Talk:Federal Communications Commission
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theFederal Communications Commission article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 onSuggested 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)[reply]
Original version of this article taken directly from FCC website, which is apublic domain resource.— Precedingunsigned comment added by213.253.40.133 (talk)13:11, 10 June 2002 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Why no mention of the orgins of FCC being FRC? Started in 1927. That then morphed into the FCC with the Communication act ofMrsfgc— Precedingundated comment added16:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there references to a "classic episode" of Family Guy, along with poorly written lyrics on this page?— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.165.87.40 (talk)21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wheres the part about it ruining television?—Precedingunsigned comment added by122.106.155.253 (talk)00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we get good in depth analysis?John wesley19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article correctly cite sources based on Wiki Standards? I see little to no sources cited on where particular information was obtained.208.106.1.4523:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone create an article forChannel 1 saying "Televisions in theUnited States lack achannel 1 for some given reason??66.245.18.193 14:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe someone could explain the reason why most equipment has the following on the back:
Especially part 2209.197.155.94 22:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
External link to Swiss site: see page 20 for basic stuff.David Jordan— Precedingundated comment added01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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?Badagnani09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article should mentionMichael 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.Badagnani01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]—Precedingunsigned comment added byBadagnani (talk •contribs)00:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Badagnani09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs to be addressed in the article.Badagnani (talk)19:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.68.226.119.20108:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 thatFCC 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,Famspear00:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need someone to fix the page. It's been wiped out and reedirected to Big Brother. Funny stuff though.Smart19400:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FCC abbreviation should disambiguate to Face-centre cubic structure of crystals. Seecubic crystal systemTelewatho21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 atThething88. Perhaps Robert E. Lee isn't the only weird one on his list?? --Ender21605:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really the most common usage of FCC?Simply south20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a link digitalstar.com/antenna, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 seethis 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.118.96.16 (talk)20:26, 5 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by205.234.38.237 (talk)03:51, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this stuff here.Thengeveld (talk)18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this top to this sectionThengeveld (talk)19:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 notforced to watch it or listen to it. Perhaps someone else can answer my questions. --J. Finkelstein03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Federal Communications Commission is to ensure private and safe communications to and/or from all individuals.—Precedingunsigned comment added by139.127.225.105 (talk)23:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of the 200 radio stations that were frozen? Are others now frozen?[9] Also, what is the status of the investigation into FCC reports which had previously been shelved?[10] Is it noteworthy or significant that Clear Channel has agreed to be bought?[11][12]Brian Pearson14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byThengeveld (talk •contribs)[reply]
Does anyone know why the FCC banned The Pain, When Will It End?, Volume 5?82.139.85.24013:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 forceInternet 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 PresidentTom 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 athttp://membership.cagw.org/site/R?i=mbf5ZtVkFLiumvHLW_36FA.—Precedingunsigned comment added byRauterkus (talk •contribs)18:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticisms section could use a major re-writing and expansion. Anyone agree?Jesuschex00:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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-Editor17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I came here to ask why there isn't a criticisms section. It seems there was one. Very sus that it was entirely removed. There has been massive amounts of criticism over the years of this dubiously constitutional government agency. From censoring radio and TV, to today pressuring networks to end shows and fire people. I'd like to see someone dig out the criticism section and put it back. Don't let government spooks paint a rosy picture of their big brother agencies on the internet's encyclopedia.Fresheneesz (talk)16:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by82.21.21.230 (talk)23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.)— Precedingunsigned comment added byRomwarne (talk •contribs)16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever put up the tag to ask to improve the article, please explain why. -Desmond Hobson (talk)17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.97.88.137 (talk)02:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by72.70.69.141 (talk)03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source for Mark Lloyd's comments on Hugo Chavez.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBHfVDOJVL4&feature=channel_page
Slepsta (talk)05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.—Precedingunsigned comment added by75.12.165.254 (talk)20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three current commissioners are listed on the official website:[13]— Precedingunsigned comment added byDthomsen8 (talk •contribs)12:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished redoing the list atCurrent chairperson and commissioners into a sortable table.
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 thatJulius Genachowski has aInfobox Politician infobox, butRobert M. McDowell has aInfobox 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)[reply]
The expiration for the term of Brendan Carr (June 2018) is wrong. He and Jessica Rosenworcel were both sworn in on Aug 11, 2018. I think they have 5 year terms, suggesting that it should be Aug 2003 but there are details to the term calculation (sessions of Congress, prior time served) that make me unsure what the correct date should be. I've added Geoffrey Starks's nomination in the last paragraph of the section.
I movedUser: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.TheNgeveld14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. :)— Precedingunsigned comment added by180.94.164.53 (talk)13:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both theNational 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)[reply]
{{geodata-check}}
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.
—68.160.9.197 (talk)16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for pointing out the error.Deor (talk)17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by70.160.88.22 (talk) 7:15 pm, Today (UTC−5)
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by71.237.216.135 (talk)22:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links onU.S. Federal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to reviewmy 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 thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online12:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the proposal wasmove per request as thecommon name and asoverprecise--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Federal Communications Commission →Federal Communications Commission – I am challenging thebold 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 wasWP:WORLDWIDE,[14] the essay on systemic bias. Decisions on article titles should instead be more based onWP: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 withWP:COMMONAME andWP:NAMINGCRITERIA.
