Just Abolish The FCC

[eflatminor]

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".

 

[eflatminor]

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.

 

[KNB]

Are you people serious with this? "Abolish the FCC"?

Yes, quite serious.

The FCC has been a compliant puppet of media corporations since the 1980s. FCC Deregulation after deregulation has allowed the overwhelming majority of American media to become owned and operated by only 7 corporations, two of which aren't even American. All the while those corporate media outlets are feeding the public total bullshit as "news" instead of focusing on unconstitutional US spying, unconstitutional US torture, unconstitutional US war, illegal gerrymandering, illegal corporate tax evasion, the inherent failure of "trickle down" theory, or any real solutions on how to solve the Greenhouse Effect. So now that corporations safely control 80% of everything that Americans see, hear, and read on a daily basis, and the head of the FCC is a powerless tool of corporations, this means that the 1% have made the FCC so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.

So let me get this straight. The FCC has been a "puppet" of these evil companies, resulting in this intolerable situation where the rich control all our minds...and your solution is to keep the FCC?

Really?

Sounds like your asking for more of what you claim to abhor. I find that odd.

Did you ever think for a moment that without the FCC working in concert with those evil corporations, they would not be able to gain the control they have? After all, without politicians and bureaucrats backing up companies, cronyism and legally-backed control would be impossible. The people have voluntary choice you see...that is, until government and their crony capitalist partners diminish that choice.

But you keep arguing for more laws, agencies and bureaucrats while lamenting what they do, what they have ALWAYS done. Very strange indeed.

Good idea, America. Corporations don't have enough legal free rein already, so it's time to abolish EVERY government oversight agency.

Calling Captain Hyperbole!

Your solution to scrap the FCC is retarded. Are you retarded? Getting rid of the FCC will ONLY give corporations full control over everything. Without any kind of government oversight, cronyism and corporate control would be impossible TO END.

The solution is not to do away with the FCC, but to appoint someone as head of the FCC who will actually enforce the anti-trust laws of the United States.

Read this book:

Ben Bagdikian - Author | Journalist | Media Critic

 

[eflatminor]

[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. 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. 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.

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, 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'.

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.

 

[eflatminor]

Are you people serious with this? "Abolish the FCC"?

Yes, quite serious.



So let me get this straight. The FCC has been a "puppet" of these evil companies, resulting in this intolerable situation where the rich control all our minds...and your solution is to keep the FCC?

Really?

Sounds like your asking for more of what you claim to abhor. I find that odd.

Did you ever think for a moment that without the FCC working in concert with those evil corporations, they would not be able to gain the control they have? After all, without politicians and bureaucrats backing up companies, cronyism and legally-backed control would be impossible. The people have voluntary choice you see...that is, until government and their crony capitalist partners diminish that choice.

But you keep arguing for more laws, agencies and bureaucrats while lamenting what they do, what they have ALWAYS done. Very strange indeed.

Good idea, America. Corporations don't have enough legal free rein already, so it's time to abolish EVERY government oversight agency.

Calling Captain Hyperbole!

Your solution to scrap the FCC is retarded. Are you retarded?

Thanks for proving my point about the inability of the Left to argue without ad hominem attacks.

You realize they never helps your case, right?

Getting rid of the FCC will ONLY give corporations full control over everything. Without any kind of government oversight, cronyism and corporate control would be impossible TO END.

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.

What's hysterical is that you claim the FCC allowed for this oligopoly and your solution is more of the same! It's rather incredible.

It reminds me of the bank bailouts where your central planner buddies claimed these banks were too big to fail, and what a problem that was. After their meddling, those same banks are even BIGGER! Your centralized controls always end up making the problems you so lament worse.

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.

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

 

[SmedlyButler]

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.

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

 

[KNB]

Your solution to scrap the FCC is retarded. Are you retarded?

Thanks for proving my point about the inability of the Left to argue without ad hominem attacks.

You realize they never helps your case, right?

"You realize they never helps your case." Calling you out for ridiculous spelling and even worse thinking is not "ad hominem" because you don't have an argument for me to avoid in the first place. It's simply a statement of fact that you don't have any idea how consolidated media ownership has become a threat to democracy or what the ramifications would be from dissolving the FCC.

