Talk:Federal Communications Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I partially reorganized this talk page in April 2011, because I was having a hard time getting my head around what was still relevant and what wasn't. There's a new section on "ancient history" which consolidates old, dead threads; another on Suggested Extensions intended to give people a place to put things, and, at the end, a section of stuff that seemed to me to be discussion about the FCC rather than about the article about the FCC. I hope nobody finds this annoying. Thengeveld (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient History (Should Archive?)[edit]

Why are there references to a "classic episode" of Family Guy, along with poorly written lyrics on this page?

Wheres the part about it ruining television?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no orgins of FCC being FRC? Started in 1927. That then morphed into the FCC with the Communication act of Mrsfgc

Original version of this article taken directly from FCC website, which is a public domain resource.

Why don't we make this a disambiguation page between the Federal communications commission and the Farm Credit Corporation? Ilyanep 15:36 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The section on regulatory powers is very POV, not to mention a horribly incomplete picture of everything the FCC does. Anyone else want to tackle this? Might be awhile before I could... Postdlf 1:30 4 Apr 2004 (EST)

Broadcast Flag debate[edit]

Where can we get good in depth analysis? John wesley 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Does this article correctly cite sources based on Wiki Standards? I see little to no sources cited on where particular information was obtained. 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Organization" section info probably was taken directly from the FCC website (not a copyright violation, since this is a government agency). As for the other sections, I'm sure they could be improved by adding references. That, of course, is true of virtually all of the articles in Wikipedia; in the first couple of years, the focus was on adding information, with much less concern for citing where it came from. Feel free to help us add sources (see WP:CITE and WP:RS). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Extensions[edit]

Article for Channel 1[edit]

Can anyone create an article for Channel 1 saying "Televisions in the United States lack a channel 1 for some given reason?? 14:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

stuff on back of equipment[edit]

See Underwriters Labratories —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Maybe someone could explain the reason why most equipment has the following on the back: 1 This device may not cause harmfull interference 2 This device must accept any interference recieved, including interference that may cause undesired information Especially part 2 22:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

External link to Swiss site: see page 20 for basic stuff. David Jordan

more of a section on broadcast idecenency regulation is needed.[edit]

This article needs more of a section dealing with the issue of broadcast indecency. There are a handful of cases that are important in understanding the changes that have happened in regards to broadcast indecncy. Roth V. United States, Miller V. Calf. Pacifica V. FCC. and numerous others. Poolsouimet (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No list of Decency Standards?[edit]

Does anyone else find it appalling that given the FCCs recent crack down on "indecency" you cant even find a list of what you cant say or do on public airwaves. Hell, its not even real clear on rather or not the FCC controls privatized broadcast such as cable as satellite (they dont right?). I googled around to no avail, if anyone knows of such a list please include it in the article. 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is better this way until we can fight them into the ground in court. I really hope a network manages to do this eventually. Go into a Highschool, a bar, or any public area really--if you recorded what people were saying and broadcasted it on the air, it would be deemed illegal. This is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. Maybe it is a little offensive to a few people, but you can't suppress what society really is. TrevorLSciAct 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Media conglomeration[edit]

Shouldn't this article mention Michael Powell's attempt, in 2003, to push through media conglomeration (relaxed "broadcast cross-ownership" rules), and the defeat of this via unprecedentedly massive numbers of unfavorable public comments? And the recent revisiting of this via Docket 02-277? Badagnani 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Very important: media conglomeration[edit]

