ADVERTISEMENT

Should the FCC continue to regulate broadcast TV networks and stations?

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
123,631
97,257
113
Virtually no one gets their local stations via antennas anymore. They're just another channel on your cable/sat box.

Cable networks aren't subject to the same level of regulation, so why the double-standard?

Here's an area where the government could grow smaller (ha ha, yeah... I know it's never going to happen).
 
Virtually no one gets their local stations via antennas anymore. They're just another channel on your cable/sat box.

Cable networks aren't subject to the same level of regulation, so why the double-standard?

Here's an area where the government could grow smaller (ha ha, yeah... I know it's never going to happen).

I actually agree with you.

But then I look at cable and wish for the fairness doctrine to return. I think that would solve a lot of our problems.
 
I don't either because I stream everything else. But otherwise I agree with you in principle.
 
What ends up being the production difference? Do the rules even have an impact?

Dont these networks somewhat regulate themselves to appeal to mass audiences anyway?

I still use an antenna because I stream everything else, but I agree this is dumb.
 
The FCC shouldn't exist. No reason to censor people anymore. We should live in a free society.
trippple-like

The FCC is appointed, not elected and answerable only to the President. The FCC should never have been, let alone should no longer be.

 
I get my local stations via antenna.

Same.

trippple-like

The FCC is appointed, not elected and answerable only to the President. The FCC should never have been, let alone should no longer be.


They also stepped up and issued net neutrality. Blocking corporations from selling the internet part and parcel. The FCC may be out dated in some regards but they earned some validity in that move.
 
I actually agree with you.

But then I look at cable and wish for the fairness doctrine to return. I think that would solve a lot of our problems.

I am for the Fairness Doctrine, but it essentially only applies to older people that still watch corporate television news. Good luck applying it to the internet.
 
Same.



They also stepped up and issued net neutrality. Blocking corporations from selling the internet part and parcel. The FCC may be out dated in some regards but they earned some validity in that move.
I'm just not sure it was/is worth the trade. One thing about this culture and society, it learns to adapt, prosper and innovate.
 
I'm just not sure it was/is worth the trade. One thing about this culture and society, it learns to adapt, prosper and innovate.

I don't love the FCC but I really like net neutrality and especially so as an IT guy. People innovate, and I suppose prosperity is more of a measure of now.
 
I don't love the FCC but I really like net neutrality and especially so as an IT guy. People innovate, and I suppose prosperity is more of a measure of now.
Censorship is just something I simply don't endorse, that's all I'm saying.
 
Censorship is just something I simply don't endorse, that's all I'm saying.

And to me not having net neutrality is censorship.

Corporate media is silent on NN. I wonder why. ISPs are silent on it.

Content providers alert on it as much as they can.

Curse words are archaic. They can literally eff themselves in the ass. No one cares. Vulgarity does not give to or squelch free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I am for the Fairness Doctrine, but it essentially only applies to older people that still watch corporate television news. Good luck applying it to the internet.

That's a good point.
 
For local stations, antenna is the way to go. I get 25+ stations for free with better picture quality than satellite, which is compressed to save bandwidth. Look up "cord cutters". I would guess more people have antennas now than in the 90s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT