Jodka]

'Powell .. collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters

Now is that because FCC indecency policy became more strict under Powell, or because policy remained unchanged but the culture is becoming publicly more sexual and profane?

Re:fines

[EmagGeek]

A little from column A and a little from column B... ~5-6 years ago when Britney's first video came out, I was pretty amazed at how sexually graphic it was... today, when I see that video, it strikes me as something that could be a commercial for the Bible... so yeah, culture is definitely becoming more overtly sexual and profane, and as the reaction to that change, indecency enforcement is becoming more strict...

Re:fines

[Anonymous Coward]

Unquestionably because the FCC is becoming more strict. It's easy to prove this because the EXACT same shows that could be aired a couple of years ago garner fines today. Saving Private Ryan is one example. Howard Stern's "best of" shows are another. A third is that "The Family Guy", a cartoon, is going to pixellate an animated butt that aired without a problem just 6 months ago.

The nation has taken a significant swing towards the conservative end of the political spectrum. You may think this is a good or bad thing, but you cannot deny that it is happening. Oh, wait, the GOP can deny anything it wants. Truth no longer matters. I forgot.

Re:fines

[$criptah]

Sexual and profane? I find it ironic that in most developed countries of the world sex and some profanity is not a big deal. In Europe people have been enjoying topless beaches and sexy commercials for a long time. What is wrong with that?

In the United States you can't see a boob on TV. Apparently, it will traumatize our children. However, if kids want to watch something really stupid like "Simple Life," or MTV, people are okay with it. Wake up, America! It is funny how Americans react to nudity and sexual themes on TV. Anytime there is a show / movie that inolves that, there is a lot of mastrubation going on. Christian convservaties are bashing everything from Sponge Bob Square Pants to Desparate Housewifes because of refrences to homosexuals (I have no idea why they think that Sponge is gay) or some horny women with bad attitudes. I am sure there are no women like that in real life :)

We have become so uptight and afraid of human sexuality and desires that our president aims to curb women's rights and replace sexual ed with teachings on abstinence. What a pure nonsense! Perhaps we need to learn that life is not pure and simple. There sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll among many othr things. Women can be horny, there are breasts and nudity does take place in real life. People of all ages can love, cheat, have sex and enjoy their lives the way the want. There is nothing wrong with that. The world is not perfect and we need to learn how to deal with it. Instead of focusing on profanity and nudity, how about we focus on public education, poverty and ecology?

Re:fines

[silicon not in the v]

Just because you have no moral standards doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have them either. There is a reason why television systems are intentionally divided into broadcast spectrum(free and censored) and special-delivery content like cable(not free and not as censored).

I've heard your analogy before from others that, "X happens in real life, therefore we should show it to our children on TV." and it still doesn't hold water. Sure, a lot of things happen in real life--child abuse, domestic violence, etc. but I don't think it's appropriate to show everything that happens in real life to kids. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think "Desperate Housewives", to use your example, would be appropriate for my kids either, but that is a decision that parents can make based on what type of show it is. The post you were responding to was making the point that parents should have been able to judge from the expected content of a televised football game and were instead given something outside of those bounds.

If you want to show your kids "sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll" as you say, then you are free to do that in the movies you rent or stuff you watch at home on cable, or whatever. I wouldn't want to prohibit you from doing so, but broadcast television is not the place for that.

Re:fines

[lawpoop]

Just because you're an uptight prude doesn't mean that another person is amoral. US television is incredibly violent, and no one complains that that will hurt children. But you show anything about sex, and people become afraid that that will turn children into raging nymphomaniacs.

Why are you so eager to push your agenda on others? If you think it's okay to show violence on TV -- in this case, actual violence, where grown men beat the living tar out of each other, and we witness injuries live -- why do you think you should win out over what the parent thinks is appropriate to show on TV?

Re:fines

[Jim_Callahan]

Wait? Aren't our children already raging nymphomaniacs? Just ask any baptist minister.

Re:fines

[drinkypoo]

What you are saying is precisely the opposite of reason. "Because something is inconvenient for me I do not want it to exist." Why don't you try using modern technology to block the stuff from being displayed on your television? For example, the V-Chip. Note on that page that there is a category for content only suitable for people 17 years or older, ostensibly adults. Why, then, can we not show that kind of content on broadcast television?

If you don't want your children to see sex, drugs, etc on TV, why not use the V-Chip? I realize you can't watch them every second but technology has actually been mandated by the FCC that can solve this problem for you. It's not reasonable for you to tell me that I can't receive this stuff over the air - they're my airwaves too - if it were up to your way of thinking we couldn't have free porn on the internet, either. You want information to be restricted, but it behaves as if it wants to be free, because of those of us actually interested in freedom.

You want the government to do your job as a parent and protect your children from seeing things on the box that you paid for and put in your house, and which probably contains hardware which will allow you to prevent them from watching that content, even though it costs me the ability to see that kind of content without paying for cable.

A line has to be drawn somewhere - and I believe it is in between your convenience and my freedom.

Re:fines

[$criptah]

I am okay with women who express their sexuality, just like men have been doing for years and years, homesexual invididuals, and nude scenes on TV. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, if my son does not become interested in sex by the time he hits 15, I'd be quite upset.

What I am not okay with is the fact that we can show lots of violence on TV and nobody gives a fuck about it until somebody screams "vagina" or "poop" or "look at those tits!" Now, that my friend gets sensored. Never mind stupid robots blowing shit up or kids who are spy agents. Do me a favor: help yourself to a remote and watch Disney or Nick for about several hours after 2 pm. You will see what our kids are exposed to. PowerRangers turbo that kick so much ass that they put Italian mobsters of the 1980s to shame. Then there are kids who are fighting against some evil in some sort of magic land. Is that okay with you? Would you rather have a kid who grows up to be a trigger happy violent individual or somebody who knows a thing or two about sex. Last time I checked, knowing what breasts were did not hurt me at all.

Re:fines

[silicon not in the v]

Just because you're an uptight prude...

Do you feel all big and mature now? Good. Let's continue with the discussion, shall we?

US television is incredibly violent, and no one complains that that will hurt children.

Maybe you just haven't been paying attention to it. Lots of people complain about how violent TV shows are and don't let their kids watch it. Violence can also have some negative effects on children. Violence wasn't the topic being discussed though, so I just hadn't addressed it. I wasn't saying it was perfectly all right.

If you think it's okay to show violence on TV -- in this case, actual violence, where grown men beat the living tar out of each other, and we witness injuries live -- why do you think you should win out over what the parent thinks is appropriate to show on TV?

You're trying to categorize sports as being TV violence? That's a bit of a stretch.

Re:fines

[silicon not in the v]

Why don't you try using modern technology to block the stuff from being displayed on your television? For example, the V-Chip. Note on that page that there is a category for content only suitable for people 17 years or older, ostensibly adults. Why, then, can we not show that kind of content on broadcast television?

Actually you are right, and that does address my main point. I had forgotten that there was a V-Chip that can filter based on the show rating systems. I don't have kids so this hasn't been an issue I've had to deal with yet. So yes, broadcast channels should be able to show all those categories of shows if:
1. The V-chip detects the rating of each show. and
2. The broadcasters stay within the classification of the rating they have advertised for each program.

The 2nd point addresses the Super Bowl thing, where that kind of occurrence may have been fine for the later night, MA rated shows, but for something not rated as such, that should probably run with a few second delay so the network can control that.

Re:fines

[lawpoop]

"Do you feel all big and mature now? "

I guess I feel about as big as you do when you call someone who disagrees with you amoral.

