DOCSLIB.ORG

Radio Broadcasting : a History of the Airwaves Pdf, Epub, Ebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Radio Broadcasting : a History of the Airwaves Pdf, Epub, Ebook RADIO BROADCASTING : A HISTORY OF THE AIRWAVES PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Gordon Bathgate | 224 pages | 23 Nov 2020 | Pen & Sword Books Ltd | 9781526769404 | English | Barnsley, United Kingdom Radio Broadcasting : A History of the Airwaves PDF Book Despite the title's reference to radio, the emphasis throughout is on the future promise of television. Vol 45 Read Download Oct-Dec However, AM signals are affected by static, thus reducing sound fidelity. Vol 43 Read Download Oct-Dec Vol 3 Read Download. May-Oct From to , the number of radio sets in America increased from 60, to 1. Jan-Mar Featured: Ten Innovators to Watch in Address 2. Vol 58 no. Note Material is for information purposes only. Vol 54 Read Download Apr-Jun It was noted, in particular, that S. The paper's advertisements and articles reveal the intricate relationship among sponsors, stations, program suppliers, and station representatives -- the industry's term for middle-men who represented numerous local stations in negotiations with national sponsors. He eventually set up an experimental station in the Bronx. The Cato Institute. Courtesy the Milstein Archives. Vol 31 no. Vol 44 no. The most significant and controversial events occurred between and The six short 'pips' were designed to mark the precise start of every hour on BBC radio. Vol 25 Read Download Nov Apr Vol 59 no. Vol 24 Read Download May-Oct Radio Broadcasting : A History of the Airwaves Writer Vol 57 Read Download Oct-Dec Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. How to Listen. Vol 12 Read Download Nov Apr Vol 12 Read Download May Oct Soviet Union. It was noted, in particular, that S. Vol 13 Read Download Read Download December Radio Act of [electronic resource]. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. Vol 36 Read Download Jul-Sep Television Programming Catalogues Movies from A. Chagall Deutsche Welle and others. The success of radio produced problems as well. Vol 1 Read Download The FCC had a hand in the growth of political talk radio shows such as Rush Limbaugh's when it repealed the "fairness doctrine" in Global Cinema Collection Vol 2 Read Download Nov Apr Vol 51 Read Download Oct-Dec Jan-Apr Pacifica Foundation , U. Even then, though, Radio Caroline wouldn't go away. Vol 36 Read Download Apr-Jun These informal talks helped Roosevelt gain support for his policies. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Following the U. Vol 50 Read Download Jul-Sep Although the FCC's threats made headlines, there was little talk of challenging the agency's regulations. Federal Communications Commission , U. What former Ziegfeld Follies star strapped on a bonnet to become Baby Snooks? Auschwitz Death Camp. Radio Broadcasting : A History of the Airwaves Reviews October Fessenden sent his best engineer, Mr. Listen today on your favorite podcast player: This episode was originally released in April Address 2. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Beamed out from the foot towers of the transmitting shack at Brant Rock, Massachusetts on the Atlantic coast, this program commenced exactly at 9 o'clock, with 'CQ CQ CQ', meaning general call to all stations within range, sent out in dots and dashes. As years progressed, deregulation was strongly encouraged to provide a little independence from the government. A few of them broadcast from ships, such as Rev. Subscribe to our newsletter. In fact, it prospered. Thanks to e-commerce, it's also easier than ever for a would-be pirate to find the necessary equipment and have it delivered to his or her door, as FCC enforcement official David Dombrowski described in this podcast. Add links. Britain's most famous pirate radio station took to the airwaves again for a month in from the Mersey Bar Lightship in Liverpool. One assumption underlying the act was that the First Amendment protected radio as a form of expression. European experimenters including Heinrich Hertz, for whom the radio frequency unit hertz is named had contributed to the field in the late s by experimenting with electromagnetic waves. Armor, "We are getting you Brant Rock, loud and clear. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In November a letter was received from Mr. Add links. Spurred on by this success, Fessenden improved the efficiency of his high frequency alternator and with a new type of umbrella antenna of his own design, both stations were in regular communication. Constitution, the clause was implemented to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Hearing of the inventor's technical ability, two Pittsburgh millionaires, Walker and Given, agreed to form and finance a company, the National Electric Signaling Company, employing Fessenden on condition that he place his inventions in the name of the Company. During World War II, nine in ten families owned a radio, and they listened to an average of three to four hours of programming a day, using it as their main source of news. For many years a subscriber to and avid reader of the "Scientific American", Reginald also kept a scrapbook crammed with news clippings relative to all the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison. The British government, though, didn't appreciate what Radio Caroline and other pirate broadcasters were doing. Address 1. As listeners became viewers, most in peril were educational and noncommercial radio. Serialized stories aimed mainly at women, dubbed "soap operas," became popular. History World History Video Newsletter. Privacy Terms of Use Sign up. Federal Communications Commission. If any subsequent complaints were received, the commission stated that it would then decide whether any sanctions would be