07.16.2013 08:53 AM
Do We Really Need the FCC?
What has the commission done for you lately?
You might not have noticed, but… there ain’t much of any TV-related doin’s at the FCC these days. So why are we keepin’ them around?

Man, if I had a nickel for every time I’ve sworn a foul oath and wished for the demise of “the Commish,” I’d be up to my navel in nickels. Seems that there has always been a string of bad news headed our way out of Washington, whether on the rule-making front, enforcement or just general annoyance. But as old Uncle Umberto used to say, “Be careful what you wish for.”

Guess I must have wished for the FCC to take a series of crazy wrong turns and drive off into the swamp, because I don’t even think I can see their taillights any more. Not relevant, I say.

You know the story of how it sprung up, lo, those many decades ago. In 1934, the world was under bombardment by a steady stream of new, whiz-bang technologies (sound familiar?). Telegraphy had given way to telephony and long distance, and rotary dialing booted Mabel the operator off the switchboard. Radio grew from curiosity to killer, and there were rumors of pictures sent through the ether.

President Franklin Roosevelt waived his magic fairy wand… at least that’s how I heard it… and the Communications Act of 1934 brought the FCC into being. No good to have a narrowly focused Federal Radio Commission; we needed a single, super-duper-mega-agency to control all our most far-out technologies at once! (Another familiar theme.)

Let’s put a rosy spin on things: The FCC was, arguably, the midwife who stood by for the births of all our modern broadcast entertainment technologies. Good job, FCC. And thanks. But ol’ Mario hasn’t noticed anything substantial going on since, well… since about the time “The Beverly Hillbillies” won their time slot.

The evolution of our beloved medium has had less to do with directives handed down from on high, and more with the organic nature of emerging technologies and market forces. I ain’t advocating anarchy, of course, but we don’t need the high-profile decisionmaking drama of a governmental commission; a plain ole’ department would do just fine, thanks.

Now, we didn’t just wake up one fine day and notice that the Commish had become irrelevant overnight. It was more like that famous frog in the pot of boiling water, its environment changing slowly over time, until: stick a fork in it, baby, ’cause it’s done. Kaput.

So, seriously, what has the FCC done for you lately?

Enforcement—your public file and your transmitter logs? That’s a functional task, not a commission-worthy, decisionmaking initiative.

Warring cellphone carriers buying, selling and trading tiny slivers of bandwidth? Please. Market forces at work… dog-eat- dog, survival of the fittest. No commission required.

And spectrum auctions… mama mia! Don’t get me started! Short of filling the general treasury with purloined booty, what has that accomplished? And if we pretend, just for a minute, that such a commission was broadcaster-friendly [peals of laughter heard offstage], all the spectrum-derived cash in Foggy Bottom wouldn’t prevent market forces— the viewing public— from choosing where to watch their TV… over the air, on a piece of RG-59 or on the Internet. The commission can’t save us, and they wouldn’t if they could.

Not convinced the FCC is passé? Then here’s the ultimate test: How many commissioners can you count? Uno, dos, tres… hey, wait—that can’t be right! And an acting chairperson? Exactly how unimportant do you have to be around Washington to muddle onward without a permanent leader, and with a 60-percent head count? In business, they do it this way: If the management team quits, but the organization still keeps on keepin’ on like nothing happened, guess what? We’re not hiring a new management team… you guys are doin’ great on your own. What’s the opposite of indispensible?

There are things we’d all miss… the government- issue hovel where you took your license test; those late-night visits from the Field Engineering team, checking your ERP; and the reams and reams of forms required to… well, to do just about anything.

But nostalgia don’t feed the kitty-cat, and if we’re serious about remaining relevant to new audiences and new generations of viewers, we need to break the shackles that bind us. And that’s you, old friend.

Mario Orazio is the pseudonym of a well-known television engineer who wishes to remain anonymous. E-mail him at morazio@nbmedia.com.

Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

Posted by: b smit
Tue, 12-10-2013 12:08 AM Report Comment
Why do we need FCC? Why do we need any agency?. Why do we need the Government? FCC does not just manage the radio and the tv. It manages amongst others the spectrum, the old fashioned phone lines and the so-called social mobile phones and its different laws. In short it has managed the tv and made laws. The entire communications structure would fall apart as an infrastructure. And while the US thinks it wants to get rid of FCC, Britain France and Germany is thinking the same thing. They do not want an agency that controls their communications need. And if the FCC is not the best then we are to blame because we bring into power legislators that do not do their job well. Why blame Franklin Roosewelt for poor management? And while the FCC keeps checks and balances we do need to get rid of FCC to cause more miseries! The agency next in line to be fired is the FDA. FDA is no super government wing either so lets get rid of FDA so we can make our own laws as we the people want to use drugs as and when we please.
Posted by: Anonymous
Mon, 08-19-2013 10:15 PM Report Comment
May I offer to shorten the article a bit with a response to its title? Answer to the question, do we any longer need the FCC? Response: No...

Thursday 11:07 AM
The Best Deconstruction of a 4K Shoot You'll Ever Read
With higher resolutions and larger HD screens, wide shots using very wide lenses can be a problem because they allow viewers to see that infinity doesn’t quite resolve into perfect sharpness.

Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology