FCC (Federal Communications Commission) chairman Michael Powell's hopes of shoe-horning Hollywood into almost total ownership of the airwaves are failing fast.

"The FCC's action was one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests I've ever seen by what is supposed to be a federal regulatory agency," US senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) says.

"It is clear the public agrees. In just a few weeks, one-third of a million petitions have been collected asking that the FCC rules be rolled back, and hundreds of thousands of others are speaking out as well. The FCC ignored the public in their process. In Congress, the public will be heard, and the public interest will be served."

As the US Senate prepared to begin debate yesterday on a rarely used congressional veto to overturn rules on broadcast ownership, US senators Dorgan and Trent Lott (R-MS) said more than 342,000 petitions were being delivered to Senate and House offices supporting the veto.

Powell's new FCC rules would "let loose an orgy of corporate mergers and acquisitions" says Dorgan.

"Broadcast stations operate on airwaves that are owned by the public, under licenses that require they serve the cause of localism and diversity. The FCC seems to have forgotten that, but the American people have not forgotten."

And there you have it. Gripe enough and you get their attention. Keep writing and be sure to drop hints that your vow to vote them out might be alleviated...

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality." -- Dante
~Malchus, servant to all

It would appear that there are at least two Senators that big corporations have not bought out.

It's about time.

Get a clue! (and grow up while you are at it). There is such a thing as reality, and you all have missed the boat entirely. If you'd stop listening to these fear mongers who want nothing more than to *control* your options (via the point of a government gun) you might learn something. It is difficult to understand why people actually believe that smothering nanny-state regulations will provide *anything* other than government-sanctioned entertainment (like it used to be--with three government approved options).

The goal is freedom--not nanny-state censorship and tyranny.


http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-12-03d.html#3

Wow, a republican and a democrat are agreeing on this? It's getting cold in here.

Bush has been reported to be ready to veto any proposed legislation rolling back these rules. At present, there is no indication that his veto could be overridden.

Msybe we should start our own petition????

Reason on...the reality IS that many of the media organizations are already owned by conglomerates. I've heard the Libertarian spiel from my youngest sister regarding how "Less government is good, more government bad."

In a perfect , uncomplicated democracy, in most cases I'd agree that less government is good, especially, when it comes to laws that infringe upon my constitutional rights as a citizen. However, reasonon if you honest, reasonon, you'd admit that some industries require governmental oversight. The reason? People can't depend on big industry to always do the right thing, without the threat of some punishment.
Big businesses are interested in one thing: their bottom line. The media is primarily a business making sure they remain profitable. The Media is called the Fourth Estate, because it wields almost the same amount of influence as a branch of government does. People get their information from newspapers, radio stations, t.v. broadcasts and now the internet, to learn about what's happening in their governments and the world surrounding them.

But what if more than one conglomerate owned the media stations in your viewing area? What if they owned all the newspapers, radio stations, and the t.v. stations in the area? Would you know what news was being censored every day from your local broadcasts? How could you trust that the information you were getting from your local news anchor was, in fact accurate? How would you know what major news stories were missing from your local news line up?

It would be real nice for there to be no rules so that everyone could put on a broadcast in their local areas on radio,etc;. Let's face it though. The people with power are able to buy laws through politicians. They influence these politicians with soft money and hefty campaign contributions to change the laws in their favor.

The everyday man/woman has a hard time competiting with this type of money in an aristocracy. Licensing fees,etc; and sheer cost make near to impossible for a person to put on their own indie radio broadcast. A consumer would also have to procure advertisers to cover the cost of publishing, etc; etc; More often than not, they don't have the money or the time to do these things. So, as a result, many folks are forced to rely on the people that do.

The major media outlets realize this. If the Majors were allowed to purchase all the media outlets in one area, these companies would ensure there was little competition. If there was an news story that conflicted against their business interests, they simply wouldn't broadcast. The public has already witnessed the major outlets commit this infraction innumerable times. The media has refused to broadcast news about the new FCC rules, or to broadcast both sides of the story regarding the p2p issue. Clear Channel is one of the most abhorrent absuers of them all.

