Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC's Chairman Powell Starts Blog

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the everyone's-doing-it dept.

Television 118

The Importance of writes "And he wants to hear from the tech community. 'I am looking forward to an open, transparent and meritocracy-based communication -- attributes that bloggers are famous for!' Powell said on his blog. But does he really get blogging? He says he 'need[s] to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital television.' Perhaps we could discuss the broadcast flag? If you want to leave some comments on his blog, I suggest you do it before Howard Stern mentions it on his radio show."

cancel ×

118 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

(Michael Powell's) First Post (4, Funny)

cynic10508 (785816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665371)

"Dad keeps calling me all the time. It's always 'Iraq' this and 'Iraq' that. He's so annoying sometimes. I swear. Ooo! On another note, I did get my belly button pierced this past weekend! It is soooo cute!"

Re:(Michael Powell's) First Post (3, Funny)

identity0 (77976) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665444)

"I know it's not 'cool' to want to be like your dad, but I really do! All my manipulation and grandstanding in front of congress about that stupid boobie thing is just practice until I can do it just like dad! *sigh* I want to mislead the UN and start a war, too..."

"Dad is so cool, I sometimes dress up in his old army clothes, they're rad! Oops, if you're reading this, don't tell him that, he'd be mad, might even ground me :( "

"I wish the State Dept. had a 'take your kid to work day', that would be so cool! I bet I could run Afghanistan way better than that guy in the funny hat. I might even get to see Condi, what a hottie! (drool...)"

In all fairness, I'm sure his actual blog is much more boring. He's a bearucrat, he can't say or do anything interesting or original if he wants to keep his job. Personally, I'd rather see the Bush twins' blog. Much more 'interesting' content, and I'm willing to pay for the "Premium content" part! : )

Re:(Michael Powell's) First Post (1)

ThisIsFred (705426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666029)

Wow, just imagine if he allows anonymous replies from readers:

"fr1st r3ply!"

"1. Generate red tape 2. ??? 3. Profit!"

"Netcraft confirms it, analog TV is dead."

Re:(Michael Powell's) First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9666449)

It's ironic that Powell is speaking of meritocracy considering he got his job because he's the son of the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the current Secretary of State. Friends (relatives) in high places.

yo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665374)

oy

Buisness blog (3, Interesting)

obli (650741) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665375)

Meh, I thought blogs would be personal, it's a lot about his company there instead :/

Re:Buisness blog (4, Insightful)

britneys 9th husband (741556) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665408)

There's no rule that says blogs have to be personal. For example, both presidential candidates have blogs, and it's about their campaign, not stuff like "Laura cooked scrambled eggs for me this morning she hasn't done that in years."

Just because most blogs are people who somehow managed to set up a Blogger or Livejournal account and only use it to talk about boring useless stuff no one cares about doesn't mean all blogs have to be that way.

Re:Buisness blog (1)

obli (650741) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665416)

Yeah, but then it's basically FCC's blog that he uses for company PR.

Re:Buisness blog (1)

m000 (187652) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666688)

George never has a second cup of coffee at home...

Re:Buisness blog (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665541)

Commercial Blogging - its whats for breakfast

me first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665378)

me first

Thats a new one... (5, Funny)

chrispyman (710460) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665381)

Who'd have thought the day would come when the government asks for a slashdotting!

Re:Thats a new one... (3, Insightful)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665511)

Now hopefully the Homeland Security department doesn't shut down Slashdot as a grievous danger to national security...

a grievous danger to national security.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665655)

It wasn't already? /me ducks

In soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

TheBoostedBrain (622439) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668392)

Slashdot asks for a government (moderation).

I see it now... (3, Funny)

Reorax (629666) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665383)

"The GNAA are in full support of the broadcast flag."

"1) Remove the broadcast flag. 2) ??? 3) Profit."

"I wanted to post something on your blog about beowulf clusters, but couldn't think of anything."

"The FCC sucks."

Re:I see it now... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665421)

What, you do not welcome our new overlords with the broadcast flag?!

Oh, and in Soviet Russia, the flag broadcasts YOU!

Re:I see it now... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665588)

you must not be new here.

crapflood vs. hooferaff (2, Interesting)

778790 (778790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665387)

If Chairman Powell has any acumen, he'll eventually need to have his emailed moderated so he can read acutal insight. But I did hear that he was invited to a Lemon Party!

Overthrow Corporate Rule (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665393)

..if you don't want a broadcast flag, DMCA, Patriot Act, etc etc etc.

Monday's Blog Entry... (5, Funny)

frankie (91710) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665698)

From the Desktop of Michael Powell:
Ever get the feeling you're running in circles? I do all the time. I opened this week's commission meeting, and once again Pinky had forgotten his notes. As usual, he asked "Hey boss, what are we doing today?" And as usual, I replied "The same thing we do every day, Pinky: try to screw over the consumers."

Better hurry. (5, Funny)

Temporal (96070) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665398)

If you want to leave some comments on his blog, I suggest you do it before Howard Stern mentions it on his radio show.

It would also probably be a good idea to do it before this gets mentioned on Slashdot.

Oh, wait...

too late (3, Informative)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665405)

it's already hit howard's forum

http://www.howardstern.com/boards/showthread.php?t =6353 [howardstern.com]

i dunno how busy /. really is, but howardstern.com (especially now the forums) is pegged almost 24/7

howard et all are on vacation (for another week i think). when he gets back, i'm sure it will get mentioned. hopefully the rest of his fans can keep it civil (heh) on the fucktard's blog

Re:too late (1)

Halfbaked Plan (769830) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665922)

hopefully the rest of his fans can keep it civil (heh) on the fucktard's blog

When has anything on a forum associated with Stern ever been civil?

