No. It’s an idea that needs to happen.
The FCC is too involved in bribery and crony capitalism. It has become a socialist tool and at this point it is far better to axe it outright and then install a scaled back organization with zero employees from the corrupted dead one.
It was established by the Communications Act of 1934. It along with NTIA (who regulates government entities) were mainly purposed to de-conflict the frequency spectrum in the RF world and to regulate cable, telephony, telegraph, etc.
I think that there are valid reasons to do these things, chiefly out of a sense of order and planning and logical expansion and improvement. However, it should not be the FCC’s business to regulate content, equal time or a host of other things it now does. It most certainly needs a comprehensive overhaul IMO to get the politics out and common sense and planning back in.
“This is a terrible idea. “
No, let it happen. It will not be a disaster.
Again, the headline is fake news. It is talking about the fcc role in consumer protection not frequency allocation. Remeber, everything is a lie or misdirection.
Your comment doesn't offer anything toward rationale or credibility for an argument.
I’m waiting for Trump to walk back, or clarify this statement at least two more times before settling on a final definition of his statement. That seems to be his pattern, first float a couple of trial balloons and see which ones don’t get shot down from both sides.
Nossir. It is a great idea. The FCC, first conceived to resulate airwaves, must return to that mission. Trump is smart; he won’t dissolve the agency (despite the LAT’s pearl-clutching). He’ll direct it to stop interfereing in the internet and cable TV, though.
Why do so many "posit" something w/o explaining? makes zero sense.
Terrible why?
Ever see what is on cable? What is the point of “regulating” anything if the most vile trash is the result?
The FCC is worthless in the modern era.
I partly agree. The FCC is important for a shared resource like the radio spectrum. It should back off from its editorial intrusions into content and its attempted expansion of influence into the internet, which was working just fine.
Yes Abolish the FCC . They are trying to censor the Internet
Is that you Hillary ?
Here’s a clue : The FCC tyrants are trying to censor the Internet . I guess you agree with that huh?
Respond don’t run .
Here's a clue : The FCC tyrants are trying to censor the Internet . I guess you agree with that huh?
Abolish the FCC, investigate these democrat tyrant bureaucrats for violating the Constitution , evacuate the buildings and nuke the buildings from orbit just to be sure
Respond don't run .
Did you read the article? If so, what is the concern?
The FCC puts the imprimatur of the government on the claims of journalistic “objectivity” which spring from the business imperatives of wire service journalism.That is exactly backward. The lesson of ancient Greek disputation is encapsulated in the following two etymological definitions:
The lesson is that claiming a virtue as an argumentation technique is a mark of the propagandist. I think all reporters should try to be objective, and if they are then it is legitimate to say so. But nobody has any business claiming to actually be objective. The first task of a sincere effort at objectivity is to be candid about what incentives might cause you to not be objective. This is entirely incompatible with any claim to actually be objective.
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Thus, the government has no business at all promoting “objective” journalism. Philosophy - e.g., openly conservative commentary such as Rush - is fine. It is the “objective” half-truths and lies that are the problem.
“This is a terrible idea. “
Why? Do you think we need MORE regulation? Say, a truthy subcommittee of the FCC to determine “fairness” and “truthfulness” of Internet websites, with fines, penalties, and outright banning of sites like FreeRepublic and Brietbart? Or perhaps we should bring back official censorship like we had 70 years ago, but applied not just to TV and movies, but to cable TV and the Internet as well?
Or are you simply happy with the status quo of the soft fascism that exists throughout obama’s FedGov, where the alphabet agencies simply extort private industries far beyond their actual legal Congressional mandates by threatening infinitely long “investigations against politically targeted businesses and industries?
Please tell us why you think so?
Halting its overreach would be a good idea - but total abolishment, no. Certain things like keeping stations within boundaries so someone else can’t just set up shop next door and overtake your assigned frequency is an essential and positive purpose it serves. Some of the recent internet regulations, however...not so much...maybe these comments are a warning to cut things like that out.