3 ms·
I’ve wondered about this for a while now with all the social media banning. The FCC requires one to have a license to broadcast over the airwaves and from what
by 0x445442 4y ago
I’ve wondered about this for a while now with all the social media banning. The FCC requires one to have a license to broadcast over the airwaves and from what I understand these regulations stem from a limited number of frequencies. But I wonder if the FCC would have been created if that physical constraint did not exist. Was the FCC more about the constrained physics or controlled information?
- triceratops 4y agoConstrained physics. The FCC doesn't regulate content on cable TV. Technologically, there's no reason cable radio couldn't have existed.
- 0x445442 4y agoBut I was talking about airwaves, and they do regulate what's on those. It's not just physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_fines_of_The_Howard_Stern_Show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commiss...
- triceratops 4y agoI have no idea what you're trying to say. Yes it's not "just physics" that causes the FCC to regulate the content of broadcasts on radio and TV airwaves. I thought that was obvious. Even if the FCC chose not to regulate broadcast programming, they or some other body, would still need to enforce rights to frequencies. That's their raison d'etre. Content policing is an added function, which the law has found valid in the past precisely because frequencies are limited. I can't see such public interest legal opinions being newly formed today.