Just Abolish The FCC

[eflatminor]

Elfmentor, or whatever your name is, do you have any real argument in any of this? More childish name calling. Is that really the best you can do? Rather sad I think. Putting your text in red doesn't make your thoughts more meaningful. Better? When you say things like, "No corporation could achieve the status quo without government support through agencies like the FCC", that only proves MY point. The FCC has enabled the status quo. That's exactly what I said. Yet you want to give more money to the very same organization that caused the problem in the first place. Do you not see the irony in that? I also said that scrapping the FCC will then give the status quo even more power because there isn't going to be ANY check against them at all. I argue the criminal and civil courts along with the power of free people making voluntary choices are a far better deterrent to that which you so abhor. More central planning is rarely the answer. That doesn't mean "I want a King" or "throw more money at the problem". It means, "Appoint someone as head of the FCC who will actually do the job that the FCC is supposed to do, which is to stand up to the largest media conglomerates." First, I seriously doubt that is the FCC's mandate. Secondly, even if it was, I argue your faith in big government solutions is misplaced.

That isn't "more of the same". That's exactly the opposite of "more of the same".

It's like how Teabaggers say that the EPA destroys jobs. It doesn't, and what the fuck does anyone think will happen without the EPA? We'd all be drinking toxic sludge within a year because corporations would cut costs by dumping their waste directly into our water supplies. Captain Hyperbole strikes again!!! Don't say that they wouldn't because they did it all the time and that's why the EPA had to be created. The FCC is supposed to work that way with media, but they haven't which is what has led to the consolidation of media ownership.

And don't ever say anything bad about marijuana since you don't know anything about Cannabis.]

Actually, I know plenty about Cannabis and fully support your right to smoke your mind into oblivion. Rock on dude.

 

[KNB]

You obviously don't know shit about Cannabis if you think I can "smoke my mind into oblivion". Read one of those links or watch Hemp For Victory. How does it feel to go 48 years on this planet thinking that "Marihuana" is evil while "Marihuana" was legalized to protect your freedom 20 years before you were even born? You don't even care, do you? It's just liberal propaganda, right? What did your parents do during World War II? Or your grandparents? Any paratroopers in your family who fought in the war? Any Navy sailors or US Marines on board for D-Day? The legalization of "Marihuana" was what enabled us to fight and win that war. If you don't believe me, watch Hemp For Victory.

"Captain Hyperbole" made a valid point about toxic sludge, and it wasn't even close to hyperbole. BP, Exxon, etc. Look at the recent toxic spill in West Virginia. No one was held accountable. That's what happens when no one in government is willing to stand up to the 1%. The same applies to the FCC. When the FCC refuses to stand up to the oligopoly, and even enables it, then the problem isn't to dissolve the agency but to reform it, and the best way to do that is to put someone in charge of it who actually believes that the FCC has an important job to do and is willing to do it. It doesn't require "more money" or "central planning" or "a king". It requires DEcentralized planning. You are not understanding that the "central planning" that you are raving against is coming from corporate boards of the media conglomerates. To break up the central planning of corporate media, we need someone in charge of the FCC who will confront media consolidation and enforce America's anti-trust laws that have been ignored for so long.

Dissolving the FCC would only make the problem of corporate media consolidation much worse.

 

[eflatminor]

You obviously don't know shit about Cannabis if you think I can "smoke my mind into oblivion". Read one of those links or watch Hemp For Victory. How does it feel to go 48 years on this planet thinking that "Marihuana" is evil while "Marihuana" was legalized to protect your freedom 20 years before you were even born? You don't even care, do you? It's just liberal propaganda, right? What did your parents do during World War II? Or your grandparents? Any paratroopers in your family who fought in the war? Any Navy sailors or US Marines on board for D-Day? The legalization of "Marihuana" was what enabled us to fight and win that war. If you don't believe me, watch Hemp For Victory.

