http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-62457 OxfordjdlkKayla Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:45:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-62457 <p>Can i use this blog as reference in my college report <br><br>Regards</p> Can i use this blog as reference in my college report

Regards

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30995 Michael Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:32:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30995 <p><a href="http://www.cybersmart.org/home/" rel="nofollow">dlhxigkp</a> edijjmp</p> dlhxigkp edijjmp

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54526 Michael Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:32:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54526 <p><a href="http://www.cybersmart.org/home/" rel="nofollow">dlhxigkp</a> edijjmp</p> dlhxigkp edijjmp

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30994 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:13:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30994 <p>The link to the paper has been moved to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257534A1.pdf</p> The link to the paper has been moved to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257534A1.pdf

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54525 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:13:50 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54525 <p>The link to the paper has been moved to <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-257534A1.pdf">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat...</a></p> The link to the paper has been moved to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat…

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30993 Andrew McGuinness Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:57:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30993 <p>Unfortunately, a government department's reaction to finding its doctrine is dead is more likely to be to find a new doctrine than to stop regulating.</p> Unfortunately, a government department’s reaction to finding its doctrine is dead is more likely to be to find a new doctrine than to stop regulating.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54524 Andrew McGuinness Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:57:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54524 <p>Unfortunately, a government department's reaction to finding its doctrine is dead is more likely to be to find a new doctrine than to stop regulating.</p> Unfortunately, a government department’s reaction to finding its doctrine is dead is more likely to be to find a new doctrine than to stop regulating.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30992 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:23:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30992 <p>That may be the government's new position, but I think the FCC's is a reassessment of their traditional boundaries -- protection of the public trust in a scarce resource. The government's authority to regulate non-obscene communications must be grounded in something (here, dispensing access to and regulating a scarce public resource) to escape the Constitutional strictures of First Amendment doctrine. In other words, neither Congress' legislative grant to an administrative agency like the FCC or the FCC's exercise of its administrative rule-making authority can convey or assume restrictive power over speech contrary to that allowed by Constitution. I think garym's concern is a valid one, as it reflects the current political climate, but largely-settled judicial doctrines concerning speech protections would seem to be on the side of freedom, not restriction, if applied as-is.</p> That may be the government’s new position, but I think the FCC’s is a reassessment of their traditional boundaries — protection of the public trust in a scarce resource. The government’s authority to regulate non-obscene communications must be grounded in something (here, dispensing access to and regulating a scarce public resource) to escape the Constitutional strictures of First Amendment doctrine. In other words, neither Congress’ legislative grant to an administrative agency like the FCC or the FCC’s exercise of its administrative rule-making authority can convey or assume restrictive power over speech contrary to that allowed by Constitution. I think garym’s concern is a valid one, as it reflects the current political climate, but largely-settled judicial doctrines concerning speech protections would seem to be on the side of freedom, not restriction, if applied as-is.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54523 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:23:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54523 <p>That may be the government's new position, but I think the FCC's is a reassessment of their traditional boundaries -- protection of the public trust in a scarce resource. The government's authority to regulate non-obscene communications must be grounded in something (here, dispensing access to and regulating a scarce public resource) to escape the Constitutional strictures of First Amendment doctrine. In other words, neither Congress' legislative grant to an administrative agency like the FCC or the FCC's exercise of its administrative rule-making authority can convey or assume restrictive power over speech contrary to that allowed by Constitution. I think garym's concern is a valid one, as it reflects the current political climate, but largely-settled judicial doctrines concerning speech protections would seem to be on the side of freedom, not restriction, if applied as-is.</p> That may be the government’s new position, but I think the FCC’s is a reassessment of their traditional boundaries — protection of the public trust in a scarce resource. The government’s authority to regulate non-obscene communications must be grounded in something (here, dispensing access to and regulating a scarce public resource) to escape the Constitutional strictures of First Amendment doctrine. In other words, neither Congress’ legislative grant to an administrative agency like the FCC or the FCC’s exercise of its administrative rule-making authority can convey or assume restrictive power over speech contrary to that allowed by Constitution. I think garym’s concern is a valid one, as it reflects the current political climate, but largely-settled judicial doctrines concerning speech protections would seem to be on the side of freedom, not restriction, if applied as-is.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30991 garym Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:39:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30991 <p>My immediate thought is the opposite of Colin Samuels'; that the FCC is moving away from the bandwidth scarcity doctrine in order to adopt rationales that allow the government to censor cable and satellite broadcasts.</p> My immediate thought is the opposite of Colin Samuels’; that the FCC is moving away from the bandwidth scarcity doctrine in order to adopt rationales that allow the government to censor cable and satellite broadcasts.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54522 garym Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:39:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54522 <p>My immediate thought is the opposite of Colin Samuels'; that the FCC is moving away from the bandwidth scarcity doctrine in order to adopt rationales that allow the government to censor cable and satellite broadcasts.</p> My immediate thought is the opposite of Colin Samuels’; that the FCC is moving away from the bandwidth scarcity doctrine in order to adopt rationales that allow the government to censor cable and satellite broadcasts.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-30990 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:07:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-30990 <p>Not only would this position "affect the basis for regulating 'indecency' on broadcast television and radio" but it would utterly devastate the already shaky reasoning behind Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' recent proposal to extend such regulations to cable and satellite programming. Whatever "scarcity" arguably exists in the broadcast spectrum certainly does not exist in the practically limitless cable and satellite realms. The opt-in nature of these newer channels should serve to defeat Stevens' and others' proposed regulation, but a change in the scarcity doctrine will ensure that defeat.</p> Not only would this position “affect the basis for regulating ‘indecency’ on broadcast television and radio” but it would utterly devastate the already shaky reasoning behind Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ recent proposal to extend such regulations to cable and satellite programming. Whatever “scarcity” arguably exists in the broadcast spectrum certainly does not exist in the practically limitless cable and satellite realms. The opt-in nature of these newer channels should serve to defeat Stevens’ and others’ proposed regulation, but a change in the scarcity doctrine will ensure that defeat.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-54521 Colin Samuels Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:07:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/03/17/red-lion-rip-fcc-declares-the-scarcity-doctrine-dead/#comment-54521 <p>Not only would this position "affect the basis for regulating 'indecency' on broadcast television and radio" but it would utterly devastate the already shaky reasoning behind Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' recent proposal to extend such regulations to cable and satellite programming. Whatever "scarcity" arguably exists in the broadcast spectrum certainly does not exist in the practically limitless cable and satellite realms. The opt-in nature of these newer channels should serve to defeat Stevens' and others' proposed regulation, but a change in the scarcity doctrine will ensure that defeat.</p> Not only would this position “affect the basis for regulating ‘indecency’ on broadcast television and radio” but it would utterly devastate the already shaky reasoning behind Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’ recent proposal to extend such regulations to cable and satellite programming. Whatever “scarcity” arguably exists in the broadcast spectrum certainly does not exist in the practically limitless cable and satellite realms. The opt-in nature of these newer channels should serve to defeat Stevens’ and others’ proposed regulation, but a change in the scarcity doctrine will ensure that defeat.

]]>