Podcasts about Telecommunications Act

For an ad-free experience and much more content, subscribe now. Subscribers at the "Top Secret" tier get a one-year digital subscription to The Nation! In this week's episode, Danny speaks with journalist Ross Benes about his book 1999: The Year Low Culture Conquered America and Kickstarted Our Bizarre Times. They discuss the connection between the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and “trash culture”, what makes the instantiation of reality TV in 1999 unique and how early reality shows foreshadowed modern politics, how Beanie Babies were akin to “stock investments” for working class and lower middle class people, Pokémon as a pure distillation of unrestrained capitalism, and the other features of that moment that predicted American life as we now know it.  If you enjoyed this episode, listen to our discussion with Colette Shade, “Y2K: The Future That Never Was”. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode, Danny speaks with journalist Ross Benes about his book 1999: The Year Low Culture Conquered America and Kickstarted Our Bizarre Times. They discuss the connection between the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and “trash culture”, what makes the instantiation of reality TV in 1999 unique and how early reality shows foreshadowed modern politics, how Beanie Babies were akin to “stock investments” for working class and lower middle class people, Pokémon as a pure distillation of unrestrained capitalism, and the other features of that moment that predicted American life as we now know it. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dive into the fascinating discussion with Ross Benes, author of '1999: The Year Low Culture Conquered America and Kickstarted Our Bizarre Times,' on how the 1990s pop culture revolution — fueled by Jerry Springer, pro wrestling, reality TV, and media deregulation — shaped modern politics, including the rise of Donald Trump. From the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the Attitude Era of WWE, explore how lowbrow entertainment, technology, and cultural shifts created the polarized, tribal world we live in today. Matt Lewis and Ross Benes unpack the contradictions of conservatism, the impact of 90s icons like Stone Cold Steve Austin, and why Gen X might never produce a president. Get the book: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/9780700638574/#1999 #PopCulture #DonaldTrump #JerrySpringer #RealityTV #Politics #90sNostalgia #MediaDeregulation #WWE #GenXSupport "Matt Lewis & The News" at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFollow Matt Lewis & Cut Through the Noise:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattklewis/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's book: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416Copyright © 2024, BBL & BWL, LLC

Another day in the last days of the "Grand Experiment" in liberal democracy. Fox News works their lying fascist asses off to rehab Elon Musk's unpopularity. We discuss the madness. __________________________________________________ Need MORE unapologetic progressive TRUTH? Watch "The Tara Show" with Tara Devlin and Tara Dublin every Tuesday and Thursday 2PM EST on the Political Voices Network! www.youtube.com/@PoliticalVoicesNetwork Head on with Robyn Kincaid is on 5 nights a week! headon.live/ Tarabuster is among the independent media voices at APSRadioNews.com Tarabuster is also on rokfin.com/tarabuster BECOME A "TARABUSTER" PATRON: www.patreon.com/taradevlin Join the Tarabuster community on Discord too!! discord.gg/PRYDBx8 Buy some Resistance Merch and help support our progressive work! tarabustermerch.com/ Contact Tarabuster: tarabustershow@maskedfort.com Buy some Resistance Merch and help support our progressive work! tarabustermerch.com/ Keep the REAL liberal media going and growing! Support Tarabuster: www.paypal.com/paypalme/taradacktyl 00:00:00 Introduction 00:05:40 The Impact of Billionaires on Democracy 00:11:00 Impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 00:15:41 Persuasion Through Targeted Messaging 00:21:05 Controversial Conversations: Language Barriers and Service Stations 00:26:01 Racism and Political Assumptions in New York 00:31:11 Controversies Surrounding Elon Musk and Legal Threats 00:36:30 Media Suppression and Propaganda in America 00:41:39 Critique of Authoritarian Regimes and Wealth Disparity 00:46:42 The Debate on Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Language 00:51:42 The American Rescue Plan and Obama's Legacy 00:56:45 Political Divisions: Main Street vs. Wall Street 01:02:22 Donald Trump's Approval Ratings and Broken Politics 01:06:47 The Influence of Conservative Media and Propaganda 01:11:54 Jobs Created by Biden's Policies 01:17:28 Critique of Elon Musk and Billionaire Influence 01:22:13 Impact of Homelessness and Social Security 01:27:01 The Hidden Agenda of Project 2025 01:32:28 Critique of Billionaire Leadership and Political Influence 01:37:04 The Role of Government Agencies in Public Service 01:42:14 Reliance on Social Security for Income 01:47:42 Criticism of Apple's Business Practices 01:54:20 Critique of Media and Wealth Inequality 01:59:01 Criticism of Elon Musk's Business Practices 02:03:54 The Illusion of Tax Cuts and Political Manipulation 02:09:03 Political Tensions Between Blue and Red States 02:14:10 Controversy Over the Herculaneum Scrolls Team 02:19:19 Misleading Information and Fake News 02:25:20 Election Controversies and Public Opinion 02:32:41 Upcoming Political Voices Network Show with Tara and Tara 02:35:31 Community Appreciation and Support

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O'ConnorOn this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O'Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court's composition.O'Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O'Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O'Connor's presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation's highest judicial institution.President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm's access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block's former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner's attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.Trump's broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC's funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress's legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress's broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC's subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution's assignment of legislative powers to Congress.The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | ReutersA high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump's support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state's top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel's campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he's made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it's time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today's drivers can choose where to fuel up.Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textIn this episode, host Ryan Roberts speaks with double bassist and educator Chris Hornung about the history of rock music. Key topics include the genre's roots in Tin Pan Alley, country, and blues, as well as the influence of early pioneers like Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. A rock history instructor offers insights into rock's evolution—from its emergence and impact on 1950s teenage culture to the industry's transformation through platforms like MTV and legislative changes such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996.The conversation explores cultural influences, shifting definitions of rock's eras and movements, and the lasting impact of artists like Bob Dylan and David Bowie. Participants also examine the socio-economic factors that shaped rock's rise, emphasizing its resilience against claims of obsolescence while celebrating its enduring legacy and the contributions of pivotal artists across decades.Zimmerman Publications____________________________________________________________In This EpisodeLemur MusicUse PromoCode THEBASSSHEDJerry Jemmott 15 Timeless BasslinesGet FeaturedSupport the showInstagram / Twitter / Youtube / Website / BSA / View More Episodes

Another day in the last days of the "Grand Experiment" in liberal democracy. Traitor Trump has only been in office a few days and it feels like years. Traitor Trump wants "the states" to do everything - because he's lazy and his billionaire masters want to tear America apart. We discuss the madness _________________________________ Head on with Robyn Kincaid is on 5 nights a week! https://headon.live/ Tarabuster is among the independent media voices at APSRadioNews.com Tarabuster is also on https://rokfin.com/tarabuster BECOME A "TARABUSTER" PATRON: www.patreon.com/taradevlin Join the Tarabuster community on Discord too!! https://discord.gg/PRYDBx8 Buy some Resistance Merch and help support our progressive work! http://tarabustermerch.com/ Contact Tarabuster: tarabustershow@maskedfort.com Buy some Resistance Merch and help support our progressive work! http://tarabustermerch.com/ Donate to Tarabuster: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/taradacktyl 00:00:00 Introduction 00:01:20 Unapologetic Liberal Talk with Tara Devlin 00:06:45 Outrage and Betrayal After the Election 00:12:20 Understanding Insurrectionists and Family Dynamics 00:17:41 The Assault on Democracy 00:23:11 Impact of Immigration Policies on Farmers 00:28:50 Legal Battles and Perceptions of Lawfare 00:34:38 Tragic Consequences and Political Critique 00:40:12 Media Influence and Economic Inequality 00:45:43 Nixon and the Vietnam War: Allegations of Treason 00:51:24 Division Among Americans 00:56:58 Criticism of Trump's Policies 01:02:50 Critique of Project 2025 and Political Divisions 01:08:21 The Impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 01:15:16 Experiences in the Military 01:20:10 Encouragement for Personal Growth 01:26:05 Struggles and Recovery: Navigating Addiction 01:32:03 Supreme Court Decision and Meritocracy Debate 01:38:00 Trump's Controversial Davos Speech 01:42:47 Government Challenges in Red States 01:48:14 Critique of Political Decisions and Governance 01:54:00 George Washington and the Oath for Democracy 02:00:30 Political Division and Isolation in the United States 02:06:08 The Impact of Political Leadership on Society 02:11:46 The Call for Political Change and Critique of Republican Actions 02:17:28 Campaign Finance and Political Influence 02:23:16 Lauren Boebert's Shameful Antics against Sarah McBride 02:28:39 Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace: Pee-Pee Police 02:34:31 Mike Johnson's Misattributions to Thomas Jefferson 02:40:41 Understanding Political Rumors and Accountability 02:46:07 Ancient Rome and Racism Debate 02:51:54 Concluding Remarks and Gratitude

This podcast, started in 2013, now 11 years running. I wanted to break from the usual conversations to share some thoughts on gratitude and optimism. To share some updates and thank those who have participated in this exceptional run. Designer Resources Pacific Sales Kitchen and Home. Where excellence meets expertise. Monogram - It's the details that define Monogram ThermaSol - Redefining the modern shower experience. Without steam, it's just a bathroom. Design Hardware - A stunning and vast collection of jewelry for the home!  - Where service meets excellence TimberTech - Real wood beauty without the upkeep The production of this episode coincides with Thanksgiving, intentionally. This is the time of year when most design professionals and clients alike tend to shut things down for the year. Kids come home from school for the Winter break, family comes to visit, we buy gifts for loved ones, attend holiday parties and I like to think that I am not alone in looking at the past year reflectively while looking to the new year with renewed optimism. 2024 was a fantastic year with regard to the show. Convo By Design has hit a higher gear this year. Going back to by background in motorsports, that means we have opened up new opportunities and are running faster and harder than ever before. The post-pandemic world is different that it was prior. Some issues have emerged this year that I find disturbing. Natural disasters, climate change, weather patterns have all accelerated. It isn't really about if people believe or remain climate change deniers. Ignore these changes at your peril. I experienced something in 2023 that forever changed the way I feel about climate changes. Father's Day, 2023, there was a straight line wind event in Tulsa. 100 mile per hour winds for 30-minutes. You can imagine the destruction. My family was fine, but others were not as fortunate. As I write this, a series of hurricanes passed through the southeast and the devastation was tremendous. We are also saw a dock workers strike, a fierce election season which will once again separate families and end friendships. And as I say this, I cannot help but feel optimistic for the year to come. Why? I'll tell you, rights after this. Why the optimism? First, I have been incredibly fortunate. I have my family, my health, you… yes you, I am so thankful that you listen, even happier when you send an email to let me know you like the show, disagree with something I said or have a guest suggestion. I also have a roster of incredible partner sponsors. Patrick, Nick, Mitch, Rachael and Jari from ThermaSol. Dan, Jay, Sam from TimberTech. Shaun and Verzine from Pacific Sales as well as the amazing team at Monogram. Michele, Avi, Stassi and Jaime from Design Hardware. Then there are the incredible creatives who share their stories and their work with us, you and me every week on the show. 2024 has brought some new endeavors, exciting changes and portends great things to come. But tread cautiously. I'll get to that in a moment. First, the new developments. I learned early on in my radio career that the only thing you can really count on is change. The Telecom Act of 1996 changed so much, for me…and you. Most of the people I speak with these days don't listen to the radio, and that is unfortunate for radio, but not for all of the incredible audio programming that we have available. If there was no Telecommunications Act of 1996, radio stations would probably still be in the hands of individual owners instead of the 10 groups that almost every American radio station. When I was a teenager, growing up in the Valley. I listened to KLOS, KMET, KNAC and KROQ. Play a song for me and I can tell you about how old I was and what I was doing when it was popular. KMET and KLOS created a love for Guns & Roses, Motley Crue, Giant, Scorpions and Van Halen, KNAC sharpened the rock edge with Metallica, Ozzy, Anthrax and Megadeth. Then KROQ, my beloved KROQ.

