Comments on: The Two FCCs Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: JD Lasica Thu, 19 Aug 2004 03:18:56 +0000 Nonsense. The FCC’s indecency clampdown is a travesty and has chilled speech on the radio airwaves. Creators of cutting-edge television shows have already indicated that they no longer know what’s permitted — and so are erring on the side of the safe and bland.

Professor, you didn’t mention perhaps the FCC’s most critical decisions of the past year — the much-criticized decision to scale back ownership limits by large media corporations, a decision thrown out by a federal court. Perhaps it didn’t fit your model — it was a pro-deregulation, anti-consumer move.

By: Anonymous Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:35:40 +0000 You can’t really put the indecency enforcement commissioners on the bad side since most of them are in favor of pro-competition laws and against so-called big government. Some of the commissioners are in favor of all the proposals in your two lists.

So I don’t think you can really say that it’s “two FCCs.” Rather, you might say that there is some debate over which issues should be given preeminence.

By: Robert Young Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:46:32 +0000 Prof. Wu,

That’s a highly interesting, and realistic, way to look at the FCC, much like the way one views the Supreme Court. It underscores the importance of politics, in terms of the bent of the commissioners, in the process of determining priorities. On a related note, I trust you saw the gem of a piece in the NY Times, which speculates on who the next FCC head might be under a second Bush term…

To go back to your question, it is my firm belief that an “antitrust FCC” should be the priority, and within that choice, the first item you list… deregulating low frequency spectrum… should by far be the number one issue.