"Captain Hyperbole" made a valid point about toxic sludge, and it wasn't even close to hyperbole. BP, Exxon, etc. Look at the recent toxic spill in West Virginia. No one was held accountable. That's what happens when no one in government is willing to stand up to the 1%. The same applies to the FCC. When the FCC refuses to stand up to the oligopoly, and even enables it, then the problem isn't to dissolve the agency but to reform it, and the best way to do that is to put someone in charge of it who actually believes that the FCC has an important job to do and is willing to do it. It doesn't require "more money" or "central planning" or "a king". It requires DEcentralized planning. You are not understanding that the "central planning" that you are raving against is coming from corporate boards of the media conglomerates. To break up the central planning of corporate media, we need someone in charge of the FCC who will confront media consolidation and enforce America's anti-trust laws that have been ignored for so long.

Dissolving the FCC would only make the problem of corporate media consolidation much worse.

Try to stay on topic. Like I said, I do not support the criminalization of cannabis or any consensual activity among adults.

We're just going to have to disagree that "Dissolving the FCC would only make the problem of corporate media consolidation much worse". You can continue to hope the central planners will suddenly become benevolent, resist the their corporate donors, and act exactly as you hope...despite all historical evidence to the contrary. I will continue to suggest that kind of naivete is misplaced and will support the notion that free minds, free markets and an equal application of justice through our criminal and civil courts is what is required to see the broader customer choice you claim to be after.

All the best.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=30139]eflatminor[/MENTION]

Boy do you miss the point of the interstate commerce clause. It was meant to "make regular" trade between states, to disallow one state from imposing taxes or tariffs aimed at another state so that free trade could flourish uninhibited from crooked politicians and their crony partners in business.

It did NOT mean the federal government should control speech and communication, however conveyed.

You keep conflating the medium with the message. Why?

The arguably conservative Rehnquist Court determined;

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;[17]
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;[18]
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).[19] -Wikipedia

Which was NOT the original intent of the clause. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers makes that abundantly clear. Look, we all understand that the courts have thought it there place to find ways to expand the government's powers in the face of Constitutionally limited authority. That is exactly what we're arguing against. And sorry, but the courts are NOT the last word. The people retain that power through processes like nullification, state-forced amendments, and other means.

You're free to believe that anything the gubmit says is okay must be okay. Some of us will think for ourselves by looking at the actual results of all this meddling and not just the intentions.

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes between branches and in cases brought before it. Of course the people can change things. Good luck with that. To do so people like you would have to play nice and convince others to follow

so how are you doing on a silly internet message board?

 

[eflatminor]

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of constitutional disputes between branches and in cases brought before it. Of course the people can change things. Good luck with that. To do so people like you would have to play nice and convince others to follow

Appreciate the good wishes. Thanks.

so how are you doing on a silly internet message board?

Quite a few positive reps. Thanks again.

 

[Pogo]

I completely agree. I was just thinking this myself the other day. There is absolutely no reason why we need the FCC. It's just another bunch of useless bureaucrats looking to grab power where they can.

With Its Mission Gone And Its Record Of Mischief, It's Time To Shut Down The FCC - Investors.com

Bullshit blog. The first sentence, and I quote:

The FCC jumped the shark with its outrageous plan to police America's newsrooms.

There's no such thing. No wonder it reaches the conclusion it does. And I do mean 'reaches'. FCC has never policed anybody for content, ever.

The FCC is there to regulate who gets to use what airwaves. You can't have radio transmission without something coordinating it. That's why the FCC's predecessor the FRC was formed in the Coolidge Administration. You had chaos on the airwaves, one unlicensed station pushing another off, giving nothing to listen to but a cacophony of heterodynes.

Lush Rimjob would be inaudible How would this board survive that?

Having public airwaves with nothing regulating it would be like abolishing the FAA and just letting planes fly at random, with all the crashes that would result.

And we did this fake story in another thread, which has already died.

 

[Pogo]

That's all true. However, I believe that issue would have been solved through a combination of market forces and technological advancements. Government didn't have to get involved, they chose to.

Ahhh, the voice of plutocracy. Just let "the Market" work it out.

Your stance against voluntary choice is well known around here comrade Joe.

And once again, we're faced with the brilliance of your "Because I say so" retorts. You have zero evidence, facts, logic or reason to suggest that in the absence of the FCC, we would be ruled by the wealthy. Or should we just take your word for it???

Or is this another case for Captain Hyperbole?

I think that's the problem we have now, 90% of the media is owned by about five companies. How is this a good thing, exactly?

What...we have the FCC and a myriad of other government agencies meddling in media, just as you desire, yet we end up with the 'horrors' of 90% of the media owned by "about five companies"?

How is that possible?

Further, your statement is bullshit. There are THOUSANDS of media outlets. Care to demonstrate with specificity exactly how "90% of the media is owned by about five companies"? The floor is yours...

Jesus Christ on a cracker, open your eyes dood....

But we can't post this graphic without its partner --

We have for instance, over thirteen thousand radio stations and over two thousand TV stations. Fifteen thousand plus to... six.

How would you like to have this post repeated over 2500 radio and TV stations? That's what that proportion works out to.

And that's just on-air broadcast; factor in that a SINGLE given Big Media company might own not only multiple TV and radio in a given area but newspapers, internet providers, movie production companies, book publishers, pop magazines, news magazines, billboards and other advertising, multiple cable channels, satellite radio channels, record companies, concert promoters, even sports teams, sports events and sports venues... and even you could figure out that this is a formula to dictate what the news is. And what it isn't.

No conflict of interest there, nope...

Think of it this way--
How much ad revenue do you think commercial television makes from pharmaceutical ads? I don't know the number nor do we need to, but if you've watched TV at all you know it's significant. Now with that in mind, how likely is it that those same TV channels are going to accurately cover the news that that new drug is killing people?

It never ceases to amaze me that those who protest the loudest -- rightly -- about government control of media then turn on a dime and plop their heads in the sand about corporate-collusion control doing the same thing.

 

[Pogo]

And sorry, but government has no place regulating communication, no matter the medium.

It doesn't, Brainiac. It regulates the facilities used for communication.

 

[Pogo]

Good stuff here:

Huh?

What are you talking about? I don’t think his reference to bandwidth has anything to do with ISP’s at all. The statement about national security should have given that away. I know you’re smarter than that fox I believe he is referring to the airwave bandwidth that each entity can use to broadcast their signal.

He is correct in his statement (though I think that national security is kind of a senseless way to go about arguing the point). There IS a clear need to have something manage bandwidth. If not, I could create a random radio station in the middle of New York to broadcast my anti-government conspiracy theories. That is just fine BUT after doing so (and sinking my savings creating my new company) someone could come along with a more powerful antenna and override my signal or cross it and make anything I broadcast complete static. Likely my competition silencing me because they are established and have more funds to buy more powerful equipment/jammers. That is NOT alright. The same goes for communications such as aircraft to airport towers. Those bands are regulated so that no one else is allowed to use them making landing much safer than if someone could interfere with that signal even accidentally and then the military specific bands that I think he was referring to by bringing up national security.

Basically, there is little difference managing the bandwidth than there is to creating basic laws for driving. SOMETHING needs to keep the system generally working so that we can communicate and to be quite frank, the free market is unlikely to do so as it is in larger entities interests to BLOCK communication of their competitors.

Well put, and apt analogy.

NOW, the important question here is whether or not the FCC should continue to exist even if there are vital functions that need to be accomplished that the FCC currently takes care of. That also touches on this post as well:

Even the most committed Randian (You come across as a poorly read Randian) cannot dismiss the public trust doctrine without dismissing history itself. It has been accepted in economic and legal theory since Roman Code. Public ownership of resources to one degree or another has not been negated by any rational economic thinker from Smith to Rand to Friedman. In English and U.S. common law it is a well established principle. So your facile retort insinuating an embrace of the concept as "socialism" or "communism" is childishly simplistic and demonstrates which one of us is arguing from subjective dogma without reference to reality.