Alexa page rank (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668669)

Slashdot has an alexa page rank of 1,270, while howardstern.com has a page rank of 5,889. And that only counts IE users...

Re:Better hurry. (1)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665498)

What's worse, a stern-dotting or a ./ing?

Re:Better hurry. (5, Funny)

XemonerdX (242776) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665600)

A stern /.ing ofcourse.

Re:Better hurry. (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667311)

I thought it was naaasty.

--

Re:Better hurry. (1)

beej_55 (789241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665797)

A dot-slashing. That's just plain scary.

Remember (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665401)

Remember the good ol' days? When there was no FCC? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Remember the good ol' days when women couldn't vote, and certain people weren't allowed on golf courses? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Re:Remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665572)

Oy, vat a kidda!

holy crap thisis funny (3, Funny)

magellen (770417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665438)

He is opening a blog? That is like opening the gates of hell in reverse...

Eric Idle on the FCC (5, Funny)

node 3 (115640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665446)

Eric's got a song on his site about the FCC: The FCC Song [pythonline.com]

Re:Eric Idle on the FCC (1)

Jrod5000 at RPI (229934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665774)

Here's a little number I wrote the other day while out duck hunting with a judge.

Fuck you very much the FCC
Fuck you very much for fining me
Five thousand bucks a fuck
So I'm really out of luck
That's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me

So fuck you very much the FCC
for proving that free speech just isn't free
Clear Channel's a dear channel
So Howard Stern must go
Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so
He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbaugh
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much, Dear Mr. Bush
For heroically sitting on your tush
For Halliburton, Enron, all the companies who fail
Let's send them a clear signal and stick Martha straight in jail
She's an uppity rich bitch
and at least she isn't male
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you dickhead Mr. Cheney too
Fuck you and fuck everything you do
Your pacemaker must be a fake
You haven't got a heart
As far as I'm concerned you're just a pasty-faced old fart
And as for Condoleeza she's an intellectual tart
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much, the EPA
For giving all Alaska's oil away
It really is a bummer
When I can't fill my hummer
The ozone's a nogozone now that Arnold's here to say:
"The nuclear winter games are going to take place in LA"
So fuck you all so very much

So what the planet fails
Let's save the great white males
And fuck you all so very much

Don't we already have a Powell? (5, Informative)

caryw (131578) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665458)

His "blog" is pretty interesting but right now talks more about digital TV than anything pertinent to the internet. Still a nice outreach, we'll see how often it gets updated...
In related FCC news, they just passed an order lessening the restrictions on the unlicensed 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz frequency bands.
The news release [fcc.gov] (pdf) says that this order removes roadblocks keeping deployment of next generation (longer range) Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices.
There is also a statement [fcc.gov] from Chairman Powell himself (more pdf)

-Cary
Fairfax Underground [fairfaxunderground.com] : Where Fairfax County comes out to play

Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (4, Interesting)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665469)

Rarely do chairmen or other heads of government agencies make themselves as accessible as Mr. Powell. Watching him with Leo Laporte on TechTV was always interesting and revealing - one probably shouldn't be surprised to see the chairman of the FCC actually understand what his agency is regulating (or not regulating), but it seems too many agencies are "the blind leading the blind".

Unfortunately, expect Mr. Powell's blog to be spammed by every idealogue around. Already some pointless jabber about the FCC's "indecency" issues have popped up, some merely wrappers for political bashing. If only that was the worst that it will get..

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (2, Funny)

jpnews (647965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665473)

If only that was the worst that it will get..

Yeah, where's the GNAA when you need them? Wait, what?

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (2, Insightful)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665547)

Unfortunately, expect Mr. Powell's blog to be spammed by every idealogue around. Already some pointless jabber about the FCC's "indecency" issues have popped up, some merely wrappers for political bashing. If only that was the worst that it will get..

Yeah, because anybody who can handle seeing a naked tit on TV and who dislikes the obvious restrictions on free speech made with stupid excuses like covering those hemispherical mammary glands up is obviously just a jabbering idiot who is really just after some "political" bashing.

Oh sorry, I've been trolled haven't I? Oh well.

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665608)

Yeah, 'cause it was soooo much harder to explain to my 8 year old about a women's breast (like mom's) than what erectile dysfunction is or the point of a horse fart is.

Well, ok, the 8 year old got the horse fart.....

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (1)

Tim[m] (5411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665599)

Unfortunately, expect Mr. Powell's blog to be spammed by every idealogue around.

If Powell actually follows the posts, Internet idealogues won't be the only ones posting: expect paid lobbiests. Readers (and Powell) will want to carefully consider the backgrounds of any regular, articulate, well-versed commentors. Of course, if such people do post, the public will be well-served: maybe we can personally examine the lobbying process. That would be a wonderful.

Now if only I could get paid for posting on slashdot... maybe then I'd start making worthwhile posts...

Not pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665701)

" Already some pointless jabber about the FCC's "indecency" issues have popped up"

Colin Powell Jr. strikes righht at the heart of a free society with his railings against free speech, and you deem it "pointless".

Maybe the real indecency in this world is that people are trading away freedoms of speech, fair use, and other assorted liberties that our forefathers took for granted simply because we want new and shiny TV's.

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (1)

antic (29198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665836)



An example of an excellent blog from someone in power is that of Mark Cuban (www.blogmaverick.com) who owns the Dallas Mavericks. Very open and candid discussion of his business past, his dealings with the NBA and his team, etc. A great read, IMHO.