Sports on TV is the most violent program on. I guess you don't watch sports much, because I'm always seeing guys going down and being carried off the field, in so much pain that they're unable to move under their own power. This is not fantasy, make-believe violence. This is real-time, live, actual human injury, brought on by other human beings. I fail to see how that is a stretch. What on TV is more violent?

Re:fines

[drinkypoo]

I agree that the super bowl thing was stupid. You don't show your titty during the superbowl. Most aamericans want to separate their sex from their violence... except maybe at the movies. I agree that a brief delay is in order. I am all in favor of providing parents with the tools to do their jobs as long as we don't take things away from others to support laziness.

Re:fines

[silicon not in the v]

Sports has accidental injuries. I guess we can't watch anything being shown live because someone could fall and tear a knee ligament. We see people get injured in the Olympics too, but I guess we shouldn't watch that either because it's sports, huh?

Anyway, in response to "What on TV is more violent?" I would mention the cop shows that show people being beaten, shot, and killed. Since this discussion is focused on the effects it would have on children, I should bring up the point that there is a difference between accidental injury and purposefully attacking someone with the intent to hurt them. You don't want to teach them that it's OK to fight with someone and punch them if they feel angry.

Link to the text

[tOaOMiB]

For reading it at your leisure, without coworkers listening in:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_2 6.html#008280

Re:Link to the text

[Gob Blesh It]

Link:
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_26.htm l#008280

----

Please visit Slashcode bug #981137, which concerns automatically hyperlinking URLs in "Plain Old Text" mode, and add a comment to show your support for a speedy resolution. No progress has been made on this trivial feature request for longer than six months.

Michael Powell's last 3 albums sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

It was all downhill starting with "Automatic for the People"

mod uVp

[Anonymous Coward]

is dying.Th1ngs it. do not share

Revolving Door

[Doc Ruby]

As soon as the limelight moves on, he'll take a job with ClearChannel.

Re:Revolving Door

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I think it's pretty clear that this guy was probably taking contributions/bribes/whatever from ClearChannel. Everything he approved magically worked in ClearChannel's favor, despite the fact that they're obviously a virtual monopoly.

Disgusting.

Light hand?

[zymurgyboy]

Can someone explain to me how one would have a regulatory 'light hand' while still collecting 'some of the largest indecency fines against broadcasters?'

Maybe it's just me, but these two statements seem to be more than a little incompatible with one another.

Re:Light hand?

[danudwary]

Because he fined a small number of people a large sum of money. Trying to make examples, etc. Which leads to seemingly random enforcement when coupled with no clear definition of what the rules are.

Re:Light hand?

[stratjakt]

Early in his tenure, Powell embraced broadband development and deployment as a national priority and chose a consistently deregulatory approach. That led to a series of crucial rulings from the FCC, including one in March 2002 that immunized cable modems from the stack of 20th century rules and fees that apply to "telecommunications services," and another in February 2003 that let former Bell companies run fiber to American homes without being required to make the links available to competitors.

Last year, Powell repeatedly shielded VoIP services from intrusive government regulation and taxation. The FCC voted in February that Internet-only VoIP services were not subject to FCC oversight and expanded that view in November to protect VoIP from state regulators. In August, Powell and his colleagues took a major step toward imposing wiretapping rules on VoIP, but stopped short of giving the FBI and other federal police agencies everything they wanted.

Wait until one of our beloved Democrats gets in. They'll put an end to all this affordable broadband and Vonage bullshit.

Re:Light hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, you cum-sucking faggot. This isn't about partisan politics, this is about getting that fucking faggot asshole motherfucker piece of shit out of the way so he can't do any more harm. Fuck you and your desire to screw over the rights of the people so you can have your "affordable broadband". Go get your faggot porn somewhere else, faggot.

Re:Light hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another typical left-wing liberal response

Re:Light hand?

[zymurgyboy]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'd be mourning his stepping down right along with you if he'd not been so draconian in regulating morally correct (as he and his party tend to think) broadcasting content. If he'd simply let Janet's boobies flop where they may and Howard spew what he will, I'd be inclined to pronounce him as close to perfect as we'd likely get in an FCC Chairman.

As it is, he's just another paper doll cutout from the GOP.

Re:Light hand?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how Freedom and Liberty is a left-wing virtue, isn't it?

[OT ] Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[minus_273]

yeash, 7 years or so back, it was quite different. I wonder if someone should start an apolitical tech only site like slashdot..

Re:[OT ] Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if someone should start an apolitical tech only site like slashdot.

As long as people feel strongly about politics, just about any forum can and will degenerate into a political discussion.

First someone will say something that has some political ramifications (and tech stuff often does), then somone else will run with it, and someone will make a comparison to Hitler, etc etc etc.

Resistance is futile.

Re:[OT ] Re:nice to see a failure to mention...

[NiceGeek]

Just because you leave politics alone, doesn't mean politics will leave you alone.

How is this a logically consistent statement?

[wizarddc]

Powell, who maintained a light regulatory hand as the nation's chief media watchdog but collected some of the largest indecency fines against U.S. broadcasters

He didn't do much regulating, but he also did a lot of regulating. If that's not doublethink, i don't know what is.

Re:How is this a logically consistent statement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether one uses a heavy hand in regulating, or a light hand, says nothing regarding the stiffness of fines you impose. There is no connection between these two concepts.

Re:How is this a logically consistent statement?

[winwar]

"Whether one uses a heavy hand in regulating, or a light hand, says nothing regarding the stiffness of fines you impose."

Not explicitly. But implicitly imposing large arbitrary and capricious fines implies "don't do it" VERY loudly. I would define that as a "heavy hand". Or if you prefer, an iron fist in a velvet glove....

The only difference is in perception.

Re:How is this a logically consistent statement?

[Jim_Callahan]

I think "light regulatory hand" means he didn't impose a lot of penalties. So the statement translates to "He didn't penalize that many people, but when he did... wow."

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[ellem]

Close -- but Nixon gave them the power over content.

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Huh? "Informative" my ass.

Michael Powell steps down...

[0WaitState]

Michael Powell steps down...

to be replaced by John Ashcroft.

"Let the eagle soar...."

Re:Michael Powell steps down...

[BlakeCaldwell]

i swear my earlier comment was a coincidence...

Re:Michael Powell steps down...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since hearing that insipid song, I've always wanted to tell Ashcroft that the eagle will soar with or without him. "Let." Meh.

Plenty of Pocket Money

[obrienb]

Now that he has all that fine money in his pocket, he can retire early:-)

Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[stratjakt]

Last year, Powell repeatedly shielded VoIP services from intrusive government regulation and taxation. The FCC voted in February that Internet-only VoIP services were not subject to FCC oversight and expanded that view in November to protect VoIP from state regulators. ...

"He let us go out and build this new thing without knowing all the issues beforehand," said Jeff Citron, chief executive of Vonage, the largest U.S. provider of Internet telephone services. "He helped the telephone industry transition from the old to the new world."

Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.

But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like."

The stuff we dont like also happends to be 10 a penny, where as the "stuff we do like" is rare as rocking horse shit.

The focus is quite justified.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Ryan Stortz]

I agree, he has done alot of great things. Personally, I'd prefer he stayed rather than possibily having someone much worse. Apart from the broadcast flag (which isn't all that unreasonable) and the finings, I think he has an almost spotless record. Anyone (Well, polititions) in his position would of dealt out a good deal of fines with the pressure the FCC recieved. Even if 99.8% of all complaints came from a single advocacy group.

Of course, the ham radio nerds will always hate him. Seriously, sometimes the old has to be sacrificed for the new.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I agree.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[ch-chuck]

A shame Powell wasn't as even handed with the incumbent phone companies treatment of competitive DSL companies a few years back. The difference between a REAL capitalist politician's economic policies and typical republican crony-ism is the first enforces competition which benefits the consumer, while the latter allows his buddies with abusive monopolies run roughshod over consumers, all they while shouting blubber about "letting the market decide" and "keep government off business' back!".