Andrew For America welcomes back to the show the host of the According2Sam podcast, Mr. Sam Winchester. Andrew and Sam discuss the aftermath of the Trump presidential re-election, how Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough recently visited Mar-A-Lago to talk to Trump about the "media shake up" that is coming soon for some left-wing media outlets, how the media has radicalized Americans, what the nomination and confirmation of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General would mean for a lot of career politicians in Washington, why Sunny Hostin of The View had to recently publicly redact her flat out lies about Matt Gaetz on live television, and how the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is at the root of why necessary changes in the media are coming soon. Andrew and Sam also talk about and define "lawfair," and discuss how lawfair was used to get a "felony conviction" on Trump. Enjoy the football references/analogies in this one people! Visit allegedlyrecords.com and check out all of the amazing punk rock artists! Visit soundcloud.com/andrewforamerica1984 to check out Andrew's music! Like and Follow The Politics & Punk Rock Podcast PLAYLIST on Spotify!!! Check it out here: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1Y4rumioeqvHfaUgRnRxsy... politicsandpunkrockpodcast.com https://linktr.ee/andrewforamerica Watch and learn about these awesome offers for your survival needs from former Afghanistan war veteran, police officer, and citizen journalist, Mr. Teddy Daniels: Operation Blackout Survival Guide: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://internalblackout.com/?a=683&c=434&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠ Famine Fighter Survival Food Supply: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foodforthesoul.co/?a=683&c=407&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Final Famine Survival Food Growing Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://finalfoodprepper.com/?a=683&c=433&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠ Devils Dollar Currency Survival Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dbhtrkg.com/?a=683&c=468&s1=⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/andrew-foramerica/support

MURDERS IN THE FIRST DEGREEMEET THE AUTHOR Podcast: LIVE - Episode 182Originally aired LIVE Wednesday November 13 ,2024Featuring Authors JAMES CALLAN, KELLY MARSHALL & JINX SCHWARTZ.ABOUT JAMES: James R. Callan took a degree in English intent on writing. But when writing did not support a family, he returned to graduate school in mathematics. After graduate school, he worked at a research center for twelve years before he and his wife started a database company, which they ran for twenty-five years.After a successful career in mathematics and computer science, receiving grants from the National Science Foundation and NASA, and being listed in Who's Who in Computer Science and Two Thousand Notable Americans, (and all four of his kids graduated from college and self-supporting), James R. Callan turned to his first love—writing.ABOUT KELLY: I always thought I would communicate in the world as a writer. As a child I was a voracious reader and knew someday I would pen a great novel. Life sometimes takes left turns though, and I went to broadcasting school instead of a four-year college. I wanted to be the next Barbara Walters and make a million a year. That didn't happen, but I did spend thirty years having fun, spinning records, interviewing people, doing love song dedications. I had a ball until…The U.S. Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowing broadcast corporations to own multiple radio stations in one market. The gobbling began and soon behemoth broadcasting corporations ate up radio stations like locusts in a wheat field. And radio announcers like me were axed on bloody Fridays with surgical precision. I was working for a small radio station for chump change. Something had to give. I left radio, went to work for the US Federal Government, and in my private hours, began doing what I really loved. Writing.ABOUT JINX: USA TODAY BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, Jinx Schwartz is a ninth-generation Texan who lived and worked all over the planet before dropping from the corporate world to write and cruise. Living aboard a boat for many years in Mexico's Sea of Cortez inspired her Award-winning Hetta Coffey Series.Links to watch or listen to all episodes at:https://indiebooksource.com/podcast

Understanding the Federal Universal Service Fund, Podcast ,Three Methods for Determining FUSF Contribution “It's not a tax. It's a fee,” Jeff Lytle, of Sandy Beaches Software. “And it's assessed on telecommunications companies.”  According to the FCC, “Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund (USF) operated as a mechanism by which interstate long-distance carriers were assessed to subsidize telephone service to low-income households and high-cost areas. The Communications Act of 1934 stated that all people in the United States shall have access to rapid, efficient, nationwide communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the traditional definition of universal service - affordable, nationwide telephone service to include among other things rural health care providers and eligible schools and libraries.” In this podcast, Jeff, whose company and career have been dedicated to helping organizations stay in compliance with the FUSF, brings us up to date on what that challenge looks like today. “Every telecom company in the United States, VoIP or otherwise, contributes to the Universal Service Fund, and this funds the libraries, and hospitals. It funds the phones for poor people or the undeserved and allows them to have communication services. the fund was created in 2000 and at that time the rate was 5.7 percent and now it's grown to where it's 35.8 percent of the build revenue. Now, when the FCC created this back in 2000, they gave three different methods for calculating your contribution rate. It's called a contribution. It's not a tax, dog It's a contribution you're making to fund these services. The government's But if you don't pay it, you do get heavy fines.” When a tax is not a tax, and fee might not be a fee As we learn in this podcast, the FUSF is not so cut and dry. As a specialist on this matter, Jeff outlines how companies can be looking at a less steep fee. But you will need a deep understanding of this matter, and likely, specialized help. Jeff and his team at Sandy Beaches Software are headquartered in Oklahoma City, a city noted for sunshine, but often beaches. We learn that their made (and supported) in the USA offer, also represents an advantage. “If you were working in all 50 states and had to file for every single jurisdiction, you'd have 48,000 returns per year that you would be filing. You need a compliance company at that point. When you're only working in one, two states, a lot of times you can do it on your own and you don't need that third party. But your billing company works in between all of these folks to make that happen. You need a solid billing company that's experienced with the tax piece to get it right.” Visit www.sandybeachessoftware.com  

The Big Mates discuss night shifts, Batman, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Up by R.E.M.Adam, Steve, and Lucas continue their deep dive into the career and discography of R.E.M. by concluding their analysis of the band's televenth studio album, released in 1998. They talk about the writing and recording process, the context surrounding the songs, and offer up analysis, opinions, and thoughts from three differing perspectives on music, from being deeply into analysis and music, to not caring for art or critique, and everything in between.They pick up their discussion towards the end of the album and complete their track-by-track analysis, sum up their feelings on the experiemental record, and offer up scores and highlights. They explore the legacy of the album, how it has aged over time, and how that compares to the reception of the album when it was released in 1998.They also find time to explore R.E.M.'s contribution to the Austin Powers soundtrack, the writing of the score for the film Man on the Moon, and the standalone single The Great Beyond.What do we think of Up? How is the album viewed now? Can you push an elephant up the stairs? Find out on this episode of What Is Music?Our next episode is out on Monday November 4th.Join the conversation on:Twitter: https://twitter.com/whatismusicpodInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/whatismusicpodE-mail: whatismusicpod@gmail.comGet access to more shows, exclusive bonus content, ad-free episodes of this show, and more music discussion by subscribing to our Patreon!Head to patreon.com/whatismusicpod and receive up to two new episodes of our various shows every week (including shows about Manic Street Preachers and monthly themed playlists!), ad-free archives of What Is Music?, and access to our Patron-only Discord server for even more music (and non-music) discussion!Support our show when starting your own podcast!By signing up to Buzzsprout with this link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=780379Check out our merch!https://whatismusicpod.redbubble.comDonate to our podcast!https://ko-fi.com/whatismusichttp://whatismusic.buzzsprout.com/Support the show

Michael Byrne's keynote at FOSS4G NA 2024 emphasized the interconnection between broadband investment and geospatial development. He highlighted the importance of public policy and funding in fostering these ecosystems, particularly in the context of the U.S. government's role. Highlights

In February 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC” or “Commission”), issued Telecom Notice of Consultation 2019-57 for the purpose of initiating a broad review of mobile wireless services and their associated regulatory framework. The Commission indicated that the review would focus on three key areas, including the future of mobile wireless services in Canada, with a focus on reducing barriers to infrastructure deployment. In inviting comments on the matter, an access issue arose which asked whether the CRTC's jurisdiction over access to municipal infrastructure extended to the installation of 5G small cells. This required the Commission to interpret the term “transmission line” in s. 43 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. The term “transmission line” is found in the Act's access regime. The access regime authorizes carriers like the appellants to go onto public property to construct, maintain, or operate “transmission lines” with the consent of municipalities. Where terms of access cannot be agreed upon, s. 43(5) accords the CRTC the essentially adjudicative role of considering applications from, and providing redress to, public service providers who cannot gain access to the supporting structure of a transmission line on terms acceptable to them. In the CRTC's view, “transmission line” could not include small cells or any technologies that transmit telecommunications wirelessly such that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes in this area by way of the access regime. The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed this interpretation, and dismissed the appeal brought by Telus Communications Inc. Argued Date 2024-10-16 Keywords Administrative law — Appeals — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — Jurisdiction — Wireless services — Deployment of 5G network — Access regime to public and other property — Transmission lines — CRTC determining that it lacks jurisdiction over carriers' access to municipal infrastructure for the installation of 5G small cells — Application of access regime to 5G small cells turning on interpretation of “transmission line” under Act — Does wireless transmission infrastructure (e.g., 5G small cells) constitute, or is it an integral part of, a “transmission line” within the meaning of s. 43 of the Telecommunications Act, SC 1993, c. 38? Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Ian Scott, former chair and CEO of the CRTC and visiting scholar at McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy, discusses his recent paper on Canada's digital divide, and what could be done to boost competitive intensity in the telecommunications sector, including the possibility of fully repealing foreign investment restrictions under the Telecommunications Act.This episode was made possible by Telus and the generosity of listeners like you. Donate today.The Hub Dialogues features The Hub's editor-at-large, Sean Speer, in conversation with leading entrepreneurs, policymakers, scholars, and thinkers on the issues and challenges that will shape Canada's future at home and abroad.If you like what you are hearing on Hub Dialogues consider subscribing to The Hub's free weekly email newsletter featuring our insights and analysis on key public policy issues. Sign up here: https://thehub.ca/join/. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

