FCC Off

Jesse Walker | January 19, 2007

Jack Shafer gives a concise summary of the case for scrapping the Federal Communications Commission.

Comments

|1.19.07 @ 2:19PM|#

God. I hate to agree with Slate. But on this, I do.

Warren|1.19.07 @ 2:28PM|#

When was the last three-letter chunk of government to be decommissioned?

ed|1.19.07 @ 2:58PM|#

WPA

|1.19.07 @ 3:16PM|#

CCC

|1.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#

If we get rid of the FCC, who'll keep T.V. stations from letting Grammy winners say "fuck?"

I hate to agree with Slate.

I used to think of Slate as a (I hate to use this moniker) 'liberal' publication, but they're actually usually contrarian, quite often anti-authoritarian and often free-market. Some of the better writing out there on prominent issues.

I read them just to get their oddball take on stuff.

Warren|1.19.07 @ 3:58PM|#

CCC?

You mean the Chattanooga City Council no longer convenes?

|1.19.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Civilian Conservation Corps

|1.19.07 @ 5:16PM|#

CAB

Shafer's premise makes far, far too much sense and thus, will never fly inside the beltway.

|1.19.07 @ 6:00PM|#

C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N

Oh wait, that's 12 letters. Does that count four times?

Larry A|1.19.07 @ 6:51PM|#

Sorry, that was not "a concise summary of the case for scrapping the Federal Communications Commission."

Concise would be "government regulation sucks."

biologist|1.19.07 @ 9:42PM|#

Slate has actually contained a lot of libertarian, dare I say even Reasonesque fare lately.

|1.21.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Slate has actually contained a lot of libertarian, dare I say even Reasonesque fare lately.

I guess I'll have to start visiting Slate. Perhaps, first impressions are not always accurate.

biologist|1.21.07 @ 1:24PM|#

J sub D: some examples that reminded me of reading Hit and Run:

Legalize It: How to solve Afghanistan's drug problem.

More Nicotine Madness: Harvard School of Public Health weighs in.

|1.22.07 @ 2:19AM|#

FCC Off

we need to put that on t-shirts

|1.24.07 @ 3:45AM|#

The ICC (Inrerstate Commerce Commission) has gone bye-bye. Some of its functions survive in the Surface Transportation Board.

I'm all for ditching the FCC. We might also have more newspapers in the U.S. if the ban on cross-ownership of broadcast stations and papers in the same market were ended. I live in a 1-daily town, where the outfit that publishes the paper owns an AM and an FM and a VHF NBC-TV affiliate. They used to publish two papers, one bought from Hearst, which was going to fold it, otherwise. Their broadcast competitors can own multiple stations, but if any of them started a newspaper, or bought a suburban daily and expanded it to cover the whole metro area, the Justice Dept. would pitch an antitrust fit. That's just nuts. The antitrust rules themselves maintain the newspaper monopoly!

Kevin