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the parent pointed out that that is not true and backed it up with a list of facts. Lets see YOUR list of "don't likes" and compare it with his list of "likes"?

Don't bother coming on here and saying "it aint so" and then providing NOTHING to back it up, we have enough luzers here already.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to spoil your fun being an oppressed Republican and all. But I would prefer, in the spirit of your "giving credit where credit is due" post, why give Powell and the FCC for what the FTC is doing? Check it out.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[josecanuc]

As a Ham Radio Nerd, I feel I must speak up (if only for myself.)

I like Chairman Powell. However, I do feel that the board, headed by him, is fond of making decisions that promote commerce or industry without understanding the complaints that they hear against those decisions.

Of course, with the way that many Hams complain, you'd probably dismiss them all as raving lunatics :-) Say to a Ham, "they want to put noise on your frequency," and you will hear some of the foulest language on the earth, without so much as a "can you explain what you mean by that?"

A minority of Hams were calling for sane responses like "Allow broadband-over-powerline, but require that the frequencies used are properly and effectively filtered to notch out Ham and other federal-use frequency bands." But you'd never hear them over the "BPL is evil and will kill us all!" crowd.

The big issue that seemed to be stuck in the background was which actual frequencies were going to be used. As I understand it, BPL wanted to use frequencies that essentially covered the entire HF spectrum (1MHz - 30 MHz), ignoring the fact that the powerlines are such effective radiators at those frequencies.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[bushidocoder]

Not to mention that he sides with Tivo and the consumers every time the content industry came calling, with the exception of the copy bit, which although he allowed to be implemented, did not fully standardize. When the NFL complained that TivoToGo violated their decades long control over their market with blackout dates, he ruled in favor of the consumer. He never interfered with cables versus satellite's ability to compete with each other fairly. He sat back and let the markets push broadband into almost every willing home with very limitted regulation. He expanded the available bandwidth for wireless carriers at a low cost, ensuring that even with the recent corporate mergers, there's still 5 major carriers for consumers to choose from.

We may not like everything he did, but I agree - lets give the man some credit for leading the only part of government to not completely screw emerging technologies.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[dmarx]

Freedom of speech is in the Constitution, cellphone number portability, do not call list, and WiFi are not. I think it's better to have officials who respect the Constitution than officials who do what's popular.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[killjoe]

I have a better idea. Let's see if he has done more harm then good and then decide.

Let me think .......

Yup he has done more harm then good. Feel free to bash him all you want.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only person who cares that he's a republican is YOU. Why are you so insecure about being a republican?
;

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Ryan Stortz]

I understand that Ham has valid uses which will be effectivly killed by BPL, but BPL could very well be the solution to the last mile problem. Which is why the FCC & Powell approved a few test setups to see if it really is the solution.

I can't really think of any parallels to this situation; where one technology is shut down in favor of another. The closest I can come to is HDTV, but the switch over hasn't happened yet.

I guess I'm a little biased too, I live 4 miles just outside of a Michigan town (~4,000 residents) and I'm forced to use dialup. I've talked to the cable company several times a year over the past 7 years about getting Cable TV/Internet out here and they just keep replying with "We currently have no plans to expand our service into your area." I even got a quote once for the cost of running the lines. $100 for every 10 feet. The closest run ends 9/10ths of a mile away. That brings the total to $47,520 I'd have to pay. Ha. My only hope is fixed wireless, but right now no one offers it. (There is a company offering that proprietary 3COM setup in Grand Rapids, but they don't cover my area.)

I've been toying with the idea of starting my own up, but I really have no clue what'd I'd be getting into. How much would one of the towers cost anyway? (For WiMax)

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[josecanuc]

I understand that Ham has valid uses which will be effectivly killed by BPL...

Perhaps you should instead say "...has valid uses which will be effectively killed by poorly implemented BPL...". :-)

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Just Some Guy]

Freedom of speech is in the Constitution, cellphone number portability, do not call list, and WiFi are not.

In other words, even though he didn't have to enact number portability and increased spectrum usage, he did because it would be good for citizens. Sounds pretty good to me!

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[learn fast]

Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.

Michael Powell headed the Federal Communications Commission. Those were actions of the Federal Trade Commission. It may be only one acronym letter off, but they are completely different agencies. Try again next time.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[ksheff]

can't use the satellite ISPs either?

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[dmarx]

In other words, even though he didn't have to enact number portability and increased spectrum usage, he did because it would be good for citizens. Sounds pretty good to me!

Those things are nice, and I'd like an FCC chairman who enacted them and respected the Constitution, but I'd rather have someone who respected the Constitution than Powell, even if that someone didn't do those things.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotta be anon on this one (unfortunately) but I think it's important to mention a few things:
1) powell came down on Janet and Howard because he needed a win after almost blowing it with the media ownership consolidation with congress - lose that a another battle like the triennial review order and martin, who stepped back into line after the TRO (the veep musta pistol whipped him so bad) could have been president.
2) Vonage and the whole VOIP issue is so far from done it's silly. the bottom line is VOIP makes traditional phone lines more expensive, which makes VOIP and the broadband it runs on more expensive which is bad for the start ups and competitors - Powell knew this and thought cable, bells and powerline broadband was enough (sounds like an oligopoly to me) - the bottom line is now poor people will pay more for 911 access so we can make calls over our broadband connections.
3) The internet - this is why powell quit. The only option you have at this point if you're the FCC is to admit you need to regulate the internet or raise everyone's phone bills by a lot. that's unlikely to happen. And the GOP will never allow the internet to be taxed in any form which means Powell goes down as the one who made phone calls for the poor expensive. Best to jump ship now and pretend to be an idealist instead of a loser (which whoever takes over will be forced into)
Will the GOP appoint a true idealist to get the job done? can you say lame duck? Look for someone who's a lawyer from Commerce or DOJ (more likely the latter - they've been so good for GW) -
IF NOT, it's a token gesture to the religious right for delivering the presidency, the FCC gets moral, the new prez (Buchanan says no, but Falwell jr. gives it a go for the bully pulpit, realizing he can't get the GOP's formal blessing because that goes to Jeb) bows to pressure from the white house to destroy cost based broadband competition, raising rates for all of us and sponge bob loses his lisp or gets run off the air.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or for an actual citation, look at this google cache of a www.fcc.gov website which states that the FCC created the do-not-call registry. It includes this quote, emphasis mine:

Recently, pursuant to its broad authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the FCC established a national Do-Not-Call Registry.

So it's not surprising there's some confusion about the whole thing.

Re:Vonage might not exist today w/o Powell.

[bruthasj]

Dear Michael Moore:

Get your facts straight. Powell and the FCC were heavily involved.

Oh, while your getting the facts in order, learn to use google.

Thanks,
concerned reader

How many here think..

[cOdEgUru]

along with me that he could very well be planning to run for Public Office?

In a value-charged society as it is right now, he could swing enough evangelical votes to get on the ballot..

What I want to see from the ideal FCC Chairman is the balls to slash ownership percentage of the Big Media and allow more independent voices be heard.

MOD PARENT FUNNY

[sethadam1]

I hope people understand how funny that actually was. Nice work.

Coincidence that Ashcroft stepped down too?

[BlakeCaldwell]

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is going to appoint John Ashcroft...

"Let the eagles fly...."

jeez, that'd be truly awful..

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[Martin Blank]

They have been taken to court over the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the public interest to have the FCC place reasonable restrictions on content aired within certain times over public airwaves. Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive. Transmissions over more limited media (cable and satellite) do not fall within the domain of the FCC, as has been determined by the courts on occasion, and which I believe even Michael Powell has stated in declining to get involved in certain satellite and cable broadcast issues (don't recall them specifically offhand).

