Should Government Carry Public Access Channels?

"No government in any form, from federal all the way down to local government, should be able to monitor internet content without anyone being aware of it. Recently in social media we have seen lots of controversy involving this issue. With some people believing it it is a necessary evil, and other saying that no benefit can out way the violation of our privacy. The key to this issue is a compromise between both sides.

Does the United State government abuse their powers? In May 1787 55 wealthy white males went to philadelphia they were all responding to the call of the constitution convention. A new constitution was needed to create a stronger central government, to hold the newly formed country to hold itself together. How does the constitution prevent the government from abusing its powers?The constitution prevents tyranny with the use of federalism. In the American government there are powers given to the state and powers given to the central government. James Madison stated “... the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments...’’(Doc A), this is called federalism. They both check each other to make sure they don’t

The FCC does not license cable TV as a requirement for operating the systems because the municipal government is the primary regulator. Unlike broadcasting, the cable systems’ legal rights can be controlled by cities and countries, or by local governments that franchise cable operators.

The issue of 1st amendment rights are critical subject in a Democracy such as America. For example, in the past countries like Nazi controlled Germany control media content to push out their extremist ideas and to squash any opposition content. That’s why government intervention is imperative to protect individual’s rights of free speech, freedom of press, and right to petition especially in relation to cable regulation. The best way to measure if government intervention in cable regulation is infringing upon citizens 1st amendment right is to focus on major consumer demands. The most appropriate goals to address the problem are to be able to please majority of consumers by implementing the perfect balance between autonomy and control when

The FCC has been monitoring large radio stations throughout the country for a long time now. This organization is a seven part group which is all run by Frank R. McNinch, who used to be the chief of the Federal Power Commission (Rockwell 217). This organization is primarily a licensing and monitoring assembly, which has technical regulatory powers. The licenses they give out are only valid for a period of time, and then must be renewed. These licenses decide the power and coverage the station has to broadcast on (Rockwell 218). These guidelines are very strictly enforced by the FCC because of how the public has reacted to some of the situations that have occurred. The FCC has also created criteria which has a “public mandate” that they are instituting into

The anticipation of the Federal Communication Commissions 2014 meeting to review media ownership looms as 2013 approaches. With all the angst of a presidential election, the proverbial line in the sand has been drawn. On one side consumer groups vie for support to restrict ownership and on the opposing side are the media industries and its conglomerates opposing limitations and demanding deregulation. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC is required to meet every 4 years to review ownership rules to verify whether or not the media ownership rules are in the public interest.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the pros and cons of the proposal to eliminate federal funding to The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In doing so, first we will explore several facets of this issue including first the cost of funding from both a governmental and taxpayer perspective. Secondly, understanding the services provided and the audience served is integral in this discussion. Lastly, we will consider government’s role in media and education. The conversation, however, must start with the history, values, and goals of this organization.

Should the NSA and United States government be allowed to spy on and collect information on its citizens? The NSA stands for National Security Agency and they are in charge of security and protection of the United States. Some may ask where the title of privacy comes into play. Some may say that it is only for protection to keep the country safe, but in all reality should the NSA be allowed to without question invade of privacy and look through our cellular data over the internet? The privacy of the citizens of the United States are at play today, and this is a game that not everyone wants to play.

In the early days, the radio industry was in chaos due to poor regulations and uncontrolled rapid growth. The Radio Act of 1912 was an unsuccessful attempt at regulation because it didn’t allow the government to deny radio broadcasting licenses [1]. In fact, the law did not even mention radio broadcasting since radio was not common when the law was made. Even though the law required that radio operators to be licensed, it did not allow the denial of radio licenses. Over the span of 21

: In 1992, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act required cable companies to give a certain number of their channels to local broadcast programs. The Cable Act included several “must-carry” rules that limited the control of open channels by cable programmers and increased competition for the left over channels. Soon after the Act became law, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., the owner of several cable programming operations, brought this case against the FCC and challenged if the must-carry regulations were constitutional. A special three-judge U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Turner Broadcasting, granting the summary judgment that the requirements were consistent with the First Amendment and intermediate scrutiny

In order to understand why Federal Communication Commission has legal authority to regulate media ownership and should be allowed to continue to regulate media ownership, you must first know the statues that gave way to the regulation. The FCC was created by the Communications Act of 1934. The Communications Act of 1934 replaced the Radio Act of 1927, and the FCC superseded the FRC (Federal Radio Commission). This act “called for the government to regulate in the public interest and foreign communications by radio and wire.” The FCC can be traced back to the Wireless Ship Act of 1910. The Wireless Ship Act of 1910 “required large ships to have wireless equipment and radio operators on board…made it illegal not to retransmit or answer wireless transmissions from ships.” This law was the first U.S. regulation on devices that used electromagnetic spectrum. The Chain Broadcasting Rules, was the first national ownership limit passed by the FCC in 1941. These rules regulated major national radio networks, in relation to local stations. “These regulations also included a structural ownership rule limiting a radio network from owning more than one broadcast station within a market area, reflecting the Commission’s earlier presumption that a single entity holding more than one broadcast license in the same community contravened the public interest.” This idea was upheld in the Supreme Court

A Brief History of Public Broadcasting deregulation in media and innovations that have altered regulations. The FCC implements the Act through reshaping the Clear Communication Channel (CCC) station industry for profit.

In Derek Thompson’s article “Prisoners of Cable” (Thompson, 2012), Thompson wrote why consumers in the US were the prisoners of the cable bundle. In this essay, I will provide a brief analysis of the article written by Derek Thomson and discuss about how the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable and AT&T and Time Warner apply.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Communications Act"), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and policies also significantly impact Comcast’s decision on the company's businesses, including cable system and broadcast station ownership, video services customer rates, carriage of broadcast television stations, broadcast programming content and advertising, package of programming to customers and other providers, access to cable system channels by franchising authorities and other parties, the use of utility poles and conduits, and the offering of high-speed internet and phone services (Marketline, 2013). Failure of Comcast's businesses to comply with the laws and regulations may result in administrative enforcement actions, fines and civil and criminal liability. In as much that laws, policies and regulations are much stricter in the U.S. this would present significant risks to the company's businesses which may affect its operating

Through the Federal Communications Commission, all stations are to be licensed and maintain a file that documents what the station has done to operate in the public interest. There are also radio regulations that help to make this possible. The Radio Regulations is an intergovernmental treaty. It conforms and coordinates the activity of the telecommunication networks. It keeps different frequences from different radio services from mixing together. Transmitters are to be observed by radio stations, and procedures are done to ensure technical compatibility. It basically helps to better the development of communications technology. These regulations are accomplished through the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).