The article should mention Michael Powell's attempt, in 2003, to push through media conglomeration (relaxed "broadcast cross-ownership" rules), and the defeat of this via unprecedentedly massive numbers of unfavorable public comments, as well as the more recent revisiting of this via Docket 02-277?[1] It should also mention the October 2007 attempt to allow media conglomerates to own a newspaper and radio station in the same city. Badagnani 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC) No one is maintaining this article, are they? The FCC has just scheduled an October 31, 2007 meeting about its proposed relaxation of the media conglomeration rules, giving only 5 days' notice.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badagnani (talkcontribs) 00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the matter of media consolidation could be addressed further in the this article under Criticism, though I think that section needs some cleaning up (specifically, shaping the Family Guy and Studio 60 parts into "critical portrayal" or something). Do you know of links to groups that specifically speak out against media consolidation and reference the FCC? Moogle001 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several. This is one: [3]. Here is another: [4]. Here are some more: [5] [6] [7]. Here is an interview with two FCC commissioners. Badagnani 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Still no mention of this in the article? The chairman is now attempting to push through similar rule changes, despite overwhelming opposition at the recent public meetings.[8] This should be noted in the article. Badagnani 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) This really needs to be addressed in the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues that appear to have been resolved[edit]

I'm moving various discussion page issues around to make it easier to follow what has and hasn't been done. In this section I'm putting things that appear to have been taken care of. Thengeveld (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated external link?[edit]

The article has a link, which I tried visiting, and appears to be a company that sells a variety of electronic devices. I'm not sure of the purpose on the FCC's page. Permission to remove? Samcan (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has been resolved. I can't find the cited link in the article. Thengeveld (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Appointed, not elected[edit]

I removed the "appointed, not elected" language inserted at the beginning of the article with reference to the FCC as an independent agency. I guess maybe it's not obvious to everyone (but in my view it should be for any adult U.S. citizen) that members of an independent agency are "appointed, not elected." In the United States, we elect a President and the members of the House of Representative and Senate, and that's about it; everyone else is pretty much "appointed" or hired as an employee, etc. So the fact that FCC members are appointed and not elected is arguably pretty much unremarkable from the standpoint of an encyclopedia article. Referring to members of the FCC as "appointed, not elected" could be interpreted as non-neutral point of view (under the theory that "elected" is better than "appointed"). Maybe the article on independent agencies should include a reference to the fact that they are appointed if it doesn't already, as people outside the USA might or might not know that as common knowledge. Yours, Famspear 00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This has definately been resolved. Thengeveld (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


We need someone to fix the page. It's been wiped out and reedirected to Big Brother. Funny stuff though. Smart194 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that funny? It's true. Just read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and you will see that the federal government is violating one of its most basic laws by creating the FCC.
That's ludicrous. The FCC doesn't do anything to violate the first amendment. They try to protect kids from obscenity. If those haters want to see sex so badly, they should go look for it on the internet. I think that whoever wants it on somewhere where some kids might come accross it is the stupid one. P.S. I saw a vandal where some goat replaced the FCC's official seal with a picture of a nipple. Sean90 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that that should be the responsibility of the PARENTS? We can't sterilize the entire world of "immorality"(which is completely subjective, BTW) just because some people can't properly parent their children.-- 05:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well,, the burden happens all day and parents don't have the enough time to protect their kids nowadays all the time, unfortunately. Sure, they can protect sometimes, but not all the time as I said earlier. I hope that clears it up. 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Protect their kids from 'what', exactly? What's the big danger? If people stopped making a big [profanity removed] deal about nipples and harsh language, do you really think the world would come crashing down? We would serve our children better not by protecting them more, not by sheltering them from the things we are afraid of, but by teaching them some perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The FCC is the type of thing that belongs in Britain or Oceania, not the U.S. This authoritarian branch of the government violates our basic rights of freedom. By the way, swear words are not obscene. They are just words, and children hear them all the time, anyway.
Why isn't this debate part of the "controversies" section? I was shocked to not see it there. Alphalife (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it ludicrous, though? What part of "no law...abridging the freedom of speech..or of the press" don't you and the FCC understand? I don't recall the part of the first amendment that says, "No law unless it's deemed by some arbitrary standards set by non-elected fascist rulers to be 'obscene'." No law means no law. Any laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press are in violation of the first amendment, and therefore unconstitutional whether SCROTUS agrees or not. (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Face-centred cubic structure[edit]

