Abolish the FCC?

[Mike]

The FCC is about to make a push to grab control over the Internet. This despite the fact that Congress (which only CREATED the FCC, and could presumably destroy them if they wished) has expressed their disapproval for them to do it by executive fiat. And that was the LAST Congress, which had huge National Socialist Democrat Party (NSDP) majorities, not the incoming Congress, well House, which will be significantly more conservative.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/1 ... -internet/

I made what I consider a pretty good post on this at Britebart's "Big Government" blog concerning the FCC and potential defunding of it by the House:

484 comments posted · 2 followers · following 2
9 minutes ago @ Big Government - FCC Poised to Regulate... · 0 replies · +1 points
Why couldn't we do without the FCC?

What do they DO, actually?

Fine someone for showing bare breasts on TV? Given the fact that flat out porn is available on cable, how is fining people for that on broadcast TV "saving our nation?" The world won't end without the FCC to do this...

Fining someone for saying "shit" on the air? Same deal, can be done on cable or satellite, which nearly everyone has access to... Plus the fact that there is a 1st Amendment factor here... Again, the world won't end if the FCC isn't around to do this.

Stations interfering with each other? Won't happen, as BOTH stations lose out if their signals jam each other.

What this is all about is the FCC trying to perpetuate itself past it's own obsolescence. The future of broadcast isn't over the air, it isn't even satellite or cable, it is INTERNET. Unless the FCC can somehow grab control of the Internet, it is doomed. Remember the Prime Directive of all bureaucracies is to perpetuate themselves.

Even today, I can drive around pretty much anywhere in my car with my iPhone and listen to anything broadcast over the internet, endless varieties of music stations and talk radio. Wireless broadband is becoming more and more ubiquitous daily. It will only be more so 10 years from now.

The whole argument in the 1930's for the establishment of the FCC and for giving it what power it has to regulate content and who gets to "speak" (ie: licenses) was the scarcity of "bandwidth" (ie: limited number of AM, FM, and TV channels for any given area). That is how they have evaded the 1st Amendment. With the Internet, there no longer is ANY SUCH THING as scarcity of available "channels", thus, no argument whatsoever for the government having ANY role whatsoever in allocating or regulating them.

Remember the point I made years ago on this very site (and some of you laughed at me) that the future of broadcasting is INTERNET broadcasting? This reality is pretty much here now and is only going to become more so with the proliferation of wireless broadband devices. Getting their hands on the Internet through "Net Neutrality" (which isn't, it's government seizure of private networks, the Internet is nothing more than a conglomeration of interconnected PRIVATE networks) represents nothing more than the FCC's attempt to stick the thin end of a wedge into the internet, and if successful, will be followed by a great sledgehammer blow to force the thick end through...

We do not need government regulation of content on the internet. Nor do we need the government deciding who can and cannot "speak" for lack of better term. It is Unconstitutional, therefore it is ILLEGAL for them to even attempt it. Add to this the illegal seizure of private property without compensation factor (remember, the Internet is a network of interconnected private networks) which is anti property rights.

[Dave Loudin]

Stations interfering with each other? Won't happen, as BOTH stations lose out if their signals jam each other.

You are SO wrong about this.

[Mike]

Stations interfering with each other? Won't happen, as BOTH stations lose out if their signals jam each other.

You are SO wrong about this.

Why?

Interference is mutual, I know that much about radio engineering having had my own firsthand experience as a low power "pirate" I once ran both an AM and FM. I still own a 50W AM transmitter...

[AmpedNow]

It's amazing that this abstract fear that many of us had back then about the FCC/government figuring out a way to get their ham hands on the internet has finally arrived...

Even more amazing is it happened during a lame duck session by a party/administration who just had their asses handed to them by the American people a few weeks ago. Just because they are heading to the ash bin of American history doesn't mean they won't try to take as much of the country with them as they can, while they still can, one week before Christmas.

The good news is this likely won't survive the courts. Plus the new congress will threaten to withhold their funding if they continue to go down this road.

However, assuming for a moment that this is fully enacted...if the FCC now has the authority to regulate a non-broadcast entity like the internet, then it's not a far logical leap for them to also claim authority over cable TV, print, and satellite radio as well.

I think on one hand, this is an all-or-nothing attempt at a massive power grab, considering that what authority they assumed they had over broadcast content was de-nutted by the courts earlier this year. Remember in that ruling, the court went a step further and said the FCC no longer even has the authority to regulate content at all, including profanity.

Otoh, this is a part of an overall strategy by this administration to have the government to dominate everything. It's really no surprise they did this considering this legislation has been in the pipelines for quite some time. But it is quite brazen for them to do this in spite of the congressional and the judicial smackdowns it endured earlier this year.