Re:Nice idea, prepare for the abuse (1)

E_elven (600520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667249)

How the hell is this person 'in power'?

FCC's "indecency" (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665858)

People bitch about the FCC's "indecency" rulings because they are CRAP.

It's ok to have a human ripped to pieces under a bus and have her arm come off and shatter the windshield of a passing car (CSI this week) but a breast will get you fined.

It seams to me one is worse than the other.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668050)

>> People bitch about the FCC's "indecency" rulings because they are CRAP.

Perhaps so, but spamming every attempt at a discussion on other things won't achieve anything.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668145)

Please forgive me. I didn't know that talking about FCC actions wasn't allowed on a thread about the FCC.

Please provide an email address so I can clear my /. posts thru you in the future.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9668387)

Please forgive me. I didn't know that talking about FCC actions wasn't allowed on a thread about the FCC.


I think he was referring to the blog. A forum like that is unlikely to give him any real insight because of so much offtopic conversation will come into play. The discussions will not have any structure. Even if you wanted to discuss the indecency rules, you couldn't. No matter what position you want to contribute, it won't get through.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668418)

Way to get confused and look like an idiot.

The topic at hand was Powell's blog, not this thread.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668448)

No, the topic at had was what every the mods haven't down moded. /. isn't a place where the discussion is limited strictly to the posted article.

HINT: If you don't like what I say, don't respond to it. You don't have to read it, just mark me as a foe and you will not have to see what I post anymore. It's that simple. You may not of know this, you being new and all.

Re: FCC's "indecency" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9668512)

Dude, you need to take a chill pill. He was obviously refering to the powell's blog when he made the comment.

The blog replies aren't moderated and appears to be random ramblings of hundreds of people.

Entries (4, Funny)

gr8fulnded (254977) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665475)

Sample entry: Monday, 7/5/04: "Well, this morning my wife made *beep* for breakfast, except the *beep* burnt the *beep* toast!"
Tuesday, 7/6/04: "Had a meeting with *beep* who's skirt was a little higher then it should've been, showing off her *beep* and making me want to *beep* *beep* her all night long!"
Weds., 7/7/04: "Took the *beep* for a walk around the *beep*. Cashed a check at the store and purchased *beep*, *beep*, and *beep*. Thought the missus might like that!"
...

Scratching my head... (4, Insightful)

Bill_Royle (639563) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665482)

Calling that page a blog seems a bit far-fetched to me - it seems more like a news site. On news sites that I know of, people that write opinion pieces are called "columnists" or "contributors" normally. It's called an op-ed, not a blog entry.

Does anyone else question the way this is being termed? After all, if I contribute maybe 10 articles to a news site, does that make my work there constitute a blog?

Ambigious terminology and Blurred boundaries (2, Informative)

kbahey (102895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666081)

I guess you can attribute that perceived confusion to two reasons.:

  • Ambigious Terminology

    Many terms lose their meaning over time, or take a new meaning altogether. This is most often seen in Corporate Marketing speak, and in Politics. Someone will use a catchy term to mean a new thing they are trying to push (for economic or political gain). Think about "user friendly" for instance, or "N-Tier" in the marketing of IT. In politics, linguistics is also used this way, as Chomsky and others pointed out. Terms lost meaning over time or come to mean something else.

  • Blurred Boundaries

    Think about what "convergence" was about. When two things eventually become the same by merging features from both. For example, the IP protocol used to be a data only packet protocol. Voice used to be on switched circuits only. Now this is all converging with VoIP and such. The same could be underway in journalism and opinion columns with blogs being a merged form of what we now use for blogs and what op-eds are.

So, it may not be confusion after all. It could be evolution as well.

Just a thought.

Because (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9669149)

The people who run always-on are obsessed with the idea of 'blogs' just about as much as they are with money. Really quite stupid, and it's disappointing that people with so little sense could have much money. These are the people who caused the dot com bomb. There was a guy on there a while ago advising people not to buy google, because he wanted to, and everything he ever invested in lost tons of money...

Kind of entertaining, and it's not surprising they'd have Michael Powel on there.

But yeah, these people think everything they do is blogging or something.

and i /really/ support the fcc... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665491)

especially considering the first word in fcc is federal. (sounds to me like feral, but wouldn't that make communication more fun?) three letter words are bad, kids. there are seven words i know that i cannot say. if the fcc or any of its representatives really gave a stinking rats ass about television it would be; even more expensive, censored as my small and floppy penis in a crowd of convservative religous zealots, boring, only for geeks, taxed even more and not include things like national geographic (which is co-owned by many major broadcasting corps.) wow! that sounds like consumer radio! tv rots your brain, go read a book.
there are bands that are taken from us.
does the fcc agree with the war-on-terrorism people that model rocketry is bad - do they think that the RF emitted by a 4-AA remote will fuX0r there 3r33t spy network of... hehe... legislative procedure? whatever. you make more laws and you make more criminals. you ask the people in a police state what they want and you find out what you need to take away.
if you can't tell, i have a lot of hate for the government. and yes, this is flamebait. cunt is not a bad word. cocksucker is sometimes the act of love. but, right now, i have to take a shit and a piss, motherfucker. (ok. that might be stretching it, but really - it is a goddamn word!)
/it's not the word that is bad, it's the connotation/
/the truth is out there./
/everything you know is a lie./

powell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665517)

troll me; because nothing says 'house negro' more than michael powell's sad cracker-ass

Out of respect for Powell (3, Insightful)

Hackie_Chan (678203) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665527)

I hope we abstain from posting messages such as "PLZZ DOOD WHY YOU INCREEZ SIZE FOR MEGACORPS?? YO HANDZ IN POXET OF COMPS YO NOOB!!!!" please. It's like the Mac-community's knowledge of Steve Jobs email, we all know his email adress but we must only use it when we are civil in fear of to not lose the chance of using it in the future.

Re:Out of respect for Powell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665567)

Ah, you Mac zealots provide hours of free entertainment. It's like hearing a religious zealot claim that we must not "abuse" prayer by asking too many things of God lest He not listen to us in the future. No, wait, that's exactly what it is...

MOD PARENT UP (1)

theguywhosaid (751709) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665652)

Sure, its an anti-mac troll, but it makes the excellent point that communicating with people like Mr. Powell shouldn't be something that can be taken away. I believe, now that this forum has been opened, he is obligated to read every comment and take each one seriously, without regard for personal insults such as "NOOB!".

Re:Out of respect for zealotry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665731)

For the record, I have been accused of being a "religious zealot", so I must comment. Actually, the more you use(/abuse?) prayer, the more God listens and intervenes. You can ask God for anything and everything on a very regular basis, and God will still listen, because it's God after all. God is not some kindergarten teacher who's tired of the whining brats, so feel free to open up to God whenever you feel the need. God has his own method of dealing with "spam" and "corperate lobbying", so don't think your requests (no matter how insignificant) will go unheard. And don't be afraid to ask God for both small and large because all things are small to God. Even if you don't believe in God, or want to submit to some religious ideology, you still benefit from the wonderful things that await if you just open yourself to God once in a while. All prayers are answered, even if the answer is "no". Pay close attention when God tells you "no". It usually means he's got something better in mind if you're willing to be patient and listen to God's spirit within you.

-Peace

Re:Out of respect for zealotry... (1)

Tarential (662979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666975)

Did you just call Powell God? Seriously? Well then, yes, you are a zealot.

Re:Out of respect for Powell (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666518)

And what's he done to deserve this respect?

hey what up? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665531)

wit dat whole Janet Jackson thing?

Simple message from tech community... (2, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665548)

...Stop pandering to the centralised media producers. We are already doing them a big favor by granting them a monopoly over the airwaves, why should we grant them further control by denying us the freedom to exercise our fair use rights over digitally transmitted content, a freedom we have had since 1984?

Re:Simple message from tech community... (1)

ThisIsFred (705426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666077)

What are some things that the FCC does to pander to centralized media producers? What exactly is a centralized media producer? That term brings to mind the BBC or the ABC.

Tried to ease media ownership rules. (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9669194)

The FCC tried to unilaterally ease ownership rules, meaning large media companies could get larger. This met with quite a bit of resistance, culminating in Trent Lot touting a MoveOn.org petition, if you can believe that. Powell came up with some idiotic justification like "Well, if the ACLU and the NRA oppose it, how can it be partisan?". Of course, it wasn't partisan, just bad. Bush Supported Powell, but the republican controlled congress attached a zero-funding measure to a huge spending bill, which would have been difficult for bush to veto.

Dude, got any Janet Jackson pics? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665551)

Will trade pics of Colin Powell doing embarassing dance number at G8 for Janet Jackson doing embarassing dance number at SuperBowl.

TNX.

Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (5, Interesting)

An dochasac (591582) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665568)

So my way of influencing a public servant whose salary is paid by my tax dollars is by signing onto a private website? No, thank you. I'll take my chances that I might influence someone here to write their congressperson, or vote him/her out! The FCC has lost sight of some core principles:
  1. The airwaves belong to the people.
  2. Content belongs to the creator. If my first steps were recorded in analog video, the government should not impose a law which would make such content impossible to view. When I create a DVD of my baby's first steps, I should have the right to control and sign that content. I should have the right to make it available to others and transcode that content to whatever the format of the day is in 2021.
  3. Government belongs to the people. All content created at taxpayer expense should be in an open format, not subject to proprietary licensing.
  4. Government should not play favorites. If Howard Stern profits from our airwaves with junior high mentaility, then everyone capable of expressing a junior high mentality should also have this right. If World Harvest Radio uses our airwaves to convince the world that Americans are all right-wing extremists and cultists, than other kooks should have that right.
  5. Consumers should have the right to not see Howard Stern or listen to World Harvest radio. They should have the right to not expose their children.
  6. Consumers should be able to select from the thousands of public programs available at the Library of Congress and produced by other governments (BBC, RTE, NHK...) without running into a region code "iron curtain".
  7. A broadcast flag is a stupid simpleminded idea. It won't work and it will violate many of the above principles.

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (2, Insightful)

hugesmile (587771) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665598)

A few great points there. Please allow me to play the Devil's Advocate, just for fun:

The airwaves belong to the people.
Yes, and don't you think that the best way to be sure that the people have reasonable access to the airwaves, without clutter and interference, is to provide some rules (regulations) for access? The roads belong to the people, but without traffic lights, things would be a mess.

Government belongs to the people. All content created at taxpayer expense should be in an open format, not subject to proprietary licensing.
Consider this alternative view: Being a taxpayer is like being a shareholder in a company. Just because you invest in Microsoft, even though you're an owner, that doesn't (and shouldn't) give you the right to use all their software for free. I would expect that the government would act the same way with content - maximize my "shareholder value"... yes, make it available, but not necessarily for free to everyone who might have chipped in a penny in taxes.

You and I are probably in agreement about many of these issues. I am just offering a different perspective.

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665901)

Microsoft, regardless of what some /.ers think, doesn't throw me in jail if I don't invest with them.

And MSFT has to have it's books audited and keep the according to GAAP.