Getting rid of the FCC will ONLY give corporations full control over everything. Without any kind of government oversight, cronyism and corporate control would be impossible TO END.

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.

What's hysterical is that you claim the FCC allowed for this oligopoly and your solution is more of the same! It's rather incredible.

The only safeguard against the oligopoly is a properly functioning FCC. I'm not calling for "more of the same". One of the last heads of the FCC was the traitor Colin Powell's son. THAT is "more of the same". THAT is cronyism. Appointing someone to head the FCC who will break up the media conglomerates is exactly the opposite of what we've had for so long.

It reminds me of the bank bailouts where your central planner buddies claimed these banks were too big to fail, and what a problem that was. After their meddling, those same banks are even BIGGER! Your centralized controls always end up making the problems you so lament worse.

Yes, "my" central planner banker buddies. How do you even come up with this shit? "My" centralized control? Are you ******* retarded? Are you a teenager? How old are you? Honestly, how old are you? It matters because the "centralized planning" comes from the massive media conglomerates, not the FCC. If you can't comprehend that then you shouldn't offer your opinion on this matter. Everything that has happened has been to the benefit of the largest corporations because of the lack of proper government oversight.

"My" idea of "centralized control" is to legalize Cannabis Sativa so that every American, both homeowners and the homeless, can contribute to our national independence entirely without centralized corporate control.

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.

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

There isn't any "choice" left for consumers when 80% of media (books, television, radio, movies, magazines, etc.) are made by only 7 corporations. Whatever you "choose" is owned and operated by one of these large corporations. That's why "indy media" and "net neutrality" are so important.

Appointing someone who won't be bought out to properly run the FCC is a much better idea than abolishing the agency altogether.

 

[FA_Q2]

[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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

 

[thanatos144]

I keep hearing that corporations are going to impose their will on us if the FCC is scraped. .. tell how is that different now with Comcast controlling most of the bandwidth now?

tapatalk post

 

[Dante]

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

your ignorance and inability to understand simple concepts is truly astounding

regulation

 

[Clementine]

Originally The Federal Communications Comission was established PRIMARILY to bring order out of chaos. There were countless unlicensed stations operating on random frequencies "stepping all over each other" - making it difficult, in metropolitan areas, to successfully listen to any one for more than a few minutes at a time. Frequency stability was an issue and listeners sometimes had to constantly retune as the station wandered "up and down the dial".

There was a huge task at hand to work out spacings between stations on the same frequency; power levels according to service areas and assignment of call signs.

Once that was done mission creep set in and politics got involved.

Every now and then technical rules were changed as things like directional patterns became possible and equipment improved to the point where frequency had to be monitored less and less frequently with some expectation that it would stay where it belonged. In the beginning a skilled operator had to be right at each transmitter constantly tinkering with it to keep power levels within limits and hold proper frequency. In time equipment became sufficiently stable that less skilled operators could do the monitoring and minor adjustment so a lot of "engineers" got put out of work. With today's equipment most stations are able to operate under automated control, completely unattended for long intervals. A good thing from the cost perspective but hellish if there's a local emergency and nobody to get the word out.

Keeping some sort of technical agency really is, I believe, essential and licensing to keep coverage areas in order, avoiding interference. But to meddle in politics? Isn't that why we have a Congress?

But government exists to breed so don't expect anything rational.

I think some government agencies started out with a legitimate task, but once they have their hand in something, the first thing they do is figure out how to use it to their advantage and the agencies grow and become too powerful and grossly expensive to run.

 

[FA_Q2]

The only safeguard against the oligopoly is a properly functioning FCC. I'm not calling for "more of the same". One of the last heads of the FCC was the traitor Colin Powell's son. THAT is "more of the same". THAT is cronyism. Appointing someone to head the FCC who will break up the media conglomerates is exactly the opposite of what we've had for so long.

What you are missing is that agencies like the FCC and other governmental regulatory agencies are not there to ‘break up’ the monopolies (they don’t actually have any part in enforcing antitrust laws BTW) but actually exist to PROTECT them. That is virtually universal and an unfortunate side effect of government regulation.

