bucy wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] ] Its justification for existence was weak 70 years ago,
] ] ] but advances in technology since then have eliminated
] ] ] whatever arguments remained. Central planning didn't work
] ] ] for the Soviet Union, and it's not working for us. The
] ] ] FCC is now an agency that does more harm than good.
]
] I halfway agree with this article. I strongly reject the
] notion that spectrum should be owned outright like land. I
] think software
] defined radio may be the way ... all of the devices in a given
]
] area can collectively divide up the spectrum. Given the
] entrenched FCC licencees, I'm afraid its a pipe dream, though.

There's no question that Declan was smoking crack when he wrote this. You can't just dismantle the FCC and expect things to still work. That's akin to dismantling Central Medical Services and expecting Medicare to still work.

But he definitely puts forth great arguments for the need to change things. Drastically. Not since Reed Hundt was chairman have things been even close to being sensible at the FCC. And I'm not just talking about Howard Stern and failed spectrum policy.

The one argument that he didn't put forth clearly though was the fact that the FCC has never, ever, ever, been progressive in it's approach. It has always, at best, responded to the consituents on issues, usually after it's been lobbied to death by an incumbent or deep pocketed monopolist. To say that you could possibly manuever the agency to become an introducer of ideas and policy is insane after 70+ years of ineptitude. But certainly, you can do better than the last 5 years.

RE: Why the FCC should die