Finally, Some Reason at the FCC! (Veiled Subscription Pitch)

|

Reason subscriber sends along good news from the Federal Communications Commission (of all places!). The newest appointee, Robert McDowell, sounds like he's a regular reader of the mag considered one of "The 50 Best" by the Chicago Tribune in three out of the four last years:

McDowell, 43, also signaled that he won't necessarily follow the wishes of FCC Chairman and fellow Republican Kevin Martin. That may make it harder for Martin to push through initiatives such as forcing cable companies to offer television channels separately. The FCC now has three Republican commissioners and two Democrats.

"I trust free markets and free people to make their own decisions," McDowell said.

Whole thing here.

And on that note, why not subscribe (or extend your existing sub) to America's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets"? It's just $20 a year for 11 issues of action-packed action. For details, go here.

And for FCC head Kevin Martin's arguably most idiotic statement on beefing up and expanding government regulation of TV and radio content, go here (hint: It's when he told Congress, "You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want….But why should you have to?").

NEXT: Après DeLay, Le Déluge

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yes because I have such a huge choice of one when it comes to different cable companies in upstate NY. Woe to those who have actual trees on their property and cannot get a Dish signal…

  2. Sure I could get a subscription to Reason, but why should I have to?

  3. Because Nick asked you to, you parasite.

  4. If cable channels did offer individual channels for, say, $5 a month each, then I could have Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, VH1 Classic, and whatever channel has that Project Runway show, without all of the unnecessary filler channels.

    That’ll be the day.

  5. Smacky, don’t forget the discovery channel. I’ll just turn it on during Shark Week, then cancel for the rest of the season.

  6. Why do I have to change my own channels? Why do I have to decide what to eat? Why won’t the government end my miserable existence? Why?

    Modern philosophy, in a nutshell.

  7. sage +P,

    Bite your tongue. Mythbusters justifies Discovery Channel’s existence. In fact, it should just become The Mythbusters Channel.

  8. PL,

    You mean it isn’t already?

    I used to think of the DC as something where I could watch things like Blue Planet. Now it seems as though there’s always a “In the Womb” marathon or some other such crap.

    Being that hockey is in the off season, about the only thing I catch is the Daily Show and Colbert’s report. Oh well, I’m sure I’m healthier that way.

  9. our satellite provider thinks that everyone on the west coast is on Eastern time and so when I’m ready to tune in a half hour of videos on VH-1 all they’re showing is 80’s Hair Bands because apparently the late night VH-1 audience is a bunch of burnout headbangers. Of course, it’s not particularly late in Californicate.

    Same thing when Nick’s on O’Reilly. The late Fox Cable News broadcast is at 8:00 pm.

  10. That may make it harder for Martin to push through initiatives such as forcing cable companies to offer television channels separately.

    I’m confused; this would be a good thing, wouldn’t it? I mean, as long as there’s still little or no real competition in the cable industry?

  11. Rhywun,

    I’m pushing for it. You can go here to write your senators on the topic and ask them to back such legislation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.