I will reject the ‘Randian’ at the outset as the label itself is rather misunderstood and normally used as a slander rather than an actual doctrine. I am a libertarian though as I believe eflat is as well.

With that said, the question I made above is the real issue then:

NOW, the important question here is whether or not the FCC should continue to exist even if there are vital functions that need to be accomplished that the FCC currently takes care of.

I will agree with you that there is a real governmental purpose in ensuring that we can actually use the airwaves I will reject the idea that the FCC, in its current form, is necessary for that purpose. The fact is that what we need is an enforcement agency and the FCC is a bureaucratic and legislative agency.

FCC does not pass legislation. It's a regulatory agency, not legislative.

I even question why this is accomplished on a national scale rather than a state scale. Beyond identifying the bandwidth associated with specific communications (military, aircraft, emergency etc.) the federal government really has no purview here. Each state can create the rules it sees necessary to ensure that the airwave are not only open but also usable. Federal oversight is a blatant overstep IMHO.

Tune around your AM radio after dark. You'll get lots and lots of stations from other states once the ionosphere allows signals to bounce. And this was going on in the 1920s when the dial was, as you correctly illustrate, chaos. If you have a CB radio tun in channel 19 any time and hear some clown a thousand miles away using illegal power. Radio waves aren't bound by state lines any more than birds are. Hell, we not only have to coordinate our frequencies with our own states, we have to coordinate them with other countries. This is also why some stations have to go off the air at sunset -- their signals would be infringing on others for hundreds of miles. There's even a transition period of day called "sunset critical" when power levels often have to be changed due to the same phenomenon.

I've listened to KOA here in North Carolina. KOA is in Denver.

Further, congress write law, not bloated bureaucratic entities looking to justify their existence. The very idea that congress has willfully and blatantly ‘legislated’ their constitutional duties to bureaucratic entities is unacceptable. If there needs to be a law passed in relation to the airwaves then congress can get off their asses and pass the law.

Addressed above. FCC does not pass laws. It regulates.

Just because I, and others, support the elimination of the FCC do3es not mean that I want to see chaos on the airwaves or even the complete control of such by private enterprise. There are governmental process that exist that are the CORRECT way of governing public resources. That does not include allowing bureaucratic entities write laws, enforce standards that they create out of thin air or enforcing standards that are not under their purview. The core problem with ALL bureaucracies is that they will grow without need and justify themselves even when they are no longer justified. This is almost universal within a bureaucratic agency. I see it all the time myself being a part of the largest bureaucratic agency on the face of the planet – the DoD.

[MENTION=30139]eflatminor[/MENTION] [MENTION=44607]NightFox[/MENTION] I would also like to know what you guys think. Eflat seems dead set against any governmental control over the airwaves (which is NOT control over communication within them) but I kind of want to break it out of the FCC. The existence of the FCC and basic law governing the use of the airwaves are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, the problems with the FCC have almost nothing to do with what they were established to regulate. The problem, for me, is the entire concept of regulatory agencies in general.

You can't have it both ways; either you have chaos on the electromagnetic spectrum, or you have something to regulate it. If you don't like the FCC, you'll just have to create another FCC that does the same thing and call it something else.

 

[HenryBHough]

Were The FCC abolished the first thing I'd rush out and buy would be a cellphone jammer.

Were The FCC abolished the first thing our resident Walt Kelly type liberal would rush out and buy would be a hugely powerful Havana-style AM radio jammer.

 

[Pogo]

You say; "Your point was considered and rejected. You've failed to make a reasonable case. All we've gotten from you is it's a public resource "because you say so"."

Various acts and laws passed by Congress have also said so. The 1927 Act establishes public ownership most unequivocably so I guess you'll have to disagree with the U.S Government, (that's We the People). And of course 1st amendment rights are protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.

United States Radio Act of 1927, Public Law 632, 69th Congress, February 23, 1927.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act is intended to regulate all forms of interstate and foreign radio transmissions and communications within the United States, its Territories and possessions; to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of interstate and foreign radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by individuals, firms, or corporations, for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license."

