FCC's Chairman Powell Starts Blog 118
The Importance of writes "And he wants to hear from the tech community. 'I am looking forward to an open, transparent and meritocracy-based communication -- attributes that bloggers are famous for!' Powell said on his blog. But does he really get blogging? He says he 'need[s] to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital television.' Perhaps we could discuss the broadcast flag? If you want to leave some comments on his blog, I suggest you do it before Howard Stern mentions it on his radio show."
Overthrow Corporate Rule (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Buisness blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because most blogs are people who somehow managed to set up a Blogger or Livejournal account and only use it to talk about boring useless stuff no one cares about doesn't mean all blogs have to be that way.
Scratching my head... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else question the way this is being termed? After all, if I contribute maybe 10 articles to a news site, does that make my work there constitute a blog?
Re:Thats a new one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Out of respect for Powell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because anybody who can handle seeing a naked tit on TV and who dislikes the obvious restrictions on free speech made with stupid excuses like covering those hemispherical mammary glands up is obviously just a jabbering idiot who is really just after some "political" bashing.
Oh sorry, I've been trolled haven't I? Oh well.
Simple message from tech community... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (Score:3, Insightful)
The airwaves belong to the people.
Yes, and don't you think that the best way to be sure that the people have reasonable access to the airwaves, without clutter and interference, is to provide some rules (regulations) for access? The roads belong to the people, but without traffic lights, things would be a mess.
Government belongs to the people. All content created at taxpayer expense should be in an open format, not subject to proprietary licensing.
Consider this alternative view: Being a taxpayer is like being a shareholder in a company. Just because you invest in Microsoft, even though you're an owner, that doesn't (and shouldn't) give you the right to use all their software for free. I would expect that the government would act the same way with content - maximize my "shareholder value"... yes, make it available, but not necessarily for free to everyone who might have chipped in a penny in taxes.
You and I are probably in agreement about many of these issues. I am just offering a different perspective.
The people sold out (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that some of the old independents started to use research and play to the lowest common denominator. And people actualy liked it, so more followed and soon the people that knew how to play this game best bought more stations. And more people tuned in. And more independents decided to cash in and sell to these compnaies. The people sold out.
If people didn't like that kind of radio, they wouldn't have tuned in in the first place and not created this market.
All the FCC has tried to do is _limit_ this practice with anti monopoly laws, their rules certainly didn't create it.
Ads in the middle of his blog (Score:3, Insightful)
Actions louder than words (Score:1, Insightful)
Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
specifically the internet community, the ones who protest against the broadcast flag the most, think he's gonna listen to you? no.
Think he thinks you'll listen to him? yes.
Pretty much doing this to "make us understand and accept" the broadcast flag more than likely.
The first blog post is pretty much about the FCC itself, so he's prolly trying to get people to see the fcc as a buncha good guys who are trying to protect people from themselves and any questionable material that may make them question their corporate overlords and the government, and to ensure that we pay our dues to them as well.
I might sound paranoid, but just looking at the first post, it's gona be nothing but a propaganda blog to try to make those who read it go with what the fcc wants to do.
Chairman Powell (Score:1, Insightful)
Interview Him (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You did well until "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" (Score:1, Insightful)
Television has invaded your school? Start going to schoolboard meetings and tell them what you think. Get other parents involved. Find out what they're watching, and why they're watching it and then talk to other parents about it and see if anyone else agrees with you. There are lots of people that get involved with the school system. You should be one of them if you really give a damn what happens in the schools.
I wanted to post this... (Score:3, Insightful)
-----------------
Mr. Powell, welcome to blogging, and as one respondent noted, "Welcome to Hell".
I wanted to post my comments regarding FCC regulation, digital TV (and associated DRM measures), and indecency - if for nothing else than to establish my position with you and with the community on where I stand on these issues. If you note, they fall very much in line with what others have written here.
I am a "tech savvy" (actually, that is an understatement) citizen of this country. I am also a voter.
Regarding regulation, I understand that for the public airwaves, there must be some form of regulation, otherwise, in the end, the airwaves would be filled with nothing but static, as station after station stomped the commons with overlapping broadcasts. Whether it is TV or radio, the result would be the same; an unlistenable (or unwatchable) morass of grey static.
However, the current situation and regulations make it impossible for a truely free market to exist. Current licensing fees and regulations make it impossible to easily and cheaply set up low power FM radio stations (even in markets where such stations could be set up without interference). This has left commercial radio (like ClearChannel) the only choice in most markets, which isn't a choice at all. National Public Radio (NPR) also struggles with these regulations.
The situation with television is even worse. While startup costs have always been a limiting factor for small (independent) television stations, those costs
have dropped rapidly in recent years, allowing the possibility for someone to broadcast a TV station from their home. However, licensing costs, fees,
paperwork, and other FCC regulation issues have made it impossible for such services to become available.
In a way, cable TV was an attempt to get around this issue, and in some ways, it has succeeded. By confining the "airwaves" to a coax broadcast medium, and utilizing a different spectrum for broadcasting, many more channels could be delivered to the consumer's door. This availability of channels has spawned the concept of "niche" channels - it seems now if there is an interest, there is a channel (or two, or more) for it. The content for these channels is created by privately owned companies (and the networks) who sell through distribution channels to the cable broadcasters. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is what we have.
The internet is rapidly changing all of this. The internet was originally developed as a "network of ends", where everything connected to this network was "smart", but the network itself remained "stupid" - its only job to shuffle around the packets of information via openly developed and published protocols. Such a network is inherently robust by its nature and structure.
A network of "smart" endpoints means that anyone can become (in concept) a broadcaster. I, or anyone else, can for instance, build a server (serving web pages or anything else), and put it on the internet, and others can find it and read (and/or download) information off of it. It is a different way of distributing information: Instead of the "push" model of traditional broadcasting, the internet is based on the "pull" model, where those that want information must seek it out and request it from the servers. This model has proved itself to be very popular. Content "pushing" has been tried for the internet, but the popularity of such implementations bombed very quickly. The population of the internet has spoken, "pulled" content is what we want.
Consumers have long requested this model for television: Pay-Per-View programming is