[Bob Campbell]

And actually all the FCC did was enact a watered down regulation to keep "net neutrality", preventing wireless companies and internet providers from blocking legal websites and apps.
Big gov for sure.

[Dave Loudin]

Stations interfering with each other? Won't happen, as BOTH stations lose out if their signals jam each other.

You are SO wrong about this.

Why?

Interference is mutual, I know that much about radio engineering having had my own firsthand experience as a low power "pirate" I once ran both an AM and FM. I still own a 50W AM transmitter...

Then who estabishes who has the right to what geographic area to serve? Who evaluates requests for construction permits where an AM station would like to go omni 24/7 to save on tower costs, so the the nighttime service goes Class D? How about other CP requests to improve/change serivce? Are you suggesting we go with the existing band plan for AM/FM/TV and have existing licensees be responsible for kicking the riff-raff of their frequencies? Who would the licensee appeal to? On what basis?

Without some central arbiter that evaluates based on technical criteria, we would be back to 1926, where anybody could put a station on any frequency at any power.

[AmpedNow]

And actually all the FCC did was enact a watered down regulation to keep "net neutrality", preventing wireless companies and internet providers from blocking legal websites and apps.
Big gov for sure.

Like some say about HD Radio: a solution looking for a problem. There's not many complaining about their broadband service, except for the lack of competition.

Whether or not the bill is watered down, the fact there now is FCC regulation of the internet is unprecedented.

Their authority shouldn't do beyond keeping the technical peace of the airwaves and licensing broadcast stations to operate within certain guidelines. Not content or non-broadcast media like the internet.

[lastone]

They can regulate the internet, which you have to pay to get on....but not cable channels or sat radio that you have to pay to see/hear ?

[Greg Goodfellow]

Stations interfering with each other? Won't happen, as BOTH stations lose out if their signals jam each other.

Without some central arbiter that evaluates based on technical criteria, we would be back to 1926, where anybody could put a station on any frequency at any power.[/quote][/quote]

Yep. I'm no engineer (and am in awe of these special people), but I know enough that radio almost died in its earliest years. Stations would switch frequencies simply on a whim, with seemingly no regard as to present and future damage to its very existence. As has been stated a zillion times, the ONLY reason the FCC should exist is to prevent this from happening. "We must protect this house!" should be its ONLY mission.

[Bob Campbell]

And actually all the FCC did was enact a watered down regulation to keep "net neutrality", preventing wireless companies and internet providers from blocking legal websites and apps.
Big gov for sure.

Like some say about HD Radio: a solution looking for a problem. There's not many complaining about their broadband service, except for the lack of competition.

Whether or not the bill is watered down, the fact there now is FCC regulation of the internet is unprecedented.

Their authority shouldn't do beyond keeping the technical peace of the airwaves and licensing broadcast stations to operate within certain guidelines. Not content or non-broadcast media like the internet.

Depends on where you live. Here in the Triad of NC, much to do has been made of the largest provider, Time Warner cable, blocking the ESPN net feed. NOt the website, but the EXPN3 video feed. Net neutrality is about making providers leave the door open. I'm not paying my provider to only let me on sites the provider wants me to see.

[darkpower]

First off, the whole thing about the FCC being as screwy and, to put it bluntly, fucked up as it has been for some time has come way before this, so I don't think it's tied to a specific political party. In fact, parental groups are STILL bitching about the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction at the halftime show, and are STILL using it to try to gain leverage for their causes, even though it's been, what, 5-6 YEARS since then? Thing is, people moved to the net and to cable because the rules as to what is deemed indecent by the FCC is so up in the air that I don't think even the FCC really knows what the rules are anymore. Many broadcasters don't know where the line actually is because one clearly over-the-top scene on a network show can be completely overlooked while one that just toes the waters gets slammed with countless fines.

People like the AFA and the PTC (Parent Television Council, which is owned by Brent Bozell, a far-right conservative) have been lobbying the FCC for some time. I wouldn't be surprised if this move came because of pressure from those groups.

Especially the PTC, who has been skewing their reporting on what they bitch about and try to get their members to file complaints to the FCC about for years. The sad thing for them is that they are kind of not doing so well. They are in a financial bind, they are getting a hard time getting people to really care about their rants enough to actually file their pre-written complaints anymore, they're pissing off the wrong people (Patrick Salazar was let go, though I don't know if it was before or after he told his story to the NY Times, and Billy Ray Cyrus is a PTC Advisory Board member (which means very little anymore), yet Miley Cyrus is being attacked by them for her latest video), and the economy has made people focus more on issues that they SHOULD be concerned about.

