Tag Archives: Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Baptist Press at Townhall: Joining Winter in signing the letter are Land, Morality in Media President Patrick A. Trueman, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Alliance Defending Freedom President Alan Sears and Focus on the Family Senior Vice President Tom Minnery, among others. The letter urges Congress to make sure the FCC takes “seriously its duty to enforce federal law 18 U. S. C. 1464, limiting indecency and profanity on the publicly owned airwaves to times of day when children are much less likely to be in the audience.

The Hill: A House Republican chairman promised on Monday to look out for the interests of broadcasters during the Federal Communications Commission’s auction of airwave licenses.

Washington Times: The Federal Communications Commission is mulling a change to a policy that, in effect, would open the doors to more obscenity on television and radio.

NY Times: The Federal Communications Commission appears to be close to adopting rules that would relax a longstanding ban on ownership of both a newspaper and a television or radio station in large metropolitan media markets.

The Hill: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has ordered a Washington, D.C., television station to air the ads of Randall Terry, an anti-abortion-rights activist running for president.

Bloomberg: The U.S. government abandoned a lawsuit against News Corp. (NWSA)’s Fox network over its refusal to pay indecency fines for a 2003 broadcast of “Married by America” that featured strippers . . . The case is U.S. v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 08- cv-00584, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).

The Hill: The FCC’s rule will require television broadcasters to post information about political advertisements online.

Guardian: FCC called on to revoke licences in wake of British parliamentary report as phone hacking scandal widens abroad.

The Hill: The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to review whether the FCC has the authority to fine CBS for broadcasting a split-second glimpse of singer Janet Jackson’s bare breast in 2004.

The Hill: Two Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee questioned Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski in a letter on Tuesday about his agency’s proposal to require TV stations to keep online databases of political advertising.

POLITICO.com: If a church broadcasts the word of God on TV without closed captions, it risks incurring the wrath of the FCC.

PR Newswire – sacbee.com: The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on broadcast TV.

The Hill: Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the elimination of 83 outdated and obsolete agency rules on Monday, including the controversial Fairness Doctrine.

Washington Examiner: Documents made public yesterday by Judicial Watch describe extensive collusion by Federal Communications Commission officials with a left-wing advocacy group in a campaign to expand government regulation of the Internet.

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy that allows federal regulators to fine broadcasters for showing nudity and airing curse words when young children may be watching television.

WSJ(full text via Google): The Obama Administration continues to ignore court decisions on Internet regulation and use agencies like the Federal Communications Commission to circumvent Congress. We’re happy to see House Republicans vote to overrule this behavior.

In order to protect American families from an onslaught of indecency on network television, the U.S. Department of Justice must appeal the July 2010 2nd Circuit decision in Fox Television Stations, et al., v. FCC (lead Circuit Court docket is 06-1760) which invalidated the FCC broadcast indecency policy, according to Morality in Media general counsel Robert Peters.

National Journal: The House Rules Committee was meeting on Monday evening to consider a measure to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s regulations, designed to prevent Internet carriers from blocking websites that use too much bandwidth.

Washington Post: But the decision, on a technicality, may be a short-lived victory for the FCC. Verizon Communications said it plans to file another complaint against the agency’s so-called net neutrality rules, once the regulations are officially introduced in the Federal Register.

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell: The policy the FCC is trying to enact is known as “net neutrality,” an unfortunately vague code word for government regulation of the Internet. Supporters of net neutrality will tell you the regulation is necessary to keep the Internet “free and open” and to prevent corporations from “throttling” network speeds, making it faster to download some things, slower to download others. And, in this doomsday, apocalyptic, dystopian future, only the FCC can save the day with more and more government regulations. FCC, stay home, the reality is much different.

Reuters: “Verizon Communications is going to court to challenge the top U.S. telecommunications regulator, saying the FCC overstepped its authority with the recent adoption of open Internet rules.”

New York Post: “The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the $1.21 million worth of fines that the FCC levied against ABC after alleging that the network violated broadcast indecency standards for daring to show actress Charlotte Ross’ naked behind during a 2003 episode of ‘NYPD Blue.’”