FCC abbreviation should disambiguate to Face-centre cubic structure of crystals. See cubic crystal system Telewatho 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that disambiguation at FCC (disambiguation). As for whether "FCC" is more commonly understood to mean "Federal Trade Commission" or a cubic structure (in case you're saying that FCC should redirect to the cubic structure rather than this article), may I suggest that you do some Google searches, and, if you still feel the same after doing so, report back here with your results? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this has been fixed. I moved it to this section Thengeveld (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee (R-IL)?[edit]

Robert E. Lee (R-IL)? What the hell is he doing on a list of FCC commissioners? He died 64 years before the FCC was formed... or so I thought. Whoever put him up, or someone knows whether or not a different RE Lee was commissioner, should fix that oddity. I checked the history, and I'm going to point the finger at Thething88. Perhaps Robert E. Lee isn't the only weird one on his list?? --Ender216 05:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Robert E. Lee (FCC) was appointed to the FCC by Dwight D. Eisenhower and served on the FCC almost 28 years (1953-1981), including serving as Chairman for a short time. His papers were deposited in the Eisenhower Library in 1998 by his widow. -- DS1953 talk 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this was resolved too, so I moved it here. Thengeveld (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


Is this really the most common usage of FCC? Simply south 20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Uhhh... yeah. >_>-- 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is also a dead issue. Thengeveld (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


"Even so, many American families feel that the FCC is losing the battle against a media movement consisting of corporations aware that "liberal" individuals spend more money than "conservative" individuals. These corporations recognize that the entertainment industry is the best way to convince younger adults to become more liberal and, consequently, to consumer their products. The trick is to convince the targets without their knowledge. By promoting the opposition of anything traditional or authoritative (relative to rebellion against parental authority) the target audience sympathizes with the producers. In many cases, the audience may be supporting exactly what they are in opposition to. With young adults and children as the primary financial supporters of the entertainment industry, the FCC certainly has a difficult task ahead of it to address the concerns of the "family" structure. Many American families today are fearful of the extinction of the family unit due to the blatant promotion of concepts (e.g., homosexual marriage) in the mainstream media despite the fact that most Americans oppose such concepts. Claims of media bias have sprung from such concerns as it becomes more and more apparent that most media conglomerates appear to have an agenda." This Whole paragraph seem to have a POV in it. for instance, "Claims of media bias have sprung from such concerns as it becomes more and more apparent that most media conglomerates appear to have an agenda." This sentence suggests that media conglomerates are biased with no evidence except their own POV. Or "Many American families today are fearful of the extinction of the family unit due to the blatant promotion of concepts (e.g., homosexual marriage) in the mainstream media despite the fact that most Americans oppose such concepts." Correct me if i am wrong but to me this A)makes it seem like the whole of America is homophobic which is not the case any more and B)imlies this writer thinks putting gay references on theair is a bad idea because America is against it. Obscenity v. Indecency Janet Jackson was a fine based on the FCC's indecency power, not obscenity power. They have different legal meanings. (Obscenity is defined by Miller v. California, as being, when taken as a whole, a work created to appeal to the prurient interest, as defined by the contemporary community standards--like a pornographic movie; Indecency by FCC v. Pacifica, as reference to sexual and excretory organs--such as the word "f---" or a exposure of gentalia, even though the whole piece is not an attempt to appeal to the prurient interest.)

How were quality standards violated?[edit]

Whoever put up the tag to ask to improve the article, please explain why. - Desmond Hobson (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup and Why I Did It[edit]

Maybe people will use this section when they want to give more information on why they made some edit. Thengeveld (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Free speech and the internet[edit]

