Slashdot Mirror
FCC Member Copps In Favor of Municipal WiFi
Cryofan writes "Michael Copps, one of the five members of the FCC, spoke on the recent controversy over legislation to outlaw municipal WiFi: "I think we do a grave injustice in trying to hobble municipalities. That's an entrepreneurial approach, that's an innovative approach. Why don't we encourage that instead of having bills introduced--'Oh, you can't do this because it's interfering with somebody's idea of the functioning of the marketplace...a municipality is a democratically run institution. They can make their own decisions. They don't need the Bells. They don't need the Administration, and they don't need me telling them what kind of decision they should be making.'"
Am I supposed to like these guys now? It's rare they say anything that I agree with. Who knows, maybe this cat is the silent minority that doesn't want the broadcast flag and strongly supports boobs on TV.
Ignore the rantings above. Poster is an idiot.
...if he was talking about indecency.
Either way, hardcore!
We're happy Microsoft won a court motion. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/2016235.shtml ?tid=109&tid=123
l ?tid=155&tid=123
h tml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=3
l ?tid=153&tid=187&tid=123
Justice is served in the American court system. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/0531204.shtm
Half of Slashdot is mad at Apple. http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/04/138234.s
The FCC is our friend. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/03/04/1828200.shtm
What happened to predictability?
The FCC is provided certain authority to exercise controls over broadcast and telecommunications media. This is provided by Congress in an effort to provide some level of regulation in the public interest. Members of the FCC are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. They enforce limits on what can be said based on Congressional approval and court decisions.
Note that the opinions of even "predictable" members of the commissioners can be unpredictable. Powell recently said that he does not believe that the FCC has or should have the authority to regulate cable or satellite TV and radio. Despite being accused of being in the pocket of the companies over which he holds power, he has also come out in favor of time-shifting (once he got a TiVo), something that has rankled the heads of some media companies. Predicting what the FCC is going to do is like predicting how the Supreme Court will rule: you can get close most of the time, but you can never quite be sure.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If it is supposed to be a free market issue then the communities should have every right to compete with the telcos, since that's what the whole idea of a free market economy is based on.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The fcc should have only one comment to this whole issue. 802.11 is unlicensed. As long as the equipment in use falls within the emissioins requirements of unlicensed, what part of the word 'unlicensed' do the rest of the levels of government not understand. They also need to remind the rest of the various levels of government, wifi is a service based on radio transmissions. FCC rulings trump all other levels of government in this area.
There's a huge difference between the federal government spying on its citizens and a local municipality making decisions about how to treat wifi net access.
Personally I'm often anti-gov't, but I'm quite pro-gov't when the gov't is decentralized and decisions are made at the local level.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
More specifically, Congress created the FCC in 1934 (from the Radio Act of 1927) and the FCC derives whatever authority it has from congress. The FCC has been known to, at least according to some in congress, overstep their authority. You won't find every agency in the Constitution but you will find the means to create an agency and bestow authority upon that agency.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Congress created them based on interstate commerce clause. One of the few uses of the clause that actually makes sense. Can you imagine what the US would be like if you couldn't operate a radio you bought in Missouri in Kansas because they use different base frequencies? Or if you were in Kansas City and you'd have to have two radios in your car for the drive across the border from KCMO to KCKS because Kansas ruled that it was illegal to receive broadcasts from Missouri while in Kansas? (hey, just like Canada and US satellite TV!) Or if Kansas ruled that interference with their radio waves was illegal and started taking Missouri stations to court for broadcasting on channels that interfered with their uses of the frequency?
Even on the subject of regulating what appears on those frequencies is within this scope. If Kansas rules against any nudity, foul language, or unwed mothers are to appear on TV, and Missouri allows a broadcast Playboy channel, whose job is it to build the lead wall between the two in order to keep the smut out of Kansas?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.