Just Abolish The FCC

[HenryBHough]

Getting a little desperate?

Actually that's FA_Q2's analogy. And it's a good one. I stole it.

So sue me.

If I won what would I do with 68 cents in pennies and a 1957 Datsun coupe?

 

[eflatminor]

Worth a read:

The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology - B.K. Marcus - Mises Daily

Is the radio spectrum a unique resource that belongs to the public, or can it be privately owned like any other good or service? Most people assume that public ownership is axiomatic—a starting point rather than the historical consequence of special interests pretending to misunderstand economics.

This is wholly incorrect.

You'll learn that it was not the free market that led to the creation of the FCC, it was government:

The free market didn't create a crisis that the government solved. The government created the crisis and the assignment of property rights was about to fix it. And as soon as the government realized this, they rushed in to keep the private solution from happening

And a case for privatization of the airwaves:

One of the strangest aspects of the official history is the complete economic illiteracy required to accept it. According to the official history, cited later by the Supreme Court, the reason the airwaves were declared public property and required central regulation "in the public interest" is that radio spectrum is a scarce resource.[14]

Even ignoring for now the artificial scarcity created by the government itself (by claiming the bulk of useable spectrum for the military, by refusing to expand the broadcast band, by suppressing FM and other more efficient technologies, by removing any economic incentive to efficient innovation, etc.), how is scarcity a justification for taking a resource out of the price system?

The economic definition of scarcity is this: when the price of a good is zero, demand exceeds supply. Only if the supply of free goods exceeds the demand for free goods do we say those goods are not scarce.

The price system is that which balances supply and demand for scarce goods. If property rights are defined and enforceable—and we see that in the Oak Leaves decision they were starting to be—then pricing will serve not only to allocate scarce resources, but will promote the very future innovations needed to make a resource less scarce.

If the demand for apples goes up, apple producers—both established growers and newcomers drawn by rising prices—will grow and sell more apples, driving prices lower. Those who can produce apples most efficiently will profit the most, promoting efficient apple growth.

This works for fixed resources as well: if the demand for land goes up, driving up the price for land, developers will find ways to build on land that was considered "un-developable" only recently. They will move into the third dimension, build taller buildings or underground complexes to house more people in less acreage. They will even create artificial islands and peninsulas to increase the supply of land.

For any resource, the physical supply is only one factor in determining the economic supply. If you can create gasoline engines that get the same power from half as much gas, the economic supply of petroleum has effectively doubled.

Changes in technology affect the balance of supply and demand, and with less interference in the market, the increase in supply tends to outpace increases in demand. There is nothing in the nature of radio waves that makes them an exception.

On my point about the futility of relying the FCC to fix the problems they caused in the first place:

Yes, radio spectrum is unique. So is every other resource unique. Thus the technological units of any resource will have to be uniquely determined, but scarce resources cannot be handled with efficiency or justice outside a private property regime. When a resource is "public" it will either suffer the tragedy of the commons or be subjected to political allocation on the part of privileged interests, with all the waste and calculational chaos inevitable under central planning.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

And you would be incorrect. What you are arguing is a distinction without a difference.

Regulation is almost identical to law – the only real difference being that the law passed by congress gives the FCC broad powers to regulate (essentially writing laws) coving a thing or group of things. What the FCC does within that spectrum is indistinguishable from actual law passed by congress. That is my entire point with the FCC by the way: CONGRESS should get back to writing the laws rather than delegating powers it has to regulatory agencies. Those agencies just become giant bureaucratic nightmares creating more regulation to justify their own existence and overstep their original purpose/powers. They exist so that congress can avoid actually doing their job.

Oh cripes, just admit you got it wrong and let's move on.

FCC does not and can not pass laws. If you're not a broadcaster the regulations they pass are completely irrelevant. Just as the FDA does not pass laws, and if you're not selling food, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, their regulations are irrelevant.

And?

If congress passes a law that applies to those that sell food it is also irrelevant to anyone that does not sell food.

What is the functional difference between a regulation and a law? I’ll wait.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you should do away with the IRS first, then the FCC and of course the EPA.

And let's not forget the FAA, which is still outrageously infringing on the rights of airplanes to fly into each other.

So BBD --- once you get rid of FCC .... who's going to regulate the airwaves?