Full Text Here

OF COURSE we disagree with the government. That's the point! They're the ones that created the FCC in the first place. This does NOTHING to make your case that EM transmissions are public property. You've only stated the obvious, that government enacted a power grab that was never intended under the enumerated powers...something they've done thousands and thousands of times, which includes laws that everyone would today consider unconstitutional and downright immoral.

It's like saying it's okay for a schoolyard bully to steal other kids milk money because a bigger bully told him to do it. Geez!

If you'd ever care to state with logic, reason and specificity WHY we need an FCC, then we can have a reasonable debate. Pointing out that Congress enacted this debacle does nothing to support your claims. And please, don't just repeat "Because I say it's public property".

The airwaves are the public property. The medium. Not the transmissions -- the medium.

So what FCC does basically is allocates who may get a space on that public property, and how much of a space. It's regulations on that are completely technical and zero content.

And I might add, you know those airwaves that give access to make millions on advertising? We give them away for free. Such a deal. Imagine your town giving you a prime real estsate storefront from which to sell your wares, rent-free.

 

[Pogo]

Were The FCC abolished the first thing I'd rush out and buy would be a cellphone jammer.

Were The FCC abolished the first thing our resident Walt Kelly type liberal would rush out and buy would be a hugely powerful Havana-style AM radio jammer.

I wouldn't need to go to Havana --- they're sitting right here in North Carolina-- three locations in Greenville. And they're used to jam Havana just like Havana has theirs to jam Greenville.

Half-megawatt rigs, baby

Of course, being international gummint transmitters they wouldn't be affected by abolishing the FCC. They're under the control of the BBG -- the government agency that actually DOES regulate content. But people aren't supposed to know about that.

 

[Pogo]

Just came across this post and it's almost 1 am here and I'm too tired to read it the 3 or 4 more times it deserves. First scan looks like it's thought out and not knee jerk. The only comment off the getgo is I don't think giving responsibility to states could work, the national ramifications are just too vast, if anything can be called interstate commerce surely this industry must be. I might think more than any other-I'll have to mull.

Boy do you miss the point of the interstate commerce clause. It was meant to "make regular" trade between states, to disallow one state from imposing taxes or tariffs aimed at another state so that free trade could flourish uninhibited from crooked politicians and their crony partners in business.

It did NOT mean the federal government should control speech and communication, however conveyed.

Correct. And it doesn't.

This is the path we go down when we start the OP with an article that's full of shit.

 

[Pogo]

[MENTION=30139]eflatminor[/MENTION] [MENTION=44607]NightFox[/MENTION] I would also like to know what you guys think. Eflat seems dead set against any governmental control over the airwaves (which is NOT control over communication within them) but I kind of want to break it out of the FCC. The existence of the FCC and basic law governing the use of the airwaves are not mutually exclusive. IMHO, the problems with the FCC have almost nothing to do with what they were established to regulate. The problem, for me, is the entire concept of regulatory agencies in general.

Reasonable points you made. I would disagree that regulating the airwaves is not regulating communication within them, as we've seen so clearly from the FCC's latest power grab.

You're basing that on the fallacy in the OP article about what the intended study was, a fallacy which is bullshit.

While I understand the FCC does not CLAIM to control communication, the fact they hold so much power with regard to who can use and who cannot use these forms of communication inevitably leads to controls over the communication therein.

It's not a "claim" -- it's a fact. There is no part of a license application that presents any kind of litmus test for what kind of content the licensee will be using. Not even asked. Anywhere. And I speak from experiece, having been through the entire process. There is a grain of truth here however; it does screen applicants for not just ability to provide a service that does not currently in that market exist, but it also screens for demographics, minority participation, etc, the objective always being to force a level playing field, since the scope of that field is by definition starkly limited.

And as our collectivist friends here have repeatedly lamented, just look at the few companies with the FCC in their pockets that dominate the media channels. They could not have possible come to dominate like that without their crony partners at the FCC, in Congress and probably a myriad of other regulatory agencies.

