RSS
Twitter
Michael Powell's Contradicting Claims
from the wait-a-second... dept
We've talked in the past about the need to totally rethink spectrum allocation policy at the FCC, or possibly to rethink the FCC itself. So, it's good to see FCC chairman Michael Powell state that "Right now, we're in a terrible position where a company's regulatory treatment is more a matter of from whence they came rather than what they're really doing now." By saying this, he's suggesting he recognizes that squeezing new technologies into old regulations is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, his statements before he got to tech policy completely contradict this. He talks about the need to bring indecency laws that now cover broadcast TV to make sure they cover cable TV as well. Leaving aside the question of why an agency whose mission is to focus on spectrum allocation should be involved in any sort of question on indecency, isn't this exactly what he said he didn't want to do with technology policy? He's trying to squeeze new technology (cable TV) into old regulations (indecency regulations for over-the-air broadcast TV).
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Not quite
Michael Powell has never asked for authority to regulate cable for indecency. The article just shows he's pointing out the contradiction, not embracing it. There's a big difference. This statement shows what he thinks about enforcing indecency law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not quite
Yeah--I read it as Powell advocating for the hands-off approach to cable channels to be extend to broadcast channels.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment