FCC and Web Content

[davideduardo]

Here is an interesting and informative post on David Oxenford's blog:

"Does the FCC Regulate Internet Content and Companies? "

Does the FCC Regulate Internet Content and Companies?

In our summary of last week’s regulatory actions, I was struck by a common thread in comments made by several FCC Commissioners in different contexts –

www.broadcastlawblog.com

In part:

"In our summary of last week’s regulatory actions, I was struck by a common thread in comments made by several FCC Commissioners in different contexts – the thread being the FCC’s role in regulating Internet content companies. As we noted in our summary, both Republican commissioners issued statements last week in response to a request by a public interest group that the FCC block Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. The Commissioners stated that the FCC had no role to play in reviewing that acquisition. Twitter does not appear to own regulated communications assets and thus the FCC would not be called upon to review any application for the acquisition of that company."

 

[TheBigA]

This is a very complicated issue that has been made even worse by politics. When Trump became president, Republicans sought to remove the FCC from any role in the internet. That view changed as they wanted to regulate social media. In the end, they were unable to get anything done, and the FCC's role is pretty much where it was in 2017, which is that they have no role.

On Internet Regulation, The FCC Goes Back To The Future

Each of former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's eight major Internet policy initiatives has now been reversed by a combination of courts, Congress, and the agency itself. The lesson: only Congress can grant new powers to federal regulators.

www.forbes.com

When Tom Wheeler was chairman of the FCC, he was trying to get the Commission more of a role. But he was overruled when Ajit Pai came in. Right now, neither party has an advantage at the FCC, so it's likely no change will happen.

In my view, this is another one of those things where one political party wants the government to regulate when their particular interests are involved. When it serves their interest, they want regulation. Otherwise, they want free speech. Traditionally, the party that seeks more government regulation is the DNC, not the RNC.

 

[davideduardo]

In my view, this is another one of those things where one political party wants the government to regulate when their particular interests are involved. When it serves their interest, they want regulation. Otherwise, they want free speech. Traditionally, the party that seeks more government regulation is the DNC, not the RNC.

That is a perceptive analysis, and it made me consider "if the first 'C' in FCC stands for "communications", then why have newer communications technologies not been brought under the FCC umbrella?

It seems to me that the existent concept is based strictly on regulating limited resources, such as the radio spectrum. Is it, perhaps, time for that restraint to be evaluated since Americans' ways of communicating have changed.

When we have discussions of cable companies not carrying certain channels because of the political content or ISPs debating "net neutrality" it seems that there should be ground rules. While I am close to what might be called a "small government libertarian" I see the need for a centralized referee in this area as we move away from traditional OTA radio and TV.

I have not given much thought to how this would coexist with the First Amendment, so I am just tossing an incomplete idea out there.

 

[TheBigA]

That is a perceptive analysis, and it made me consider "if the first 'C' in FCC stands for "communications", then why have newer communications technologies not been brought under the FCC umbrella?

Because they're not mentioned in the law. I re-read the entire 1996 TCA last night, and I was amazed at how specific it was about what the FCC could or could not do. So what some are trying to do is reinterpret parts of the law to suit their own interests. As I said, Tom Wheeler saw it as part of the FCC's purview, and Ajit Pai did not. The current chairwoman likely agrees with Wheeler, but the Senate hasn't given her a 5th commissioner yet, so her hands are tied.

There has been talk around congress about once again revising the TCA. But it's a political football, and this congress is unable to get anything done. Right now, just the concept of "net neutrality" is in dispute.

 

[davideduardo]

Because they're not mentioned in the law. I re-read the entire 1996 TCA last night, and I was amazed at how specific it was about what the FCC could or could not do.

I have not read it for a good long time. I believe your effort deserves emulation.

Anyone else? Telecommunications Act of 1996

So what some are trying to do is reinterpret parts of the law to suit their own interests. As I said, Tom Wheeler saw it as part of the FCC's purview, and Ajit Pai did not. The current chairwoman likely agrees with Wheeler, but the Senate hasn't given her a 5th commissioner yet, so her hands are tied.

I'm aware of that. But if a whole bunch of organizations could be consolidated, with the transformation of many, into the Homeland Security organization, there is no reason why the TCA can not be replaced, repealed or rewritten and its purview expanded. Rather than letting the FCC operate under a pre-Facebook/Twitter/TicToc rulebook, it may be time for a totally new Act (with a capital "A", not to be confused with a "BigA").

There has been talk around congress about once again revising the TCA. But it's a political football, and this congress is unable to get anything done. Right now, just the concept of "net neutrality" is in dispute.

And that was my point. This is not a subject the average citizen of any party affiliation has at the top of their mind, but it is really important from my perspective and in a time when may people seem to want those who disagree with them to be silenced.

I learned long ago when working in different cultures, languages and nations that "right" and "wrong" are not easily distinguished unless you are dealing with a large group of Stepford Wives or living in a totalitarian society. It seems to me that, while we don't need to legislate "the rules of the game" we do need to at least establish the location of the white lines on the edges of the field.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm aware of that. But if a whole bunch of organizations could be consolidated, with the transformation of many, into the Homeland Security organization, there is no reason why the TCA can not be replaced, repealed or rewritten.

The creation of the DHS was done 20 years ago after the 9-11 attack. As the recent "disinformation" stink demonstrates, the current agency can't do anything without congress turning it into Fox News talking points. The exact same thing would happen if the TCA was brought up. Once again, we'd hear that Biden wants to control free speech. The reason the 5th commissioner hasn't been approved is specifically because Republicans want to limit what the FCC can do. They don't want Democrats to decide what the FCC can or can't do.

It seems to me that, while we don't need to legislate "the rules of the game" we do need to at least establish the location of the white lines on the edges of the field.

There is a concerted effort by the minority party to prevent the majority from getting anything done, while at the same time blaming it for creating "crisis" after "crisis." They don't want anything done until they're back in control.