applied. US Legal, Inc. Upcoming Events. In addition to this BBC documentary , Goren also has created the Pirate Radio Map , which documents pirate radio stations in Brooklyn and even includes brief samples from their broadcasts. Related Content " ". As more events were captured on the radio, more fans built and bought sets. At the first trials voice sounds were unintelligible, but after persistent effort Fessenden was rewarded by performing the first miracle of transmitting the human voice without wires even though it was over the short distance of one mile. Bureau chief and officials were astounded when Fessenden transmitted his signals without wires from Cobb Island to Arlington, Virginia, a distance of 50 miles. We greatly appreciate our listeners and readers and thank you for joining us on this journey so far. The evening would usher out an old era—one of dot-dash telegraphs, of evening newspapers, of silent films, and of soap box corner announcements. The act created the Federal Radio Commission FRC , which was primarily directed to license broadcasters and reduce radio interference, a benefit to both broadcasters and the public in the chaos that developed in the aftermath of the breakdown of earlier wireless radio acts. Helen, his wife and his secretary, Miss Bent, endeavored to read parts of the Bible text, 'Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will', but, like Mr. For the United Fruit Company, Fessenden had established wireless stations in New Orleans, on their ships, and at their plantations in Guatemala. In the s it banned over-the-air advertisement of hard liquor and lotteries. Radio Broadcasting : A History of the Airwaves Read Online But critics could not dampen the spirits of radio fanatics. Since the late s FM stations have had the ability of broadcasting in stereo. Travel Virtual Travel. Recently, the upcoming 50th anniversary of soViet rule has marked an increase in the volume of messages and commentaries demonstrating acute anti-Soviet tendencies. He was thus enable to conduct laboratory experiments furthering his cherished ambition, the development of sound vibration and transmitting sound without wires. July Learn how and when to remove this template message. The resulting mystery left some Americans wary. One of Fessenden's early alternators Mervyn C. In its place, radio communications would provide instant, long-distance wireless communication. But just as the British government's stiff penalties didn't deter Radio Caroline, at least so far, the U. Although a radio license is considered property, a license does not have a constitutional right to a radio license, nor does a licensee obtain a vested interest in any frequency. Like this article? Language Original language. By designating the airwaves as public domain, the government has become the referee of what we hear and see. He immediately began innovating, experimenting and organising, and with the help of his newly appointed chief engineer, Peter Eckersley, the service began to expand. This device later proved to be of great value. Congressional Digest : ,, And as a bonus, Radio Caroline still exists — though, ironically, it's gone legal. Many wealthy men had their own private generating plants. In the s, Guglielmo Marconi invented the vertical antenna, transmitting signals of ever-increasing distance; by , he could send messages from England across the Atlantic Ocean to Newfoundland. The U. The Missing States of the United States. As a result of their excellent performance, three more stations were build in New York, Philadelphia and Washington. Just as radio reached its zenith, a new industry took hold. The pirate music station ship, Radio Caroline, after it sank in heavy seas in the Thames Estuary. Record ID The program was successfully repeated on New Year's Eve. Because the station had to fill so much airtime — DJs had to come up with 2, tracks to play each week — Radio Caroline helped foster what Moore calls "an explosion of new artists and bands who may have started recording conventional pop music, but who then expanded their musical abilities. The new radio commission was created by the Radio Act of to license broadcasters and reduce radio interference.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Broadcast Television (1945, 1952) ………………………
    Transformative Choices: A Review of 70 Years of FCC Decisions Sherille Ismail FCC Staff Working Paper 1 Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 October, 2010 FCC Staff Working Papers are intended to stimulate discussion and critical comment within the FCC, as well as outside the agency, on issues that may affect communications policy. The analyses and conclusions set forth are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the FCC, other Commission staff members, or any Commissioner. Given the preliminary character of some titles, it is advisable to check with the authors before quoting or referencing these working papers in other publications. Recent titles are listed at the end of this paper and all titles are available on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/papers/. Abstract This paper presents a historical review of a series of pivotal FCC decisions that helped shape today’s communications landscape. These decisions generally involve the appearance of a new technology, communications device, or service. In many cases, they involve spectrum allocation or usage. Policymakers no doubt will draw their own conclusions, and may even disagree, about the lessons to be learned from studying the past decisions. From an academic perspective, however, a review of these decisions offers an opportunity to examine a commonly-asserted view that U.S. regulatory policies — particularly in aviation, trucking, and telecommunications — underwent a major change in the 1970s, from protecting incumbents to promoting competition. The paper therefore examines whether that general view is reflected in FCC policies. It finds that there have been several successful efforts by the FCC, before and after the 1970s, to promote new entrants, especially in the markets for commercial radio, cable television, telephone equipment, and direct broadcast satellites.