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) writing at The Hill: “Federal regulation of the Internet, also known as network neutrality, has been seen as the holy grail for the media regulation obsessed left-wing special interest groups like Moveon.org, Free Press and George Soros’s Open Society Institute for the latter half of the past decade . . . it really does not matter that only 21 percent of Americans support federal regulation of the Internet over the free market or that these regulations will deter capital investment which create private sector jobs.”

“A federal appeals court says the Federal Communications Commission cannot fine broadcasters for showing a woman’s nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ‘NYPD Blue.’”

Wall Street Journal: “The FCC’s brazen power grab is already producing a welcome backlash on Capitol Hill. GOP Representative Marsha Blackburn says she’ll introduce legislation to prohibit the FCC from enforcing net neutrality rules. And Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Kay Bailey Hutchison plans to introduce a ‘resolution of disapproval’ under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn regulatory agency orders with a simple majority in the House and Senate.”

Rasmussen Reports: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure.”

John Fund writing in the WSJ: “The Federal Communications Commission’s new ‘net neutrality’ rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.”

WSJ: “Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.” FCC press release is available for download here.

Mike Brownfield writing at The Heritage Foundation / The Foundry: “Imagine a future where the Internet is governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who rule at their own whim, regardless of legislators’ demands or judicial rule. Sadly, that future is now. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to make an unprecedented power grab and assert the authority to regulate the Internet, despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. And while it’s a story that has gone largely unnoticed amid Congress’ big-ticket lame duck decisions, it’s a tale of unchecked government expansion that must be told.”

Robert M. McDowall writes at the Wall Street Journal: ‘Net neutrality’ sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

Washington Times: “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries.”

The Hill: “The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net-neutrality effort suggests the agency needs to replace its top leadership, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said in an interview with The Hill on Tuesday.”

The Hill: “Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) suggested the GOP would have to work to dismantle net-neutrality rules if it to keep the promises they made to voters in the run-up to the midterm elections, including a vow to scrutinize how federal policies impact the economy.”

Washington Post: “The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission plans to announce Wednesday a controversial proposal that would prohibit Internet providers from favoring or discriminating against any traffic that goes over their networks.”

Politico: “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is putting together a net neutrality proposal and plans to take action on [net neutrality] as early as next month, according to several sources with knowledge of the situation . . . The long-running net neutrality debate centers around rules that would require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. Internet companies like Google and Skype want net neutrality rules applied to both wireline and wireless networks, but network operators including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast say they need flexibility to manage web traffic on their lines.”

Tara Servatius writing at Townhall: “Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to ‘reinvent journalism.’ That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the ‘Future of Journalism.’ Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it ‘the new public media.’”

Baptist Press: “Pro-family advocates applauded the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to appeal a court ruling they fear could open broadcast television to the use of even more profanities and obscenities.”

OneNewsNow: “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to appeal a court decision that makes it impossible for the agency to restrict indecency in media . . . ‘In my mind, they had to appeal either this case or the Janet Jackson Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction case, which is going to be decided soon,’ notes Pat Trueman, who heads the War on Illegal Pornography . . . Trueman, who is also an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), tells OneNewsNow the outcome is vital because lower courts have not been favorable toward the FCC.”

ChristianNewsWire: “Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) CEO Penny Nance applauded the FCC’s move saying: ‘We are pleased to see the FCC is standing up for families and the agency’s power to regulate indecency granted by “We the People.” CWA’s half-million members around the country called on FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to appeal the decision and we stand with the FCC as they ask the Second Circuit to reconsider its wrongful decision.’”

The Hill: “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appealing a federal court ruling that its indecency policy is unconstitutional, arguing the decision makes it all but impossible for the agency to enforce restrictions on broadcasting nudity or profanity.”

Rasmussen Reports: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 29% of Adults say the FCC is doing a good or excellent job regulating profanity, sexual content and violence on television and radio. Twenty-eight percent (28%) feel the FCC is doing a poor job monitoring content.”

