Discuss this editorial.
Comments are now closed.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
Comments are now closed.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
Save more than
We published a series of recommendations in December 2007 about needed reforms at the FCC. You can access them at http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4572717
JonB @ 7:43 AM PST, Nov 17, 2008
Long over due.finally the gov. is going to address the bus.world of greedy cheats who want to monopalize instead of compete.When an industry is allowed to dominate a concept ,an idea etc.there can't be inovation or true growth.Monopolization stifles it.It's about corp.greed.No where is corp.greed more prevelant than the U.S.A..The corp.worlds dirty little secret has always been about deregulation so they can do as they please without reprisal.Price fixing ,deregulation&greed is the primary reasons this country is in the condition it's in now.
mike @ 9:38 PM PST, Nov 15, 2008
The FCC in recent years has drifted away from technologists and filled the Commission and Bureaus with lawyers and economists. The new President needs to understand that in order to properly regulate technology, we must have Commissioners and Bureaus that understand the technology. More engineers and less lawyers and economists.
Len Dawson @ 5:27 PM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Jon, Thanks for your response, but the editorial was squarely pro-deregulation. It decries "unreasonable government restrictions," and says that the FCC's attempts to deregulate were "too modest." There were at least 3 such editorials advocating deregulation. One of them written by you. The link is now dead, but I documented it here: http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/index.php?p=258. Whether or not you consider deregulation to be the rationale for the editorial, it is clear that it was a principle interest of the Times. And there is a stark difference between that view and the view in this new column. I consider that progress.
Mark @ News Corpse @ 3:57 PM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Having dealt with the FCC attempting to have them clean up the spectrum around Southern California I can assure everyone that the FCC is one of the weakest and most ineffective branches of the Federal Government.
Ron Weaver @ 1:00 PM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Mark, that's not what the Aug. 25, 2006, editorial said. Here's a link -- http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/25/opinion/ed-ownership25. It argues in favor of limits on the amount of media outlets one company could own locally, but against the ban on newspaper-broadcaster cross-ownership. It also argues against limits on the number of TV stations a national chain could control. Yes, such loosening of controls jibes with the Tribune's interests, then and now. But that's not the rationale behind the piece.
Jon Healey, Los Angeles Times @ 11:09 AM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Wow! This editorial is a far cry from the one in the Times on August 25, 2006. That piece argued for a virtual end to all regulations on media ownership. It took a position favorable to the Times and it's then parent the Tribune Company. It will be good to see Kevin Martin go. He has been an obstacle to common sense reforms that would produce more competition and diversity. http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=218
Mark @ News Corpse @ 10:47 AM PST, Nov 14, 2008
What the FCC really needs to do is keep cell phone service providers from exposing workers to levels of radiation in excess of the standard. The FCC correctly recognized RF Radiation as a hazard but does nothing to enforce the rules designed to keep workers safe.
Nathan @ 9:03 AM PST, Nov 14, 2008
It doesn't matter what the FCC tries to do if it won't enforce anything. Every TV sold today has a clear QAM tuner for unscambled cable channels, yet, for the most part, cable plants refuse to comply with CFR requirements that would make these tuners useful.
Vince Stone @ 8:26 AM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Obama needs to dissolve the FCC; it's unconstitutioinal and worhtless.
Brandon @ 5:43 AM PST, Nov 14, 2008
Next