Just Abolish The FCC

[Pogo]

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......

There may be but that's got nothing to do with the FCC.

I think you want the BBG. They have your gummint spoon-fed content.
Half-megawatt rigs, baby.

 

[HenryBHough]

I think you want the BBG. They have your gummint spoon-fed content.
Half-megawatt rigs, baby.

Half-Meg! Do you find living in close proximity to them causes that tinfoil hat to warm or maybe even glow a little?

 

[Pogo]

I think you want the BBG. They have your gummint spoon-fed content.
Half-megawatt rigs, baby.

Half-Meg! Do you find living in close proximity to them causes that tinfoil hat to warm or maybe even glow a little?

Actually I'm over 300 miles away, though I go there on occasion. And they're pointed the other way y'know.

Have you seen the farm? It's cute: one sign says "welcome to the Edward R. Murrow broadcast facility" or words to that effect and another says "US Government property -- no trespassing".

To me that's a half-meg of mixed message.

If you combined it all it would be like 4.8 megawatts spread out over six thousand acres of antenna. And it's the only VOA farm left -- Bethany and Dixon and Delano are long gone.

This of course is our tax dollars at work, while other countries abandon shortwave -- Radio Nederland is gone, a fixture of my youth. The RCI transmitter farm in Sackville New Brunswick that I always catch sight of when driving to Nova Scotia are now silent. Even BBC is cutting back. It's sad.

But we still have five million watts of tax dollars working hard to jam Havana.

 

[HenryBHough]

5 MW just sitting there waiting for but a single word from Comrade Obama to shift frequency and wipe out oppositional talk radio! Selectively, of course. Fortunately not all at once.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

First, I also don’t think the FCC in its current form is a good idea. As I stated before – they should be an enforcement agency just like the police to enforce laws that congress passed coving the ‘regulation’ of the airwaves. That would also be a case where the courts would settle the breaking of the law. HOWEVER, my contention (and one that I think you disagree so far on) is that the actual purpose of the FCC is actually something the government should be involved in: the regulation of the use of the airwaves.

With that said, you focused on the difference of blocking and a more powerful broadcast. I think that is a fundamental flaw in what you are stating because they are the same thing. The airwaves are limited in that I can take up the space that you are trying to use and that leaves you with nothing – not a smaller audience or a more limited transmission area but literally leaves you with nothing. At best the airwaves turn to complete static and at worst my broadcast is heard while yours is completely gone.

IOW, they are the same thing. That is why congress has purview to pass laws on the use of that airspace – it is limited and can be taken by anyone to the exclusion of being available to others.

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.

As stated above – I believe that this is incorrect.

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.

You will get no argument from me there. The fact that other techs would likely develop faster though is not a good argument to allow for the ‘theft’ of your ability to broadcast (as I think that you would agree).

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.

As said above I think that this is based on the fact that you believe that I can still broadcast when I don’t believe this to be the case.

Granted, it is slightly different than theft because what is being denied to you is less of something that you own and more of completely denying you the use of a medium. I think the analogy is a pretty good one though.

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.

No, that is not theft but I think it misses the reality in one key function and that is availability.

In your example the space that you were using was a voluntary use of someone else’s property. It also represents a single medium in which you can sell your apples. If you do not want to pay for the use of that store you can pay for another, get a website, use mail orders, sell on the street corner, put them in a larger retailer’s shelves or a million other things. You are not limited in your access to your customers AND (this is key) each of those interactions is completely voluntary.

Back in the radio world, bandwidth is LIMITED in the fact that there are only so many different bands that can be broadcast and used. Your competition can block them ALL and do so quite easily I might add. This leaves you with no alternative and no way to circumvent the problem. Further, if someone crosses into your transmission the process is[/b] NOT VOLUNTARY[/b]. The signal is forced. No one actually owns that airwave – such is rather impossible without the government delineating it out and without organized throughput such crossed signals are a commonality rather than an exception.