Baptist Press: “Churches could face six-figure fines if they continue to use wireless microphones that operate within a spectrum the Federal Communications Commission has set aside for public safety entities. ‘Certain wireless microphones have operated in frequencies that are needed for public safety. When these microphones were first designed, the frequencies they used were in between the frequencies that television stations used to broadcast television programs,’ the FCC explained.”

ChristianNewsWire: “I wouldn’t dispute Mr. Sullum’s observation that the FCC’s current guidelines for enforcing the broadcast indecency law are ‘muddled.’ He might have added that the guidelines have become muddled in good part because of court decisions. But do broadcasters really need additional guidance to determine which indecent words they can air in the presence of children and how often?”

SCOTUS Blog has this coverage yesterday’s ruling in Fox News Television, Inc. v. FCC. It includes a brief summary of the case history. The Blog also posted this analysis of the ruling yesterday.

AP on MyWay: “Federal regulators are reconsidering the rules that govern high-speed Internet connections – wading into a bitter policy dispute that could be tied up in court for years . . . ”

AP: “Net neutrality, as it’s known, is the idea that the Internet should be like roads and highways – generally open to all traffic.”

Christian Post: “As the Federal Communications Commission seeks out more broadband space, the agency is being asked to consider possibly the largest group that would be affected by the move – that is, churches. Churches across the country that use wireless devices have already been affected by FCC’s 2008 decision to auction off rights to the 700 MHz band. But their new push for even more spectrum is sure to create more losses and interferences.”

Law.com (Legal Intelligencer): “It has been nearly eight months since the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take a second look at the case and to consider reinstating the $550,000 in fines that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on CBS over Jackson’s breast-baring performance. Without comment, the justices said the 3rd Circuit should reconsider its decision in FCC v. CBS Corp. in light of the high court’s decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations — a case that focused on the related issue of vulgar language.”

The American Spectator: “The petition was sent out by the left-wing So We Might See interfaith group . . . Now comes word that, as with the Catholic Bishops, the Methodists are saying they too never signed on to the FCC petition. Startlingly, the Methodists deny that they even signed up for the Coalition.”

One News Now: “In an alleged attempt to protect free speech on the Internet and prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a tier system for broadband use, the FCC has decided to craft rules and regulations to guide ISPs. Once the rules are crafted, they will be posted for public comment and a final decision will not be handed down until early next year.”

AP: “Federal regulators took an important step Thursday toward prohibiting broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain kinds of Internet traffic.”

PC World: “The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.”

Verizon Policy Blog: “So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission’s national plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision to start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful, transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking part in the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kind of process can work, because as the two of us have debated these issues we have found a number of basic concepts to agree on.”

ARS Technica: “Media reform groups want an end to the FCC’s indecency crusade, making the airwaves safe for fleeting expletives once more. But the case might also gut the FCC’s regulatory authority, something that the groups certainly don’t want.”

Reuters: “In a filing on Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the FCC asked the court to allow the agency to review whether CBS was reckless by failing to use a video delay technology, reasserting that CBS used a video delay for the 2004 Grammy Awards only seven days after the Super Bowl.”

Broadcasting & Media: “The FCC’s report to Congress on the state of media-screening technologies, due by the end of this month, comes to two broad conclusions, but does not suggest any action items beyond opening an inquiry prompted by its survey of the current content-control landscape for a variety of media. That inquiry includes a request for better data, something that should come as no surprise for followers of the current commission. The FCC’s two conclusions: 1) There is no universal ratings system in place, and 2) better educating parents on how to use the existing systems would likely help drive adoption.”

Bloomberg: “U.S. regulators will consider a single ratings system that would warn parents of programming on television, video games, and wireless telephones that could be inappropriate for children, officials said. The Federal Communications Commission will begin the inquiry after an agency report to be delivered Aug. 31 to Congress on media blocking and rating techniques, said two commission officials, who declined to be identified because the information hasn’t been made public.”