This is true. Like any bureaucracy FCC is and has been a victim of the DC Revolving Door, the one that continually shunts foxes in to guard the henhouse of what is supposed to be public property. Tom Wheeler and Michael Powell are examples, cognate to the Tim Geithners, Hank Paulsens and Michael Taylors. That is worthy of outrage.

Michael Powell, walking proof that talent skips a generation, actually answered a question about the digital divide by saying "I think there's a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one". Then he tried to give away the commercial spectrum. Fortunately his style was so egregious that he met tons of opposition from MoveOn to the NRA. Trent Lott and Bernie Sanders were on the same side. (2003 - more here)

So a fair observation, and one which makes the case for a stronger FCC, not a weaker or nonexistent one. And one that isn't a puppet to corporate interests, which are absolutely anathema to diversity in the public discourse.

What I argue is that in the absence of an FCC, stations that got the most VOLUNTARY customers would build the strongest stations that would reach the most customers. That's a free market principal that makes sense. Smaller audiences would be relegated to less powerful stations serving smaller areas. This is how it works in every market and it works just fine without government control.

Then you have no clue how broadcasting works. It ain't like selling widgets. You see, if you put a station on the air, even if you fill it with the most wonderful programming anyone's ever heard, I don't need to beat you by putting on a better program. All I need is a stronger signal, and :oof:: you're gone. See Henry's post about jammers just above.

Now -- how are you gonna stop me, without a regulatory agency?

Then, there's technological advances, which inevitably bring about more choice to customers than top-down control. We're seeing such technology as a backlash to the limited choices experience with FCC control: HD radio, satellite radio, cable television, internet, etc. Let's not let the FCC get their hands on these communications channels so that we end up with the few dominate players as we have on the so called 'public airwaves'.

They're not 'so-called', it's codified. We as a nation decided this when airwaves were first being used. As for the rest, FCC regulates finite airspace; that doesn't apply to something like cable. You don't need an FCC license to set up a cable TV station. Why not? Because it's not using the public airwaves. As far as 'more choices', more choices in terms of what kind of technology and sheer numbers (channels), but that in no way means any more variety, if those choices are all dominated by an oligarchy.

Want an illustration?

Turn on the TV right now and see if you can find anything with redeeming social value on a commercial station.

Voilà.

Bottom line, I believe a free market for EM communication channels would have resulted in a far more diverse and customer-focused offering of media had the FCC not intervened. Any issues of connectivity would have been sorted out over time through voluntary customer choice and/or the application of technological advancements. And we would have done so without taxpayer burdens or allowing government to step outside their enumerated powers, while influencing, if not controlling, the very basis of communication and speech.

Then again, you obviously don't understand how electromagnetic transmission works. Maybe you should stick to music and keys only a horn player would love.

 

[Darkwind]

I completely agree. I was just thinking this myself the other day. There is absolutely no reason why we need the FCC. It's just another bunch of useless bureaucrats looking to grab power where they can.

With Its Mission Gone And Its Record Of Mischief, It's Time To Shut Down The FCC - Investors.com

I believe it's a public resource, like rivers or national parks or the air we breathe. And no matter how fucked up you think the FCC is I think some entity has to look after the public's interest. It's not surprising that Investors.com favors granting total control to the "free market". I'm sure they would favor granting right-to-breathe to the highest bidder. And no matter how fucked up government is I still think Lincoln got it right, "government of the people, by the people, for the people." We the people have to maintain our ownership rights to the most basic needs "of the people." And that includes the electro-magnetic spectrum.

The electro-magnetic spectrum is NOT a basic need.

 

[Pogo]

I completely agree. I was just thinking this myself the other day. There is absolutely no reason why we need the FCC. It's just another bunch of useless bureaucrats looking to grab power where they can.