November 2-8, 1996 This week Ken welcomes Denver Comedian Geoff Tice to the show. Ken and Geoff discuss how Denver become a comedy hub reminiscent of Boston's golden era,being both a comic and graphic designer, Colorado's vibrant comedy scenne, Comedy Works,expert insights on the evolution of comedy flyers and the quirky charm of '90s TV Guide advertisements, legendarily bad TV shows like "It's About Time" . underrated gems like "Spin City.", the unique charm of Australian TV and shows like "Beyond 2000". John Cleese's timeless classic "Fawlty Towers," . the controversial airing of an officer-involved shooting on "Cops" . election night of Bill Clinton's second term, sports highlights, peculiar TV movies, the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on today's media landscape. and "Cheers and Jeers" 

Love: The Venture Bros. Andy takes this episode's Love segment to discuss one of the most iconic Adult Swim shows, The Venture Bros. He talks its evolution from Hardy Boys/Johnny Quest parody to something unique unto itself (all while being irreverent and hilarious and so, so nerdy), while Alex sees how many Marvel, glam rock, …

While AI doomers proselytize their catastrophic message, many politicians are recognizing that the loss of America's competitive edge poses a much more real threat than the supposed “existential risk” of AI. Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I talk with Adam Thierer about the current state of the AI policy landscape and the accompanying fierce regulatory debate.Thierer is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where he promotes greater freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. Prior to R Street, he worked as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and at the Adam Smith Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute.In This Episode* A changing approach (1:09)* The global AI race (7:26)* The political economy of AI (10:24)* Regulatory risk (16:10)* AI policy under Trump (22:29)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA changing approach (1:09)Pethokoukis: Let's start out with just trying to figure out the state of play when it comes to AI regulation. Now I remember we had people calling for the AI Pause, and then we had a Biden executive order. They're passing some sort of act in Europe on AI, and now recently a senate working group in AI put out a list of guidelines or recommendations on AI. Given where we started, which was “shut it down,” to where we're at now, has that path been what you might've expected, given where we were when we were at full panic?Thierer: No, I think we've moved into a better place, I think. Let's look back just one year ago this week: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there was a hearing where Sam Altman of OpenAI testified along with Gary Marcus, who's a well-known AI worrywart, and the lawmakers were falling all over themselves to praise Sam and Gary for basically calling for a variety of really extreme forms of AI regulation and controls, including not just national but international regulatory bodies, new general purpose licensing systems for AI, a variety of different types of liability schemes, transparency mandates, disclosure as so-called “AI nutritional labels,” I could go on down the list of all the types of regulations that were being proposed that day. And of course this followed, as you said, Jim, a call for an AI Pause, without any details about exactly how that would work, but it got a lot of signatories, including people like Elon Musk, which is very strange considering he was at the same time deploying one of the biggest AI systems in history. But enough about Elon.The bottom line is that those were dark days, and I think the tenor of the debate and the proposals on the table today, one year after that hearing, have improved significantly. That's the good news. The bad news is that there's still a lot of problematic regulatory proposals percolating throughout the United States. As of this morning, as we're taping the show, we are looking at 738 different AI bills pending in the United States according to multistate.ai, an AI tracking service. One hundred and—I think—eleven of those are federal bills. The vast majority of it is state. But that count does not include all of the municipal regulatory proposals that are pending for AI systems, including some that have already passed in cities like New York City that already has a very important AI regulation governing algorithmic hiring practices. So the bottom line, Jim, is it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. Things have both gotten better and worse.Well—just because the most recent thing that happened—I know with this the senate working group, and they were having all kinds of technologists and economists come in and testify. So that report, is it really calling for anything specific to happen? What's in there other than just kicking it back to all the committees? If you just read that report, what does it want to happen?A crucial thing about this report, and let's be clear what this is, because it was an important report because senator Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in charge of this, along with a bipartisan group of other major senators, and this started the idea of, so-called “AI insight forums” last year, and it seemed to be pulling some authority away from committees and taking it to the highest levels of the Senate to say, “Hey, we're going to dictate AI policy and we're really scared.” And so that did not look good. I think in the process, just politically speaking—That, in itself, is a good example. That really represents the level of concern that was going around, that we need to do something different and special to address this existential risk.And this was the leader of the Senate doing it and taking away power, in theory, from his committee members—which did not go over well with said committee members, I should add. And so a whole bunch of hearings took place, but they were not really formal hearings, they were just these AI insight forum working groups where a lot of people sat around and said the same things they always say on a daily basis, and positive and negatives of AI. And the bottom line is, just last week, a report came out from this AI senate bipartisan AI working group that was important because, again, it did not adopt the recommendations that were on the table a year ago when the process got started last June. It did not have overarching general-purpose licensing of artificial intelligence, no new call for a brand new Federal Computer Commission for America, no sweeping calls for liability schemes like some senators want, or other sorts of mandates.Instead, it recommended a variety of more generic policy reforms and then kicked a lot of the authority back to those committee members to say, “You fill out the details, for better for worse.” And it also included a lot of spending. One thing that seemingly everybody agrees on in this debate is that, well, the government should spend a lot more money and so another $30 billion was on the table of sort of high-tech pork for AI-related stuff, but it really did signal a pretty important shift in approach, enough that it agitated the groups on the more pro-regulatory side of this debate who said, “Oh, this isn't enough! We were expecting Schumer to go for broke and swing for the fences with really aggressive regulation, and he's really let us down!” To which I can only say, “Well, thank God he did,” because we're in a better place right now because we're taking a more wait-and-see approach on at least some of these issues.A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopoliticsThe global AI race (7:26)I'm going to ask you in a minute what stuff in those recommendations worries you, but before I do, what happened? How did we get from where we were a year ago to where we've landed today?A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopolitics. We face major adversaries, but specifically China, who has said in documents that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] has published that they want to be the global leader in algorithmic and computational technologies by 2030, and they're spending a lot of money putting a lot of state resources into it. Now, I don't necessarily believe that means they're going to automatically win, of course, but they're taking it seriously. But it's not just China. We have seen in the past year massive state investments and important innovations take place across the globe.I'm always reminding people that people talk a big game about America's foundational models are large scale systems, including things like Meta's Llama, which was the biggest open source system in the world a year ago, and then two months after Meta launched Llama, their open source platform, the government of the UAE came out with Falcon 180B, an open source AI model that was two-and-a-half times larger than Facebook's model. That meant America's AI supremacy and open source foundational models lasted for two months. And that's not China, that's the government of the UAE, which has piled massive resources into being a global leader in computation. Meanwhile, China's launched their biggest super—I'm sorry, Russia's launched their biggest supercomputer system ever; you've got Europe applying a lot of resources into it, and so on and so forth. A lot of folks in the Senate have come to realize that problem is real: that if we shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation, they could race ahead and gain competitive advantage in geopolitical strategic advantages over the United States if it hobbles our technology base. I think that's the first fundamental thing that's changed.I think the other thing that changed, Jim, is just a little bit of existential-risk exhaustion. The rhetoric in this debate, as you've written about eloquently in your columns, has just been crazy. I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in all the years we've been covering technology and economic policy. You and I have both written, this is really an unprecedented level of hysteria. And I think, at some point, the Chicken-Littleism just got to be too much, and I think some saner minds prevailed and said, “Okay, well wait a minute. We don't really need to pause the entire history of computation to address these hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Maybe there's a better plan than that.” And so we're starting to pull back from the abyss, if you will, a little bit, and the adults are reentering the conversation—a little bit, at least. So I think those are the two things that really changed more, although there were other things, but those were two big ones.The political economy of AI (10:24)To what extent do you think we saw the retreat from the more apocalyptic thinking—how much that was due from what businesses were saying, venture capitalists, maybe other tech . . . ? What do you think were the key voices Congress started listening to a little bit more?That's a great question. The political economy of AI policy and tech policy is something that is terrifically interesting to me. There are so many players and voices involved in AI policy because AI is the most important general-purpose technology of our time, and as a widespread broad base—Do you have any doubt about that? (Let me cut you off.) Do you have any doubt about that?I don't. I think it's unambiguous, and we live in a world of “combinatorial innovation,” as Hal Varian calls it, where technologies build on top of the other, one after another, but the thing is they all lead to greater computational capacity, and therefore, algorithmic and machine learning systems come out of those—if we allow it. And the state of data science in this country has gotten to the point where it's so sophisticated because of our rich base of diverse types of digital technologies and computational technologies that finally we're going to break out of the endless cycle of AI booms and busts, and springs and winters, and we're going to have a summer. I think we're having it right now. And so that is going to come to affect every single segment and sector of our economy, including the government itself. I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the busNow let me let you go return to the political economy, what I was asking you about, what were the voices, sorry, but I wanted to get that in there.Well, I think there are so many voices, I can't name them all today, obviously, but obviously we're going to start with one that's a quiet voice behind the scenes, but a huge one, which is, I think, the National Security community. I think clearly going back to our point about China and geopolitical security, I think a lot of people behind the scenes who care about these issues, including people in the Pentagon, I think they had conversations with certain members of Congress and said, “You know what? China exists. And if we're shooting ourselves in the foot, we begin this race for geopolitical strategic supremacy in an important new general-purpose technology arena, we're really hurting our underlying security as a nation. I think that that thinking is there. So that's an important voice.Secondly, I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the bus, unfortunately, and that includes OpenAI trying to screw over other companies and technologies, which is dangerous, but the bottom line is: More and more of them are coming to realize, as they saw the actual details of regulation and thinking through the compliance costs, that “Hell no, we won't go, we're not going to do that. We need a better approach.” And it was always easier in the old days to respond to the existential risk route, like, “Oh yeah, sure, regulation is fine, we'll go along with it!” But then when you see the devilish details, you think twice and you realize, “This will completely undermine our competitive advantage in the space as a company or our investment or whatever else.” All you need to do is look at Exhibit A, which is Europe, and say, if you always run with worst-case scenario thinking and Chicken-Littleism is the basis of your technology policy, guess what? People respond to incentives and they flee.Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. It's interesting, the national security aspect, my little amateurish thought experiment would be, what would be our reaction, and what would be the reaction in Washington if, in November, 2022, instead of it being a company, an American company with a big investment from another American company having rolled out ChatGPT, what if it would've been Tencent, or Alibaba, or some other Chinese company that had rolled this out, something that's obviously a leap forward, and they had been ahead, even if they said, “Oh, we're two or three years ahead of America,” it would've been bigger than Sputnik, I think.People are probably tired of hearing about AI—hopefully not, I hope they'll also listen to this podcast—but that would all we would be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about job loss, and we wouldn't be talking about ‘The Terminator,' we'd be talking about the pure geopolitical terms that the US has suffered a massive, massive defeat here and who's to blame? What are we going to do? And anybody at that moment who would've said, “We need to launch cruise missile strikes on our own data centers” for fear. . . I mean! And I think you're right, the national security component, extremely important here.In fact, I stole your little line about “Sputnik moment,” Jim, when I testified in front of the House Oversight Committee last month and I said, “Look, it would've been a true ‘Sputnik moment,' and instead it's those other countries that are left having the Sputnik moment, right? They're wondering, ‘How is it that, once again, the United States has gotten out ahead on digital and computational-based technologies?'” But thank God we did! And as I pointed out in the committee room that day, there's a lot of people who have problems with technology companies in Congress today. Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. That's just a unifying theme. Everybody in the committee room that day nodded their head, “Yes, yes, absolutely. We still hate them, but we're thankful that they're here.” And that then extends to AI: Can the next generation of companies that they want to bring to Congress and bash and pull money from for their elections, can they once again exist in the United States?Regulatory risk (16:10)So whether it's that working group report, or what else you see in Congress, what are a couple, three areas where you're concerned, where there still seems to be some sort of regulatory momentum?Let's divide it into a couple of chunks here. First of all, at the federal level, Congress is so damn dysfunctional that I'm not too worried that even if they have bad ideas, they're going to pursue them because they're just such a mess, they can't get any basic things done on things like baseline privacy legislation, or driverless car legislation, or even, hell, the budget and the border! They can't get basics done!I think it's a big positive that one, while they're engaging in dysfunction, the technology is evolving. And I hope, if it's as important as I think you and I think, more money will be invested, we'll see more use cases, it'll be obvious—the downsides of screwing up the regulation I think will be more obvious, and I think that's a tailwind for this technology.We're in violent agreement on that, Jim, and of course this goes by the name of “the pacing problem,” the idea that technology is outpacing law in many ways, and one man's pacing problem is another man's pacing benefit, in my opinion. There's a chance for technology to prove itself a little bit. That being said, we don't live in a legislative or regulatory vacuum. We already have in the United States 439 government agencies and sub-agencies, 2.2 million employees just at the federal level. So many agencies are active right now trying to get their paws on artificial intelligence, and some of them already have it. You look at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], I could go all through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that are already trying to regulate or overregulating AI right now.Then you have the Biden administration, who's gone out and done a lot of cheerleading in favor of more aggressive unilateral regulation, regardless of what Congress says and basically says, “To hell with all that stuff about Chevron Doctrine and major questions, we're just going to go do it! We're at least going to jawbone a lot and try to threaten regulation, and we're going to do it in the name of ‘algorithmic fairness,'” which is what their 100-plus-page executive order and their AI Bill of Rights says they're all about, as opposed to talking about AI opportunity and benefits—it's all misery. And it's like, “Look at how AI is just a massive tool of discrimination and bias, and we have to do something about it preemptively through a precautionary principle approach.” So if Congress isn't going to act, unfortunately the Biden administration already is and nobody's stopping them.But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, going back to the point that there are 730-plus bills pending in the US right now, the vast majority of them are state and local. And just last Friday, governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law the first major AI regulatory measure in Colorado, and there's a bigger and badder bill pending right now in California, there's 80 different bills pending in New York alone, and any half of them would be a disaster.I could go on down the list of troubling state patchwork problems that are going to develop for AI and ML [Machine Learning] systems, but the bottom line is this: This would be a complete and utter reversal of the winning formula that Congress and the Clinton administration gave us in the 1990s, which was a national—a global framework for global electronic commerce. It was very intentionally saying, “We're going to break with the Analog Era disaster, we're going to have a national framework that's pro-freedom to innovate, and we're going to make sure that these meddlesome barriers do not develop to online speech and commerce.” And yet, here with AI, we are witnessing a reversal of that. States are in the lead, and again, like I said, localities too, and Congress is sitting there and is the dysfunctional soup that it is saying, “Oh, maybe we should do something to spend a little bit more money to promote AI.” Well, we can spend all the money we want, but we can end up like Europe who spends tons of money on techno-industrial policies and gets nothing for it because they can't get their innovation culture right, because they're regulating the living hell out of digital technology.So you want Congress to take this away from the states?I do. I do, but it's really, really hard. I think what we need to do is follow the model that we had in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. We've also had moratoriums, not only through the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but through the Commercial Space Amendments having to do with space commercial travel and other bills. Congress has handled the question of preemption before and put moratoria in place to say, “Let's have a learning period before we go do stupid things on a new technology sector that is fast moving and hard to understand.” I think that would be a reasonable response, but again, I have to go back to what we just talked about, Jim, which is that there's no chance of us probably getting it. There's no appetite in it. Not any of the 111 bills pending in Congress right now says a damn thing about state and local regulation of technology!Is the thrust of those federal bills, is it the kinds of stuff that you're generally worried about?Mostly, but not entirely. Some of it is narrower. A lot of these bills are like, “Let's take a look at AI and. . . fill in the blank: elections, AI and jobs, AI and whatever.” And some of them, on the merits, not terrible, others, I have concerns, but it's certainly better that we take a targeted sectoral approach to AI policy and regulation than having the broad-based, general-purpose stuff. Now, there are broad-based, general-purpose measures, and here's what they do, Jim: They basically say, “Look, instead of having a whole cloth new regulatory approach, let's build on the existing types of approaches being utilized in the Department of Commerce, namely through our NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] sub-agencies there. NIST is the National Standards Body, and basically they develop best practices through something called the AI Risk Management Framework for artificial intelligence development—and they're good! It's multi-stakeholder, it's bottom up, it's driven by the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration to do multi-stakeholder processes for the internet. Good model. It is non-regulatory, however. It is a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach to developing consensus-based standards for best practices regarding various types of algorithmic services. These bills in Congress—and there's at least five of them that I count, that I've written about recently—say, “Let's take that existing infrastructure and give it some enforcement teeth. Let's basically say, ‘This policy infrastructure will be converted into a quasi-regulatory system,'” and there begins the dangerous path towards backdoor regulation of artificial intelligence in this country, and I think that's the most likely model we'll get. Like I said, five models, legislative models in the Senate alone that would do that to varying degrees.AI policy under Trump (22:29)Do you have any feel for what a Trump administration would want to do on this?I do, because a month before the Trump administration left office, they issued a report through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it basically laid out for agencies a set of principles for how it should evaluate artificial intelligence systems, both that are used by the government or that they regulate in the private sector, and it was an excellent set of principles. It was a restatement of the importance of policy, forbearance and humility. It was a restatement of a belief in cost-benefit analysis and identifying not only existing regulatory capacity to address these problems, but also non-regulatory mechanisms or best practices or standards that could address some of these things. It was a really good memo. I praised it in a piece that I wrote just before the Trump administration left. Now, of course, the Trump administration may change.Yes, and also, the technology has changed. I mean, that was 2020 and a lot has happened, and I don't know where. . . . I'm not sure where all the Republicans are. I think some people get it. . .I think the problem, Jim, is that, for the Republican Party, and Trumpian conservatives, in particular, they face a time of choosing. And what I mean by this is that they have spent the last four to six years—and Trump egged this on—engaging in nonstop quote-unquote “big tech bashing” and making technology companies in the media out to be, as Trumps calls them, “the enemy of the American people.” And so many hearings now are just parading tech executives and others up there to be beaten with a stick in front of the public, and this is the new thing. And then there's just a flood of bills that would regulate traditional digital technologies, repeal things like Section 230, which is liability protection for the tech sector, and so on, child safety regulations.Meanwhile, that same Republican Party and Mr. Trump go around hating on Joe Biden in China. If it's one thing they can't stand more than big tech, it's Joe and China! And so, in a sense, they've got to choose, because their own policy proposals on technology could essentially kneecap America's technology base in a way that would open up the door to whether it's what they fear in the “woke DEI policies” of Biden or the CCP's preferred policy agenda for controlling computation in the world today. Choose two, you don't get all three. And I think this is going to be an interesting thing to watch if Mr. Trump comes back into office, do they pick up where that OMB memo left off, or do they go right back to beating that “We've got to kill big tech by any means necessary in a seek-and-destroy mission, to hell with the consequences.” And I don't know yet.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Telecommunications Act of 1996 – Wikipedia   Hamas's top leaders are worth billions. Here's how they continue to grow rich – The Mackenzie Institute   Carmen Miranda – Chiquita Banana commercial (youtube.com)   Operation Mockingbird: The CIA Operation to Control the Media and Have them Circulate Propaganda – Page 2 – HISTORY HEIST    The […] The post 3/3 *Dulles Brothers Created CIA Destroyed & Central America and IRAN for USA Corporate Interests.  Dulles Brothers ALSO destroyed Cental America, Cuba, Haiti.  Banana Wars. HAMAS leaders are worth BILLIONS of $ *WTH appeared first on Psychopath In Your Life.