Thus, I'm believing this to be a pressure-filled attempt to get the proverbial monkey off Congress' back. Think about it: if the PTC was able to file complaints for things they found to be indecent on the internet or on cable (where conservative enemies such as Jon Stewart and Daily Kos, as well as several free porn video sites, lives), then they could begin a new campaign that could energize their core group and get them going again (in people caring and the cash flow).

And since the PTC is mostly a conservative group, that would mean that the new Congress would have MORE of a chance for crap like that to be passed if they can get the right people (and Liebermann has been an advocate for people like the PTC for years).

[Cameron]

What's the transport mechanism for the internet?

Wireless spectrum
Common carriers

Who regulates those entities in the US?

Bueller? Bueller?

[Mike]

What's the transport mechanism for the internet?

Wireless spectrum
Common carriers

Who regulates those entities in the US?

Bueller? Bueller?

The FCC currently has no authority over cable or satellite. This is a power grab, plain and simple.

And, as I said, the FCC is EASILY the best candidate for a TEA Party GOP Congress to defund and/or eliminate. What the fuck do the DO actually? They are more of an impediment to broadcasting than a help. They aren't exactly NASA. Their dithering over AM Stereo, for example, killed it. I've seen some amusing ramblings about how if the FCC had regulated the Internet in 1994 we'd have all ended up stuck with Microsoft BOB. Google it, it is horrible, condescending, and would have appealed to a moronic control freak bureaucrat.

[AmpedNow]

It will start with a call to block access to known overseas-based sites that are sympathetic to terrorist groups, in the name of "national security".

Then, it will be expanded to block access or outright shut down similar websites within the US, again, in the name of "national security" in order to combat "homegrown terrorism".

Finally, it will be further expanded to include fringe political action groups, and the sites they communicate on for info and organizing. It doesn't matter if anything has actually happened...it's the fact that they "could" be used as a tool to incite domestic terrorism. Therefore, they must be heavily monitored or shut down.

Guess which category the Tea Party will fall into...

We can no longer allow the free flow of organizing for another 8/28-type rally. The threat of domestic terrorism is just too great.

Heck, the government is now requiring nude body scans and good molestation sessions just to get on domestic airline flights... What would make anyone think they wouldn't be brazen enough to try this?

The FCC will just be another control arm for government censorship.

[Cameron]

Well ok then.

Methinks you'd be the same people bitchin' when your ISP slows down your query to Google to 4bps because Yahoo pays them to promote Yahoo.

Bitchin' also about your IP-based telephone not working because the ports you use can only pass short busts of data as a result of Time Warner wanting you to purchase their IP phone system.

If you want to have deep packet inspection and spend time arguing over the phone whether or not you went over your "bundle" for FTP, online gaming, or have a "surcharge" because you were using someone else's IP phone - by all means - ditch the regulation.

[Mike]

The internet is nothing more than a conglomeration of interconnected PRIVATE networks.

The Feds have absolutely NO RIGHT to control it, given that anyone who has the means can set up their own network. As in, the bandwidth is unlimited. Telling a network admin what traffic he has to accept and how he has to set his firewalls/routers is tantamount to THEFT.

I regulate my own pretty considerable WAN to prioritize my app servers. Do the Feds have the right to come in and tell me that "Net Neutrality" means I have to take away my packet shaping policies that block Facebook and it's virus factory that is on par with Paris Hilton for giving VD? We block Facebook because it does nothing but infect PC's with viruses and fucks up productivity. We also throttle YouTube and other bandwidth wasters.

My network is part of the internet (since it's connected) but it is privately owned (by Champion). Tell me how the Feds have the right to seize our property and tell me how I have to configure my equipment? They don't... This power isn't enumerated. Also most of my network is inside West Virginia (My WAN is one of the biggest in the state, it's come FAR FAR FAR from the crappy frame relay piece of shit I got rid of and replaced with a Cisco PIX (now ASA) based VPN WAN), I could even disconnect other states and take it TOTALLY outside their authority if we wanted to and eliminate the Interstate Commerce Clause from the argument...

My biggest argument against Net "neutrality" is that it amounts to property theft AND it amounts to government morons (bureaucrats) telling IT people how to run their networks. That is dumber than letting sales and marketing dictate to us.

Indeed, I DARE the FCC to fine me for ignoring their mandates. Considering that that the only "network" of 1934 was POTS phone service, I dare them to say that that act covers private data networks... Especially when Congress (and the courts) have told them they have no authority to do "net neutrality". I'll laugh my ass off if they send me a NAL. I'll use it as toilet paper, stuff it in an envelope, and label it as a "contribution" to the Obama Regime. Hell I could claim that as a tax deduction considering that manure will be worth more than the devalued (Obama Regime) dollar soon as currency..