Or something like that…

And your point about the FCC is well-taken. They are more useful as a lapdog than they are as an active agent of corruption, for the latter would draw scrutiny whereas the former accomplishes the same thing merely by being ineffective.

I like the Slate article.

Once the new technology is adopted, there will indeed be more segments of the radio spectrum free, but until that happens, we’re stuck with what we have.

I guess my ultimate point is that when you have a high value public resource which is allocated to profit seeking corporations by a regulatory body, corruption of the regulatory body is inevitable.

An interesting take on this whole issue is here – essentially saying that frequencies aren’t as scarce as the FCC claims they are, because of new technology, but the FCC and Congress, influenced by entrenched commercial interests (talk about payola!!) want to protect the commercial status quo.

As for Spitzer, like I said – nothing against him, I just see him as another ambitious politician. If he railroaded a few CEOs to set up his run for President in 2012, so be it.

There was a good article this weekend in the Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times about intellectual property rights. For those of you who can make it to SXSW and are interested in this topic, Gilberto Gil will be speaking on Wednesday.

Regarding regulation, the FCC has always appeared pretty baffling to me and probably to anybody else who has had any association with radio. Their guidelines are vague and selectively enforced. Even when the rules are enforced, the FCC often comes out looking like keystone cops. Take as an example the incident of Bono saying “fucking” on live television. Initially, the FCC ruled that the use of “fucking” was OK:

“As a threshold matter, the material aired during the ‘Golden Globe Awards’ program does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word ‘fucking’ may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual and excretory organs and activities. Rather, the performer used the word ‘fucking’ as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission’s prohibition of indecent program content.”

But then after a good amount of pressure from busybodies, the FCC reversed the decision, saying that “fucking” is in fact indecent. But they decided not to impose a fine. Contrast that with their reaction to the Superbowl “wardrobe malfunction” which resulted in a fine of $550,000 for CBS.

I sometimes wonder what’s going on there at the FCC, because it seems a lot like they are just doling out penalties by throwing darts at a dartboard. “Ooh, bullseye, that’s gonna be a steep fine for you, Mr. Stern.”

The Sony case is peanuts compared to the white collar crime he prosecuted against wall street firms that were ripping off/ hiding information from shareholders.

I get that you aren’t into ‘progressive politicians’ and would never try to dissuade you from a belief against regulation. Quite possibly Spitzer’s doings are reported differently in Texas than they are here.

Anyway, here is a link to Jennie’s interview with Spitzer. She’s particularly proud of this piece because she scooped the L.A. Times for this one.

Spitzer’s particular genius is in simplifying and explaining incredibly complex arguements in terms that juries and the public can understand.

The debate about regulation/ deregulation is not applicable to the subject at hand because payola is a crime, not a legislative matter. However, your observations about deregulation not producing increased competition are absolutely correct.

This is probably true, in that it exacerbated a situation that was already bad enough on its own. In defense of my argument I would say that “deregulation” is an oxymoron, because “deregulation” usually amounts to selective tuning of existing regulations to favor certain industry participants, not the actual removal of regulations.

It’s sort of like if one political party says, “OK no more gerrymandering” after they got the redistricting plan in place that they wanted.