Ken Freed wrote:
> For the record, the commercialization of radio happened
> in the 1920's
It started in the 1920s, but the passage of laws that regulated what
the broadcasters could do happened in 1934, with the passing of the
first Telecom Act and the establishment of the FCC.
> and was the only way that the technology could be deployed on a mass
> scale.
> As for the Forties' commercialization of television, this was the dream by
> both inventor Farnsworth and his fierce rivals at NBC, for sans a profit
> motive, no one would have bothered.
These were matters of opinion that were not shared by all concerned
parties.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that if you look at the history
of the establishment of commercial broadcasting, you will see the same
type of struggle of fringe groups against big business and government.
Sources:
SELLING RADIO, Susan Smulyan
SEX AND BROADCASTING, Lorenzo Milam
PACIFICA RADIO: THE RISE OF AN ALTERNATIVE NETWORK, Matthew Lasar
> As it stands now, ICANN disenfranchises billions of people worldwide
> with no say in key decisions.
That may be, but
> since there has never been a public vote on the privitazation of our
> public internet, ICANN is, defacto, an illegitimate regime usupring power
> with the collusion of government and industry.
Why do you think a public vote would yield any different results? What would
cause the public to arrive at the same conclusions that you have (assuming
that they care to involve themselves)?
--gregbo