Tune in for another episode of NEDAS Live! as we are joined by David Bronston, Special Counsel and Co-Lead of the Telecommunications Practice at Phillips Lytle. David brings his vast experience to the discussion, shedding light on the evolving telecommunications landscape and the challenges faced by the industry. From the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to the controversies surrounding net neutrality, David provides a comprehensive overview of the regulatory environment. The conversation also delves into the transformative Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which allocates $42 billion to states for broadband infrastructure development. David explains the requirements for companies to access these funds and shares his predictions on the potential winners and losers in the digital race.

Tune in to this week's episode of "The End of Radio As We Knew It - Part 1" as we explore the fascinating demise of traditional radio, tracing its decline back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Delve into a discussion on how this pivotal legislation reshaped the radio landscape, altering its once vibrant and diverse programming. Join us as we reminisce about the golden era of radio in the 1980s, highlighting the captivating entertainment it offered and reflecting on how it differs from today's radio experience.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/back-to-the-80s-radio--5883226/support.

Hello friends! From 1970 to 2004 Houston radio was defined by one station, 101 KLOL FM. The new documentary, "Runaway Radio" tells the story of the rise and fall of 101 KLOL. Mike McGuff, director, writer, producer, of "Runaway Radio" is my guest for episode 1379! The movie is available now on demand. Go to rock101movie.com to find out where to view it, and more. Mike and I have a great conversation about the history of KLOL, getting Sammy Hagar, Melissa Ethridge, Lyle Lovett, Dusty Hill and so many more in the movie, the rebellious nature of KLOL from the beginning to the end, the D.J.'s and personalities that defined the station, the George Harrison interview, Stevens & Pruitt, Dayna Steele, 70's  counterculture, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and much more. I had a great time getting to know Mike and more about KLOL. I'm sure you will too. Let's Get down!   Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you pod.   Find millions of songs and thousands of podcasts, AND audiobooks on Spotify. If you feel so inclined. Venmo: venmo.com/John-Goudie-1  Paypal: paypal.me/johnnygoudie

In this Talk Spot, we discuss the evolution of the radio industry with Kent Emmons.

