New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 20, 2004

Drew Clark, Nick Gillespie, and Jesse Walker put the head of the Federal Communications Commission on the spot.

Comments

|12.20.04 @ 2:24PM|#

I don't have much against the guy himself; he's doing what Congress has tasked him to do. The problem is what Congress has tasked him to do: trample all over the First Amendment. And now, instead of little old ladies writing concerned letters, he has to deal with organized Internet campaigns sending thousands of identical angry letters everytime a station broadcasts something that isn't G-rated. I don't see this "decency" fight coming to a close while we still have public airwaves.

|12.20.04 @ 2:48PM|#

Yet more evidence that checks and balances don't work. Agitating majorities always get their way.

|12.20.04 @ 2:53PM|#

Libertarians tend to be hostile toward Powell because he has a reputation for being tough on obscenity. I think that's a mistake. The FCC hasn't really done anything substantive against indecency. Powell is making a good show of fighting indecency in broadcast, but he's also undermining the importance of broadcast. Making a fuss over Janet Jackson allows him to acquire political capital, which he uses to protect the unregulated status of media outlets that will still be relevant in 10-20 years. Like it or not, Powell is the best FCC Chairman that libertarians could reasonably hope for.

|12.20.04 @ 3:10PM|#

"I don't see this "decency" fight coming to a close while we still have public airwaves."

Exactly.

|12.20.04 @ 3:54PM|#

How many speeches have I given where I say, �Let�s move from command-and-control spectrum models to more market-based spectrum models�?

But let�s be candid: Broadcasting will always have a different set of dynamics associated with it. Why? Because it is content, and because it�s very, very political.

Talk about a cop-out. But I don't think you can expect much more than that, at least unless he's desperate for an early retirement.

Powell: Well, I think the music industry is a beautiful case in point. They might kill me for saying so, but I think [Napster inventor] Shawn Fanning did America a service. If Napster hadn�t woken them up, I don�t think you would have had MP3 players. I don�t think you would�ve had iTunes. I don�t think you would�ve had the iPod. I don�t think you would�ve had the idea of the single-song transaction.

Wow - obvious as this comment is, I'm impressed that he had the guts to say it. And there's a parallel to be drawn for the movie and TV industries, where, sadly, online piracy hasn't done enough damage to get these reactionary dinosaurs off of their lawsuit-happy asses and get serious about putting most of their content online, and at reasonable prices.

Unfortunately, it's a routinely myopic federal court system and a Congress that's been thoroughly bought out by Big Media that have the final say on this matter.

Great interview.

|12.20.04 @ 3:54PM|#

Oops. The paragraph starting with "But let�s be candid..." should also be italicized.

|12.20.04 @ 4:10PM|#

If Democrats were smart (which they are not), they'd push for privatization of the airwaves. It's a perfect wedge issue that would pit pro-business, anti-goverment Republicans against the god-fearing moralists. Privatization could only help to bring an expansion of independent radio and TV stations, but, alas, I am sure the hard-left cannot get command-and-control out of their heads for just a moment in order to see the forest for the trees.

Any D's out there think its a good idea?

|12.20.04 @ 5:48PM|#

Good article. Although I couldn't agree with everything Powell said, he comes across as more thoughtful and hep than I expected. (Admittedly, most of my "info" about Michael Powell prior to today came from listening to Howard Stern rants on the way to work.)

|12.20.04 @ 6:33PM|#

Tim,

That is a great article. Thanks. Some comment on Powells statement:

Powell:
"Do you think a 12-year-old knows what a broadcast channel is? Do you think that they have any idea what the differences between Channel 4 and Channel 204 are?"

An average 12-year-old can understand the difference between a public park and a private backyard if and when it is explained to him.

Powell:
"The people of the United States, through legislation, have made indecent speech between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. over only one medium, broadcasting, unlawful."

Powell correctly understands the juridistication of the FCC WRT content regulation.

Powell:
"We're not talking about media ownership. We're talking about broadcast ownership."

From physics POV, in terms of electro-magnetic wave spectra, media and broadcast ownership, or its use, are exactly the same. Physics rules.

Powell:
"You may know more about the specifics of Standard Oil than I. But I do believe in the cases and the theories that show that at a certain level of monopolistic control people can extract monopoly rents and affect output in a way that harms the American consumer."