Fining for indecency is "lighthanded regulation"?

[swb]

I call bullshit.

The same way that sodomy laws, the war on drugs, and all the other conservative morality laws are "less government."

The chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams.

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[ad0gg]

There's one issue, TV and radio stations are licensed the frequency and must follow the rules defined for the license. If you want broadcast stuff that people may deem offense, there's always cable, sat radio, or sat tv. If FCC tries to regulate the content on those, is when you should be concerned.

Personally I'd like to see more regulations of public airwaves. These are for public interests, not commercial interests. Government should setup better standards for advertising on content designed for children. I can't believe how much crap they try to peddle to kids over public airwaves. There also should be better standards on how many commericals a tv can show. Its seems to me there's like 2 minutes of commercials for 5 minutes of content. And its increasing every year.

Fark had it right

[Chairboy]

As fark.com put it, he's obviously stepping down because his work is done, as evidenced by Fox pixelating an animated butt on Family Guy (http://www.canada.com/entertainment/story.html?id =125fef6e-bfc5-4ffc-92fd-736badb8b689) out of fear of getting fined.

If you run the FCC and you get a cartoon to censor itself spontaneously, on FOX of all places, that's how you know you've dealt some serious spankage.

Thank god!

[hckrdave]

Its time to get some young blood in there!

That's hot

[cyranoVR]

Howard Stern rules!

Powell on Cavuto on Fox News at 4:00 EST

[paulydavis]

enough said

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[smooth wombat]

Its seems to me there's like 2 minutes of commercials for 5 minutes of content.

You have that backwards.

Those are not 'Devil's Horns'

[Matarick]

I recall, Gene Simmons used that gesture to only give a wink to fellow Spiderman fans.

The 'devil horns' isn't Satan worship, but I doubt the militant religious right doesn't read that many comic books.

Re:Those are not 'Devil's Horns'

[192939495969798999]

True, as everyone should know, they merely ward off the curse of the evil eye. They actually protect you from evil. What nonsense that metal is any more evil than church music... you can find some really screwed up lyrics in older (meaning hundreds of years older) church music. For example, chanting 'crucify', yeah, there's no metal songs that do THAT!! (sarcastic, der)

What Howard Stern had to say

[DoorFrame]

"Howard came back from break and got Mike Walker on the line so they could play the Gossip Game with him. Howard told Mike that something just came over the wire saying that Michael Powell is probably going to resign today. Howard said that's not a surprise because now that he's leaving radio, he's got nothing else to do. Gary told Howard that they're getting a ton of requests from the press for Howard to give some quotes. Howard said that this is a great thing because the guy didn't deserve the job in the first place. He believes that Powell got the job because of who his father was. Howard gave the history of Colin Powell and how Michael Powell was given the job to pay back Colin Powell. Howard said that Powell didn't deserve the position and eventually started fining Howard and other broadcasters to look good to the religious right. Howard went off on Powell for a couple of minutes and complained about the things he did while he was in that position. He claims that Powell and the FCC blackmailed companies by threatening to hold up their licenses. Howard said ''Thank God he's gone... but God help us with what's next.''"

From Mark's Friggin Website

Those are left-wing morality laws

[Anonymous Coward]

' The same way that sodomy laws, the war on drugs, and all the other conservative morality '

The liberal wing, as well, supports the "war on drugs". Bill Clinton, a major liberal leader, signed the anti-gay "defense of marriage act".

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[Anonymous Coward]

That is only to not COMPLETELY alienate the "moral majority". Those are hard core right wing conservitive efforts through and through.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[CosmeticLobotamy]

The liberal wing, in general, does not support the war on drugs. The Democratic Party, which most liberals end up voting for, goes along with it to keep moderates on their side.

But who cares. I'm replying because I'm so freaking sick of hearing about the Defense of Marriage Act being signed by Clinton. He signed the damn thing because when Congress passed it they already had more than 80% in favor of it in both the House and Senate, which is way more than enough to override a veto. If you want the argument, you can validly go for all the Democrats in Congress that voted for it, but shut up about Clinton.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[Just Some Guy]

He signed the damn thing because when Congress passed it they already had more than 80% in favor of it in both the House and Senate, which is way more than enough to override a veto.

If they really had that majority, as you're claiming, then why bother signing it? Why not say "do what you must, but I won't support it" and go on record as opposing it when it really mattered?

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[winwar]

"The liberal wing, as well, supports the "war on drugs". Bill Clinton, a major liberal leader,..."

One little problem. The Democratic Party is not on the liberal spectrum (aka the left). They are moderates at best. Bill Clintin was not a liberal. The only LOOK liberal compared to the Republican Party.

I doubt many true liberals support the war on drugs. For that matter, neither do true conservatives. That's the problem with labels-they tend to be used to confuse rather than illuminate. Actions are a better benchmark.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Because he's a politician. The issue is unpopular with the majority, so he'd lose bigger if he didn't sign it and no good would have come from it. Myself, I would have told Congress to shove it, but that's why I'll never be elected to any office. Plus I'm grossly unqualified, and I don't have the time to star in a bunch of action movies.

I don't know Bill. I don't know if he would have signed it if a veto would have served a purpose, but the fact that he did sign it contains no information and can't be used for anything other than to say he didn't take a stand for it. Which, again, pisses me off, but it's a different issue.

Obviously more than half the democrats in the Senate voted for the damn thing, so I just wish we could stick to that embarrassing nugget instead of pulling Clinton's entirely ambiguous (unless it's in his biography that he wanted to sign it, in which case... oops) actions into it.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[Jim_Callahan]

It also helped that Clinton was the least effective president since Coolidge. Of course, the difference was that Coolidge did it on purpose, and was an awesome guy. Frankly, I'm not sure wether I admire Clinton for his complete lack of impact on anything or wether I look down my nose at him.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Things were going okay. Sometimes nothing is the thing to do.

Re:Those are left-wing morality laws

[hunterx11]

Two words: pocket veto.

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[dr_dank]

The way the FCC penalty system is structured, a station cannot renew or transfer licenses while the matter is open. For a large media company who relies on being able to buy and sell stations, this is a strong incentive to pay the fine and not fight it.

Michael Powell

[AtariAmarok]

I think he should go back to working with "Monty Python."

Re:Michael Powell

[Limburgher]

I thought that was Michael Ellis.

Yeah, but...

[zarthrag]

...the man who appointed that which *isn't*.

Meanwhile in New York

[tdhillman]

Now, can we all imagine Howard Stern jumping through flaming hoops with joy?

But seriously, I don't think that this is exactly whay I would call good news. Powell was certainly an unqualified political appointee who did a fairly lousy job at effectively regulating the free speech issues of the FCC.

But stop and think- who the hell is going to get appointed to the position? In a society that seems to be waging cultural warfare on itself, the next chairman may be effective and completely opposed to intellectual freedom.

If Janet Jackson's boob (and I've seen a fair number and her's was aok) was a problem for the FCC under Powell, imagine if John Ashcroft (thank God this will not happen) ever got appointed. Do you think Bush will appoint a religious radical to the post?

I shiver in fear.

Abolish the FCC

[Stormwatch]

Abolish the FCC

Re:Abolish the FCC

[csnydermvpsoft]

Abolish the FCC [aynrand.org]
--

Circumcision must be outlawed [mgmbill.org]

Quite the juxtoposition there - first, you're linking to aynrand.org, then you're linking to a site advocating outlawing circumcision.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[HarveyBirdman]

It's stuff like that that prevents me from being fully Libertarian. If you take the collective whole of these people's ideas and actually implement them, you wind up with chaos and feifdoms. They sit in their little think-tanks and spin their dreamy-dreams, but they're no better than the authoritarians in thinking any of these things through. This is why I will rarely listen to an academic on any topic where equations cannot be written or algorithms constructed.