Bonus Blast from the Dial-Up Era Remember dial-up modems and AOL CDs that came in the mail? 1995 was a transition year in culture. Yes, there were iconic albums (covered in Episode 94) but there were cultural shifts that shaped the years going forward. Ted and Keith talk about: Dial-up days: The internet was in its infancy, and well, people weren't quite sure what to do with it. Just listen to the compilation from the "Today" show that featured to hear how confusing, hopeful, fearful, and annoying the early Internet was to the hosts of the show. Culture in flux: The Telecommunications Act and the Decency Act on media and the rise of social media were two laws that really brought us the reality we're living in today -- for better or worse. What was Keith doing in 1995? Short answer: a new career, attended a lot of live shows in Chicago, and found new music recommendations from a local VJ who had a localized version of MTV. What was Ted doing in 1995? Short answer: losing his hair, on the cusp of becoming a father, and knee-deep in grad studies at UPenn in Philadelphia. 1995. A year of transition.

On Episode 23, we discuss the new Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and whether B.C. is planning to give First Nations a veto over certain land use decisions, and we get into the details of a concerning new cybersecurity law that could lead to secret hearings and orders to cut off Internet access without due process. Plus, Bad Legal Takes from New York's mayor and climate change activists.Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:The devolution agreement: What exactly is Nunavut signing onto, anyway?Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reach final agreement on the devolution of NunavutNunavut Lands and Resources Devolution AgreementNunavut premier full of hope as deal with Ottawa is signedBC Government Consulting on New Law to Give Indigenous Groups Control over Crown Land DecisionsVaughn Palmer: B.C. NDP quietly consult on sweeping changes to managing public landsBill C-26: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other ActsYouth-led challenge of Ontario's climate plan goes before province's highest courtNew York City mayor declares social media an 'environmental toxin'CCF Intervening today in Supreme Court case on whether Indigenous governments are subject to Charter scrutinyKtunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

I'm Josh Cooperman, host and publisher of Convo By Design with something brand new for you. A Monday episode of the show, called The Design Messengers. I think you're going to like this for a number of reason not the least of which is that this is going to make your design business stronger because together, we are going to start thinking differently about this industry and ways to do it better, faster, smarter. Let me remind you, I'm a journalist, not a designer, and certainly not a consultant, I have interviewed some of the very best in the business and have shared techniques, strategies and ideas that allow you to execute better on your design business. Or, if you are a consumer, of which I hear from many who listen to the show, you know this helps you select the right creative for you, interview designers with a keen understanding of what you want which allows you better to select who is going to be your best partner.  I have said this a few times and that is one of the main drivers for launching this new brand extension of the podcast. Podcasts are fantastic for learning, entertainment and companionship. What do I have against consultants? Nothing at all. I think business advice is one of the most valuable things you can do to grow a strong and healthy business. Why would you take the advice of a marketer/ consultant who doesn't really know the technical side of your industry? A former designer who couldn't make it in the business but instead decides to host a podcast to tell other designers what they couldn't do or starts a consulting business to share the in's and out's of a business that has dramatically changed since they were in the game? Does this sound mean? It's not intended to be. It is intended to make you think about the information you consume and the purpose it is intended to serve. Let's be clear, Convo By Design is about storytelling. I am a mirror on the industry with an opinion. I will continue to share my ideas with you, but I don't: Tell you what to do. Tell you what to buy. Tell you how to think. Tell you who is not getting the job done. Tell you how great I am, or all of the wonderful things I have done to make you believe me. Tell you to believe what I share with you. If you do, you do and if you don't, that's cool too. I will tell you about my experience and share it in context. That context is to position the next story. As a journalist, I'm not here to sell you anything. Not products, services, trips, club memberships, subscriptions. Nothing excepts stories. Stories about our incredible business researched and crafted to help strengthen our industry. Stories that I hope you find interesting and help you think differently about what it is you do. I present a thought and you have a reaction to it. Why is this important? I have told you about my time in radio broadcasting. When I first started, it was the early nineties, I was fresh out of college with bright eyes, a curious mind and wanted to succeed. Shortly after, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law. This law deregulated cable service, made some technical changes with regard to censorship options parents could use on individual TV's but the big thing for me that I did not understand at the time was lifting of the cap on the number of stations radio operators could own. I'll go straight to the last page and share the ending. It killed local radio. the radio that was local, special and truly unique to your city. If you look at radio in any of the listenership ratings in major markets, medium markets or even most small markets, you will find the same 5 or 6 companies O/O the top stations in each market because they O/O almost all the stations. Radio was once a vibrant, diverse and varied group of individual operators who could be creative in their presentation of the music playlist, personalities in each daypart, the amount of time DJ's could talk between songs.

The Telecommunications Act, 2023 was passed by Parliament in the Winter Session of Parliament last year. The Act consolidates much of the telecom laws that existed beforehand, and repeals colonial-era laws that have been updated over the course of over 137 years.  While the Act is short in length at just over 45 pages, much of its implementation will be done through notifications and orders that will be passed directly by the government, with no prior approval necessary from Parliament.  What does this Act do differently from the colonial-era laws? Is it a revamp of telecom laws or just a consolidation of the status quo? What are the concerns around surveillance and regulation of messaging apps? 

Max Hillebrand joins me for a series of conversations covering various works on crypto-anarchism. In this episode, we discuss "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" written by John Perry Barlow. Max Hillebrand is a free software entrepreneur building tools to empower individual sovereignty. Paper: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol18/iss1/2/ // GUEST // Twitter: https://twitter.com/HillebrandMax// SPONSORS // In Wolf's Clothing: https://wolfnyc.com/NetSuite: https://netsuite.com/whatismoneyiCoin Hardware Wallet (use discount code BITCOIN23): https://www.icointechnology.com/Mind Lab Pro: https://mindlabpro.com/breedloveCrowdHealth: https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/breedloveBitcoin Apparel (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://thebitcoinclothingcompany.com/Feel Free Tonics (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://botanictonics.comCarnivore Bar (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://carnivorebar.com/// OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:00:27 - Intro 00:02:00 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing 00:02:46 - Introducing Max Hillebrand 00:03:22 - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace 00:10:07 - Background of John Perry Barlow 00:11:27 - Internet & Cyberspace: The New Frontier 00:14:28 - Significance of Internet 00:19:37 - Supremacy of the Human Mind 00:25:20 - The Ability to Say ‘No' 00:26:57 - Run Your Business from Anywhere with NetSuite 00:28:02 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with the iCoin Hardware Wallet 00:29:11 - Shifting the Power of Authority 00:32:53 - Where Physical Coercion Doesn't Work 00:34:38 - Government Attempts to Control Cyberspace 00:39:03 - The Diffusion and Development of Knowledge 00:45:14 - The Fight Against Internet Domestication 00:47:03 - Sophisticated Tool Using Creatures 00:50:00 - Two Great Axioms of Praxeology 00:53:11 - Codes, Ethics, and Culture 00:54:50 - Social Contract in Cyberspace 01:00:43 - A Realm of Transactions 01:02:43 - Equality in the Eyes of the Law 01:05:49 - The Power of Anonymity 01:08:06 - Enhance Your Brain Power with Mind Lab Pro 01:09:12 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 01:10:18 - The Ethics of Bitcoin 01:15:43 - The Telecommunications Act of 1996 01:19:03 - The Terrifying Potential of Bitcoin 01:23:31 - The Line of Good and Evil 01:26:08 - From Broad-Casting to Narrow-Casting 01:31:16 - The Ridiculous Claim To Own Speech 01:32:18 - Responsibility and Consequence for Actions// PODCAST // Podcast Website: https://whatismoneypodcast.com/Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-what-is-money-show/id1541404400Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/25LPvm8EewBGyfQQ1abIsE?RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/MLdpYXYI// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Bitcoin: 3D1gfxKZKMtfWaD1bkwiR6JsDzu6e9bZQ7 Sats via Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22Sats via Tippin.me: https://tippin.me/@Breedlove22Dollars via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedlove// WRITTEN WORK // Medium: https://breedlove22.medium.com/Substack: https://breedlove22.substack.com/// SOCIAL // Twitter: https://twitter.com/Breedlove22WiM? Twitter: https://twitter.com/WhatisMoneyShowRumble: https://rumble.com/c/BreedloveInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/breedlove_22/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@breedlove22LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/breedlove22/All My Current Work: https://vida.page/breedlove22

In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority provided by Congress impacts the Commission's initiatives in the year ahead.Featuring:Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Mignon Clyburn, Principal, MLC Strategies, LLC; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionModerator: Hon. Michael H. Park, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

MEET THE AUTHOR Podcast: LIVE - Episode 129 - MAGNOLIA BLUFF 2023 REVEAL PT 4Originally Aired Wednesday November 8,2023 -The Underground Authors discuss their upcoming releases in the MAGNOLOIA BLUFF CRIME CHRONICLES Series. (Books 19 & 20)ABOUT Kelly Marshall: I always thought I would communicate in the world as a writer. As a child I was a voracious reader and knew someday I would pen a great novel. Life sometimes takes left turns though, and I went to broadcasting school instead of a four-year college. I wanted to be the next Barbara Walters and make a million a year. That didn't happen, but I did spend thirty years having fun, spinning records, interviewing people, doing love song dedications. I had a ball until…The U.S. Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowing broadcast corporations to own multiple radio stations in one market. The gobbling began and soon behemoth broadcasting corporations ate up radio stations like locusts in a wheat field. And radio announcers like me were axed on bloody Fridays with surgical precision. I was working for a small radio station for chump change. Something had to give. I left radio, went to work for the US Federal Government, and in my private hours, began doing what I really loved. Writing.ABOUT Jinx Schwartz: USA TODAY BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, Jinx Schwartz is a ninth-generation Texan who lived and worked all over the planet before dropping from the corporate world to write and cruise. Living aboard a boat for many years in Mexico's Sea of Cortez inspired her Award-winning Hetta Coffey Series. All fourteen of her books, including Book 10 (JUST FOR THE BIRDS) in the Hetta series, are available on Amazon.Links to watch or listen to all episodes at:https://indiebooksource.com/podcast