Oh that's right, we could handle it like road traffic -- get rid of all stop signs, intersection lights and speed limits and the rest of the traffic laws, and just let the chps fall where they may...

How about congress. You know, the body that was empowered by the constitution to do exactly such things.

Getting a little desperate?

Actually that's FA_Q2's analogy. And it's a good one. I stole it.

So sue me.

Well, no. There was no ‘analogy’ that I made claiming that we should take all the stop signs off the road.

That is what made your post desperate – you were not arguing the issue.

 

[Pogo]

I think you should do away with the IRS first, then the FCC and of course the EPA.

And let's not forget the FAA, which is still outrageously infringing on the rights of airplanes to fly into each other.

So BBD --- once you get rid of FCC .... who's going to regulate the airwaves?

Oh that's right, we could handle it like road traffic -- get rid of all stop signs, intersection lights and speed limits and the rest of the traffic laws, and just let the chps fall where they may...

How about congress. You know, the body that was empowered by the constitution to do exactly such things.

Getting a little desperate?

Actually that's FA_Q2's analogy. And it's a good one. I stole it.

So sue me.

Well, no. There was no ‘analogy’ that I made claiming that we should take all the stop signs off the road.

That is what made your post desperate – you were not arguing the issue.

You most certainly did make a road traffic analogy to defend the principle that government does have a role to keep order out of chaos on the public electromagnetic spectrum. It's several pages back but you did make the analogy, and it was a good one. I just riffed on it. Perhaps I overillustrate for those like Ebm and BBD who just don't get this concept, but it's simply the logical extension..

The good news is, since I stole your analogy you can still sue me.

Ergo the question (to BBD) stands: once he gets rid of the FCC, who is going to regulate that airwave traffic? Somebody's gotta do it. We've known that since the '20s when radio started to take off. Herbert Hoover figured out that much. The laws of radio propagation still work the same way 87 years later...

 

[Pogo]

I think you should do away with the IRS first, then the FCC and of course the EPA.

And let's not forget the FAA, which is still outrageously infringing on the rights of airplanes to fly into each other.

So BBD --- once you get rid of FCC .... who's going to regulate the airwaves?

Oh that's right, we could handle it like road traffic -- get rid of all stop signs, intersection lights and speed limits and the rest of the traffic laws, and just let the chps fall where they may...

How about congress. You know, the body that was empowered by the constitution to do exactly such things.

And it did --- by creating the FRC, which became the FCC. Surely you're not suggesting the licenses and operations of over fifteen thousand broadcast entities, not to even mention air traffic, military, STLs, millions of cellphones, weather facilities, radar, satellites etc be coordinated by a body that owns the patent on the word 'gridlock' and meets less often than a grade school does? Imagine the morass.

Indeed this whole contrived issue (contrived because it depends on a non sequitur fallacy) is about the FCC doing what it's required by law (i.e. Congress) to do.

For more on that, let's go to our reporter Pogo live on the scene in another thread:

>> The Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters by way of this Research Design, any resulting study, or through any other means. The development of the Research Design was intended to aid the Commission in meeting its obligations under Section 257 of the Communications Act. Section 257 directs the Commission to identify and eliminate "market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services." The statutory provision expressly links our obligation to identify market barriers with the responsibility to "promote the policies and purposes of this chapter favoring diversity of media voices." Finally, Section 257 requires the Commission to review and report to Congress on "any regulations prescribed to eliminate barriers within its jurisdiction ... that can be prescribed consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity." <<

- Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, excerpted from a letter (here in full) to Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2/14 (emphasis added)

Far from being "none of its business", the project is part of what the FCC is required by law to do. And to correct our own term, this isn't even a formal study; it's what they call a "research design", which is a precursor to a formal study.


But never mind all that, here's the quick summary --- "Newsroom police! Booga Booga!!!"

 

[HenryBHough]

It won't happen but if.......

Let's say a person owned a huge vacant lot and wanted to put up a big apartment building. With, of course, all the required reams of proper documentation.

Said person could elect to build into the walls, floor and roof a conductive mesh or even solid sheets of metal. Windows and doors could also include conductive materials, all of them joined and then grounded.

In effect that person would have prevented all electronic penetration of his/her airspace. No TV. No FM. No AM. No cell phones. No Wi-Fi. Yes, an issue of filtering incoming AC power but not a daunting one, just costly.