I agree the FCC should not be regulating content, but the frequency spectrum is fixed resource that must be managed. If you can't see that, well, there's nothing to be done with you, I guess. Besides, the Internet has long since given voice to those who were not heard when the broadcast spectrum was the sole vehicle of widespread meme dispersal.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[dentar]

This "Abolish the FCC" thing is absurd. Without the FCC to allocate spectrum, TVs, Radios, and communication devices would not have come about because there would be no standard frequencies on which to operate.

A better solution is NOT abolishing the FCC, but to limit their powers to be allocating spectrum and making sure accepted equipment does not interfere with one another.

We NEED the FCC. The only abolishment that should happen is the FCC's right to determine what should and what should not be said on the air.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

It's stuff like that that prevents me from being fully Libertarian.

That's okay. Objectivists don't believe in Libertarianism.

Re:Abolish the FCC

[HarveyBirdman]

C'mere.

Right there.

*BONK* No one *BONK* likes *BONK* an *BONK* ideology *BONK* geek. *BONK* *KICK* *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM* *WHAM*

Re:Abolish the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

I shall note that Ayn Rand was never a libertarian, and had always been very critical of them - who, she said, mixed her own pro-capitalism ideas with things she detested, such as anarchism and subjectivism.

Ronnie James Dio, not Gene Simmons

[stratjakt]

Ronnie James Dio is credited with inventing the devil horns, and according to this (from Kerrang! mag) he takes it pretty seriously.

Ronnie James Dio, the man widely credited for pioneering the "devil's horns" hand sign, recently spoke to Kerrang! about the "widespread abuse of his creation" amongst pop folk and people who flash the sign without knowing the meaning behind it.

"It's all right as long as it's accepted for what it was," Dio told the magazine. "It was a more serious thing at the time, when I was with [BLACK] SABBATH. That was a band that was very dark, and that's what I wanted it to be. It was symbol of the darkness of that band, and not something to be passed on to BRITNEY SPEARS! An invention is an invention, I guess. It's become so damn polluted now. The people who are doing it don't know what it means and they have no idea that they shouldn't be doing it.

"It's a trend," Dio addded. "It's a popular trend and so it will probably become like the hula hoop. During a show, I sometimes think 'Maybe I won't do that tonight', because it's become so damn ludicrous now. Everyone's doing it and it has no meaning anymore. Now I wait until two or three songs into the show, and until there's a stop in the music and I'm doing something on my own, and then the response is incredible because people are wanting that from me. It's like OZZY and the peace sign, you know? So I never
find myself not doing it, but I'm definitely doing it less and less these days.

"The point is that you can't just flash it. You have to a face that goes with it. There has to be some emotion behind it. It can't just be the raising of the arm, trying to get your fingers in the right position. And you'll notice that a lot of people are using the thumb now, too. When the thumb comes out it means 'I love you' either in Hawaiian or in sign language - I'm not sure which! So that's proof, once again, that these celebrities don't really have a clue. As stupid as this might sound, I never once did that on stage unless it was to punctuate something that was a little more dark. So when I did it, it was never about starting a trend. It's a natural thing for me to do. It's important to know that it's not something I did frivolously it was just a spontaneous response to something that I sang. A lot of times, bending of the knees always puts it in a slightly different perspective. It puts you in the Sumo position. Now you're ready to charge!"


Bush, however, was saluting the Texas Longhorns, not "shouting out to the devil". I wish he was, that would be a refreshing break from Christian dogma.

Re:Ronnie James Dio, not Gene Simmons

[tomcode]

The Longhorns are the Devil! Gig 'em Aggies!

They also control diversity

[IceAgeComing]

They are the ones who decide how many TV/radio stations can be owned by a single company.

Powell's replacement could, for all we know, be a friend of Rupert Murdoch. How hard would that scenario be to imagine?

I hear Bill O'Reilly is looking for work.. :-)

Dio should take a clue from IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

"That was a band that was very dark, and that's what I wanted it to be. It was symbol of the darkness of that band, and not something to be passed on to BRITNEY SPEARS! An invention is an invention, I guess. It's become so damn polluted now. The people who are doing it don't know what it means and they have no idea that they shouldn't be doing it."

He should have patented it!

Which is worse

[adewolf]

Ok so which is worse nakid breast or some guy's head being chopped in. Personally I would rather my daughter see the breast than the chopped in head. The FCC seems perfectly happy with kids watching extreme violence but get's all disgruntled over band language (so what) or a nakid body part. Makes me wonder. Alex

Re:Which is worse

[t_allardyce]

For Christ's sake won't you think of the children!? if your kids saw someone naked that could scar them for life.

What I don't understand is why we don't see the people in charge actually answering questions like this - why not!? Why is it that Michael Powell never seems to attend a press conference where someone asks "Mr. Powell, why is it that natural parts of the human body, even in non-sexual situations are off limits, where as extreme violence that often leaves even adult viewers speechless is ok?" and if someone did ask that, or any other 'bad' question they get marched out or the answer doesn't actually answer anything and often seems to be even more illogical.

Re:Which is worse

[NFNNMIDATA]

It's all about the standards that America as whole has set, and this is where we are at, folks. John Q. Public more readily approves of violence than nudity.

Re:Which is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather my daughter see the breast than the chopped in head..

yeah I would too

Good News/Bad News

[Limburgher]

I'm glad to see him go, but I just hope the next person will be better.

Sorta like when Darth Ashcroft left. You never know who'll get appointed Chancellor next. . .

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[Ironsides]

On commercials vs. content. In the 80s, one hour shows were 47/48 minutes of show, the rest commercials. By the late 90s they were 42 minutes of show, the rest commercials. Can't back it up with a link right now, unfortunately.

As for commercials and kids, look at the definition of a Commercial vs. a Sponsor or Interstitial (i think thats how its spelled). Or in short compare PBS sponsoships/interstitals to commercials.

Who will be next?

[dlm85]

I am very fearful of the next head of the FCC. We could end up with someone like James Dobson who recently issued a warning about SpongeBob. http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/20/sponge.bo b.reut/index.html I just hope the next head puts a stop to those Cialis and Viagra commercials. I am very tired of seeing those commercials pop up on the TV during sporting events. Cialis + Wardrobe Malfunction = a big problem. Without the ED pills, the breast would have been ignored.

Din-dong the witch is dead

[VoxVeritas]

He was a not competent to do this job. Let's hope that Bush puts in someone better.... oh wait... that won't happen. Good-bye free speech. Good bye Amateur radio

Why care about the Jackson boob flashing?

[Saanvik]

Here's the thing - I bet your kids (if indeed your kids were watching) didn't even notice her boob.

There just wasn't anything to see. For less than a second part of her breast was exposed. Even if you look at it in slow motion (which, I'll admit, I have), you get just the merest glimpse of her nipple.

The real problem wasn't the boob flashing, it was the insistence of people in the media that it was something worth talking about. It wasn't, and it still isn't.

You say what they did was wrong - in your opinion that's true, and I'm not going to try to change that. But in the scheme of the things TV does wrong, it was trivial.

Does it deserve a fine? Sure, as you said, flashing a boob does not fit into the rating scheme. But the fine should have been a tiny little one, not half a million. It was half a million because Powell (see, I can be on topic!) is a judgemental prude, not because it was in the best interests of our country.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be offended. Go ahead and be offended. Just take a breath and realize that a sub-second flash of a boobie isn't a big deal. Save your energy for something important. You know, like being mad at Randy Moss for pretending to moon a bunch of football fans. Oh wait, that wasn't big deal either.

Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture war!

[HarveyBirdman]

Someone here said: I shiver in fear.

Wow. You shiver in fear over what thee next FCC chairdroid might think about boobies in the Superbowl. I'll be sure to alert all the people in the Sudan, where the cultural war there results in human beings sold into slavery. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, are we a pack of soft pussies in this country.

And that's the heart of the problem. Too many of you people exist in the demon haunted wolrd described by Sagan for religous types, except you construct human demons.

I had zero use for Powell or Ashcroft, but, curiously, the skies failed to split asunder and horns of the Apocalypse failed to sound under their reigns. Fancy that.

You all need to calm down and cut the histrionics. It does not gain converts. I feel your pain, but you only drive others away with the heated and vulgar rhetoric that shows up here and elsewhere. Polls seem to show that Farenheit911 probabaly was a net plus for Bush. I'd wager money that Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" on Showtime has not turned very many people away from paranormal flim-flam relative to those who were pushed more deeply into it.

Culture war happens everywhere, and has been happening as long as we higher primates have been coherent enough to have culture. The EU loudly makes fun of ours in a desperate attempt to ignore their own problems, some of which run deeper into the past than the USA has existed. China slaghters her own citizens in her periodic bouts of cultural unrest. And what do you think Islamofacism has doing these past 14 centuries?

Culture war? Buddy, on that front, we in the USA are rank amateurs in a world of heavily seasoned professionals where cultural hatreds seem to have become a genetic memory.

Sphincterine Ass-timonial by Mike Powell

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the Sphincterine Ass-timonial by Mike Powell:

As chairman of the FCC I spend 90 % of my day kissing the President's ass. With the election 6 months away and a hectic summer campaign schedule there isn't always time for good hygiene. But I put something special in his Christmas stocking this year and now W's "A" smells A.O.K.

Thanks Sphincterine!!!

European Union says no to BPL

[juggledean]

reported on the Amateur Radio Newsline

About Fucking Time

[aichpvee]

That is all.

Re:Fining for indecency is "lighthanded regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

The chocolate ration has been increased to 20 grams.

Rocks. I have to start signing my email with that whenever I see bullshit doublespeak. Thanks!

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[Anonymous Custard]

The way the FCC penalty system is structured, a station cannot renew or transfer licenses while the matter is open. For a large media company who relies on being able to buy and sell stations, this is a strong incentive to pay the fine and not fight it.

Then the fines aren't large enough. The fines should be such that you don't break the rules in the first place. If people break the rules and pay the fines because the rules are unreasonable and the fines aren't too harsh, then the government is just stealing money.

Kind of like speeding tickets... If the limits were strictly enforced - like having a cop every mile on the highway recording license plates of anyone doing 1 mile over the limit - then people would demand that their government bring the limits in tune with reality. But instead, not enough people get pulled over to create a revolution, and not harsh enough of a penalty is applied to those who do get pulled over to make it worth fighting. So speeding tickets just become a reliable source of revenue loosely based in public safety.

Do Not Call Was Not FCC

[Liza]

Cellphone number portability, Do Not Call list, he's pushed hard to free up more spectrum for WiFi.

But he's republican so let's focus on the stuff we don't like.

The Do Not Call List was a creation of the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, not the FCC.

Personally, I was very surprised that Powell came down so hard on speech issues. Years ago, I heard him give a talk where he basically said that he didn't think speech regulation in broadcast media was justified any longer. I thought I would like him as a First Amendment friendly FCC Chair (although I expected to disagree on other matters). Surprise!

Liza

My employer does not know I'm writing this.

Re:Do Not Call Was Not FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you get too carried away here, refer to this Google cache site. Which states:

Recently, pursuant to its broad authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the FCC established a national Do-Not-Call Registry.

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[Brandybuck]

The broadcast frequencies are owned by the "public". As such, the government has seen fit to regulate there content, for exactly the same reason the government regulates commercial waterways and national parks. It's also why there will forever be a controversy over this.

Personally I don't think the airwaves should be owned by the government, even under the euphemistic title of "public". But as long as they are, the government get's to make the rules about them. As a democratic republic, we at least get some input into it.

Re:Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture w

[Anonymous Coward]

best post ever.

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

[msauve]

Powell was a idiot (in relation to his position), and clearly didn't understand how to regulate a shared public medium to achieve public benefit.

Why is Powell leaving?

[mbstone]

President Bush can't fire Powell Jr., FCC commissioners are appointed for five-year terms. So, either 1) he was offered a high-paying revolving-door gig by one of the corporations he served as FCC commissioner; or 2) somebody has something on Powell (e.g. some quid pro quo received by Powell in exchange for all his support of anti-consumer, pro-media-monopoly policies). Rule out #1, because such a job would still be waiting for him at the conclusion of his term.

no, *you* have it wrong

[kajoob]

OR maybe, just maybe, Fox is just smarter than you....

Since Family Guy is going to start running long anticipated new episodes of a good show that really didn't grab an audience the first time around, they ran an old episode with a bare butt in it so they could pixelate the cartoon butt to create a little stir - the reprecussions of the Janet Jackson thing is still daily newspaper fodder. That hopefully (and did) grabbed a few headlines in the media like "Family Guy Pixelates Butt Due to FCC Concerns". What do you think the chances of Family Guy being mentioned around the water cooler had Fox not pixelated the character's ass? It created more awareness of the show and hopefully will score a bigger share of the Nielsen giving the show a running start on it's second lease on life. Nothing gets people to watch tv more than sex and controversy. But then again if you want to turn off your brain and just repeat when you read on Fark, then by all means strap on your tinfoil hat and full speed ahead!

Re:no, *you* have it wrong

[Chairboy]

Meow, hiss!

If you'd like, I can put a [dry humor][/dry humor] tag on other posts I write like this. If you feel it'll help with your ability to enjoy the creative nectar that drips from my keyboard onto your screen, then I'd be happy to.

Please, consider it part of the service.
[/dry humor]

Re:no, *you* have it wrong

[MurphyZero]

You are absolutely right, but if it hadn't been for Powell's actions, that ploy would have failed miserably. People would have seen it for the ratings grab it probably is. But instead, FOX can legitimately claim censorship concerns. What's to say one of the 'Moral' organizations isn't out to get FOX for any number of real and imagined immoralities. Any opportunity to complain and/or sue. Heck, Spongebob is being called gay by some group of idiots. Family Guy is fun to watch exactly because it is the type of show that pisses off any number of a'moral' organizations.

Science!

[drooling-dog]

What they did was wrong, and whether or not you personally were offended isn't the point.

Surely there is a scientific way to settle the issue of whether children are harmed by this sort of thing. Perhaps we can start with two large groups of randomly selected children, and let them watch an appropriately 'G'-rated television show, featuring cute, cuddly animals engaged in completely innocent behavior. The control group would watch the show unmodified, but the other group would see a version in which a 500 millisecond flash of a female nipple was inserted. These children could then be monitored for the next 20 years or so, with respect to things like grades and attendance in school, criminal behavior, drug use, career success, suicide, etc.

I have no doubt about what the result would be. Contrary to what the liberals seem to believe, we are likely to find that the nippled children have been harmed irreparably, so much so perhaps that the ethics of the study itself will be called into question. Specifically, I would expect a high incidence of criminal sexual behavior, and perhaps even of willingness to engage in sexual activity prior to (or outside of) Holy Matrimony.

At least then we will be able to base our enforcement actions on a sound scientific footing.