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (1)

bizard (691544) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667186)

Government belongs to the people. All content created at taxpayer expense should be in an open format, not subject to proprietary licensing.
Consider this alternative view: Being a taxpayer is like being a shareholder in a company. Just because you invest in Microsoft, even though you're an owner, that doesn't (and shouldn't) give you the right to use all their software for free.

The analogy is slightly flawed. As a shareholder of Microsoft stock, I benefit from the profits made by the company. With content created at taxpayer expense, the benefit is the content. If they use my money to create something, I shouldn't have to pay again to use it unless they plan on reimbursing me for my initial investment

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9667860)

No, the benefit is LOWER or NO TAXES.

If the content is valuable, then don't GIVE IT AWAY to those who haven't funded it. There is no reason in this world why a government should charge less than market rate, just because their original funding was from the taxpayer. In fact, as a taxpayer paying a far disproportionate amount, I resent the massive give-away of valuable stuff. Make 'em pay and use the proceeds to lower my bill!

The people sold out (2, Insightful)

daBass (56811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665627)

The airwaves could still belong to the people. AM/FM, ClearChannel, et al do not start stations, they buy them. Anyone who can prove that a channel is still free to use can and will quite easily get a license.

The problem is that some of the old independents started to use research and play to the lowest common denominator. And people actualy liked it, so more followed and soon the people that knew how to play this game best bought more stations. And more people tuned in. And more independents decided to cash in and sell to these compnaies. The people sold out.

If people didn't like that kind of radio, they wouldn't have tuned in in the first place and not created this market.

All the FCC has tried to do is _limit_ this practice with anti monopoly laws, their rules certainly didn't create it.

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (2, Informative)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665697)

The airwaves belong to the people.

Right. However, the airwaves are also a public good -- it's not very feasible to isolate radio waves within a particular region on any kind of a large scale.

Generally, the way we deal with public good problems (clean air, littering in a park, etc) is by establishing rules and regulations that enforce universal cooperation (and thus makes all members of the system win out), which is pretty much what the FCC is for.

Content belongs to the creator. If my first steps were recorded in analog video, the government should not impose a law which would make such content impossible to view. When I create a DVD of my baby's first steps, I should have the right to control and sign that content. I should have the right to make it available to others and transcode that content to whatever the format of the day is in 2021.

How does this relate to Powell's policies at all?

If you're proposing change, this relates to copyright law, not to regulation of communication.

Government belongs to the people. All content created at taxpayer expense should be in an open format, not subject to proprietary licensing.

Interesting idea, and I agree. However, again, this is not the domain of the FCC, which doesn't have the required jurisdiction. You'll need legislation going through the House and Senate that constrains purchasing in the Executive Branch.

Government should not play favorites. If Howard Stern profits from our airwaves with junior high mentaility, then everyone capable of expressing a junior high mentality should also have this right. If World Harvest Radio uses our airwaves to convince the world that Americans are all right-wing extremists and cultists, than other kooks should have that right.

You need to propose feasibile approaches for this. Yes, as an ideal we try to roughly approximate a meritocracy with a free flow of ideas. However, in practical terms, there are lots of people that object to some information being available to their kids (and advocate censorship), and things like funding for idealized systems can be a problem.

Consumers should have the right to not see Howard Stern or listen to World Harvest radio. They should have the right to not expose their children.

Again, you need to propose an actual mechanism here.

Consumers should be able to select from the thousands of public programs available at the Library of Congress and produced by other governments (BBC, RTE, NHK...) wi#
# Consumers should be able to select from the thousands of public programs available at the Library of Congress and produced by other governments (BBC, RTE, NHK...) without running into a region code "iron curtain".thout running into a region code "iron curtain".


That's also an interesting idea. I'd be dubious as to whether this would be FCC jurisdiction, again. It'd just involve an international treaty giving playing rights to stuff produced with taxpayer dollars in various nations.

The BBC in particular does some nice stuff.

A broadcast flag is a stupid simpleminded idea. It won't work and it will violate many of the above principles.

It doesn't have to be elaborate. Macrovision can be defeated, but it keeps the average Joe from copying.

That being said, I think you're right, and that the broadcast flag is pretty much dead in terms of helping companies recieve payment for their goods.

You did well until "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" (4, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665946)

Consumers should have the right to not see Howard Stern or listen to World Harvest radio. They should have the right to not expose their children.

You already have those rights. Turn the fucking TV or radio off, or, change the channel.

Please, don't encourage the government to "protect the children".

Re:You did well until "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" (1)

An dochasac (591582) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667719)

Yes, turn it off, was a quick and clever answer a few years ago. Now television has invaded our school. SPAM, telemarketeers, and popup advertising are subjecting all of us to content that no one asked for.

Re:You did well until "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9668346)

Television has invaded your school? Start going to schoolboard meetings and tell them what you think. Get other parents involved. Find out what they're watching, and why they're watching it and then talk to other parents about it and see if anyone else agrees with you. There are lots of people that get involved with the school system. You should be one of them if you really give a damn what happens in the schools.

Re:Sigh, he doesn't have a clue does he? (1)

nyekulturniy (413420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665962)

Are you confusing World Harvest Radio with WWCR? WHRA/WHRI tend to broadcast music and more standard Christian programming. WWCR 1-4 tend to broadcast Brother Stair, Dr. Gene Scott, and Glenn Hauser.

Selected blog format inappropriate? (4, Interesting)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665571)

While the idea of running a blog is interesting -- I'm facinated by the idea of alternate and potentially more efficient communication to policymakers -- I'm not sure that the blog format selected is appropriate. You're producing all comments dropped into a page, with no hierarchy, moderation or anything. It's like trying to suck down the contents of a firehose. The advantage of electronic forums is not only one-way communication with the forum owner, but also allowing other people interested in relevant issues to interact with each other and to share ideas and information.