Powell places well reasoned, but unchecked principles, before fact. His epistomology is wrong. That is a common mistake.

Powell:
"At the end of the day you have to do something that you're comfortable with, but you have to accept a big margin of error."

Argumentum ad nauseum.

Powell:
"The commission made an interesting error many years ago and issued the unlicensed band because they thought the spectrum was junk. We didn't invent WiFi [wireless fidelity] or anything. The only thing I think we should be credited for is that we started to observe that very positive things were happening in that space, not just baby monitors and microwave ovens. Suddenly people were bringing very interesting products to consumers at very low cost."

Hmmm, maybe there's a lesson to be learned in that.

Powell (on unlicenced freqs)

"You just put in an enormous caveat: if they don't interfere. The way we manage interference is through licensing."

Powell's lost. Unlicensed spectra is, by definition, unlicensed. The FCC has a legitimate function in capping tranmission power on unlicensed frequency bands. But that's all. The FCC, BTW, has become nothing more than a pool of lawyers. Do lawyers know how to police the EIRP of spread-spectrum radio transceivers ? I think not.

Powell:
"Don't ask me to defend it. I'm administrating it."

Sorry, I need to run to the vomitorium now.

|12.20.04 @ 7:03PM|#

You know, something occured to me the other day while talking with my brother:

The vast majority of the FCC's complaints are basically spams from a single pressure group.

I always used to wonder who actually pays attention to spam. Now I know.

Excuse me while I compose a letter:

Dear Michael Powell,

I am the former Mining Minister of Niger. I have several million dollars that I received from Saddam Hussein in exchange for uranium. I am moving to the US and I need a bank account to deposit the money in temporarily. If you will send me the information needed to access your bank account, I will transfer the money in your account, and you will get to keep 10% of it, or approximately $600,000....

|12.20.04 @ 7:12PM|#

"I always used to wonder who actually pays attention to spam. Now I know."

Over the last four years, I've gotten about a dozen signed letters from my Congressman on various civil liberties issues. All but one of them are them are the result of ACLU "spam" faxes.

|12.20.04 @ 7:37PM|#

"Do you think a 12-year-old knows what a broadcast channel is? Do you think that they have any idea what the differences between Channel 4 and Channel 204 are?"

This is blantantly offensive to twelve-year-olds. I remember being twelve (it was less than half my life ago) and I may not have known about spectrum or exactly what the FCC stickers on my videogame cartridges meant (and actually I did have a good idea, because I asked my dad when I was 8). But me and my little brother knew, roughly, the higher the channel, the more it deviated from "the norm".

Also, When I did see channels that were more adult, after the laughter of hearing the word "fart" passed over, I switched back to Nickelodeon.

|12.20.04 @ 8:31PM|#

Lots of stuff to pick on or discuss, but this really jumped out at me:

"Powell: I think the premise of your question is false. The notion that a complete laissez-faire deployment of equipment always will produce a quicker and more optimal, more innovative solution is not accurate. You wouldn�t have a personal computer if there weren�t a standard."

That's ridiculous. What is the standard for personal computers? There is no such thing. There are standards for individual components (ATA, SCSI, USB, IEEE 1394, 802.11a/b/g), but those were arrived at by private companies or consortiums, not the FCC or a gov't body. The Apple II and the TRaSh-80 were created in a vacuum of standards (maybe the ASCII character set was the exception). I mean, he talks like he's so up on technology, but this is a really ignorant thing to say. TCP/IP is arguably the most important standard in computers, but it didn't become that way by some standards board declaring it. It became that way because of survival of the fittest and evolution in the private sphere.

Standards live or die based on a convergence of usefulness, price, and technology coming together at the right place at the right time. It's a process that plays itself out over and over, and governmental bodies have little to do with their success or failure.

" You wouldn�t have the production of content if there weren�t protections for the creators of content."

Right... that's why there was no art before the DMCA... Idiot.

Warren|12.20.04 @ 8:44PM|#

dead elvis, you are dead on.

|12.20.04 @ 10:22PM|#

But me and my little brother knew, roughly, the higher the channel, the more it deviated from "the norm".

Well, that's not the way it works on my t.v.