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC-21-42A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 21-42 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Sponsorship Identification Requirements for ) MB Docket No. 20-299 Foreign Government-Provided Programming ) ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: April 22, 2021 Released: April 22, 2021 By the Commission: Acting Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Starks issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 5 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Entities or Individuals Whose Involvement in the Provision of Programming Triggers a Disclosure ...................................................................................................................................... 14 B. Scope of Foreign Programming that Requires a Disclosure .......................................................... 24 C. Reasonable Diligence ..................................................................................................................... 35 D. Contents and Frequency of Required Disclosure of Foreign Sponsorship .................................... 49 E. Concerns About Overlap with Other Statutory
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: the Case of The
    09-008 Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: The Case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 David A. Moss Jonathan B. Lackow Copyright © 2008 by David A. Moss and Jonathan B. Lackow Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Rethinking the Role of History in Law & Economics: The Case of the Federal Radio Commission in 1927 David A. Moss Jonathan B. Lackow July 13, 2008 Abstract In the study of law and economics, there is a danger that historical inferences from theory may infect historical tests of theory. It is imperative, therefore, that historical tests always involve a vigorous search not only for confirming evidence, but for disconfirming evidence as well. We undertake such a search in the context of a single well-known case: the Federal Radio Commission’s (FRC’s) 1927 decision not to expand the broadcast radio band. The standard account of this decision holds that incumbent broadcasters opposed expansion (to avoid increased competition) and succeeded in capturing the FRC. Although successful broadcaster opposition may be taken as confirming evidence for this interpretation, our review of the record reveals even stronger disconfirming evidence. In particular, we find that every major interest group, not just radio broadcasters, publicly opposed expansion of the band in 1927, and that broadcasters themselves were divided at the FRC’s hearings. 1. Introduction What is the role of history in the study of law and economics? Perhaps its most important role in this context is as a test of theory and a source of new hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernizing the Communications Act
    Modernizing the Communications Act The Committee on Energy and Commerce is issuing a series of white papers as the first step toward modernizing the laws governing the communications and technology sector. The primary body of law regulating these industries was passed in 1934 and while updated periodically, it has not been modernized in 17 years. Changes in technology and the rate at which they are occurring warrant an examination of whether, and how, communications law can be rationalized to address the 21st century communications landscape. For this reason, the committee initiated an examination of the regulation of the communications industry, and offers this opportunity for comment from all interested parties on the future of the law. History of Communications Laws The Communications Act of 1934 (“the Act”) consolidated the regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications into a single statute. Title I of the Act created the Federal Communications Commission, replacing the Federal Radio Commission as the body tasked with implementation and regulation of the law. Title II addressed common carrier regulation of telephone and telegraph, modeled on the assumption of a utility-like natural monopoly, and title III addressed radio communications, expanded in 1967 to include television broadcasting. The three other original titles addressed administrative and procedural matters, penalties and fines, and miscellaneous matters. An additional title was added in 1984 covering cable television. One of the major changes to the Act was the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (“the Cable Act”), which aimed to foster competition, diversity, and localism in the cable television industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Media Ownership Rules Updated October 9, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45338 SUMMARY R45338 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) October 9, 2018 Media Ownership Rules Dana A. Scherer The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) aims, with its broadcast media ownership Specialist in rules, to promote localism and competition by restricting the number of media outlets that a Telecommunications single entity may own or control within a geographic market and, in the case of broadcast Policy television stations, nationwide. In addition, the FCC seeks to encourage diversity, including (1) the diversity of viewpoints, as reflected in the availability of media content reflecting a variety of perspectives; (2) diversity of programming, as indicated by a variety of formats and