It'll Get Worse

[jthayden]

Look at the track record of his replacements so far:

'We shouldn't be going to war' Powell > 'We've never made a mistake' Rice

'You have no rights' Ashcroft > 'You have no rights and it's ok for us to torture you' Gonzalez

The new guy will probably be some hypocrit like Rupert Murdoch

Oh Daddy!

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Proud of your planet -
Oh Mommy!
Proud of your Son!

New position?

[berbo]

What will be Powell's new position at Clear Channel?

All I Can Say Is...

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK YES!!!

Moderation?

[timster]

Lots of misspellings yes, confused rhetoric yes, even some outright dumb statements yes, and a first post... but Troll? I don't see it.

Should become the new host on TSS.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe I'm saying this about a FCC employee, but I LOVED him on The ScreenSavers.
To bad I'd rather watch him breath then watch the new ScreenSavers- Thanks G4!!

Okay in Europe

[multiOSfreak]

To many, it would be like going to McDonalds, and having them serve your kids vodka in their Happy Meals.

Actually, I think that might be okay in Europe. :)

Statement

[halcyon1234]

Mitchel Powell released a public statement today, announcing his retirement. It read simply, "Fuck all y'all. Love, Mitch."

You're both wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "hand in horns" sign ISN'T a rock-and-roll thing, ISN'T about Satanism (although Xtian extremists simply love to blame everything on so-called "Satanic Forces", and quasi/pseudo-satanic (as opposed to the Church of Satan folks) types love to pillage anything and everything that's remotely metaphysical or occult-related as "their own" to make it "evil"-er. Even the cops tend to regurgitate the same stupidities spouted forth by the masss media.

The Mano Cornuta is an ancient occultic symbol that's commonly (although incorrectly) attributed to Italians. It's used to ward off "The Evil Eye", not to invoke 'Ol Split-Hoof. The "Why" and "How" of heavy-metal artist's starting to use an ancient occultic symbol should be self-evident as the industry (still) clings to half-truths and misconceptions of "evil-ness" as part of it's "charm" and "allure" to impressionable minds.

MOD PARENT UP

[VinceWuzHere]

This comment is very interesting if not insightful

Naive Cover For Corporate Agenda

[cmholm]

Mike Powell is just another well connected cog. Anyone, anyone who agrees with the claim that a corporation should be able to own the majority of a broadcast and/or print medium in the US due to competition with new technologies is either naive or a corporate stooge.

Rupert frickin' Murdock owns a major piece of satellite direct broadcast, which as a whole is almost a monopoly. Most of the internet content that most people see and hear is owned or controlled by the same faces that own/control existing modes of info transmission.TCP transmission has become very concentrated, as has cellular infrastructure.

So, where's all this competition Mr. Powell talked about? It's nonexistant. It's looking like the stewards of US industry didn't mind the previous Soviet command economy per se, just that it wasn't them in command.

Re:Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture w

[HarveyBirdman]

Really? I expected to be flamed and modded into oblivion (not that I care).

People here think the RIAA sniffing around for debatable file sharing is facism. No, having your family raped and murdered by state thugs before your eyes simply because you exist is facism, and happens every single day in this world.

Re:Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture w

[randallpowell]

But Republicians and Evangical Christians are being persecuted. People disagree with them. It's evil!

Americans are too stupid to see how good we have it. We have concerns about the welfare of our nation but still, we have it better than China, Russia, Sudan, and Iraq. Americans aren't pussies just ignorant.

I blame the Evangicals for crying persecution whenever someone disagrees with them or tells them they can't force their religion onto others. Grow up and live at church.

Flamebait = Mods hide the hurtful truth

[HarveyBirdman]

You heard me, bitches.

Get rid of the FCC

[EvilStein]

.. and let us have boobies on TV, like quite a bit of the rest of the free world does.

Shut the fuck up, religious right. If you don't like what's on TV, quit watching it. *sigh*

But he kept the regulators off of Cable Modems...

[Uptown Joe]

And the Internet. Just think, the Internet could be as jacked up as the Telcos.

Affirmative Action

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always wondered if Affirmative Action should be a one time thing. IE: If you are considered some kind of a special category and you always get special treatment, then you block others in your special group from getting special treatment. If your dad is head of the military, and then Secretary of State, and you are a millionaire because you are a currupt pol, do your children still get to go to the head of the line based upon the falacy that somehow melitonin content is a relevant metric as to station in life?

Obviously I am inviting a flame war here. Why, because I feel that we have a situation where Affirmative Action has failed us. Instead of getting well-deserving kids from poverty getting special treatment, we have rich Rebubbican a-holes getting all the special treatment.

If you get considered for special treatment more than once, then you take away from the rest.

I think I will post this one Anon

Re:Affirmative Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Well since Republicans tend to be more middle class and the Democrats are the super rich and the super poor.. wait where am I going with this.

Re:Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture w

[HarveyBirdman]

Oh, don't single out one group. It's pointless. Everyone claims victimhood. The Christians claimed it this last Christmas, but so did the athieists who were somehow oppressed by someone putting a fucking nativity scene in a park. All sides are guilty. Madison's divide and conquer approach to controlling a citizenry is out of control and has gone pathologically fractal.

And we are a nation of pussies. This is the heart of the Info Age. JoeBob in his trailer gets live images from around the world every day. People know what it's like out there. They know we have it better than, say, 95%.

And although I have no use for Republicans, I get the huffiest reactions when I disagree with Democrats. Oh, my great fluffy, bouncing baby Jehovah, go to a Democrat dominated town hall type discussion and suggest any sort of private sector solution to anything and they're ready to drag out the stake, gasoline and matches.

Be Careful What You Wish For

[Anonymous Coward]

The evil you know is always better than the evil you don't know.

Even bigger asshole

[tepples]

Sad thing is that [Chairman Powell] is likely to be replaced by an even bigger asshole just like what happened to his father.

Two words: Chairman Goatse.

I guess you have not followed the HDTV saga ...

[Vedanti]

head over to AVSForum and read all the archives.

Free bandwidth to broadcasters in the name of HDTV is one of the largest (in terms of money) scandals that has gone unreported.

Should have replied one level higher ...

[Vedanti]

Should have replied one level higher ...

Re:Howard Stern calls into Michael Powell intervie

[Anonymous Coward]

Stern wasn't complaining that Viacom was being prevented from buying stations, he merely noted it. Stern doesn't care if Viacom is having trouble. I don't think he even likes Viacom.

Patently offensive?

[tepples]

Moreover, even outside of those times, it is legal to limit broadcast material over public airwaves that is patently offensive.

You mean like commercials for Amazon.com that mention one-click shopping, on which Amazon holds a patent that many Slashdot users consider offensive?

Price of an ATSC receiver?

[tepples]

If you don't want to replace your TV buy a D/A converter box.

How do you know that these ATSC receivers will fall in price significantly before the January 2007 deadline?

Michael Powell's leaving?

[game kid]

<lilJon> YEAHHHHHH!!!!! </lilJon>

(As someone who still wonders why guns and wanton violence are allowed on primetime but mere boobs and words are censored, I couldn't wait to say that.)

baba booey ...

[quick2think]

I guess he's not so tough without his daddy to protect him.
Just in case anyone thought this was not a good thing, maybe this picture will put it into better words.
http://www.howardstern.com/04/01/21/ht1s.jpg

Mark my words...

[Trickster Coyote]

Within 3 months Michael Powell will be working as a lobbyist for a large media corportation.

Re:Mark my words...

[/dev/trash]

I hope so. Why would his career choice suddenly change? Do you go be a janitor when you get fired from your current job? No.

Re:Ok, I'll bite.

[Jim_Callahan]

(1) Just because it was a rather stupidly naive attempt at censorship that predictably backfired to some degree doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at censorship. The point about the universality of political intent stands.

