lazypenguin wrote:I guess the real question then is..
Why the hell does "decency" and the need for censorship have an effect on the merger of 2 major corporations? Something is obviously wrong there...
This is the only time that the FCC has any jurisdiction over satellite radio, I believe. So they are basically trying to appease the politicians who are deciding to whether or not to approve the merger.
It's kind of ironic, really, the lack of FCC regulation was what was supposed to make satellite radio a brave new world where people like Opie and Anthony could say whatever they want.
lazypenguin wrote:I guess the real question then is..
Why the hell does "decency" and the need for censorship have an effect on the merger of 2 major corporations? Something is obviously wrong there...
This is the only time that the FCC has any jurisdiction over satellite radio, I believe. So they are basically trying to appease the politicians who are deciding to whether or not to approve the merger.
It's kind of ironic, really, the lack of FCC regulation was what was supposed to make satellite radio a brave new world where people like Opie and Anthony could say whatever they want.
Exactly, I think people are more up and arms over that than anything. Funny thing is, XM markets their service as "uncensored". Nice false advertising.
And trust me, this has all to do with the FCC and nothing to do with XM thinking it was "indecent" so they needed to teach them a "lesson". These guys have said much worse and the amount of XM subscribers who pay just because of these guys is huge.
haltz wrote:This is the only time that the FCC has any jurisdiction over satellite radio, I believe.
Sort of. Legally, the radio spectrum is considered public property. Some spectrum is leased to private owners who are, in return, supposed to operate it in the public interest. Generally, the owners of media, being a powerful lobby, dominate the process which leads to extremely minimal public interest requirements. However, there's been something of a move to change that as of late with public interest lobby groups successfully challenging changes to FCC rules that would have allowed increased consolidation of control over media markets in terrestrial radio and television.
Also, doesn't the FTC also have to approve the merger since it would create a single satellite radio monopoly?
haltz wrote:This is the only time that the FCC has any jurisdiction over satellite radio, I believe.
Sort of. Legally, the radio spectrum is considered public property. Some spectrum is leased to private owners who are, in return, supposed to operate it in the public interest. Generally, the owners of media, being a powerful lobby, dominate the process which leads to extremely minimal public interest requirements. However, there's been something of a move to change that as of late with public interest lobby groups successfully challenging changes to FCC rules that would have allowed increased consolidation of control over media markets in terrestrial radio and television.
Also, doesn't the FTC also have to approve the merger since it would create a single satellite radio monopoly?
I'm not sure if they have to approve it, I do think the two companies have to field questions form them though. I could be wrong...
As for a monopoly. Yes, it is a satellite radio monopoly, but I think people are failing to realize that satellite radio's major competitor is terrestrial radio, not itself. To judge a real monopoly you have to ask how high the company could raise their price before people would quit using the product. Satellite radio could go barely higher than it is now before people would just go to normal radio, that is the market, not just satellite. Someone like Microsoft on the other hand could raise their prices a ridiculous amount before companies and individuals turned away from them. Especially 5 years ago, before Apple started to make a huge push.
It would be a joke if they didn't let this merger go through. The two companies combined would only have like 15-20 million customers. Think how many people listen to normal radio.
haltz wrote:This is the only time that the FCC has any jurisdiction over satellite radio, I believe.
Sort of. Legally, the radio spectrum is considered public property. Some spectrum is leased to private owners who are, in return, supposed to operate it in the public interest. Generally, the owners of media, being a powerful lobby, dominate the process which leads to extremely minimal public interest requirements. However, there's been something of a move to change that as of late with public interest lobby groups successfully challenging changes to FCC rules that would have allowed increased consolidation of control over media markets in terrestrial radio and television.
But when you say 'radio spectrum' doesn't that mean terrestrial radio?
I know that the FCC controls licensing, but I thought that content moderation was out of their jurisdiction - which is the heart of the issue.
Also, doesn't the FTC also have to approve the merger since it would create a single satellite radio monopoly?
You'd think so, now that you mention it, but I don't know that for sure.
haltz wrote:But when you say 'radio spectrum' doesn't that mean terrestrial radio?
It means both. Any use of radio waves from TV to terrestrial radio to satellite communication to radio astronomy is regulated by the FCC. Radio cannot work as a technology without some form of regulation to prevent overlapping use of frequencies.
haltz wrote:I know that the FCC controls licensing, but I thought that content moderation was out of their jurisdiction - which is the heart of the issue.
They do content moderation as well. For example. the FCC was the governmental department that fined CBS for the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction". I don't know what their current policy on censorship of satellite radio is though.
haltz wrote:But when you say 'radio spectrum' doesn't that mean terrestrial radio?
It means both. Any use of radio waves from TV to terrestrial radio to satellite communication to radio astronomy is regulated by the FCC. Radio cannot work as a technology without some form of regulation to prevent overlapping use of frequencies.
Satellite uses a completely different technology and frequency. Each unit has their own transmitter (receiver). It doesn't even involve the typical radio dial unless you get an FM transmitter for it. So, I don't see how it could overlap with terrestrial.
lazypenguin wrote:Satellite uses a completely different technology and frequency. Each unit has their own transmitter (receiver). It doesn't even involve the typical radio dial unless you get an FM transmitter for it. So, I don't see how it could overlap with terrestrial.
It's different technology the way TV, radios, and cell phones are all different technologies. Still, they're all based on the same communications medium. For example, TV channel 6 broadcasts at 83.25 MHz just below the bottom of the FM radio band at 87.5 MHz. I think satellite radio uses frequencies up in the gigahertz, but its fundamentally the same thing. The FCC has licensed that band for satellite radio. If the band wasn't being used that way, it would have another purpose (maybe routing long distance phone calls or something).
haltz wrote:I know that the FCC controls licensing, but I thought that content moderation was out of their jurisdiction - which is the heart of the issue.
They do content moderation as well. For example. the FCC was the governmental department that fined CBS for the Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction". I don't know what their current policy on censorship of satellite radio is though.
Yeah, I know they do content moderation for public radio and television. I'm still pretty certain that they do not for satellite radio. I'm sure I can google it and find out or something.
haltz wrote:Yeah, I know they do content moderation for public radio and television. I'm still pretty certain that they do not for satellite radio. I'm sure I can google it and find out or something.
Let us know what you find. If they don't act as censors, I believe it is not because they can't, but because a policy decision has been made not to.