What happened after the bank bailouts? The big 5 got BIGGER. What about Dodd-Frank – a regulatory bill whose SPECIFIC purpose was to end the idea of too big to fail and stop future meltdowns like the one that we had? The big 5 got even BIGGER again.

This is because the massive conglomerates can absorb price increases with nary a hiccup. They have the assets and the market share to lose for years and absorb anything that is thrown at them. Their competition is not so lucky. It is precisely those regulatory agencies like the FCC that completely eliminate the ‘indie’ providers. They are shut down ALL THE TIME because they cannot comply with regulation or they did not comply with regulation that they didn’t even know existed in the first place.

Here is a good story about the government shutting down 16 people with food company startups that compete with their bigger counterparts all the time:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O9cJMO4B18]Little American Dream Factory: Chicago Bureaucrats Put the Brakes on an Innovative Business - YouTube[/ame]

You want government agencies to limit those conglomerates but you don’t seem to realize that those agencies are the reason that they exist in the first place. If you want to limit them, more power to government agencies is NOT going to accomplish that.

It reminds me of the bank bailouts where your central planner buddies claimed these banks were too big to fail, and what a problem that was. After their meddling, those same banks are even BIGGER! Your centralized controls always end up making the problems you so lament worse.

Yes, "my" central planner banker buddies. How do you even come up with this shit? "My" centralized control? Are you ******* retarded? Are you a teenager? How old are you? Honestly, how old are you? It matters because the "centralized planning" comes from the massive media conglomerates, not the FCC. If you can't comprehend that then you shouldn't offer your opinion on this matter. Everything that has happened has been to the benefit of the largest corporations because of the lack of proper government oversight.

Quite the opposite – it happens precisely because of government oversight.

That oversight give those companies the edge that they need to in order to crush smaller and better competition. Then there is the fact that those companies are the only ones that have the funds to starkly influence policy. You don’t really think that the FCC write major policy without those same big 7 companies weighing in do you? You must also realize that who is running the show is utterly irrelevant in that fact – those same 7 are going to have input no matter who is on top because they have so much influence and knowledge in the field that is being regulated.

What do you think is meant when Obama meets with ‘industry leaders?’ Yup – those are the major companies influencing regulation to benefit themselves. Do you think that Obama could spearhead such regulation without consulting those industry leaders? The answer is no because they have the knowledge needed to write the damn things in the first place – knowledge that is NOT in Washington.

"My" idea of "centralized control" is to legalize Cannabis Sativa so that every American, both homeowners and the homeless, can contribute to our national independence entirely without centralized corporate control.

Huh? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand nor does that make any sense at all anyway. Legalized marijuana is going to come with new (and large) companies selling it – that is a fact.

 

[FA_Q2]

I keep hearing that corporations are going to impose their will on us if the FCC is scraped. .. tell how is that different now with Comcast controlling most of the bandwidth now?

tapatalk post

Comcast is its own problem. They are essentially allowed a legal monopoly (read enforced through government) in exchange for laying down new line. The practice is abhorrent and completely against everything that this nation stands for.

I send this to the forums on a Comcast line not because I want to but because my wonderful government has made it illegal for me to do it any other way – pathetic.

 

[nitroz]

Then make ISPs common carriers.

Without them, we'd all be under comcast with disgustingly higher rates than we have now, with slower service. Same way with cell phones and such.





We need them more than you think.

 

[thanatos144]

I keep hearing that corporations are going to impose their will on us if the FCC is scraped. .. tell how is that different now with Comcast controlling most of the bandwidth now?

tapatalk post

Comcast is its own problem. They are essentially allowed a legal monopoly (read enforced through government) in exchange for laying down new line. The practice is abhorrent and completely against everything that this nation stands for.

I send this to the forums on a Comcast line not because I want to but because my wonderful government has made it illegal for me to do it any other way – pathetic.

The FCC made it that way


tapatalk post

 

[eflatminor]

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.

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.

 

[eflatminor]

Your solution to scrap the FCC is retarded. Are you retarded?

Thanks for proving my point about the inability of the Left to argue without ad hominem attacks.

You realize they never helps your case, right?