There are a couple of format changes that I'd suggest.

First, threading is just plain going to be necessary for any forum of this size. It's not reasonable to expect people to track interleaved discussion -- and it's efficient to allow the public to correct errors in posts and to associate related information, instead of forcing readers to skim through many, many comments that comprise a series of interleaved discussions.

Second of all, moderation, or some similar system could be helpful. Slashcode is a popular codebase to allow moderation, but the structure only partly deals with moderation abusers -- those that attempt to moderate up viewpoints that they agree with, rather than those that they believe to be correct. Slashcode has a good deal of popularity mostly on forums with communities that generally agree with each other on overall issues. I don't believe that there are any forum moderation systems that try to identify "clusters" of posters that moderate each other up (perhaps this is a research project waiting to happen, if no companies are already working on such a thing). Instead of all posts being assigned a global scalar value representing "goodness", there'd be N identified clusters, and "goodness" from the point of view *of each of those clusters*. Doing so would be interesting, as it might be easier to find the "best arguments" for a particular side, and could deal better with more lobbying-oriented environments like this.

I'm not sure whether the "let's slap some viewpoints on a blog" idea is directly from Mike Powell or whether it originated with a staffer -- I find it exciting, and a good sign when it's coming from the FCC. Thanks again to whoever originated the idea, and to Mike Powell for trying it out.

always on network is the fucking WORST SITE EVER. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665611)

always on network is the fucking WORST SITE EVER. IT WILL FAIL. SHITTY SCREENED COMMENTS. SHITTY LAYOUT. SMILEY SUIT FUCK CHUMP GLOSSY SHIT DESIGN CRUNCHED UP GARBAGE PISSY GUTTER. FUCK THEM.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

terrified! (1)

conJunk (779958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665620)

am i the only one terrifeied by the phrase "chairman powell" ?

monty python (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665662)

so fuck you very much the FCC...

I'm not going to register and log in there... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665770)

So I'll just post my comment to Mr. Powell's blog here:

Dear Mr. Powell:

Like many Americans, I take great exception to your recent punishment of broadcasters like Howard Stern. I don't care for his show at all, but I'm rather more apalled at the idea of a bureaucracy deciding what anyone may or may not say on the air, than any of Mr. Stern's infantile, scatalogical utterances.

Your commission has vastly outlived its usefulness. Why don't you get a real job?

John Randolph,
Cupertino, California

Re:I'm not going to register and log in there... (1)

HarveyBirdman (627248) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665973)

...than any of Mr. Stern's infantile, scatalogical utterances. Your commission has vastly outlived its usefulness. Why don't you get a real job?

Yeah, that'll work. Actually, thank you for not registering to the FCC site and posting. Your's isn't the sort of response we need.

Re:I'm not going to register and log in there... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 10 years ago | (#9670744)

Yeah, that'll work.

What do you mean by "work"? It's an expression of an opinion. You know, the sort of thing his bureacracy is trying to suppress.

-jcr

Ads in the middle of his blog (2, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665775)

I'd think someone as high-profile as the chairman of the FCC could, oh, maybe beg? maybe pay? to get the golf advertisment removed from the middle of his blog post. Oh, wait, this is the FCC here, no? Never mind. ;)

One of the first posts. (2, Funny)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665822)

Mood=Censory. I got a new CD this weeked, all of the bad words hurt my ears! And no, not even I know what the broadcast flag is for! :P

Actions louder than words (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9665851)

Michael Powell has never met a monopoly he didn't like and never misses an opportunity to REGALate the incumbents.

Hah. (2, Insightful)

ShadowRage (678728) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665883)

this is just a move by the fcc to "relate to the public"
specifically the internet community, the ones who protest against the broadcast flag the most, think he's gonna listen to you? no.
Think he thinks you'll listen to him? yes.

Pretty much doing this to "make us understand and accept" the broadcast flag more than likely.

The first blog post is pretty much about the FCC itself, so he's prolly trying to get people to see the fcc as a buncha good guys who are trying to protect people from themselves and any questionable material that may make them question their corporate overlords and the government, and to ensure that we pay our dues to them as well.

I might sound paranoid, but just looking at the first post, it's gona be nothing but a propaganda blog to try to make those who read it go with what the fcc wants to do.

Re:Hah. (1)

spike42 (795924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666838)

This is ridiculous. Let's face it. The FCC is as close as it gets to the US's version of mind control. "Control what you see, control what you say. Control what you say, control what you think. Control what you think, control what you feel."

I would like to help him out (1)

koan (80826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665956)

So here are some handy quotes for him to use.

"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."

-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

-Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

Apparently, he understands the value of unlicensed (3, Interesting)

David M. Andersen (711958) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665969)

Apparently, he understands the value of unlicensed spectrum:
When broadcasting rules were created in the 1920s, white spaces were required to prevent interference with adjacent stations in a local market and with stations on the same channel in other markets. In today's digital world, it may be possible to deploy low-powered, smart digital wireless devices that would use these blank spaces without interference. This could mean reclaiming almost 1/3 the broadcast TV spectrum in crowded markets like Los Angeles to 2/3 of the spectrum in less crowded markets without interfering with full-powered TV broadcasts. Broadcasters, however, claim these unused channels as "their" spectrum. Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open these unused channels to develop new wireless services...just look at how much value has been created in the sliver of spectrum that has become Wi-Fi! If the high-tech community believes that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of spectrum, then I need to know that.