Specifically in terms ofWP: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 ofWP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "Federal Communications Commission" is moreconcise than "U.S. Federal Communications Commission". In addition, moving it back would make itconsistent with suchU.S. government agency articles asFederal Bureau of Investigation,Federal Aviation Administration,Federal Election Commission, andFederal Reserve System that do not have the "U.S." quantifier. So unless there is some otherWP:NPOVTITLE orWP: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)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onFederal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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.
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)11:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links onFederal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)04:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"So the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me so let me see
They tried to shut me down on MTV, but it feels so empty without me" - Artist Eminem, Album "The Eminem Show", Song "Without Me" <<https://genius.com/Eminem-without-me-lyrics>> possibly regarding the following incidents:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onFederal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai killed the internet on December 14, 2017, after Net Neutrality was appealed by a 3-2 vote in favor of repeal.Dustbohwl (talk)22:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links onFederal Communications Commission. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
.svg)
{{dead link}} tag tohttp://lnwprogram.org/case-point-building-agile-workforce-and-enterprise-fccWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any link from this page toFCC Declaration of Conformity. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk)21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It makes mention of AT&T Long Lines coaxial cable carrying television. Outside of very short haul (intra-city) Ma Bell Long Lines carried TV on Her TD2 microwave system. The first coast-to-coast broadcast was President Harry S Truman addressing the nation from the San Francisco peace conference in 1951. Seehttps://long-lines.net108.48.151.113 (talk)18:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to a post on thepage site of theAmerican Radio Relay League, FCC has adopted a new official seal. More info:FCC Adopts a New Official Seal in Anticipation of Relocation.SV1XV (talk)16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it is officially announced by the FCC, see News Media Information 202/418-0500[15]SV1XV (talk)06:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent landmark decision on june 9th 2020 that is anow allowing "over the air" broadband access or "broadcast internet" as they are calling it. This is technically possible throught the combination of the white space between the TV broadcast signals. I would love to hear a detailed explaination of this in layman's terms as well as any pros and cons of such technology.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPsiwuvu (talk •contribs)18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectFederal Communications Commission rulemaking has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17 § Federal Communications Commission rulemaking until a consensus is reached.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}23:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectFCC rulemaking has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17 § FCC rulemaking until a consensus is reached.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}23:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectFCC standards has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 21 § FCC standards until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)16:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Commissioners remaining past term expiration is contradictory so some of it is surely wrong. I would fix but I am not sure enough which is, but since it is inconsistent, some of it must be.
The "Organization" section says: Commissioners may continue serving until the appointment of their replacements. However, they may not serve beyond the end of the next session of Congress following term expiration.[9] In practice, this means that commissioners may serve up to 1+1⁄2 years beyond the official term expiration listed above if no replacement is appointed. This would end on the date that Congress adjourns its annual session, generally no later than noon on January 3.
"May not serve beyond end of the NEXT session ..." would imply up to 3.5 year max, not 1.5. E.g. Brendan Carr's term ended on July 1, 2023. The next term of Congress begins Jan. 3 2025 so he could serve until it ends on Jan. 3, 2027 -- 3.5 years after term expiration. On the other hand, the table listing commissioners says his "Max extended time" ends Jan. 3. 2025, the end of the Congress in which his term expired. If that's right, the Organization should say "current Congress, not "next Congress".
Even more confusing, and almost certainly wrong, the table lists the "Max Extend Time" for Geoffrey Starks as Jan. 3, 2024 which is not the end of any session of Congress.
Finally, the length of time a Commissioner can remain past the end of their term depends on whether their term ends in the first or the second year of a Congressional session. It would be helpful if the entry could note that.
Jreiss17 (talk)18:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to add some source to the Criticism for use of proprietary standards section of the article but I'm having problems finding things. The section doesn't seem to really be followingWP:NPOV so I want to edit it down if I can. I'm just not able to find sources that easily fit, if anyone has some ideas of where to look I would appreciate it.Dr vulpes(Talk)00:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the FCC has operated independently of the executive branch, but recent politicalization by the current administration has changed things. Should we change the introductory paragraph to something to the effect of:
TheFederal Communications Commission (FCC) is afederal agency that regulates communications byradio,television, wire,internet,Wi-Fi,satellite, andcable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas ofbroadband access,fair competition, radio frequency use,media responsibility, public safety, andhomeland security. The FCC is ostensibly anindependent agency, but since 2025 has operated as ade facto body within theExecutive Office of the President of the United States under the second administration ofDonald Trump.CoryJosh (talk)21:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please change it from independent agency. It takes marching orders from the President now and is blatantly partisan.50.40.250.94 (talk)12:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the current FCC chair has stated the agency is not independent.
Any mentions of independence were removed from the FCC site some hours ago too.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/17/fcc-carr-senate-jimmy-kimmel-kirk.htmlUelx (talk)20:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]