"You realize they never helps your case." Calling you out for ridiculous spelling and even worse thinking is not "ad hominem" because you don't have an argument for me to avoid in the first place. It's simply a statement of fact that you don't have any idea how consolidated media ownership has become a threat to democracy or what the ramifications would be from dissolving the FCC. There you go again, looking to the same central planners to fix what they caused in the first place. Unbelievably naive.


The only safeguard against the oligopoly is a properly functioning FCC. Of course, the solution for any meddling know-it-all...more money will fix the problem. You go with that comrade. History is not on your side, but hey, I'm sure it would be different this time...I'm not calling for "more of the same". One of the last heads of the FCC was the traitor Colin Powell's son. THAT is "more of the same". THAT is cronyism. Appointing someone to head the FCC who will break up the media conglomerates is exactly the opposite of what we've had for so long. Got it, when central planning isn't working, more central planning is the answer. You would have fit right in during the good old Soviet days.

It reminds me of the bank bailouts where your central planner buddies claimed these banks were too big to fail, and what a problem that was. After their meddling, those same banks are even BIGGER! Your centralized controls always end up making the problems you so lament worse.

Yes, "my" central planner banker buddies. How do you even come up with this shit? "My" centralized control? Are you ******* retarded? Are you a teenager? Not a personal attack, no, not at all...How old are you? Honestly, how old are you? 48It matters because the "centralized planning" comes from the massive media conglomerates, not the FCC. Bullshit. No corporation could achieve the status quo without government support through agencies like the FCC. The solution? Give them more money! ******* insane. If you can't comprehend that then you shouldn't offer your opinion on this matter. Everything that has happened has been to the benefit of the largest corporations because of the lack of proper government oversight.Which NEVER happens. Never has, never will...no matter how benevolent you think the central planners are.

"My" idea of "centralized control" is to legalize Cannabis Sativa so that every American, both homeowners and the homeless, can contribute to our national independence entirely without centralized corporate control.Now that speaks volumes. You might want to lay off for a while. All that cannabis appears to be interfering with your cognitive abilities and understanding of reality. But hey, maybe one more joint will convince you that government can be trusted to not engage in cronyism...if we just fund them more.

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.

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

There isn't any "choice" left for consumers when 80% of media (books, television, radio, movies, magazines, etc.) are made by only 7 corporations. Whatever you "choose" is owned and operated by one of these large corporations. That's why "indy media" and "net neutrality" are so important. Which was made possible ONLY by collusion with the FCC. Again, you keep making my point.

Appointing someone who won't be bought out to properly run the FCC is a much better idea than abolishing the agency altogether.

Ah yes, if only we had a benevolent overlord, a GOOD King, all would be well. My goodness, you really are ignorant to history.

 

[Stephanie]

Yay, we can watch people ******* each other on t.v 24 hours a day for free!

man you've went insane...you need a break or help

 

[eflatminor]

[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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

Without laws that protect your broadcast – nothing.

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

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. .

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.

 

[KNB]

Elfmentor, or whatever your name is, do you have any real argument in any of this? Putting your text in red doesn't make your thoughts more meaningful. 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. 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. 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."

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 **** 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. 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.
Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop
The feasibility of converting Cannabis sat... [Bioresour Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf
http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/cannabis-carbon-footprint.pdf
http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/5d_Environmental_Risks_and_Opportunities_in_Cannabis_Cultivation.pdf
Attempted ignition of petrol vapour by lit cigar... [Sci Justice. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8415/1/prade_t_111102.pdf
UConn Biofuel Consortium
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/59909/676695681.pdf?...1
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1868648
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2856430&fileOId=2857088
Effect of harvest date on combustion related fuel properties of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) - Fuel - Tom 102, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda
https://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf
Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/EvergreenEnergy/kforbin.pdf
Industrial Hemp - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=93&ved=0CC0QFjACOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhumboldt-dspace.calstate.edu%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F2148%2F1461%2FArnold_Jessica_M_Sp2013-r.pdf%3Fsequence%3D4&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNGePT2nLRH82rx6h817DYxZ6v-J3A&cad=rja
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=91&cad=rja&ved=0CCMQFjAAOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.kmi.open.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F2778292.pdf&ei=UfTnUqLJNI-FogSHuIKoAg&usg=AFQjCNFqhjiy8F4VRqHnZ08t7CZFDqLgXQ