Now government has no control over the spectrum contained in the private airspace. The owner could then charge whatever he/she wanted for access. Either to people inside who'd have to rent equipment or to outsiders (like cell phone outfits) who wanted to use the private spectrum.

Won't happen - but if someone were hell bent on it, Hell Yes!

 

[Pogo]

It won't happen but if.......

Let's say a person owned a huge vacant lot and wanted to put up a big apartment building. With, of course, all the required reams of proper documentation.

Said person could elect to build into the walls, floor and roof a conductive mesh or even solid sheets of metal. Windows and doors could also include conductive materials, all of them joined and then grounded.

In effect that person would have prevented all electronic penetration of his/her airspace. No TV. No FM. No AM. No cell phones. No Wi-Fi. Yes, an issue of filtering incoming AC power but not a daunting one, just costly.

Now government has no control over the spectrum contained in the private airspace. The owner could then charge whatever he/she wanted for access. Either to people inside who'd have to rent equipment or to outsiders (like cell phone outfits) who wanted to use the private spectrum.

Won't happen - but if someone were hell bent on it, Hell Yes!

I like it. A high rise Quiet Zone. Of course you still have the electrical wiring radiating. You could put a carrier current station on there and have a monopoly within the building too, but I guess that's not your point.

What is your point?

Me, I'd want my external antennas even without that mesh. I've got some here in my rickety old farmhouse, not because there's any sheilding but for better reach. And double conversion squeaky-clean AC to run my rigs.

 

[nodoginnafight]

FCC does not and can not pass laws. If you're not a broadcaster the regulations they pass are completely irrelevant. Just as the FDA does not pass laws, and if you're not selling food, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, their regulations are irrelevant.

I have to disagree with you here.
Administrative rules carry the weight of law.

 

[Pogo]

FCC does not and can not pass laws. If you're not a broadcaster the regulations they pass are completely irrelevant. Just as the FDA does not pass laws, and if you're not selling food, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, their regulations are irrelevant.

I have to disagree with you here.
Administrative rules carry the weight of law.

It really doesn't matter how they function; it's a definition. Regulations aren't laws.
For instance a workplace may have regulations on how you can dress for work. It may be a requirement for that job but it's not a law.

I think his point was that laws have to come from Congress, and as far as FCC regs, since FCC is set up by Congress for the purpose of developing and applying those regulations --they do.

 

[FA_Q2]

And let's not forget the FAA, which is still outrageously infringing on the rights of airplanes to fly into each other.

So BBD --- once you get rid of FCC .... who's going to regulate the airwaves?

Oh that's right, we could handle it like road traffic -- get rid of all stop signs, intersection lights and speed limits and the rest of the traffic laws, and just let the chps fall where they may...

How about congress. You know, the body that was empowered by the constitution to do exactly such things.

And it did --- by creating the FRC, which became the FCC. Surely you're not suggesting the licenses and operations of over fifteen thousand broadcast entities, not to even mention air traffic, military, STLs, millions of cellphones, weather facilities, radar, satellites etc be coordinated by a body that owns the patent on the word 'gridlock' and meets less often than a grade school does? Imagine the morass.

Indeed this whole contrived issue (contrived because it depends on a non sequitur fallacy) is about the FCC doing what it's required by law (i.e. Congress) to do.

Yes, I am stating that congress should pass those laws just as they do for a thousand other things. They don’t enforce just like they don’t enforce any other laws so the point about having to manage a licencing to fifteen thousand agencies or ensure they are in compliance. It would be fine for the FCC to be charged with such but the problem is that is not their only function. They have been empowered to pass law as well which is what congress is supposed to be doing.

And no congress didn’t regulate anything at all by creating the FCC. What they did was pass off their responsibility to regulate to another body and had them do it for congress. That way, congress can get paid to not do their job and now we have a bureaucratic entity creating laws and taking over areas that congress never actually approved of. This is NOT how the government is supposed to work.

Do you not realize that this placed BOTH the power to create the law (a legislative branch function) AND the power to enforce the law (an executive function) under the SAME ENTITY!

I understand that the separation of powers can be a pain in the ass but it is central to keeping this nation a free one. What congress has managed to do is completely obliterated that concept.

This is not a non-sequitur btw. It is a MAJOR problem with the entire concept of these ‘regulatory’ bodies.