NCLA Appeals EPA's Lawless Stranglehold on Refrigeration Companies NCLA has petitioned the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant an en banc hearing in a small company's case challenging EPA's unconstitional power over who can produce specific refrigeration chemicals. Congress never had the right to delegate such expansive power to EPA in the first place, and the agency has used it the detriment of NCLA's client, benefiting a Chinese-owned company that infringed on their patent. NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Zhonette Brown discusses NCLA's recent en banc petition in the DC Circuit. NCLA Calls on Fifth Circuit to End FCC's Unlawful Control over Universal Service Fund The Federal Communications Commission administers the Universal Service Fund, which provides telecommunications services to rural and impoverished areas of the United States as well as to schools, libraries, and healthcare providers. However, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress wrote an “evolving” and open-ended statute, leaving FCC to set its own policies and extract money from Americans to fund the USF. NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief in Consumers' Research v. FCC, urging an en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn this illegitimate arrangement, whereby Congress surrendered its exclusive constitutional power to tax and spend. Zhonette breaks down NCLA's amicus brief in Consumers' Research v. FCC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last week we took a deep dive into the world of TV and Movies with three of the SAG-AFTRA Executive Committee and Negotiating Committee members. Today we turn to the Radio and Record industries, where I spent the better part of my career.The average person knows that radio has changed... they likely listen less than they used to and noticed that radio has gotten more generic over the years. They also know that the record industry has evolved. From buying vinyl records to CDs to downloads, and does anyone buy full albums any more? And how are artists getting paid (the answer is very little!).I started in radio in college in 1979 and lived through a major paradigm shift, hitting the fulcrum after passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (thanks for nothing Bill Clinton!).Today, I welcome Joel Denver to the show. He's the President/ Publisher/Founder and Owner of AllAccess.com, one of the last remaining trade publications serving the radio and record industry. Unfortunately, All Access will cease operations on August 15, marking the end of an era.Joel will explain what prompted the end and join me in a look back at all that has changed.** And we were joined midway by Tommy Nast, former GM of the now-defunct Album Network, another trade magazine that I actually worked for!

Back with an all new episode, Nate bemoans the heat and takes a look at the effect the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had on the music industry before sitting down with Preston Elliot of the Preston & Steve Show. They talk about meeting at this year's Take Step's walk, the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, A Mother's Wish Foundation, growing up in St. Louis, discovering KSHE, the legacy of WMMR, WDRE & Y-100, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the /reply-all/ episode "The Case of the Missing Hit," regional acts, the live nature of radio, trusting your instincts, discovering that radio was what he wanted to do, how an internship in Salem, MO kick started his career, making his way to the St. Louis market, meeting Jim McGuinn and getting tapped to join WDRE in Philadelphia, Marilyn Russell, dealing with challenges throughout the years, contract negotiations, the loyalty of the Preston & Steve Show fan base, giving back to the community, being inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame, dream guests, and the band Rush. Then, Preston enters the Jawntlet!Preston & Steve Show websitePreston & Steve Show on InstagramPreston & Steve Show on TwitterPreston & Steve Show on Facebook Subscribe to the Y!TMJ Newsletter! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ytmj/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ytmj/support

We covered computer and internet copyright law in a previous episode. That type of law began with interpretations that tried to take the technology out of cases so they could be interpreted as though what was being protected was a printed work, or at least it did for a time. But when it came to the internet, laws, case law, and their knock-on effects, the body of jurisprudence work began to diverge.  Safe Harbor mostly refers to the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, or OCILLA for short, was a law passed in the late 1980s that  shields online portals and internet service providers from copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is one form of immunity, but more was needed. Section 230 was another law that protects those same organizations from being sued for 3rd party content uploaded on their sites. That's the law Trump wanted overturned during his final year in office but given that the EU has Directive 2000/31/EC, Australia has the Defamation Act of 2005, Italy has the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000, and lots of other countries like England and Germany have had courts find similarly, it is now part of being an Internet company. Although the future of “big tech” cases (and the damage many claim is being done to democracy) may find it refined or limited. That's because the concept of Internet Exceptionalism itself is being reconsidered now that the internet is here to stay. Internet Exceptionalism is a term that notes that laws that diverge from precedents for other forms of media distribution. For example, a newspaper can be sued for liable or defamation, but a website is mostly shielded from such suits because the internet is different. Pages are available instantly, changes be made instantly, and the reach is far greater than ever before. The internet has arguably become the greatest tool to spread democracy and yet potentially one of its biggest threats. Which some might have argued about newspapers, magazines, and other forms of print media in centuries past. The very idea of Internet Exceptionalism has eclipsed the original intent. Chris Cox and Ron Widen initially intended to help fledgling Internet Service Providers (ISPs) jumpstart content on the internet. The internet had been privatized in 1995 and companies like CompuServe, AOL, and Prodigy were already under fire for the content on their closed networks. Cubby v CompuServe in 1991 had found that online providers weren't considered publishers of content and couldn't be held liable for free speech practiced on their platforms in part because they did not exercise editorial control of that content. Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy found that Prodigy did have editorial control (and in fact advertised themselves as having a better service because of it) and so could be found liable like a newspaper would. Cox and Widen were one of the few conservative and liberal pairs of lawmakers who could get along in the decisive era when Newt Gingrich came to power and tried to block everything Bill Clinton tried to do.  Yet there were aspects of the United States that were changing outside of politics. Congress spent years negotiating a telecommunications overhaul bill that came to be known as The Telecommunications Act of 1996. New technology led to new options. Some saw content they found to be indecent and so the Communications Decency Act (or Title V of the Telecommunications Act) was passed in 1996, but in Reno v ACLU found to be a violation of the first amendment, and struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997. Section 230 of that act was specifically about the preservation of free speech and so severed from the act and stood alone. It would be adjudicated time and time and eventually became an impenetrable shield that protects online providers from the need to scan every message posted to a service to see if it would get them sued. Keep in mind that society itself was changing quickly in the early 1990s. Tipper Gore wanted to slap a label on music to warn parents that it had explicit lyrics. The “Satanic Panic” as it's called by history reused tropes such as cannibalism and child murder to give the moral majority an excuse to try to restrict that which they did not understand. Conservative and progressive politics have always been a 2 steps forward and 1 step back truce. Heavy metal would seem like nothin' once parents heard the lyrics of gagster rap.  But Section 230 continued on. It stated that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It only took 27 words to change the world. They said that the people that host the content can't be sued for the content because, as courts interpreted it, it's free speech. Think of a public forum like a hall on a college campus that might restrict one group from speaking and so suppress speech or censer a group. Now, Section 230 didn't say it wasn't allowed to screen material but instead shielded providers from being held liable for that material. The authors of the bill felt that if providers would be held liable for any editing that they wouldn't do any. Now providers could edit some without reviewing every post. And keep in mind the volume of posts in message boards and of new websites had already become too much in the late 1990s to be manually monitored. Further, as those companies became bigger business they became more attractive to law suits.  Section 230 had some specific exclusions. Any criminal law could still be applied, as could state, sex trafficking, and privacy laws. Intellectual property laws also remained untouched, thus OCILLA. To be clear, reading the law, the authors sought to promote the growth of the internet - and it worked. Yelp gets sued over revues but cases are dismissed. Twitter can get sued over a Tweet when someone doesn't like what is said, but it's the poster and not Twitter who is liable. Parody sites, whistleblower sites, watchdog sites, revue sites, blogs, and an entire industry was born, which each player of what would later be known as the Web 2.0 market could self-regulate themselves.  Those businesses grew far beyond the message boards of the 1990s. This was also a time when machine learning became more useful. A site like Facebook could show a feed of posts not in reverse chronological order, but instead by “relevance.” Google could sell ads and show them based on the relevance of a search term. Google could buy YouTube and they could have ads on videos. Case after case poked at the edges of what could be used to hold a site liable. The fact that the courts saw a post on Reddit as free speech, no matter how deplorable the comments, provided a broad immunity to liability that was, well, exceptional in a way.  Some countries could fine or imprison people if they posted something negative about the royal family or party in charge. Some of those countries saw the freedom of speech so important as a weapon that could be used against the US in a way. The US became a safe haven in a way to free speech and many parts of the internet were anonymous. In this way (as was previously done with films and other sources of entertainment and news) the US began to export the culture of free speech. But every country also takes imports. Some of those were real, true ideas homegrown or brought in from abroad. Early posters of message boards maybe thought the Armenian Genocide was a hoax - or the Holocaust. A single post could ruin a career. Craigslist allowed for sex trafficking and while they eventually removed that, sites like Backpage have received immunity. So even some of the exceptions are, um, not. Further, extremist groups use pages to spread propaganda and even recruit soldiers to spread terror.  The courts found that sites were immune to suits over fake profiles on dating sites - even if it was a famous person and the person was getting threatening calls. The courts initially found sites needed to take down content if they were informed it was libelous - but have received broad immunity even when they don't due to the sheer amount of content. Batzel v Smith saw a lawyers firm ruined over false reports she was the granddaughter of Nazi Heinrich Himmler and the beneficiary of Nazi art theft, even though she wasn't - she too lost her case. Sites provide neutral tools and so are shielded from defamation - even if they're neutralish you rarely see them held to account. In Goddard v. Google, the Google Keyword Tool recommended that advertisers include the word “free” in mobile content, which Goddard claimed led to fraudulent subscription service recruitment. This was machine learning-based recommendations. The court again found provided the Keyword Tool was neutral that advertisers could adopt or reject the recommendation.  Still, time and time again the idea of safe harbor for internet companies and whether internet exceptionalism should continue comes up. The internet gave a voice to the oppressed, but also to the oppressors. That's neutrality in a way, except that the oppressors (especially when state sponsored actors are involved) often have more resources to drown out other voices, just like in real life. Some have argued a platform like Facebook should be held accountable for their part in the Capitol riots, which is to say as a place where people practiced free speech. Others look to Backpage as facilitating the exploitation of children or as a means of oppression. Others still see terrorist networks as existing and growing because of the ability to recruit online.  The Supreme Court is set to hear docket number 21-1333 in 2022. Gonzalez v. Google was brought by Reynaldo Gonzalez, and looks at whether 230 can immunize Google even though they have made targeted recommendations - in this case when ISIS used YouTube vides to recruit new members - through the  recommendation algorithm. An algorithm that would be neutral. But does a platform as powerful have a duty to do more, especially when there's a chance that Section 230 bumps up against anti-terrorism legislation. Again and again the district courts in the United States have found section 230 provides broad immunization to online content providers. Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in. After that, billions of dollars may have to be pumped into better content filtration or they may continue to apply broad first amendment guidance.  The Supreme Court is packed with “originalists”. They still have phones, which the framers did not. The duty that common law places on those who can disseminate negligent or reckless content has lost the requirement for reasonable care due to the liability protections afforded purveyors of content by Section 230. This has given rise to hate speech and misinformation. John Perry Barlow's infamous A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace in protest of the CDA was supported by Section 230 of that same law. But the removal of the idea and duty of reasonable care and the exemptions have now removed any accountability from what seems like any speech. Out of the ashes of accountability the very concept of free speech and where the duty of reasonable care lies may be reborn. We now have the ability to monitor via machine learning, we've now redefined what it means to moderate, and there's now a robust competition for eyeballs on the internet. We've also seen how a lack of reasonable standards can lead to real life consequences and that an independent cyberspace can bleed through into the real world.  If the Supreme Court simply upholds findings from the past then the movement towards internet sovereignty may accelerate or may stay the same. Look to where venture capital flows for clues as to how the First Amendment will crash into the free market, and see if its salty waters leave data and content aggregators with valuations far lower than where they once were. The asset of content may some day become a liability with injuries that could provide an existential threat to the owner. The characters may walk the astral plane but eventually must return to the prime material plane along their tether to take a long rest or face dire consequences. The world simply can't continue to become more and more toxic - and yet there's a reason the First Amendment is, well, first. Check out Twenty-Six Words Created the Internet. What Will It Take to Save It?