I made a few minor edits. Although the FCC does not have general regulatory powers over the internet, a few U.S. government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) do have limited, indirect regulatory authority over various kinds of false or misleading statements made in their respective regulatory fields of investments, trade, commerce, etc., whether made on the internet or not. (Of course, the SEC and FTC do not regulate the internet in general.) Famspear (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I tried to clean the article up a bit (some updates and language stuff). I also restructured it to make it more reader friendly. I have removed the stuff on spectrum auctions, as it is FCC related but not work. Also removed the criticism section, which was entirely unreferenced and had some language issues. The criticism section is very well developed, and largely referenced. Overall the article lacks intext citations and needs updating. There might be a case for moving the list of former chairmen and commissioners into a own article (with main page link in this article). I want to add a "current work" section to summarise the work, which I think will assist readers a lot.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Under the subsection for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it says, "This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism. See. e.g. Robert crandall." I think that this could be written better; the second sentence is written in an informal manner, and perhaps the link to Robert Crandall's site should be in an in-line citation, along with other references to support the first sentence. Linking one reference does not support the idea that there is "much criticism," in my opinion. TennysonXII (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope of FCC[edit]

Shouldn't a primary heading for the article be a guideline list of the duties and limitations of the FCC? Is cable TV under their watch? HBO? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


There are no citations for the "diversity" section. The diversity section is also entirely about Spanish broadcasting, with no mention of Black, Asian, or European language broadcasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source for Mark Lloyd's comments on Hugo Chavez. Slepsta (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why no list of official rules?[edit]

Like a list of words you can't say things images you can't show subjects you are not allowed to discuss so that we can just know what we can't say and then say anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Pennsylvania

"Controversy"/"Criticisms" section[edit]

Criticisms section[edit]

I think the criticisms section could use a major re-writing and expansion. Anyone agree? Jesuschex 00:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Critisism neutrality.[edit]

The Critisism part has a very subjective wiew on a few parts, notably on the "Fact" abpout the Afganistan Marine. I'll add a neutality disputed template. Take it down when the part is fixed. Arctic-Editor 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what "division bell" has to do with anything. Thengeveld (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections are bad. We need to take everything and reorganize it. The "controversies" should be spread throughout the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "controversy" section is bad, but I don't agree that it should be "spread throughout the article". I tend to think that it should be removed entirely. The FCC makes "rules" with the force of law. It goes through a (usually) long-winded process for soliciting public input and so on, and then makes up its collective mind. These rules effect massive amounts of investment, and many of them are controversal. I would suggest that the only "controveries" that should be included are those related to rulings that are either a) overturned or affirmed in federal court or b) overturned by congressional action. Otherwise, we're just picking the "controversies" that happen to interest us. Thengeveld (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Current commissioners[edit]

The three current commissioners are listed on the official website: [9]

Current chairperson and commissioners --and-- which INFOBOX to use?[edit]

I just finished redoing the list at Current chairperson and commissioners into a sortable table.</br
I was _THEN_ going to place an "INFOBOX" into the three commissioner's articles who are now missing one such box.
BUT... It turns out that Julius Genachowski has a Infobox Politician infobox, but Robert M. McDowell has a Infobox person type of an infobox.
Does anyone have an opinion as to which one to use on the other tree commissioners, -AND- which one to convert over?