Lastly, one of the key points before seems to have dropped off – the idea that such a transmission can cause a safety threat by interfering with aircraft transmission or other such transmissions. Some of the bandwidth needs to be cut out for that use if we are to have reliable communications in the air. This is the reason that the regulation covering cell phone use on aircraft was a clear and asinine overstep in powers – there was regulation already established made it impossible for such devices to interfere with the aircraft. That is also why I think that such powers need to go back to congress where they belong.

 

[Pogo]

5 MW just sitting there waiting for but a single word from Comrade Obama to shift frequency and wipe out oppositional talk radio! Selectively, of course. Fortunately not all at once.

Now you know antennas don't work like that. Greenville's full of HF curtains and dipoles. MW jamming would take ground waves.

Anyway they're already wiping out oppositional talk radio. From Havana. Been doing that for decades.

How do you like that use of our tax dollars?

It's unofficial of course. But it's easy to hear.

I've also got CIA numbers stations coming in wall to wall here, presumably from Virginia transmitters. Another kind of oppositional talk radio...

 

[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.

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.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

No, its not. And lets not get crazy with the 'sunshine is part of the elctro-magnetic spectrum nonsense. Unless Dr. Evil (Eric Holder) has managed to block the sun, it is in no danger of harming peoples lives.

Seems we have about 2 million years of not having access to them as a history.

 

[Pogo]

The electro-magnetic spectrum is NOT a basic need.

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

No, its not. And lets not get crazy with the 'sunshine is part of the elctro-magnetic spectrum nonsense. Unless Dr. Evil (Eric Holder) has managed to block the sun, it is in no danger of harming peoples lives.

Seems we have about 2 million years of not having access to them as a history.

The airwaves have nothing to do with sunshine, Grasshopper. Actually the "air" part is a metaphor; EM signals don't need air either. When we say "access to the airwaves" we speak of access to that medium, the process of radio transmission. The "airwaves" (i.e. the ether, that invisible intangible medium) are defined by law as belonging to the People. It's codified. That's what I mean by access to them being a basic right. And as a medium for the public discourse and more fundamentally as a public resource itself, public access to that medium is by definition a need. What's the point of having a resource -- whether it's public or private -- if you can't access it?

Obviously the period of history before the technology was developed is irrelevant to this.

I make a point of this because we often forget, and are encouraged to forget, that that country or rap or talk station is using our property to do it -- not theirs.

 

[HenryBHough]

Best appeal for communization of all of nature I've ever heard.

Remember, comrades, the air you breathe is public property - OUR property - and if you stink it up you're polluting not your own air - but OUR air.

Now it's only fair to mandate that you buy Obama Brand Mouth Perfume and use it regularly and that a government inspector be assigned to your family to ensure OUR isn't being stunk up with your emissions!

 

[Pogo]

Best appeal for communization of all of nature I've ever heard.

Remember, comrades, the air you breathe is public property - OUR property - and if you stink it up you're polluting not your own air - but OUR air.

Now it's only fair to mandate that you buy Obama Brand Mouth Perfume and use it regularly and that a government inspector be assigned to your family to ensure OUR isn't being stunk up with your emissions!

So now --- radio waves need air to propagate, do they?

Credibility flush complete.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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

 

[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...

 

[HenryBHough]

Getting a little desperate?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

couldn't agree more

 

[KNB]

Getting a little desperate?

Not as desperate as Teabaggers clamoring to destroy the Federal government so Obama will suffer.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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...

LOL, what a clown. the EPA is a useless organization as is the IRS(unless you're a liberal and want to shut down conservatives)

 

[HenryBHough]

Getting a little desperate?

Not as desperate as Teabaggers clamoring to destroy the Federal government so Obama will suffer.

Syntax error there in that it's Obama who has destroyed the concept of having a federal government as constitutional defined. But rage on! That's not taxed. Not yet.

 

[Pogo]

Getting a little desperate?

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

So sue me.