(2) When you accuse someone of something, it's customary to provide a source, or at least an example. I mean, I can claim to be the greatest force for censorship in the universe, but without any backup, I'd get laughed off... just like you are at the moment.

Re:You typoed. Correction follows:

[Jim_Callahan]

You say that like it's a bad thing... if "progress" is an advancement of anything any politician, of any political party, wants to do, or has ever wanted to do, and lack of progress is blocking that from happening, everyone'd love to see some of that gridlock.

Howard Stern

[ppp]

I was never a fan of Howard Stern, and I don't really care for humor based on the ridicule and humiliation of others. However, when Howard Stern speaks, I feel that what he's saying is what he actually believes, that he has no hidden agenda, and that he's not beholden to anyone but himself. I don't feel that way about Michael Powell.

-G
www.g.pix.com

Re:Translation:

[Jim_Callahan]

Waaah! Every law in the communications industry doesn't favor my hobbies! How dare he not acknowledge that what I want is necessarily true and correct?!?

By the way, "political" is defined in terms of "the actions of one in government", so "politically motivated fines" tells us exactly nothing new about the nature of said fines.

Re:One wonders

[Jim_Callahan]

Why you specifically target affirmative action. Cronyism and nepotism have pretty much been traditions since the inception of the Democratic Party, and subsequent parties have continued the tradition. The only reason it's more subtle nowadays is because it got Garfield shot.

PARENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT

[FuturePastNow]

Well...maybe he is, a little. But if that's not a +5 insightful, I don't know what is. Nobody said they were mutually exclusive.

Re:his vision(is amazing, given where his head is)

[node 3]

If the FCC was truly all about supporting large networks, they would allow them to appeal to the ever-increasing moral decadence of our society completely unharrassed.

But that's exactly what the FCC *is* allowing them to do. Showing a nipple in a non-pornographic fashion is not decadence, but dumbing down America *is*.

These fines are actually *worse* than just letting the corporations off the hook, because they are punishing them not for doing anything wrong, but send the message that you better watch what you say. Very chilling.

Not speaking on condition of anonymity...

[pilsner.urquell]

'Bout time!

Re:Differing definitions

[Jim_Callahan]

When we talk about culture war, we mean squabbling between different cultures. America, you see, actually has people from different countries living here. In fact, we have a lot of them.

Sudan's situation is only a "culture war" in the sense that war is part of their culture. Plus, the solution is to go in, take over, ban weapons for the local populace, and force them at gunpoint to be nice to each other. You'll note that that's not very easily accommodated by American policy, and would also create problems of its own.

Nice troll, though. you manage to make a perfectly reasonable, relatively truthful point, and exaggerate it into something so inflammatory that even people that pretty much agree with the premise will bite. Good job.

As Eric Idle says...

[hatredman]

Fsck you very much the FCC
Fsck you very much for fining me...
Eric Idle presents... The FCC Song.
"Here's a little song I wrote the other day while I was out duck hunting with a judge... It's a new song, it's dedicated to the FCC and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars."

See it here!
And hear!

Official Monty Python Site

"And fsck you all so very much!"

LOL!

[sheldon]

Wait until one of our beloved Democrats gets in. They'll put an end to all this affordable broadband and Vonage bullshit.

Well this Democrat still graciously thanks the Democrats for allowing broadband and voip to exist to begin with.

If the Republicans had had a say, they would have killed sponsorship of the Internet development claiming that the private sector was better suited to perform R&D.

Is he that much of a tyrant?

[NateTech]

FCC people are afraid of giving someone the plan to make an announcement and not have a press conference -- which is already in the mainstream press -- so much that they feel they need to be anonymous?

Does this show the current state of mind at FCC under Mr. Powell? What's the deal with that? These people work for us, supposedly.

Re:MOD PARENT AS FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you have a whole different take on history than 99% of the rest of the world. Perhaps your tin hat is a little too tight today.

John Ashcroft

[Blitzenn]

I here that as part of Bush's war on terror, he is going to name John Ashcroft in a surpise move to take the filth out of tv. Ashcroft is rumored to have said that as his first target he wants to replace force the broadcasters for Desperate Housewives with a show his church proposes brethern have called Catholic Housewives. Even the Simpsosn will have the reportedly clean up their act by chasing Moe out of town an converting the bar into an evangelical church.

Tipper Gore

[cdrguru]

organized book burnings in Tennessee. Hard to be more on the side of censorship than that.

Re:Tipper Gore

[unitron]

Care to provide some evidence?

Digital TV, mandatory broadcast flag

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

This is the guy under whose watch the FCC mandated digital TV; which will cost many Americans who DON'T CARE about increased (signal, not content) quality and think current TV signal quality is good enough hundreds of dollars since it will be ILLEGAL for broadcasters to keep sending out analog signals - which are the only kind of signals current equipment can receive. No upgrade - no more TV for you.

This is the guy under whose watch the FCC mandated the "broadcast flag", which makes it ILLEGAL for a digital tuner to give unencrypted access to a full quality signal if the broadcaster doesn't want it - it is ILLEGAL for a tuner to not restrict your rights.

And under his watch, the FCC fines CBS for Justin Timberlake's action in the Janet Jackson boob fiasco. Wouldn't it be great if you were caught speeding and the fined the people who built the road instead of you? What ever happened to punishing only those responsible? And in any event $550K for a second of boob on TV is extreme. What happened to any sense of proportion?

For a Republican, he sure does want to make a lot of things illegal.

And you call yourself Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe no one posting seems to be aware that when Powell took office there were 9000 ISP's. Now there are less than 2000. The FCC's policies under Powell have been surrendering the Internet to the Bell companies, lock, stock and DSL. At the rate they are going, in another four years there may be only MSN and AOL. Think about it.

Re:FCC is for regulation of frequencies, not conte

[Jardine]

On commercials vs. content. In the 80s, one hour shows were 47/48 minutes of show, the rest commercials. By the late 90s they were 42 minutes of show, the rest commercials. Can't back it up with a link right now, unfortunately.

For examples of 48 minute tv shows, check out early seasons of Star Trek: TNG and Highlander. I believe the standard is now 44 minutes though I wouldn't be suprised if some shows are down to 42.

I may be completely wrong on this, so feel free to correct me, but I believe that Canada still has regulations that require TV stations to limit their commercial time to 12 minutes per hour. But then you do some math and realize that 44 + 12 still leaves 4 minutes of time to fill each hour. If they can't show commercials in those 4 minutes, what do they do?

Apparently ads for TV shows and ads for the station/network don't count towards the quota so the normal 2 minute commercial break expands to 2 minutes plus plenty of "next up on Global News, something bad happened in the world" and "next up on CTV, some cheaply made reality show"

Re:Culture war?! You can't handle a real culture w

[randallpowell]

I get the huffiest reactions when I disagree with Democrats. Oh, my great fluffy, bouncing baby Jehovah, go to a Democrat dominated town hall type discussion and suggest any sort of private sector solution to anything and they're ready to drag out the stake, gasoline and matches.

That is why politicial parties don't work.

Oh, don't single out one group. It's pointless. Everyone claims victimhood. The Christians claimed it this last Christmas, but so did the athieists who were somehow oppressed by someone putting a fucking nativity scene in a park. All sides are guilty.

Groups now like to be victims. It's a trend that will last for awhile. Americans are too sensitive to things. We censor our TV and radio, we get upset over ideas, we get upset over religion, and, worst of all, the media makes millions off of it. Time for Americans to grow up and accept that not all people are alike and can never be alike. If you get offended by something, don't deal with it again. I'm offended by Dell offshring jobs so I don't buy Dell. Problem solved. As for religion, to each their own and none any anyone's damn business.