• blitzen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    Doesn’t this whole thing highlight how ridiculous that the FCC has purview over over-the-air broadcasts but not cable or the internet?

    • chaos@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      The FCC regulates all 3, but they have a lot more control over OTA content because the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t have enough room for everyone who wants a TV station to get a channel. As a result, if you do get one, it comes with strings attached and you have to serve the public good as well as whatever else you want to put out there. In addition, a broadcast is out in the open, blasted out in all directions for anyone with a receiver to see and hear, so much like being outside means some of the things you can do in private are not allowed, TV networks can’t broadcast some content that is otherwise legal. Those constraints offset some of the first amendment protections that would otherwise exist.

      Cable and internet don’t have these properties. They’re constrained only by how many lines of cable you can deploy in an area, and physics isn’t stopping anyone from running their own. And since it’s not being blasted out into the air in all directions, it’s closer to private communication. Without those justifications, the full protection of the first amendment still applies.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      It highlights how ridiculous it is that the FCC has been regulatory-captured and is failing to do its job enforcing rules against media consolidation.

      • blitzen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m not necessarily saying I think the FCC should have full control, I’m just saying the imbalance is notable.