Adding more unlicensed spectrum would potentially allow for more than three non-overlapping channels (1,6,11) in 802.11b/g. Having a few more ISM bands could be VERY useful.

Too late (1)

Ponkinator (466952) | more than 10 years ago | (#9665985)

For someone who will be moving on shortly after the next election. Should have tried this four years ago (although the suggestions would've still fallen on deaf ears).

Chairman Powell (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9666006)

Chairman Powell has done more to undermine democracy in the United States than any other Bush-appointee this term. Michael proves that "for sale to the highest bidder" is the motto of American government. He is the epitomy of corruption.

what kind of communication? (2, Interesting)

hkon (46756) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666176)

meritocracy-based communication -- attributes that bloggers are famous for!'

I accidentally read "mediocrity-based communication". Sounds about right for most blogs (with a few notable exceptions).

This is great... (1)

dacarr (562277) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666963)

..but where in the hell is the blog?

Interview Him (2, Insightful)

teraph (147902) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667375)

If Chairman Powell is open to blogging, maybe he's open to the old Slashdot 10-Question interview? We've already had an FCC chief technologist, why not they guy who runs it all? He says he wants to hear from the tech community...

mediacracy (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667446)

Powell is blogging on Karl Rove's orders. They think Dean got popular for blogging, so they're getting people to blog. Bush himself reportedly used to like email (where people don't expect grammar or spelling), until he was told that copies of the messages are recorded, but that won't be in the news, for fear of turning off the illiterate masses he prefers as his base. Powell's blog, like so many election year BushCo public actions, is a thin veil of mainstream to cover their radically alien culture, unrecognizable in its unfiltered form to well-adjusted Americans. And of course flies in the face of the spirit of the actual laws, policies, and actions on which they work overtime the other 99% of the time. With Powell, we're talking censorship, supression, and corporate media handouts. Don't get fooled by a (probably ghost-written) blog from the master of the mediacracy.

What good will this do? (1)

multiplexo (27356) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668661)

The Powells, Michael and Colin are a couple of porch monkeys for white corporate conservatives. Colin Powell has sacrificed whatever integrity he might have once possessed pushing Bush's war in Iraq, and if you really want to see how far Colin has fallen you can check out this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40341000/rm/_403 41727_song20_willcox_vi.ram

For those of you who don't have or want to install Real Media on your systems this is a BBC news clip that shows Colin Powell dressed up as the construction worker from the Village People performing a skit at the ASEAN meeting in Indonesia. Yes, there's nothing like dressing up as a gay icon in a nation threatened by radical Islamic fundamentalism and performing a song sung to the tune of another song that is about the joys of anonymous gay sex in public showers.

Michael is even more of a fuckup than his dad, I have to wonder if the only reason that Colin Powell has become such an ass-licker is to make sure that Michael doesn't get fired from his job at the FCC and end up having to move back in with mom and dad.

I wanted to post this... (2, Insightful)

cr0sh (43134) | more than 10 years ago | (#9668950)

But yet again, I would have to sign up for *another* site, give them my email address, etc for more spam to come through. Where is our network of ends going to? Why can't I easily respond? So - I am posting what I wanted to post there here. Mods, please realize this was meant for his blog, and not for this site - but after I wrote such a long response, I didn't want to just chuck it. Mod me how you will...

-----------------

Mr. Powell, welcome to blogging, and as one respondent noted, "Welcome to Hell".

I wanted to post my comments regarding FCC regulation, digital TV (and associated DRM measures), and indecency - if for nothing else than to establish my position with you and with the community on where I stand on these issues. If you note, they fall very much in line with what others have written here.

I am a "tech savvy" (actually, that is an understatement) citizen of this country. I am also a voter.

Regarding regulation, I understand that for the public airwaves, there must be some form of regulation, otherwise, in the end, the airwaves would be filled with nothing but static, as station after station stomped the commons with overlapping broadcasts. Whether it is TV or radio, the result would be the same; an unlistenable (or unwatchable) morass of grey static.

However, the current situation and regulations make it impossible for a truely free market to exist. Current licensing fees and regulations make it impossible to easily and cheaply set up low power FM radio stations (even in markets where such stations could be set up without interference). This has left commercial radio (like ClearChannel) the only choice in most markets, which isn't a choice at all. National Public Radio (NPR) also struggles with these regulations.

The situation with television is even worse. While startup costs have always been a limiting factor for small (independent) television stations, those costs
have dropped rapidly in recent years, allowing the possibility for someone to broadcast a TV station from their home. However, licensing costs, fees,
paperwork, and other FCC regulation issues have made it impossible for such services to become available.

In a way, cable TV was an attempt to get around this issue, and in some ways, it has succeeded. By confining the "airwaves" to a coax broadcast medium, and utilizing a different spectrum for broadcasting, many more channels could be delivered to the consumer's door. This availability of channels has spawned the concept of "niche" channels - it seems now if there is an interest, there is a channel (or two, or more) for it. The content for these channels is created by privately owned companies (and the networks) who sell through distribution channels to the cable broadcasters. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is what we have.

The internet is rapidly changing all of this. The internet was originally developed as a "network of ends", where everything connected to this network was "smart", but the network itself remained "stupid" - its only job to shuffle around the packets of information via openly developed and published protocols. Such a network is inherently robust by its nature and structure.

A network of "smart" endpoints means that anyone can become (in concept) a broadcaster. I, or anyone else, can for instance, build a server (serving web pages or anything else), and put it on the internet, and others can find it and read (and/or download) information off of it. It is a different way of distributing information: Instead of the "push" model of traditional broadcasting, the internet is based on the "pull" model, where those that want information must seek it out and request it from the servers. This model has proved itself to be very popular. Content "pushing" has been tried for the internet, but the popularity of such implementations bombed very quickly. The population of the internet has spoken, "pulled" content is what we want.

