TLP: WTF, FCC?
by ilene - August 31st, 2010 3:20 am
TLP: WTF, FCC?
Courtesy of Jr. Deputy Accountant
Are they just trying to stay busy at the FCC? Because I can’t think of another logical explanation for this.
Federal regulators are appealing a recent court decision that struck down a 2004 government policy that says broadcasters can be fined for allowing even a single curse word to be uttered on live television.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York threw out the Federal Communications Commission policy last month, saying it was unconstitutionally vague.
In a filing on Thursday, the F.C.C. and the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider the decision, warning that the ruling appears to undermine the F.C.C.’s entire approach to regulating indecency on the airwaves.
In a statement, the F.C.C. general counsel, Austin Schlick, said the ruling raised “serious concerns about the commission’s ability to protect children and families from indecent broadcast programming.”
The agencies want the three-judge panel or the full court to reconsider the decision.
The commission has stepped up broadcast indecency enforcement — issuing record fines for violations — spurred in part by public outrage after Janet Jackson’s breast-baring performance during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
The agency put its “fleeting expletive” policy in place in 2004 after repeated instances of profanity by celebrities, including Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono, during the live broadcasts of awards programs.
Here’s a better idea: tell children how idiotic awards shows are and maybe they won’t watch them. Their little brains won’t be polluted with the drivel that comes out of celebrity mouths and they’ll miss the odd curse word. It’s a win-win. A f*&king brilliant win-win.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn 
del.icio.us
DiggTLP: About F#^king Time
by ilene - July 14th, 2010 11:25 am
TLP: About F#^king Time
Courtesy of Jr. Deputy Accountant
Yeah, but what about intentional f-bombs?
NYT:
A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency Tuesday, saying that regulations barring the use of “fleeting expletives” on radio and television violated the First Amendment because they were vague and could inhibit free speech.
The decision, which many constitutional scholars expect to be appealed to the Supreme Court, stems from a challenge by Fox, CBS and other broadcasters to the F.C.C.’s decision in 2004 to begin enforcing a stricter standard of what kind of language is allowed on free, over-the-air television.
The stricter policy followed several incidents that drew widespread public complaint, including Janet Jackson’s breast-baring episode at the 2004 Super Bowl and repeated instances of profanity by celebrities, including Cher, Paris Hilton and Bono, during the live broadcasts of awards programs. The Janet Jackson incident did not involve speech but it drew wide public outrage that spurred a crackdown by the F.C.C.
In a unanimous three-judge decision, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that the F.C.C.’s current policy created “a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here” because it left broadcasters without a reliable guide to what the commission would find offensive.
The appeals court emphasized that it was not precluding federal regulation of broadcast standards. “We do not suggest that the F.C.C. could not create a constitutional policy,” the court said. “We hold only that the F.C.C.’s current policy fails constitutional scrutiny.”
So the court gives the FCC a fleeting "F" for FAIL. And the best part is that the judges totally let loose with all kinds of profanity in the ruling.
WSJ: Why AT&T Killed Google Voice
by ilene - August 21st, 2009 4:47 pm
WSJ: Why AT&T Killed Google Voice
Courtesy of Andy Kessler
Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of events—Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple’s board, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigating wireless open access and handset exclusivity—that may finally end the 135-year-old Alexander Graham Bell era. It’s about time.
With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone—office, home or cellular—rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.
Apple has an exclusive deal with AT&T in the U.S., stirring up rumors that AT&T was the one behind Apple rejecting Google Voice. How could AT&T not object? AT&T clings to the old business of charging for voice calls in minutes. It takes not much more than 10 kilobits per second of data to handle voice. In a world of megabit per-second connections, that’s nothing—hence Google’s proposal to offer voice calls for no cost and heap on features galore.
What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying. AT&T is dragging down the rest of us by overcharging us for voice calls and stifling innovation in a mobile data market critical to the U.S. economy.
For the latest quarter, AT&T reported local voice revenue down 12%, long distance down 15%. With customers unplugging home phones and using flat-rate Internet services for long-distance calls (again, voice is just data), AT&T’s wireline operating income is down 36%. Even in the wireless segment, which grew 10% overall, per-customer voice revenue is down 7%.
Wireless data service is AT&T’s only bright spot, up a whopping 26% per customer. How so? As any parent of teenagers knows, text messages are 20 cents each, or $5,000 per megabyte. After the first month and a $320 bill, we all pony up $10 a month for unlimited texting plans. Same for Internet access. With my iPhone, I pay $30 a month for unlimited data service (actually, one gigabyte per month). Is it worth that? The à la carte price for…
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
Philip R. Davis is a founder Phil's Stock World, a stock and options trading site that teaches the art of options trading to newcomers and devises advanced strategies for expert traders...
Ilene is editor and affiliate program
coordinator for PSW. She manages the Favorites backup site
(