FYI: My own personal vote is to convert Robert M. McDowell's infobox from the 'person' type to the 'politician' type.
LP-mn (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently moved the current commissioners section into the "organization" section. I think it fits better there. Also reformatted the table a bit, adding references to the confirmation votes and including their "end of term" dates. Thengeveld (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
(Repeating a question on Thengeveld's talk page) Where did you get the info regarding when the FCC Commissioners terms expire? Yea, I know they theoretically have something like 5 year terms, but some of them are appointed mid-term. As a result, the expiration dates are SUPPOSED to be evenly staggered. I could not find this info, so I mostly left it out.
LP-mn (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
+++ Directly from the library of congress. The citation in the previous column (to "presidential nominations"). It'll take you presidential nominations page of the LOC database. Enter "communications commission" in the search box and it will give you all the nominations and results since 1989. Invariably then either go for five years from july 1st, or fill an expired term ending June 30. I'm pretty sure there's some law that established that date, but I haven't worked very hard to find it. Cheers. Thengeveld (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the July 1 date is based on "SEC. 707. [47 U.S.C. 607] EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT" fcc act as amended which says that the whole schbang takes effect July 1 1934. It's the beginning of the fiscal year for some of us. Maybe that's why? BTW, the terms expire, but people keep serving until they're replaced, except they're not allowed to go through the next congress, or something. I'm too tired to read section 4 carefully at the moment. Thengeveld (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Pretty sure that's why. Can't prove it. If you look hereFiscal year you'll see that the fiscal year start was changed to October 1 from July 1 in ... 1974 I think it said. Anyway it makes sense. Setup a new commission to start on a fiscal year boundary. Thengeveld (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thengeveld: {Insert here the voice of Rod Serling:} "Submitted for your approval..." If you take a look at this page: and this wiki article's subsection: SEC_Commissioners#Commission_members, you will see where the SEC commissioner's expiration dates came from, and what _I_ consider to me a more useful way of displaying the data in table form. I suggest you follow this example for the FCC commissioners. Also, you will notice that the _Five_ SEC Commissioners terms expire _one_ per _year_ every _five_ years, so they are EVENLY spread out. I'm reasonably certain the same pattern is true for the FCC, but I can _NOT_ prove it. I suggest you double check your sources.
You're Right! Mea Culpa. I rechecked and apparently 5 + 5 = 10, and 9 + 5 = 14, rather than 11 and 12, respectively. I'm not a huge fan of the format you cited. I like having the actual reference to the confirmation action, and I like tables with borders and column alighment and so on. But whatever. If you wanted to change it and include the PN references I'd be fine. At any rate, it isn't worth hanging by my thumbs in a dungeon to get my way. Thengeveld (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm too tired and busy to switch it back. Besides, you've added residence, etc. which leans it towards being suitable for a table instead of an invisible table that looks like a list. As for the data, it's fine that you found the mistake, but could you point my nose in the direction of where you found your data? (Just being curious, not being critical.) Also, what does the 'PN' stand for? LP-mn (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A few comments above here is the answer to your question (which I put here hte other day but I think you missed because of my flurry). I put ******* around it so you could see it more easily. Basically, it'r from the library of congress database, which you can get to from I think PN stands for Presendential Nominations.
Thengeveld: On a different note, look at my above comment re the infoboxes. Do you have an opinion?LP-mn (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
LP-mn, I guess it depends on what one thinks a politician is. I actually would call Genakowski a bureaucrat, not a politician. I don't think he's ever run for any office. Note that on his page, the word incombant appears, which isn't really right for an appointed position (in my opinion). I mean, he's really a lawyer, and while one might determine that lawyers aren't really persons, I don't think they deserve to be slandered by calling them politicians. Or maybe they do. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'd vote for person, not pol. Thengeveld (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions that may not be entirely germane to the article itself[edit]

I've added this section to capture some of the top level things that may not be exactly germane to the article. Thengeveld (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Pain, Volume 5?[edit]

Does anyone know why the FCC banned The Pain, When Will It End?, Volume 5? 13:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Ummm... what the hell are you talking about??? ?_?-- 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The FCC doesn't ban books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thengeveld (talkcontribs)

Questions (frozen radio stations)[edit]

What is the status of the 200 radio stations that were frozen? Are others now frozen? [10] Also, what is the status of the investigation into FCC reports which had previously been shelved? [11] Is it noteworthy or significant that Clear Channel has agreed to be bought? [12][13] Brian Pearson 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thengeveld (talkcontribs)


Did the FCC intend for there to be an overlap between TV station 6 and the lower end of the radio wave spectrum? If you see this poster, you'll see an overlap between TV station 6 and the lower end of the radio wave spectrum. Also, if you tune in to the lower end of the radio wave spectrum--I think it's eighty something point something else--you can get the sound from TV station 6 to come through your radio...just wonderred if the FCC intended that.

No Overlap[edit]

No ... North American TV channel 6 is 82-88 MHz, and the FM band is 88 to 108 MHz, with the lowest FM frequency (Channel 201) being 88.1 MHz, the next (202) being 88.3 MHz. The European FM range, used in most of the world, starts somewhere around 87.5 MHz, but in those countries, these frequencies are not used for TV, or any channel that reaches beyond 87.5 is not used in the same place as an FM station with the same frequency segment.

