The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]
> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the
Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.
Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]
> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”
There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
> There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat.
No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.
> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.
With respect... the FCC is a regulatory agency. There is an obvious set of forcing functions here. It's not normal and is very concerning.
The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
> They're not a rulemaking agency.
Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]
> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
To prompt local complaints would be trivial.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-rulemaking
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095073
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
> There’s nothing even punitive being discussed.
The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.
Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]
> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”
There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-jimmy-kimmels-sh...
> There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat.
No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.
> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.