With Its Mission Gone And Its Record Of Mischief, It's Time To Shut Down The FCC - Investors.com

I believe it's a public resource, like rivers or national parks or the air we breathe. And no matter how fucked up you think the FCC is I think some entity has to look after the public's interest. It's not surprising that Investors.com favors granting total control to the "free market". I'm sure they would favor granting right-to-breathe to the highest bidder. And no matter how fucked up government is I still think Lincoln got it right, "government of the people, by the people, for the people." We the people have to maintain our ownership rights to the most basic needs "of the people." And that includes the electro-magnetic spectrum.

The electro-magnetic spectrum is NOT a basic need.

No it's not. But access to them is.

 

[Pogo]

Wow, do you not understand how cronyism works. Allow me to spell it out for you: No company can engage in cronyism with a government partner. Can't happen.

Google "Telecommunications Act of 1996" and pay special attention to the name "ClearChannel". Then tell me how that didn't happen.

You couldn't be more wrong about how to end such control by few a large companies. Only voluntary customer choice can take down a company. If a supplier of media doesn't meet the needs of their customers, the customers will make alternative choices, unless they're prevented from considering other choices, which only happens with government/crony partnerships limit that choice.

So you've contradicted yourself. You just said it couldn't happen. Well you're right the second time.

Bottom line, you asking the very entity that created the situation you abhor to end that situation. Hint: Ain't gonna happen.

Not "created" but "enabled". Takes two.

Which is why FCC needs to be fixed -- like the rest of the DC Revolving Door syndrome-- into the agency looking out for the interest of We the People. Not tossed in the bin like an old Kleenex.

 

[Pogo]

That was the point though, eflat. The FCC is NOT an enforcement agency to ensure that there is an open and free market like it should be. Instead, it is a law making body and that is what has led to the power grab. That is why I think the FCC should be eliminated BUT that the concept of the original charter is actually necessary. The power grab exists because of that bureaucratic element and the ability to expand.

Read above – the reason that the FCC should be eliminated, the power of making law returned to congress with oversight from the court and the president and the free market still protected.

Said this before but FCC does not pass laws. It can't. Congress passes laws.

... The new tech does and we all know there is some truth to the adage that you get what you pay for. ‘Free’ radio is utter garbage with more commercials than actual content but XM or satellite takes that bother away. It gives you control not because the FCC has dissipated but because you have bought and paid for that control. We are seeing the same exact thing happen across all mediums in the form of internet and DVR delivery. Regulatory agencies are not lessening control over television but technology is giving people the power to control their experience and people will ALWAYS pay for that.

I don’t have XM because of content control – I have XM because I viscerally hate commercials (and reception is better as well). Most of what I listen to is actually content on the free airwaves as well in all reality – it just comes to me without the annoying commercials. I think that many more are like me.

Well... I have XM and I still get commercials, depending on the source. And I have to say the quality is not as good as what's on the terrestrial airwaves. But noncommercial radio, whether satellite or traditional terrestrial, has always been commercial-free.

 

[HenryBHough]

There are those people who only trust content carefully selected for and spoon-fed to them by government lackeys.

Not that there's anything wrong with that......

 

[Pogo]

Reasonable points you made. I would disagree that regulating the airwaves is not regulating communication within them, as we've seen so clearly from the FCC's latest power grab.

That was the point though, eflat. The FCC is NOT an enforcement agency to ensure that there is an open and free market like it should be. Instead, it is a law making body and that is what has led to the power grab. That is why I think the FCC should be eliminated BUT that the concept of the original charter is actually necessary. The power grab exists because of that bureaucratic element and the ability to expand.

Read above – the reason that the FCC should be eliminated, the power of making law returned to congress with oversight from the court and the president and the free market still protected.

I would disagree because there are some KEY difference with this and a standard market like selling fruit. The ‘highway’ so to speak is limited and can be hostilely taken over. I would liken it to breaking into your store and taking over the counter. There really is little to no difference.

Again, you start a station up and play music X on your station. Things are working rather well for you and I notice that you are starting to cut into my profits as you leech off my customers. In a normal market that needs no regulation I would be forced to compete and better my product of offering. HOWEVER, if the bandwidth were truly without regulation or oversight it would be far easier for me simply to BLOCK your transmissions and eliminate my competition entirely. I could even rebroadcast a similar product over yours to capture those that liked yours better. What could you do then?