content; (3) outlet diversity, to ensure the presence of multiple independently owned media outlets within a geographic market; and (4) minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets. Two FCC media ownership rules have proven particularly controversial. Its national media ownership rule prohibits any entity from owning commercial television stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households nationwide. Its “UHF discount” rule discounts by half the reach of a station broadcasting in the Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) band for the purpose of applying the national media ownership rule. In December 2017, the commission opened a rulemaking proceeding, seeking comments about whether it should modify or repeal the two rules. If the FCC retains the UHF discount, even if it maintains the 39% cap, a single entity could potentially reach 78% of U.S. households through its ownership of broadcast television stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape
    The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape Patricia Moloney Figliola Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy April 15, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32589 The Federal Communications Commission Summary The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available—at reasonable cost and without discrimination—rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communication services, whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable. Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry—telephone, cable television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the Internet. These policymakers, including some in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC or through congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2) substantive policy changes requiring congressional action that would affect how the agency regulates different services and industry sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM January 9, 2020 To: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Members and Staff Fr: Committee on Energy And
    MEMORANDUM January 9, 2020 To: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Members and Staff Fr: Committee on Energy and Commerce Staff Re: Legislative Hearing on “Lifting Voices: Legislation to Promote Media Marketplace Diversity” On Wednesday, January 15, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a legislative hearing entitled, “Lifting Voices: Legislation to Promote Media Marketplace Diversity.” I. BACKGROUND A. The Current Landscape There is wide consensus that ownership of traditional media distribution outlets – broadcast and multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) - by women and people of color is very low.1 According to the most recent data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), from October 2015, ownership of full power commercial television stations and commercial FM radio stations by women and people of color was around 10 percent.2 The FCC does not collect similar ownership data for MVPDs. Historically, a tax certificate program helped increase diversity of broadcast ownership. Using authority granted it by Congress in 1943,3 the FCC created the minority ownership tax certificate program in 1978, to address the dearth of broadcast ownership by people of color.4 The program provided tax breaks to companies that sold a radio or television station to a 1 See, e.g., Federal Communications Commission, Third Report on Ownership of Commercial Broadcast Stations (May 10, 2017); Government Accountability Office, Economic Factors Influence the Number of Media Outlets in Local Markets, While Ownership by Minorities and Women Appears Limited and Is Difficult to Assess (April 11, 2008) (GAO 08-383).
    [Show full text]
  • Making Radio Pirates Walk the Plank with Aiding and Abetting Liability
    Arrr! Sever Thee Transmitters! Making Radio Pirates Walk the Plank with Aiding and Abetting Liability Max Nacheman * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 299 II. THE INTERTWINED FATE OF BROADCAST REGULATION AND PIRATE RADIO ............................................................................................. 301 A. Origins of Radio Broadcast Regulation in the United States .. 301 B. Pirates of the (Air)waves: The Swell of Unauthorized Broadcasting ............................................................................ 303 C. From Radio Pirates to Cellular Ninjas: The Future of Unauthorized Broadcasting ..................................................... 304 III. UNAUTHORIZED BROADCASTING POSES A UNIQUE ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED BY ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY TO CRACK DOWN ON AIDERS AND ABETTORS OF PIRATE BROADCASTERS .............................................................................. 305 A. The FCC’s Enforcement Procedure for Unauthorized Broadcasters Is an Inadequate Deterrent to Pirates ............... 306 B. Aiding and Abetting Liability Would Cut the Supply Chain of Essential Resources to Unauthorized Broadcasters ................ 309 1. How the United Kingdom Sank Pirate Radio ................... 310 2. Aiding and Abetting Liability for Securities Violations ... 311 IV. THREE WAYS TO CRACK DOWN ON AIDERS AND ABETTORS OF UNAUTHORIZED BROADCASTING: STATUTE, RULEMAKING, AND EXISTING CRIMINAL LAW .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Policy and Regulatory Landscape