In the case of the media, the public needs variety. Yes, the FCC was originally created to stop independents from broadcasting on radio. I realize this is the case. However, the FCC rules are the last thing that the public has
now to prevent the media market place
from completely stifling the voice of the independent. It ensures that there is some competition that remains in the open market.

Calling people immature, or needing to grow up because they believe that this oversight is necessary is specious reasoning. There are always two sides to every story....

Argh..my little fingers are tired now. I think I'll give 'em a rest. Enought with this long post. Hopes it makes sense.

if he did veto the rollback he would effectivly kill any remaining chance of him being re elected for any position

I hope Bush DOES put the nail in his own coffin with a veto. We will just revisit the overturn of the FCC anyway and I can wait a year or two to fix the insane FCC decision in trade for Bush leaving the White House.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

mmmm...orgys...

Powell's new FCC rules would "let loose an orgy of corporate mergers and acquisitions" says Dorgan.

Is this a problem? We all know Pepsi and Coke will own everything within the next 100 years.

it's the fear of big buisness talking here.

The FCC has backed off of a lot of regulation in the past decade. Notice you can now purchase long distance, local phone, cable, and internet service from the same company.

the only thing that has meant so far is that cable and phone companies have had to start competeting with each other in areas where there wasn't competition before, and it shows up in lower prices.

The FCC has done a very good job of late. These rules were put in place to stop one company from having the ability to control the information that is given to the public. We now live in a society where that is impossible. (except that many people don't realize that their news comes from the same two wire services no matter who they get their news from)

If you want to download music with little risk of lawsuit, simply move files out of your shared folder immediately after download. Files will always be available worldwide anyway, we don't have to get them from servers in the U.S.! There's no need for guilt over lack of sharing in this situation. The RIAA is targeting Americans, now we will target the RIAA. Downloading will continue forever, and cd sales will continue to plummet. RIAA, be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.

If you live in a city where Clearchannel is the only game in town you understand this. The music they play IS CRAP.

You know, I'd be willing to bet that Clearchannel drives folks to P2P. The selection at P2P is probably much better.

Maybe the RIAa should look at suing Clearchannel.

SJ res 17 a resolution of disapproval.

This resolution is a fight to defend our right to "freedom of press", by honest politicians. Thank them for the resolution. It goes to a vote in the Senate next week.

The "Big 5" media conglomerates, aka the RIAA, are trying to buy that right,(with money we paid them), from politicians, just as they are buying our right to the "freedom of privacy".

Look into it, defend yourself. Ask all senators for thier support.

you can read everything said in the senate at the following link;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r108:FLD001 src="http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/irked.gif" align="middle" alt=":S (Irked)" title=":S (Irked)" />11384

If the RIAA get theirs fingers on the new rules the FCC are issueing, they won't ever have to worry about reading headlines like;

"LITTLE SUZY IS GETTING SUED BY THE RIAA";

"THE CONSUMER IS BOYCOTTING THE RIAA", or;

"CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS ARE FOR SALE"

"But what if more than one conglomerate owned the media stations in your viewing area? What if they owned all the newspapers, radio stations, and the t.v. stations in the area? Would you know what news was being censored every day from your local broadcasts? How could you trust that the information you were getting from your local news anchor was, in fact accurate? How would you know what major news stories were missing from your local news line up?"

ARE YOU TOTALY BLIND TO THE REALITY AROUND YOU? Do you live in a cave? This scenario is totally absurd.

REALITY:

1970--3 nationalized television Choices (mandated by government)

2003-1000's and 1000's of international choices (threatened by government)

There is no rational argument for media regulation--only irrational, crippling fear.


reason on

The Future of the FCC

Come look into the crystal ball...

"The popular Daily News was shut down on Friday shortly after losing a court case over strict government media laws.

The Supreme Court ruled that the paper had operated illegally by refusing to register with the government-appointed Media and Information Commission (MIC).

The paper's lawyer says the police have no warrant and are acting illegally.

On Monday, the Daily News filed an application to register with the MIC, but newspaper executives are gloomy about the prospects of reopening soon."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3112450.stm