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was enacted when the internet was just making its way into US homes. 26 words […] The post SCOTUS cases explained: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.

“It's the ‘You Shook Me All Night Long' of ‘Kill ‘em All'…” Thanks to the “radio homogenization” resulting from the 1996 Telecommunications Act which prompted a handful of corporations to buy up all the radio stations and systematically destroy them by repeatedly violating our ear holes and airwaves with the same overrated, pre-programmed, 6-song playlist (like some Clockwork Orange style mind control experiment run amok), there are A LOT of songs out there that have been so completely overplayed into oblivion that we could do without EVER hearing them again EVER in life: whether live in concert or on the radio during the daytime…EVER!      But on the other hand, there are the more underrated deep cuts.  The songs which disc jockeys with a genuine passion for music would often play whenever they wanted (yes, even in the daytime). Songs which got better over time and were never overplayed to the point of a listener's disgust & scorn. Songs which are the antithesis of the ones referenced above in that we actually ENJOY hearing those songs and would prefer hearing them more often (like on the radio…during the daytime).   JOIN US for a special guest presentation courtesy of Dick Taintler and embrace the concept of “peanut butter, bacon, and jelly sandwiches” while discovering which words are considered “fighting words” that you simply can't EVER utter (not even in jest) as we perform our personal evaluation of some of the most OVERPLAYED and UNDERRATED songs in all of rock and metal.   Visit www.metalnerdery.com/podcast for more on this episode Leave us a Voicemail to be played on a future episode: 980-666-8182 Metal Nerdery Tees and Hoodies – metalnerdery.com/merch and kindly leave us a review and/or rating on the iTunes/Apple Podcasts - Spotify or your favorite Podcast app Listen on iTunes, Spotify, Podbean, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your Podcasts. Follow us on the Socials: Facebook - Instagram - Twitter Email: metalnerdery@gmail.com Can't be LOUD Enough Playlist on Spotify Metal Nerdery Munchies on YouTube @metalnerderypodcast   Show Notes: (00:01): “…juices flowing… (Ladies, and) GENTLEMEN / Behold the #Reddit love we've recently received ***Are there any #Megadeth related podcasts?*** Response: #SymphonyOfDiscussion #BattleOfTheBands / “And number 3…” #toprec #upvotes/ Thank you for that! / You ready to get thirsty? / A traumatic unscrewing…/ “It's gonna hurt…” / Reverse psychology… (At least you can stay awake) / Great housekeeping / “Wait, knives have butts?” / *** #WARNING:  #listenerdiscretionisadvised #parentaladvisoryisdumb / ***WELCOME BACK TO THE METAL NERDERY PODCAST!!!***#thisepisodesclinkyoftheepisode #JagermeisterColdBrew / #fourthwall / “You know what…?” / #thisepisodesbeeroftheepisode #JekyllBrewingCompany #CooterBrownAle (as read by #DickTaintler) / #comfortaleforthesoul / #sixpercentABV / #soliddaydrinkingbeer #easydrinking / “That's a nice little brown cooter you've got there…” / “…less irony…” / “That's why we have the explicit rating…”   (07:04): ***If you'd like to give us a call and leave us a voicemail YOU CAN CALL US AND LEAVE US A VOICEMAIL AT 980-666-8182!!!*** #doommetalread / A call from “a huge fan” of #GoblinCock (Thanks Ken) / #northnorthamerica vs #southamerica #toomuchmath / #seriously / “Did we get some shit-tah?” / “I feel like you might have popped a membrane…” / “Oooh, that doesn't belong…” / #Butcher: “666 Goats Carry My Chariot” IRON BITS (OR IRON BITCH) / #umlauts contain the power of metal / #BelgianBlackenedSpeedMetal / “In where?” / “Technically, that means…” WE'LL PLAY YOUR SHIT-TAH!!! “/ “#markthetime that's a new button…” / “There's nothing wrong with that, folks…”   (15:50): “What is #probrem?” / “Just kidding…we don't” / #TheDocket (and the confusing way to present this one):  “The most overrated, overplayed, songs you could cut from the album's roster and it'd be perfect…” / #analintruder5000 / ***If you get your feelings hurt, you can send us an email at metalnerdery@gmail.com *** / “Oh we're gonna have a bad day…” / “Let's start with the elephant in the room…” / #Metallica and #TheBlackAlbum and a left turn… / “How about…Seek & Destroy?” / #TheDarwinSong / “I think I would be okay…” / “It's the You Shook Me All Night Long of “Kill ‘Em All…” / #songlessepisode / Something to introduce a bit of balance…a deep cut and/or the most underrated… / #BlackAlbumDeepCuts / “Good stuff Metallica…” vs “Lukewarm Metallica” / “I could hear Rob Halford singing that song…” / You can still have songs that have been overplayed but you enjoy…it's just that usually hearing something played too much it takes the enjoyment out of it. / #phantomgum    (26:23): “Okay, we're gonna fight…” / “it should be two songs…cut up.” / #thecoolpart #newsegment / #RussellsReflectionsASMR and the first time ever hearing Iron Man and Mr. Roboto. / “Is there no other Sabbath?” / “You put the worst song on Sabotage on the #greatesthitsalbum…” / “To us, there are no deep cuts…” / “There is no album…” / (Again…) / #noteven (“He said it, not me!”) / “They played it on 96 Rock at 12:00 PM on Saturday…” / #exityeah    (32:25): #BlackSabbath KILLING YOURSELF TO LIVE / “Everytime I'd listen…skip…” / “…probably even today” / “How do you even do that?” / #ACDC RIFF RAFF (***go watch the video for this one!!!*** #seventieshoodies) and SEND FOR THE MAN / ***Which one was overplayed more:  You Shook Me All Night Long?  Or Thunderstruck? *** / #excretionsASMR / “Now I've got it…”/ “So let's really piss people off…” / #nolifejuice / “Most overplayed #IronMaiden song?” / #loudearpops / “You know what's weird?” / “Just circumcise it right off the balls…”/ “Maiden & Slayer are not included…”    (48:32): “Easy. Done.” / “It's dark…”/ #thisisfuckingmetal #dontdenythepowerof #LedZeppelin  THE BATTLE OF EVERMORE #wizardweather / “What song off Led Zeppelin I would be out?” / “It's the most feminine…” / “OMG that was my #weddingsong you ass!” / “I think it's a little bigger than you think it is…” / #becareful / “Oooh, okay…you don't even joke about that.   (57:20):  “It got too much play for me…” / “Not really metal…” / The difference between one song that's way overplayed vs that same song within the context of an entire album / “Now we're gonna pick on Billiam…” / Various #PinkFloyd songs that might have been overplayed by radio / “I knew you were gonna say that!” / “If I had to take it off…” / To skip, or not to skip? / “I gotta say one that's gonna piss everyone off…” / #SkippableSlayer (is there such a thing?) / Sorry, it was the wrong #cunttreeguy   (1:05:28): “What about #Ozzy?” / *** What are YOUR favorite #OzzyDeepCuts? *** / CENTRE OF ETERNITY (almost kind of a #ZakkWylde sound) #alrightythenASMR (“Anything but the green ones…”) / “How about #VanHalen?” / “Is Jamie a girl or a dude?”/ #overmuch / “How about we play a #deepcut?” / “My parents were too poor to have radio…” / I'M THE ONE / “There's one song…if I had to pick…” (and another #LetterKenny reference…) / Artists, STOP selling your music to corporations to use in advertisements! / “Dude, they played that on 96 Rock during the day all the time…” / #twilighttime / #antieverything / “They go so well together…” / #peanutbutterbaconandjellyASMR   (1:22:03): “I could go the rest of my life without hearing…” / #drugdealerASMR “Physicians Assistant #feelgood / Most overplayed since 2000… / Gimon & Sarfunkel / #follicleboner / “Maybe that wasn't as hard as I thought it was…” / And now, it's time for the #RapidFire segment…/ #worknoiseASMR / Wait…#Loverboy!? / “So, it's overplayed but it's still your favorite?” / And now back to some more metal and some more rapid fire… / “Comfortably Numb, Part Two…” / “I think they do it at #sportsball tournaments…” / “Your funeral is gonna be awesome, dude…” / “That song should be buried…” / #Anthrax ANTISOCIAL (It's a cover by #Trust, the band where Nicko McBrain came from… before #IronMaiden) / “Is this a deep cut?  I don't think so…but it's NOT overplayed…” / #inityeah / ***THANK YOU FOR JOINING US FOR THIS EPISODE OF METAL NERDERY PODCAST!!!*** / #tobefair #thelastword #goodbye / ***BE SURE TO STOP BY THE #BUNKERPOONGIFTSHOPPE AND PURCHANDISE SOME MERCHANDISE AT metalnerdery.com/merch !!!*** / #outroreel #lessirony #miscnoises #fatthumbs #hugefan

Three decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John's University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it's been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Bio Chuck is one of the country's foremost experts on all aspects of federal and state universal service programs. Chuck had a leadership role at the FCC in the implementation of the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since joining WBK in 2001, he has helped clients craft policy recommendations in every universal service rulemaking at the FCC and in several states. He also fields compliance questions from clients on universal service contribution requirements, E-rate funding, Connect America Fund (“CAF”), Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”), as well as recent broadband deployment affordability programs including NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (“BEAD”) program and the Affordable Connectivity Program (“ACP”). Innovative companies operating on the ever-evolving line between communications services and technology also come to Chuck for help in ascertaining whether and how FCC and state communications regulatory requirements affect their businesses. Chuck is an active member of the Federal Communications Bar Association and has served as a Co-Chair of its Wireline Practice Committee and State and Local Practice Committee. He serves on the Board of the LGBT Technology Partnership. He also represents several clients on a pro bono basis in political asylum cases on referral from Whitman Walker Legal Services of Washington, DC.   Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Website   Resources Wilkson Barker Knauer