Moved this stuff here. Thengeveld (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the FCC today?[edit]

Moved this top to this section Thengeveld (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we Americans need the FCC to control what is broadcast on television and on radio? I don't understand its purpose today. Why does the government need to decide what is moral? Also, just because a television show or radio show is being broadcast, I am not forced to watch it or listen to it. Perhaps someone else can answer my questions. --J. Finkelstein 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people, specifically legal moralists who believe that the purpose of government is to enfore the collective morals of the people, would disagree with you. They would state that it's the law ( and its beauraus)'s jobs to enforce our morals, and that's why the FCC is a necessary function. Unfortunately, these legal moralists seem to be in power, and so the FCC has its purpose of " defending morality and decency," or whatever else. 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
At least we still have the internet... or do we —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
of course we do, for now. And cable, and satellite. The FCC is screwed, they have no real power outside of broadcast TV and Radio. Here's hoping it stays that way!!! TrevorLSciAct 15:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the Federal Communications Commission is to ensure private and safe communications to and/or from all individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Porker of the Month, May 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski[edit]

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski Porker of the Month, May 2010, for his recent decision to push forward with an ill-conceived and possibly extra-legal plan to impose federal regulations on the Internet. The plan would treat the Internet by rules similar to those which currently pertain to the telephone industry under Title II of the Communications Act. "Chairman Julius Genachowski is leading the FCC into uncharted waters, straight into a legal headwind. In April 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia laid down an unambiguous marker: The FCC has no authority to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to give equal treatment to all Internet content flowing through their networks, nor can it regulate ISPs under Title II without Congress's express authority. The agency is out of its depth and will end up sinking time and the taxpayers' money into harassing an industry that is functioning very well without ham-fisted government regulations," said CAGW President Tom Schatz. For launching this damn-the-torpedoes (and the taxpayers), full-speed-ahead quest to regulate the Internet, CAGW names FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski its May, 2010 Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rauterkus (talkcontribs) 18:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved this "porker" section here. Thengeveld (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Good call, certainly a statement of OPINION versus fact. LP-mn (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FCC and the Internet[edit]

I moved User:adrianna8j's contribution to the header to its own section on the FCC and the internet. It seemed out of place in the introduction. With a little research, this could be an interesting section. TheNgeveld 14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

English Language Errors[edit]

The first sentence of this article is gobbledigook. Get the commas figured out - am I reading it right? the FCC was created by the current President?? - and just get that sentence to make some sense... Many thanks.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration[edit]

Both the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the FCC seem to be involved in regulating spectrum allocation. What is the relationship between them? Maybe one is a subdivision of the other? Maybe they are two independent organizations with some clear division of responsibilities? I wish this article clearly spelled out the relationship between them, and described the division of responsibilities. --DavidCary (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error[edit]


The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The FCC is in the United States, and not in India. Therefore the longitude coordinate cannot be east. It must be west. (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


Ho w can I contact Federal Communications Commission???? Phone # if possible Sidney Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Intentional Trolling[edit]

Under Net neutrality, some user posted, "According to the poll, 81% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans said they opposed fast lanes" after a statement concerning polls that stated the approval of the general population towards net neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 7:15 pm, Today (UTC−5)

"FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states"?[edit]