 

[FA_Q2]

FCC does not and can not pass laws. If you're not a broadcaster the regulations they pass are completely irrelevant. Just as the FDA does not pass laws, and if you're not selling food, cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, their regulations are irrelevant.

I have to disagree with you here.
Administrative rules carry the weight of law.

It really doesn't matter how they function; it's a definition. Regulations aren't laws.
For instance a workplace may have regulations on how you can dress for work. It may be a requirement for that job but it's not a law.

I think his point was that laws have to come from Congress, and as far as FCC regs, since FCC is set up by Congress for the purpose of developing and applying those regulations --they do.

So that is a no, you can&#8217;t actually point out a difference in the function of a law and a regulation.

IOW, IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE &#8211; exactly as I stated earlier. Congress has empowered the FCC to essentially write law and then gave it another name. That does not change the fact that they are still laws.

Your example is bunk as well. Your workplace can make regulations but they don&#8217;t have the force of law because your workplace cannot write laws &#8211; that would be illegal. FCC regulations though DO HAVE the force of law. All you have done is show why those edicts from the FCC should not even be called regulations &#8211; they are actually law.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck the FCC wants you to call it a dog&#8230;

And you are defending that!

 

[Pogo]

How about congress. You know, the body that was empowered by the constitution to do exactly such things.

And it did --- by creating the FRC, which became the FCC. Surely you're not suggesting the licenses and operations of over fifteen thousand broadcast entities, not to even mention air traffic, military, STLs, millions of cellphones, weather facilities, radar, satellites etc be coordinated by a body that owns the patent on the word 'gridlock' and meets less often than a grade school does? Imagine the morass.

Indeed this whole contrived issue (contrived because it depends on a non sequitur fallacy) is about the FCC doing what it's required by law (i.e. Congress) to do.

Yes, I am stating that congress should pass those laws just as they do for a thousand other things. They don’t enforce just like they don’t enforce any other laws so the point about having to manage a licencing to fifteen thousand agencies or ensure they are in compliance. It would be fine for the FCC to be charged with such but the problem is that is not their only function. They have been empowered to pass law as well which is what congress is supposed to be doing.

No they have not. Neither the FCC nor any other independent entity can pass laws. Only Congress can pass laws. Don't believe me? Read the Constitution.

And no congress didn’t regulate anything at all by creating the FCC. What they did was pass off their responsibility to regulate to another body and had them do it for congress. That way, congress can get paid to not do their job and now we have a bureaucratic entity creating laws and taking over areas that congress never actually approved of. This is NOT how the government is supposed to work.

What you're suggesting is absurd. Every air traffic control tower, every weather station, every police radar unit, fifteen thousand broadcast stations... overseen whenever Congress decides to meet?

Do you not realize that this placed BOTH the power to create the law (a legislative branch function) AND the power to enforce the law (an executive function) under the SAME ENTITY!

I understand that the separation of powers can be a pain in the ass but it is central to keeping this nation a free one. What congress has managed to do is completely obliterated that concept.

This is not a non-sequitur btw. It is a MAJOR problem with the entire concept of these ‘regulatory’ bodies.

Continuing from above -- it would be wildly off-the-scale impractical to suggest that every time somebody needs a license, every time some licensee experiences interference, every time somebody needs a construction permit or upgrade they should have to bring it up in Congress? Why don't we get rid of the FAA too, and every plane that wants to land has to have a Senator introduce a bill?

That cannot be what you mean. It's way too silly. The question still stands unmolested: if you get rid of the FCC (or the FAA, the FHWA etc), WHO is going to take over those functions? In effect you have to create a whole new agency and call it something else, and you have the same thing. Some things simply have to be centralized.


None of this ^^ is what I refer to as a non sequitur. Non sequitur means "it does not follow". What I refer to is this theory that, because some social study company came up with a particular research design for the FCC, therefore that means the FCC is about to start controlling content. There's no dot to connect there; it's a leap. It does not follow. That's the non sequitur, the basis of this contrived "issue".

 

[Pogo]

I have to disagree with you here.
Administrative rules carry the weight of law.

It really doesn't matter how they function; it's a definition. Regulations aren't laws.
For instance a workplace may have regulations on how you can dress for work. It may be a requirement for that job but it's not a law.

I think his point was that laws have to come from Congress, and as far as FCC regs, since FCC is set up by Congress for the purpose of developing and applying those regulations --they do.