    PART TWO the policy and regulatory landscape 274 Since the beginning of the Republic, government policies have affected—sometimes profoundly— the evolution of the news media. What follows is a description and evaluation of FCC and other governmental policies that have shaped—and that continue to shape—the news media landscape and the provision of civically important information to citizens on a community level and nationwide. We focus on those policies that relate to the concerns raised in Part One, especially regarding the health of local information, news, and journalism. We have tried to critically evaluate the FCC’s own role. While some FCC policies have helped, some have not—and crafting sound policy going forward requires the Commission to understand why. Sociologist Paul Starr has argued that we are currently in a rare “constitutive moment,” when today’s decisions will shape media industry evolution for decades to come. Given the seismic nature of today’s changes, it is imperative that we be conscious of what our policies are and what they are attempting to achieve. In general, our review indicates that: 1. some current FCC policy is not in synch with the nature of modern media markets; and 2. many of the FCC’s current policies are not likely to help communities and citizens get the information they need. 275 26 Broadcast Radio and Television There is no doubT ThaT FCC poliCies have played a profound role in the development and growth of the modern broadcasting industry from its earliest days. Historically, some of the most significant Congressional and FCC poli- cies were: Promoting the creation of national radio networks: In 1928, the Federal Radio Commission, the FCC’s prede- cessor, set aside national “clear channels” to allow for the creation of national radio networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Thomas W
    Michigan Technology Law Review Volume 4 | Issue 1 1998 "Chilling" the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting Thomas W. Hazlett University of California, Davis David W. Sosa University of California, Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Communications Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Internet Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Thomas W. Hazlett & aD vid W. Sosa, "Chilling" the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting , 4 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 35 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol4/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "CHILLING" THE INTERNET? LESSONS FROM FCC REGULATION OF RADIO BROADCASTING Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa* Cite As: Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa, "Chilling" the Internet? Lessonsfrom FCCRegulation of Radio Broadcasting, 4 MICH. TELECOmm. TECH. L. REv. 35 (1998) available at <http:/www.mttlr.org/volfour/hazlett.pdf>. ExEcuTIvE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 35 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 36 II. CONTENT REGULATION IN BROADCASTING ............................... 41 Im. CONTENT REGULATION PRE-"FAIRNEsS" ........................44 IV. RED LION: THE REST OF THE STORY ........................................ 45 V. NIXON'S "CHILL" .................................................................... 47 VI. EXTENDING THE "CHILL" BEYOND WASHINGTON POLITICS ......... 50 VII. THE FCC LIFTS RADIO REGULATION, 1979-87 ........................ 51 VIII. DID THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE "WARM" OR "CHILI'? ............
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape
    The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape Patricia Moloney Figliola Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy August 1, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32589 The Federal Communications Commission Summary The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available—at reasonable cost and without discrimination—rapid, efficient, nation- and worldwide communication services, whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable. Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry—telephone, cable television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the internet. These policymakers, including some in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC or through congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2) substantive policy changes requiring congressional action that would affect how the agency regulates different services and industry sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Television: the FCC's Attempt to Educate America's Children May Force the Supreme Court to Reconsider the Red Lion Rationale
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 47 Issue 1 Fall 1997 Article 7 1997 Children's Television: The FCC's Attempt to Educate America's Children May Force the Supreme Court to Reconsider the Red Lion Rationale Roxana Wizorek Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Roxana Wizorek, Children's Television: The FCC's Attempt to Educate America's Children May Force the Supreme Court to Reconsider the Red Lion Rationale, 47 Cath. U. L. Rev. 153 (1998). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss1/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT CHILDREN'S TELEVISION: THE FCC'S ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE AMERICA'S CHILDREN MAY FORCE THE SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER THE RED LION RATIONALE Roxana Wizorek + The Federal Communications Commission1 (FCC or the Commission) is charged with regulating interstate and foreign communications by ra- dio, television, wire, satellite, and cable Under the Communications Act of 1934, Congress delineated the Commission's jurisdiction and authority.' Like many other federal agencies, the Federal Communica- tions Commission's existence is attributable to the complexities of mod- + J.D. candidate, May 1998, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. 1. The Federal Communications Commission is an independent federal administra- tive agency responsible directly to Congress. See Communications Act of 1934 § 1, 47 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]