Without laws that protect your broadcast – nothing. Back to my analogy, it is the same if you opened a store and the Wal-Mart next door broke in and replaced the cashier who gave the profits to your larger competition. That is stealing and trespassing – illegal by law to protect what is yours and you created. It is one of the CORE purposes of government, the protection of your rights. That same exact protections should extend into things such as bandwidth use. THAT is what I am defending. That is exactly what you are arguing against when you state that there should be no intervention at all.

No, we are not. The FCC regulates those as well but the idea that this is a backlash because of control I think is completely misplaced. Instead, w3e are seeing a backlash against the limits of the technology in place – namely the pay for model. Radio is not paid for and must be paid by advertisers and the like. There really is no other efficient way for the industry to handle that type of delivery because of the open and ease of access to the airwaves. The signal itself does not really allow for you to directly purchase the product. The new tech does and we all know there is some truth to the adage that you get what you pay for. ‘Free’ radio is utter garbage with more commercials than actual content but XM or satellite takes that bother away. It gives you control not because the FCC has dissipated but because you have bought and paid for that control. We are seeing the same exact thing happen across all mediums in the form of internet and DVR delivery. Regulatory agencies are not lessening control over television but technology is giving people the power to control their experience and people will ALWAYS pay for that.

I don’t have XM because of content control – I have XM because I viscerally hate commercials (and reception is better as well). Most of what I listen to is actually content on the free airwaves as well in all reality – it just comes to me without the annoying commercials. I think that many more are like me.

I don’t think you are correct because of the ‘theft’ issue that I was talking about. There is something to be said for protecting your right to innovate and build. I think that is the whole reason for government in the first place.

First, I want to say that I appreciate your thoughtful and candid input. I'd like to explore this idea of theft, which of course, I stand againt. You stated:



It seems to me that "blocking" someone's transmission is not the same thing as investing in more powerful broadcast. If we're talking about some sort of technology that actually blocks a broadcast, then I would agree we're talking about theft (or at least unlawful interference), which could be settled through the civil and criminal courts. No FCC required.

If we're talking about a competitor building a more powerful broadcast signal, that is something that customers can decide to embrace or not. Of course, I'm free to build an even MORE powerful signal and take back the space I lost to a competitor. Whether I am able to do that or not depends on the market's demand for my signal and my business acumen to raise the capital necessary to invest in a more powerful signal. No different than any other business in any other market.

Or, I could seek out alternative technology as a means of conveying my product. Something I believe would evolve at more rapid pace in the absence of central control.



Just to be clear, I'm not advocating lawlessness, which is why I wanted to explore this idea of theft.



Clearly, that would be theft. However, I'm not sure I agree that competition for broadcast signal strength is an apt analogy.

It is one of the CORE purposes of government, the protection of your rights.

Agree.

That same exact protections should extend into things such as bandwidth use. THAT is what I am defending. That is exactly what you are arguing against when you state that there should be no intervention at all

Again, if actual theft has taken place, I agree there should be intervention via the courts. However, I'm not yet convinced that bandwidth use, outside of some actual "blocking" constitutes theft. It seems to me more akin this analogy:

You run a store that sells fruit and rent a space on a month-to-month basis to do so. A larger competitor comes in and pays more than you're willing to pay to rent that space. He kicks you out of the space, and builds a bigger operation that also sells fruit. Surely that is not theft...and it seems to me to be no different than you running a radio broadcast and having a competitor effectively oust you from your space by building a bigger broadcast.

Looking forward to your thoughts. An interesting concept to explore when debated civilly.

You cannot argue "theft" if the signals belong to you and your competitor. Nobody stole your signal; it's still there. Your central flaw here is this:

then I would agree we're talking about theft (or at least unlawful interference)

- by "unlawful interference" you've just created the FCC again. That's what it does. You've argued yourself out of your own position.