So that is a no, you can’t actually point out a difference in the function of a law and a regulation.

IOW, IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE – exactly as I stated earlier. Congress has empowered the FCC to essentially write law and then gave it another name. That does not change the fact that they are still laws.

Your example is bunk as well. Your workplace can make regulations but they don’t have the force of law because your workplace cannot write laws – that would be illegal. FCC regulations though DO HAVE the force of law. All you have done is show why those edicts from the FCC should not even be called regulations – they are actually law.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck the FCC wants you to call it a dog…

And you are defending that!

I'm defending the English language. Sometimes I think if it wasn't for me it would disappear into meaninglessness. Words mean what the majority agree they mean -- not what you'd personally like one to mean.

 

[FA_Q2]

And it did --- by creating the FRC, which became the FCC. Surely you're not suggesting the licenses and operations of over fifteen thousand broadcast entities, not to even mention air traffic, military, STLs, millions of cellphones, weather facilities, radar, satellites etc be coordinated by a body that owns the patent on the word 'gridlock' and meets less often than a grade school does? Imagine the morass.

Indeed this whole contrived issue (contrived because it depends on a non sequitur fallacy) is about the FCC doing what it's required by law (i.e. Congress) to do.

Yes, I am stating that congress should pass those laws just as they do for a thousand other things. They don’t enforce just like they don’t enforce any other laws so the point about having to manage a licencing to fifteen thousand agencies or ensure they are in compliance. It would be fine for the FCC to be charged with such but the problem is that is not their only function. They have been empowered to pass law as well which is what congress is supposed to be doing.

No they have not. Neither the FCC nor any other independent entity can pass laws. Only Congress can pass laws. Don't believe me? Read the Constitution.

And no congress didn’t regulate anything at all by creating the FCC. What they did was pass off their responsibility to regulate to another body and had them do it for congress. That way, congress can get paid to not do their job and now we have a bureaucratic entity creating laws and taking over areas that congress never actually approved of. This is NOT how the government is supposed to work.

What you're suggesting is absurd. Every air traffic control tower, every weather station, every police radar unit, fifteen thousand broadcast stations... overseen whenever Congress decides to meet?

Do you not realize that this placed BOTH the power to create the law (a legislative branch function) AND the power to enforce the law (an executive function) under the SAME ENTITY!

I understand that the separation of powers can be a pain in the ass but it is central to keeping this nation a free one. What congress has managed to do is completely obliterated that concept.

This is not a non-sequitur btw. It is a MAJOR problem with the entire concept of these ‘regulatory’ bodies.

Continuing from above -- it would be wildly off-the-scale impractical to suggest that every time somebody needs a license, every time some licensee experiences interference, every time somebody needs a construction permit or upgrade they should have to bring it up in Congress? Why don't we get rid of the FAA too, and every plane that wants to land has to have a Senator introduce a bill?

That cannot be what you mean. It's way too silly. The question still stands unmolested: if you get rid of the FCC (or the FAA, the FHWA etc), WHO is going to take over those functions? In effect you have to create a whole new agency and call it something else, and you have the same thing. Some things simply have to be centralized.


None of this ^^ is what I refer to as a non sequitur. Non sequitur means "it does not follow". What I refer to is this theory that, because some social study company came up with a particular research design for the FCC, therefore that means the FCC is about to start controlling content. There's no dot to connect there; it's a leap. It does not follow. That's the non sequitur, the basis of this contrived "issue".

read what I actually posted then because you dint bother to understand a single point that I made.

You continue to demand that the FCC does not create law when you have STILL failed to produce one single thing thing that is functionally different between a FCC regulation and a law. Not one.

Then you make asinine statements like congress would need to meet every time someone needed a license - clearly an ENFORCEMENT issue that I DIRECTLY stated was not something that congress would need to deal with. Instead, they should actually be writing the law rather than the FCC.

So far you have addressed nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

It really doesn't matter how they function; it's a definition. Regulations aren't laws.
For instance a workplace may have regulations on how you can dress for work. It may be a requirement for that job but it's not a law.

I think his point was that laws have to come from Congress, and as far as FCC regs, since FCC is set up by Congress for the purpose of developing and applying those regulations --they do.

So that is a no, you can’t actually point out a difference in the function of a law and a regulation.

IOW, IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE – exactly as I stated earlier. Congress has empowered the FCC to essentially write law and then gave it another name. That does not change the fact that they are still laws.

Your example is bunk as well. Your workplace can make regulations but they don’t have the force of law because your workplace cannot write laws – that would be illegal. FCC regulations though DO HAVE the force of law. All you have done is show why those edicts from the FCC should not even be called regulations – they are actually law.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck the FCC wants you to call it a dog…

And you are defending that!

I'm defending the English language. Sometimes I think if it wasn't for me it would disappear into meaninglessness. Words mean what the majority agree they mean -- not what you'd personally like one to mean.

No you are not. You are demanding that one idea is called a law but is given another name is suddenly different even when the actual idea is functionally identical.
AGAIN - walks like a law, talks like a law and looks like a law yet you want to call it a regulation and say that another entity gets to pass it at will.

still waiting for that functional difference BTW - the simple fact that you cannot provide one is crushing your stance.

 

[Agit8r]

Same wingnut cliche as usual; "We want rights without responsibility!"

 

[HenryBHough]

Same Marxist cliche as usual; "We want to eliminate your rights because you're irresponsible and we know best!"

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I am stating that congress should pass those laws just as they do for a thousand other things. They don&#8217;t enforce just like they don&#8217;t enforce any other laws so the point about having to manage a licencing to fifteen thousand agencies or ensure they are in compliance. It would be fine for the FCC to be charged with such but the problem is that is not their only function. They have been empowered to pass law as well which is what congress is supposed to be doing.

No they have not. Neither the FCC nor any other independent entity can pass laws. Only Congress can pass laws. Don't believe me? Read the Constitution.



What you're suggesting is absurd. Every air traffic control tower, every weather station, every police radar unit, fifteen thousand broadcast stations... overseen whenever Congress decides to meet?

Do you not realize that this placed BOTH the power to create the law (a legislative branch function) AND the power to enforce the law (an executive function) under the SAME ENTITY!

I understand that the separation of powers can be a pain in the ass but it is central to keeping this nation a free one. What congress has managed to do is completely obliterated that concept.

This is not a non-sequitur btw. It is a MAJOR problem with the entire concept of these &#8216;regulatory&#8217; bodies.

Continuing from above -- it would be wildly off-the-scale impractical to suggest that every time somebody needs a license, every time some licensee experiences interference, every time somebody needs a construction permit or upgrade they should have to bring it up in Congress? Why don't we get rid of the FAA too, and every plane that wants to land has to have a Senator introduce a bill?

That cannot be what you mean. It's way too silly. The question still stands unmolested: if you get rid of the FCC (or the FAA, the FHWA etc), WHO is going to take over those functions? In effect you have to create a whole new agency and call it something else, and you have the same thing. Some things simply have to be centralized.


None of this ^^ is what I refer to as a non sequitur. Non sequitur means "it does not follow". What I refer to is this theory that, because some social study company came up with a particular research design for the FCC, therefore that means the FCC is about to start controlling content. There's no dot to connect there; it's a leap. It does not follow. That's the non sequitur, the basis of this contrived "issue".

read what I actually posted then because you dint bother to understand a single point that I made.

You continue to demand that the FCC does not create law when you have STILL failed to produce one single thing thing that is functionally different between a FCC regulation and a law. Not one.

Then you make asinine statements like congress would need to meet every time someone needed a license - clearly an ENFORCEMENT issue that I DIRECTLY stated was not something that congress would need to deal with. Instead, they should actually be writing the law rather than the FCC.

So far you have addressed nothing.

Uhhh..... actually you addressed nothing. The standing question since the OP originated it is: if you abolish the FCC, what steps in to take its place? As you already know -- your existing posts demonstrate that you do understand this -- you can't just open that limited space to chaos. You'd end up with a similar organization doing the same thing FCC does now, and all you'd be doing is calling it a new name. So what's the point?

I'm not going to play your sidetrack semantics game. "Still waiting"? Little Jimmy's mother says no he can't have a chocolate bar right now. That has the same function as a law. Does that make it a "law"? Only Congress makes national laws, period. Call it by the wrong name all you like if that's what floats your boat.

 

[bendog]

I zee nuzzing nuzzing nuzzing. If vact, I zid not get out of bed zis morning.

The real story behind the FCC?s study of newsrooms