Where is the proof that The "FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states"? In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the definition of "State" is: "The term "State" includes the District of Columbia and the Territories and possessions". The legal term "includes" limits not expands a definition. Look up the term "includes" in Black's Law Dictionary. I could not find one instance where the 50 States of the Union are mentioned in the entire 1996 Act. We assume that when we see the term State in a Congressional Act that it automatically includes the 50 States of the Union but that's why they invented definitions, so that we wouldn't have to assume. If no proof can be found for the assumption that "FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states" then this should be removed. A review of many Congressional Acts and Codes will show the same issue. No Federal Government jurisdiction over the 50 States of the Union. If I'm right, think of the ramifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The term "includes" is a term of expansion in this case, as it is in many, many federal laws. And, no, a review of many Congressional Acts and Codes will NOT prove your theory. You have it backwards. Famspear (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, by the way: Technically, the definition you quoted is not found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 itself. The definition is found in section 3(v) of the Communications Act of 1934, Ch. 652, Title I, 48 Stat. 1064, 1066 (June 19, 1934), which you will find codified at 47 U.S.C. sec. 153(47). Of course, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 amends various provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, and therefore various provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are also codified in Title 47 of the United States Code.
But the term "includes" as used in section 3(v) of the 1934 Act (i.e., 47 U.S.C. 153(47)) is a term of expansion, not a term of limitation. Your "analysis" based on Black's Law Dictionary is incorrect. Famspear (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on U.S. Federal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the common name and as overprecise--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Federal Communications CommissionFederal Communications Commission – I am challenging the bold rename on this article that was done back on April 2015, and requesting it be moved back. The rationale cited in the page move back on April 2015 was WP:WORLDWIDE, [14] the essay on systemic bias. Decisions on article titles should instead be more based on WP:AT, which is a more concrete policy page, and not solely based on an essay that is more subjective. I also fail to understand how adding "U.S." would counter any systemic bias when it seems to conflict with WP:COMMONAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.

Specifically in terms of WP:COMMONAME, a google search of the phrase "U.S. federal communications commission" gets about only 280,000 results compared to over 5 million for "federal communications commission" And in terms of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "Federal Communications Commission" is more concise than "U.S. Federal Communications Commission". In addition, moving it back would make it consistent with such U.S. government agency articles as Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Reserve System that do not have the "U.S." quantifier. So unless there is some other WP:NPOVTITLE or WP:PRECISION-like rationale, I fail to see how using a title that is not a WP:COMMONAME or seems to conflict with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA "counters systemic bias on Wikipedia". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Is there any other entity that goes by the name Federal Communications Commission? No, therefore we don't need to unnecessarily disambiguate. Zarcadia (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Zarcadia says all that need be said. (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per above rationales. -- Chamith (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Calidum 01:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Did it not occur to anyone to notify me, as the one who moved the page back in April? Ah well, no serious harm done...
The commission identifies itself internationally here and here, just as on its official crest≤ (seen on its letterhead) as the "U.S. Federal Communications Commission". Other federal countries also have federal communications commissions to distinguish as well, such as Switzerland, but that is not the real issue. Rather it is simply that without identifying the country, "Federal X" means "my Federal X" to many readers. The clarification harms no one. Why would we avoid it? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Swiss entity seems to call itself "Federal Communications Commission ComCom" in English, but they go by "ComCom" in practically every circumstance in order to avoid the issues surrounding Switzerland's multiple official languages - of which English is not one, hence the English title is not the common title. Note also that we do not have an article on this entity. There is no need to disambiguate from articles that don't exist. (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
True enough, but it still doesn't solve the wp:EASTEREGG problem: how is a reader in (for instance) India to know which federation is meant by "Federal" until they click on the link? It disrupts the natural flow of reading articles to have to do that. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The same way that an Australian would, or for that matter the same way an English speaker from Thailand or Oman is to understand that the Royal Air Force is British. Certain usages of that type are preeminent in English, and the particular governments of both Britain and America are high among them. Inventing names for such things would run counter to actual usage, and hence counter to neutrality. That some readers might occasionally read one line of an unintended article should not override this. (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I am glad this article was reverted to its original name. Its official name is Federal Communications Commission, not U.S. Federal Communications Commission.—Bde1982 01:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RNM Satellites[edit]

When I made my complaint to the FBI and asked them do they know about the FCC they pretend like they didn't know, because I made a complaint about that I am under the RNM satellites and almost got killed but somebody as been helping me but don't know who now who do I talk to, and I know they record their phone calls and you can see what I said is true, and I know that you can tell if they try to erase the phone call i had with them please help me don't know what to do Kevin Charles Loesch (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Charles Loesch Kevin Charles Loesch (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)