Brett Joshpe writes in The American Spectator (via the ACLJ): “The Fairness Doctrine may be dead, but media content regulation is another story. Just as the Obama administration has appointed White House policy czars to skirt the constitutionally required “advise and consent” of Senate approval, the FCC has been discussing activist media regulatory initiatives without subjecting the policies to a public debate in Congress.”

The Blog of the Legal Times: “During her speech Friday Ginsburg reviewed the Fox case and said, ‘the words, I’m told, were spoken’ at the 2nd Circuit argument. Then came the disclosure. Matter-of-factly she added, “the lawyers were alerted that some of the justices might find that unseemly, so only the letters ‘f’ and ‘s’ were used in our court.’”

AP: “The Supreme Court won’t stop the Federal Communications Commission from setting rules making it easier for new cable TV competitors to gain local franchises . . . The case is Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 08-1027.”

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write at Townhall: “The opening barrage in Obama’s efforts to reign in talk radio was fired by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this week when its acting Chairman Michael J. Copps announced an investigation of Arbitron’s radio measuring technology called the Portable People Meter . . . The PPM measurements concluded that . . . talk radio had a larger listenership.”

Sasha Volokh writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “This is part of a series of posts discussing the background of the Supreme Court’s ‘fleeting expletives’ case from last week, FCC v. Fox Television Stations. Click here to see the whole string of posts, including this one, on a single page, in chronological order.”

“Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were ‘named and shamed’ by the Home Office today . . . The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host . . . The list of the 16 ‘least wanted’ includes radio talk show host Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner.”

Warning: Dorf uses expletives.

Michael Dorf writes at Findlaw: The Justices’ substitution of the terms “S-Word” and “F-Word” in an opinion that is not likely to be read by more than a handful of minors, casts doubt on the claim that the underlying FCC policy, and the statute it interprets, are principally designed to protect children.

“The high court on Monday directed the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to consider reinstating the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on CBS over Jackson’s breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super Bowl.”

Newsbusters: “Behold one of the new ‘Fairness’ Doctrines – ‘media diversity’ – coming soon to a radio station near you. President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released the names of the thirty-one members of their Advisory Committee On Diversity For Communications In The Digital Age . . . Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this Commission – more than a dozen Leftist groups are. A little ironic for a ‘diversity’ panel, is it not?”

Pacific Justice Institute: “Justice Thomas signaled that, if the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated by Congress and the President, a constitutional challenged would be in order.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s censure of indecent language broadcast during televised broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards on the Fox network.

” . . . the days of FCC indecency enforcement may be limited. (They may be limited anyway under Pres. Obama.) Are there five justices left on the court who will maintain Pacifica when this case (or a similar one) is returned to the high court? Breyer has been good on some related issues but I would not count on him. I count four justices–but that number includes Kennedy and who wouldn’t be concerned about him?”

“Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s power under existing law to ban the use on radio and TV of even a single four-letter word that is considered indecent — but left open the question of whether the ban might violate the First Amendment, at least in some situations.”

In this article, I argue that in order to remove the cloud of confusion over broadcast indecency, the Supreme Court must address and clarify the substantive rights afforded to broadcasters by the Constitution.

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.

Rowan Scarborough writes on Human Events: Democratic plans to revive government censorship of the radio and TV airways will strike hardest at religious broadcasters who stand in the way of a liberal social revolution. Christian broadcasters tell HUMAN EVENTS they …

Part I of this Article sets out today’s rationales for strong public service broadcasting and tight regulation of audiovisual media. Part II explains the key characteristics and main pitfalls of American and European broadcasting regulation. Part III sets the cornerstones for a revised regulatory framework, committed to the goals of both the American and European legal framework, and ready to face the completion of convergence of all (audiovisual) media.

Most people don’t think Silicon Valley billionaires need government subsidies, but Kevin Martin isn’t among them. Before he exits his post next month, the Federal Communication Commission Chairman is trying to put in place rules for a wireless spectrum auction that all but guarantee the licenses go to a company backed by venture capitalist John Doerr.