Consumers have long requested this model for television: Pay-Per-View programming is a limited implementation, but Video-On-Demand has been "the holy grail" - the ability to call up any program from anywhere on any TV, when you want it, as you want it. However, such a system cannot fit within the current broadcast structure, because that structure is completely opposite to what is needed for the model.

We are seeing today the emergence of "smart" ends for the cable broadcast system, which is quickly giving the consumer what they have wanted. Witness the popularity of devices like TiVo. These "smart" devices allow the consumer to automatically record and play back, pause, and rewind "live" TV. Instead of
requiring the broadcasters to store all of the content, the content is instead captured by the device and stored in a distributed fashion on individual users devices, to be watched at their leisure, and not when the broadcasters desire it. This style of TV watching has become so popular that cable broadcasters have begun to offer set-top boxes with such abilities built-in.

Even as they support them, Tivo and similar devices worry the content producers and the broadcasters with their abilities. With the consumer in control of what to watch and when to watch it, they lose the ability to easily market to these people. What they are really worried about though, is losing the ability to control the content itself. They are worried that these devices will allow an individual to record a program, and then distribute it freely over the internet.

The broadcast flag seeks to limit this, but I believe it will ultimately be to their detriment. The people, having decided that they prefer a "pull" medium over that of a "push" system, will see the broadcast flag as a reversal of that choice. If they are not allowed to record a program, and share it with others (or watch it at a later time, whenever they feel like it), they will likely either cease to watch any programming, or only watch "programming" from the internet.

Ideally, Tivo's and other such devices would be linked through the internet, sharing a common and open protocol, that would allow each device to communicate with the other devices via a peer-to-peer system that would allow these smart ends to exchange programs at will. With such a system, a show I missed a month ago might still be available on the network, and I could watch it at will, when I want it, where I want it. It would truely be "video-on-demand" realized.

The FCC, in conjunction with the broadcasters, is doing everything it can to make sure this doesn't happen, which I think is a travesty. Ultimately, the only way to do this for certain is to destroy the internet: make the ends "dumb" and the network "smart" (ie, make the internet like current cable systems). However, consumers are showing this isn't what they want (since they are flocking to broadband and the internet), the people have shown that this isn't what they want. Flipping the model around will destroy the internet, current Network Theory shows that the model of the internet (as it currently is) is a very robust system, and is one that follows in the path of many other kinds of networked systems, such as the neuronal makeup of the brain.

Broadband providers (of which many cable broadcasters are a part) are actively trying to prevent the ends from being too "smart": They don't allow their customers to be active "peers" on the internet. Through terms-of-service (TOS) agreements in their contracts, in many cases you are prohibited from setting up servers in your home. You are being actively denied access from owning your own method of content delivery to the rest of the internet. Imagine, Mr. Powell, instead of writing your blog on someone else's server, or on a colocated server, that you wrote it on your home machine, and people could "visit" your home machine to read it. This is currently not possible for the vast majority of internet users, without paying a lot of money. But there is nothing stopping this, except for some words in a contract you signed.

In fact, cable companies are in a quandry over this: they want to stop people from serving content, but to do so completely they would have to fundamentally break the internet, because of the way the internet is designed to work. Consumers, though, want to use applications which have to act as servers and clients at the same time: VOIP, networked games, virtual private networking, etc - all of these require the ability to send as well as receive. As people use these and other applications, they are in effect becoming direct competition to the broadcasters selling the bandwidth.

I can guarantee that the ultimate result of all of this, if the broadcasters and the FCC suceed, will be the development of a new kind of internet: a wireless mesh network. Such networks are actively being developed as I write. Individuals are using 802.11x devices, as well as optical systems, to create wireless and easily accessible grid networks, recreating the distributed network of smart ends as the internet truely should be. They use the internet only as needed for the long-hauls between cities, but over time even this use will fall by the wayside as transmission distances increase, and repeaters are built. I expect most of this will be based on the 802.11x standards. I expect the FCC to tighten the regulations of the 802.11x uses. Then I expect people to completely switch over to optical based solutions for communications - it is difficult to regulate light.

This is the future, Mr. Powell. You can either work with it, or work against it and get steamrolled in the end. The internet isn't a "thing" anymore - it is an organism obeying the many rules (many still undiscovered) of network theory. Nature has shown us that such systems are very robust, and tend to survive just about anything thrown at them. The FCC is ultimately fighting a losing battle.

Finally, I want to put in my views on the FCC's current obsession with indecency: echoing the sentiment of many others here, the choice to censor television or radio for kids should ultimately reside with the parent, and not the government. It is simple personal responsibility, something way too many people have seemed to forgotten in this country. I don't want my government telling me how to think, I can decide that for myself. If I see something that I don't like, I can change the channel or station, or switch it off.

I find it appalling, though, that we as a nation find it "horrible" for our kids to be exposed to images of a person's naked body. We find it horrible for our kids to be exposed to images of people engaged in sexual acts, the very same acts which brought us into this world. Yet we have no problem with our kids
viewing acts, real or simulated, of outrageous amounts of violence. We have traded one form of "pornography" for another, and it sickens me.

I am not saying here that we should flip it around, ie. allow nudity on TV and ban violence - not at all. Instead, the information in whatever form should be made available to all people, and let them decide what to see - if they don't like it, they can change the channel (or station, or website). If nothing appeals to them or their family, they can turn it off.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?