November 30, 2004
Rent Seeking in Action
Via Jeff Jarvis comes this article. The gist of the article is to get the FCC to change Part 25 of the FCC's pending satellite radio rules to include an indecency section. The goal is to "level (the) playing field."
The problem from terrestrial radios standpoint is that satellite does not have the indecency restrictions and those people who want to hear Stern and others in all of their raunchy...uhhh glory(?) will be tempted to switch. So to reduce the playing field and hamstring we have this attempt to change the rules for satellite radio.
Lets toss in that Levine owns several terrestrial radio stations and we get a pretty clear picture here: Levine sees a threat to his economic interests and is using the government to protect them. Classic rent seeking. What is truly repugnant is that Levine wants to undermine freedom of speech in the name of his economic interests.
This part of the article is funny though,
But the "pervasiveness" argument breaks down when talking about satellite radio, a Senate staffer familiar with the issue says."Satellite radio is a paid service," the staffer says. "You elect to have it, you elect to buy it and you elect to turn it on. It's something that you choose."
The only difference between satellite and terrestrial radio is that you don't pay (directly) for terrestrial radio. Other than that there is still quite a bit of choice on what you listen too. Or do those who support the FCC think that I am somehow compelled to turn on my radio and listen to programming I don't like?
Posted by Steve at November 30, 2004 03:12 PMOther than that there is still quite a bit of choice on what you listen too.
Quite a bit, but not nearly as much in a lot (most?) areas. In many areas it's practically impossible to get music in the drive-time mornings; instead, every station has their Wacky Morning Hosts (tm).
The FCC also doesn't regulate cable, either, just broadcast, IIRC.
Posted by: John Thacker on November 30, 2004 03:59 PMSteve, the Supreme Court case that allows the FCC to regulate "indecent" speech on radio and TV, FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) has as part of its justification the idea that someone doesn't know what might be broadcast in time to turn it off.
4. Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid [438 U.S. 726, 728] those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children. Pp. 748-750.Silly in some ways, I know. But certainly, if you actually subscribe to a service, you know its content.
That's the theory - I acknowledge the silliness. But its silliness rooted in the legal justifications for the infringement of the First Amendment.
Note: Steve's software doesn't let me put in the direct link to the case on Findlaw. So go to the link above and type in the "438" and the "726" in the two boxes on each side of the "U.S" below "Citation Search" to get the actual opinion.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on November 30, 2004 07:38 PMOne difference is bandwidth. The FCC rules were developed at a time when bandwidth was limited and therefore could be regarded as a kind of commons. This is much less true of satellite radio with its enormous bandwidth.
I think it would be sufficient if a subscriber could sue a channel for failing to live up to whatever broadcast standards it advertises to respect. So if, for example, a sports channel advertises PG content and then has a female performer flash a breast, subscribers would have legal redress.
"One difference is bandwidth. The FCC rules were developed at a time when bandwidth was limited and therefore could be regarded as a kind of commons. "
Every resource is limited, and no matter what resource you're talking about, turning it into a commons is the worst thing you can do. There's a few things that are inevitably commons, such as air, and you'll just have to live with the problems that come with using them as commons. But the electromagnetic spectrum isn't one of them - it can be parceled up in the same manner that land is, owned irrevocably, bought and sold, and so on, and it'll be used much more sensibly and effectively if it's done that way.
Posted by: Ken on December 3, 2004 02:26 PMNature is often hidden, sometimes overcome, seldom extinguished. by online poker
Posted by: online poker on December 28, 2004 07:04 PM