(04-29-2014 10:24 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:18 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:10 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:09 AM)Hitch Wrote:  There is way too much focus on content regulation in this thread. The FCC is first and foremost an access and operations regulatory body focused on fostering communications investment and competition. Regulating content is, at best, a distraction.

But they are the entity that regulates content.

The content producers regulate content by deciding what to create, then the content distributors regulate content by deciding what to broadcast, then the viewer regulates what they consume, THEN the FCC takes a look at what was broadcasted and fines distributors if necessary.

The FCC is a reactionary body when it comes to content. They do not filter content prior to broadcast outside of setting their guidelines for producers and distributors.

You know who has more influence over content than the FCC? Everybody else.

Right, but I still don't see your point. The bans are implemented and enforced by the FCC. You are are outlining the fact that the FCC enforces the will of the people, I agree.

No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

(04-29-2014 10:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:24 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:18 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:10 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:09 AM)Hitch Wrote:  There is way too much focus on content regulation in this thread. The FCC is first and foremost an access and operations regulatory body focused on fostering communications investment and competition. Regulating content is, at best, a distraction.

But they are the entity that regulates content.

The content producers regulate content by deciding what to create, then the content distributors regulate content by deciding what to broadcast, then the viewer regulates what they consume, THEN the FCC takes a look at what was broadcasted and fines distributors if necessary.

The FCC is a reactionary body when it comes to content. They do not filter content prior to broadcast outside of setting their guidelines for producers and distributors.

You know who has more influence over content than the FCC? Everybody else.

Right, but I still don't see your point. The bans are implemented and enforced by the FCC. You are are outlining the fact that the FCC enforces the will of the people, I agree.

No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

What?

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

(04-28-2014 02:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  We're not a Christian version of Iran...you don't need a bible for morals...we live by the constitution, not a religion.

That only gets you by for 0 to 110 years... And as far as the rest goes, we the O Admin haven't hasn't been living by the constitution for about 5 years.

(04-29-2014 10:34 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 02:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  We're not a Christian version of Iran...you don't need a bible for morals...we live by the constitution, not a religion.

That only gets you by for 0 to 110 years... And as far as the rest goes, we the O Admin haven't hasn't been living by the constitution for about 5 years.

He really wasted time by bothering to run for reelection then.

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:26 AM)Hitch Wrote:  No, the bans are redundant to the demands of the market.

What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

(04-29-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

Chances are you cannot elaborate on that.

(04-29-2014 05:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 10:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  it may be only a tiny aspect ==> but serving the public interest is the foundation for the existence of the entire FCC. The only scenario for them to still exist is if the FCC gets deregulated to the point where their only role is assigning channels.
and okiedi.ck it has absolutely nothing to do with peoples right to hear the F word. it has everything to do with the networks rights to say the F word. ==> big difference.

the FCC already lost one supreme court case to the networks in 2012 and in a couple of years when google provides free internet they will sue the FCC again and this time the chickens will come home to roost.

No federal agency truly serves the public interest. They serve the interests of bureaucrats. And absent major change to the Administrative Procedure Act, there's no way to change that.

the difference between what the FCC & what other agencies do is that "serving the public interest" is the entire legal foundation for the existence of the FCC.

sure serving the public is what the FBI (and other agencies) does ==> but we don't see that legal basis ever becoming outdated. not the case with the FCC.

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:32 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:30 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  What?

If NBC started broadcasting "objectionable" content currently banned by teh FCC, would you tune in?

I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

So if the FCC let's up tommorrow fox news will start dropping the f bomb and showing megyn kellies titties b/c you know that
will expand their viewing base!! I'm just using your logic.

(04-29-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:37 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I don't understand your question. Would I tune in for what? Explain your previous statement.

If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

Chances are you cannot elaborate on that.

dude you just make up **** time & time again.

The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

(04-29-2014 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  If networks began broadcasting content that is currently banned, would you be more likely or less likely to watch those networks?

I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

Chances are you cannot elaborate on that.

dude you just make up **** time & time again.

chances are you can't back up that statement.

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:48 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  I personally don't watch those networks to begin with. I might tune in to see if they were really doing it.

I think I see the point you are trying to make. You think we don't need the FCC because the networks will follow the wants of their base. Unfortunately that is not how it works. They will go ahead with the questionable content and target other bases. They are already doing in many degrees and it has almost destroyed them. They pander to minority segments thinking they can cash in on a more potential audience. That kind of marketing hasn't worked for NBC or any of the other networks. That was Zuckerberg's line of thinking and they still haven't recovered. That's also why entities like Fox News are killing them. The FCC serves a purpose. The networks are not capable of maintaining decency.

i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

Chances are you cannot elaborate on that.

dude you just make up **** time & time again.

chances are you can't back up that statement.

i would sure like an explanation on your zuckerberg statement

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

This. The value of the FCC is directly related to its ability to ensure investment and competition in the communications industries. Regulating content is not the primary mission.