at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

(04-28-2014 09:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

The FCC took looked for viewer opinion in 2013 on whether to drop the ban on the f and s word. The received a massive amount of complaints. The ban stands today.

Networks are not interested in losing more of their demographic.

(04-28-2014 09:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

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.

(04-28-2014 10:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

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.

If deregulated do the networks not still have the freedom choose what content they provide? You have it spot on here John. The first amendment supersedes what a handful of bubba's and a government agency trying to justify its existence have to say all day everyday imo

(04-28-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I hate to say it but we need to have an honest conversation about child porn laws. In this day & age with pictures being uploaded to the internet so easily and so many teens having camera phones it seems impossible to enforce.

In the eyes of the govt child porn is child porn and there really is no middle ground on that. Our child porn laws are so insane that getting caught possessing it gets you a sentence that is almost as tough as getting caught producing it.

I just got into a mini-debate with a very liberal friend of mine over a recent Supreme Court ruling on this, so this is finally starting to make it's way to the SC

The girl who was in the porn video (against her will at the age of 9) attempted to sue someone who downloaded (note not created) the video and had successfully in the lower courts won a $3.4M judgement.

Basically the girl was awarded that money to be shared among anyone arrested for having her video in their possession.

They only arrested this one individual, who was apparently now on the hook for the $3.4Million... It got over-turned by the SC as being "extreme punishment", because they said the courts had no idea how many other people had downloaded the video and weren't getting similar punishments.

(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.

(04-28-2014 09:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

I agree that they overreach on many accounts, but regulating content is a necessary function. Now that the v-chip is required for all televisions, I am less concerned, but okla is right, it violates my rights if I am watching family programming on CBS and the next show is softcore porn or something like Oz.

(04-29-2014 07:43 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:55 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

Regulating content for public consumption is only a tiny, tiny sliver of what the FCC actually does. Just go to your news outlet of choice and search for the most recent articles on the FCC.

The spectrum auction will be the first move in a massive shakeup five years down the road.

I agree that they overreach on many accounts, but regulating content is a necessary function. Now that the v-chip is required for all televisions, I am less concerned, but okla is right, it violates my rights if I am watching family programming on CBS and the next show is softcore porn or something like Oz.

The ultimate lazy parent too lazy to pick up a remote. Also conglomerates like ABC and NBC aren't going to start playing porn after modern family that would not work for their company model.

(04-28-2014 09:53 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

Ha ha what is, not allowing the f word during prime time? Oh the humanity. Oh the oppression.

(04-29-2014 08:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:53 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

Ha ha what is, not allowing the f word during prime time? Oh the humanity. Oh the oppression.

Can't use the f word at anytime and it creates bland disingenuous dialog and tramples the 1rst imho

(04-29-2014 09:05 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:53 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point it doesn't matter what the public or politicians think. The FCCs model is as outdated as the NCAAs student-athlete model and pretty soon the courts are gonna start having a field day with it.

The TV/radio networks are sick of what they view as unequal treatment in an era where the television audience is rapidly changing while the regulations have not. they also are watching internet companies such as spotify, pandora, hulu, & youtube making moves to start directly competing with them.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can tell. Google is working on universal free internet and is closing in. They are only a few years away and when that happens two critical things will also happen.

1) public air waves will no longer be considered a finite public resource (the very basis for the existence of the FCC)
2) the networks will be backed into a corner by the internet companies and will be forced to challenge the FCC or die.

The networks will be forced to fight this battle at a time when the odds are most stacked in their favor ==> doesn't matter what the politicians/public thinks. the networks will win.

Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

Ha ha what is, not allowing the f word during prime time? Oh the humanity. Oh the oppression.

Can't use the f word at anytime and it creates bland disingenuous dialog and tramples the 1rst imho

What's the problem? Why do we have an attitude that allowing it is a sign of progress? What exactly are we progressing towards? This is the very flaw of social liberalism. It's not an improvement.

1. You are not being denied a right. You can't pull your pants down in a restaurant..is that the next obstacle on the quest for progress?
2. There is no societal benefit of allowing it.
3. It's not a healthy language for children and forces parents to have conversations with their kids they may not be ready for.

No one is forcing your to refrain from cursing. It's not your right to hear it on network television.

It doesn't get much more ridiculous than this, my good friend. Pick your battles.

(04-29-2014 09:15 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:05 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:53 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:43 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Yes John, because people's rights are being violated due to the fact they can't hear the word " s h i t " on prime time television. People are fed up because everyone knows it can't be heard anywhere else. Once again John, you nail it.

It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

Ha ha what is, not allowing the f word during prime time? Oh the humanity. Oh the oppression.

Can't use the f word at anytime and it creates bland disingenuous dialog and tramples the 1rst imho

What's the problem? Why do we have an attitude that allowing it is a sign of progress? What exactly are we progressing towards? This is the very flaw of social liberalism. It's not an improvement.

1. You are not being denied a right. You can't pull your pants down in a restaurant..is that the next obstacle on the quest for progress?
2. There is no societal benefit of alluowing it.
3. It's not a healthy language for children and forces parents to have conversations with their kids they may not be ready for.

No one is forcing your to refrain from cursing. It's not your right to hear it on network television.

It doesn't get much more ridiculous than this, my good friend. Pick your battles.

I just think it is silly to waste government resources on out of date things that are unconstitutional to begin with. The dropping your pants thing is a sexual crime that causes very real harm.

(04-29-2014 09:57 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:15 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 09:05 AM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 08:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:53 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  It is not about that dixie it is about an overreaching authoritarian government. Besides you would still have a choice to not allow your child to watch a network that allows profanity in their prime time. Freedom trumps all when no one is being harmed the only one gaining anything is a obsolete political agenda and an authoritarian government department.

Ha ha what is, not allowing the f word during prime time? Oh the humanity. Oh the oppression.

Can't use the f word at anytime and it creates bland disingenuous dialog and tramples the 1rst imho

What's the problem? Why do we have an attitude that allowing it is a sign of progress? What exactly are we progressing towards? This is the very flaw of social liberalism. It's not an improvement.

1. You are not being denied a right. You can't pull your pants down in a restaurant..is that the next obstacle on the quest for progress?
2. There is no societal benefit of alluowing it.
3. It's not a healthy language for children and forces parents to have conversations with their kids they may not be ready for.

No one is forcing your to refrain from cursing. It's not your right to hear it on network television.

It doesn't get much more ridiculous than this, my good friend. Pick your battles.

I just think it is silly to waste government resources on out of date things that are unconstitutional to begin with. The dropping your pants thing is a sexual crime that causes very real harm.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. It's not a waste. The millions of signatures the FCC got denouncing lax profanity rules don't agree with your stance.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.