G3 is joined by Weiss's Mike Edwards to talk about Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter. What are the implications of just one man having control of the closest thing the world has to a town square? And how can Twitter, under Musk, impact free speech, the establishment of truth in our society, our markets, and the nature of our politics? No one knows for certain but as always, Mike has plenty of thoughtful insights to bring to the table. Please check important disclosures at the end of the episode, and rate and review this podcast if you like what you hear. In fact, you could tweet about it if you wanted. Timestamps: • What are the possible implications of Musk's Twitter acquisition? [1:35] • What is the State of Delaware's role in this deal? [4:15] • What is the significance of Musk's sphere of influence? [8:05] • Is there an issue with the degree to which Musk is perhaps a Russian sympathizer? [11:08] • What are the implications of giving everyone a voice on Twitter? [16:04] • Could the liability shield of the Telecommunications Act be eroded over the next year? [18:34] • Musk's other companies offer him leverage but how useful is that? [25:01] • Will Musk's love of drama impact markets? [28:31] Disclosures: This podcast and associated content (collectively, the “Post”) are provided to you by Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers LLC (“Weiss”). The views expressed in the Post are for informational purposes only and are subject to change without notice. Information in this Post has been developed internally and is based on market conditions as of the date of the recording from sources believed to be reliable. Nothing in this Post should be construed as investment, legal, tax, or other advice and should not be viewed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. You should consult your own advisers regarding business, legal, tax, or other matters concerning investments. Any health-related information shared on the podcast is not intended as medical advice or for use in self-diagnosis or treatment. Please consult a qualified healthcare professional before acting upon any health-related information on the podcast. Weiss has no control over information at any external site hyperlinked in this Post. Weiss makes no representation concerning and is not responsible for the quality, content, nature, or reliability of any hyperlinked site and has included hyperlinks only as a convenience. The inclusion of any external hyperlink does not imply any endorsement, investigation, verification, or ongoing monitoring by Weiss of any information in any hyperlinked site. In no event shall Weiss be responsible for your use of a hyperlinked site. This is not intended to be an offer or solicitation of any security. Please visit www.gweiss.com to review related disclosures and learn more about Weiss.

Brian Pecht has been a jock and programmer at music radio stations for several years, and he hosts the very popular The Catholic Word Podcast. He talks about why he enjoys doing traffic at WBBM Newsradio; his on-air work at WLS-FM; payola in the music radio business; office politics; being on the air and Program Director (the youngest in the country) in Detroit at WCZY Z95.5 (where radio legend Dick Purtan had a successful show); how the 1996 Telecommunications Act changed the radio business and how the market shrank; how he got into radio and TV in Virginia with Bill Bowman's "The Bowman Body;" working in Richmond, Virginia then Columbus, Ohio at Sunny 95; working in North Carolina at KZL with Big Steve Kelly; how radio made hits; how he helped Billy Idol; advice for working in the media; celebrities and music superstars he's met; developing talent and advice for what makes a good aircheck; being one of the founding air talents at Q101 WKQX Alternative; getting fired yet having lots of success in music radio; where he burned a bridge; how fun radio has been, and more! He's also been on the air at other major Chicago stations including WSHE, WILV, and WTMX. This is from a livestream that we did; watch the full interview here (over two hours).Click the link below to play, or download it by right-clicking (on a PC) or holding down the CTRL key and clicking on it (for Mac).http://radiogirl.us/audio/RG185.mp3Watch the Radiogirl livestreams and videos at the Radiogirl FB page and on YouTube (also live-streaming on Radiogirl Twitter, Metrolingua Twitter, and my own Fakebook page).If you like what I'm doing, Buy Me a Coffee...thanks!

In our first installment of the two-part FCC series we discussed the origins of the Federal Communications Commission, the reason it came into existence and the tension between its charge and the First Amendment. Our story resumes with a nod to the Chicago School, the one-two punch of the Reagan and Clinton administrations to deliver a death blow to media competition in the United States and the recent history of net neutrality. Let's fucking go.  Chapters Intro: 00:01:56 Chapter One: The Coase Theorem. 00:03:08 Chapter Two: Reagan and Clinton. 00:10:28 Chapter Three: Title II and Net Neutrality. 00:25:25 Chapter Four: Bring it home, Max. 00:37:22 Post Show Musings: 00:42:14 Book Love: 00:53:17 Outro: 00:54:02 Resources FCC Website Steven G. Medema: “Failure to Appear”: The Use of the Coase Theorem in Judicial Opinion European Council On Foreign Relations: Network effects: Europe's digital sovereignty in the Mediterranean Brookings: Was the 1996 Telecommunications Act successful in promoting competition? USTelecom: Research FCC: National Broadband Map Community Networks: Community Network Map Berkman Klein Center: Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America Vice: A Community-Run ISP Is the Highest Rated Broadband Company in America Tristin Esfandiari: The FCC Threatens Free Speech Open Secrets: Ajit Pai Employment History FCC: FCC Releases Restoring Internet Freedom Order FCC: Biography of Former Chairman Ajit Pai Public Knowledge: We Already Knew Broadband Should Be A Public Utility. The Pandemic Made It Obvious. Congress.gov: S.4676 - Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act of 2022 Electronic Frontier Foundation: New Proposal Brings Us a Step Closer to Net Neutrality Ed Markey: Communications Act Bill Electronic Frontier Foundation: Today's Net Neutrality Order is a Win, with a Few Blemishes Electronic Frontier Foundation: Today—and Every Day—We Fight to Defend the Open Internet Searchlight Capital: Investments Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University: 2 Live Crew Book Love Steven J. Simmons: The Fairness Doctrine and the Media Brian J. Karem: Free the Press: The Death of American Journalism and How to Revive It Ken Auletta: Backstory: Inside the Business of News Bernard Harcourt: The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Join the Unf*cker-run Facebook group: facebook.com/groups/2051537518349565 Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Subscribe to Unf*cking The Republic on Substack at unftr.substack.com to get the essays these episode are framed around sent to your inbox every week. Check out the UNFTR Pod Love playlist on Spotify: spoti.fi/3yzIlUP. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility. Unf*cking the Republic is produced by 99 and engineered by Manny Faces Media (mannyfacesmedia.com). Original music is by Tom McGovern (tommcgovern.com). The show is hosted by The Gipper and distributed by Slick Willy. Podcast art description: Image of the US Constitution ripped in the middle revealing white text on a blue background that says, "Unf*cking the Republic."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gentlemen's History Hour is a bi-weekly podcast that engages in casual conversations about the personal history of certain guests as well as historical moments throughout time that shapes the present and influences the future.On this week's episode we had the pleasure of talking to Grandfather Cloc with @quantumleap_clocradio to discuss his history with hip hop, comic books and more. We discuss the effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the music industry, our personal history with hip hop, as well as which hip hop artists compare best to comic book heroes and villians! So take a listen and be sure to like and subscribe!The Problem: We don't know our full history nor are we taught how to learn it. (A secondary problem being people don't know where to start.)Our Solution: In just one hour per week, we have beginner Black History dialogue introducing the most dynamic characters, events and acts as well as explaining how it effects us today.The Happy Ending: Empower people with a stronger sense of self, raising awareness, and providing a guide to explore further.Follow: GHH @gentlemenshh             PODN @podnplatformation             Savvi @Savvi.hue             Equality @Equalityhue             Rob J @robjay10xSupport the show • CashApp $podnplatformFollow on FB and IG: @gentlemenshh @podnplatformation.https://linktr.ee/gentlemenshhProduced by Savvi Hue for POD'N.

Inventing the internet can be traced from its formation for military and academic use. Since then, we've made huge leaps in terms of communication and interconnectivity. Greater interconnectivity has changed the game for building networks between people. The projects that began in 1966 have fundamentally altered communication practices all over the world. In the first episode of Traceroute, we go back to the start of the Cold War. What was the initial purpose of computer networking? How has it changed over time? We'll answer these questions with insights from Jay Adelson, Sarah Weinberger, John Morris, and Peter Van Camp. In this episode, we'll discover how the very nature of digital communication evolved and continues to evolve today. One major contribution to the interconnectivity we enjoy today is the neutral exchange framework spearheaded by Equinix. Episode Highlights [02:46] DARPA and Improving InterconnectivityThe Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was created in response to the panic caused by the Soviet Union's Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in the world. DARPA had a broad mandate to take on research projects as directed by the Secretary of Defense.  It tried to create new technologies to keep the Pentagon and the military ahead of the Soviets.  DARPA's priorities were space and defense research. However, it also had to consider effective communication and improving interconnectivity. [04:24] The Birth of ARPANETOne of the research projects funded by DARPA was ARPANET. The concept of computer networks were new, but improved interconnectivity within the organization. In the early days of computers, DARPA hired J.C.R. Licklider. He became fundamental to inventing the internet. Sharon Weinberger: “He sort of looked ahead and said, the way that we work with computers is going to fundamentally change our society.” Their proposal became a prototype. 1969 was the first instance of two computers being connected, and the first message delivered over ARPANET was sent.  It was a struggle to convince people of the benefits of greater interconnectivity. The project's funding was almost cut due to lack of support. [07:41] Interconnecting PeopleMore people realized that having interconnected systems had applications outside military use. The internet left DARPA's hands in the 90s, becoming commercially viable and consumer-friendly. But we can't overlook its military legacy. J.C.R Licklider's hand in inventing the internet also cannot be understated. ARPANET is an example of a successful collaboration between the government and private sector. [09:36] Traffic in the Open WebJohn Morris: “Back in the '80s, commercial communications were prohibited on the internet. The internet was only for government and academic communication.” The internet's evolution to how we know it today started when it was decentralized from government control. Connection points soon became congested and created traffic in physical telecommunication networks. More importantly, opportunities online led to commercial growth and the need for regulation. [13:07] The Telecommunications Act of 1996The main focus of the legislation was to generate competition among phone companies. It also created an opportunity for CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers). They could deliver better connectivity and services to a user through higher-speed internet.  This development led to the birth of broadband internet. It also increased the need for physical connection points to maintain efficient interconnectivity between devices. The '96 Telecommunications Act enabled private organizations separate from phone companies to run exchange points. Competition between phone companies made neutral exchange points that laid the groundwork for the internet today. [16:06] A Faster, Decentralized Internet Cable companies entering the competition for providing internet access opened the debate for open...

As deliberations on an Infrastructure Package continue in Washington DC, the expert panel focuses on America's needs for investment in clean water and wider access to broadband Internet service in states, cities, and counties. This special briefing features a panel of experts, including Mayor Ras J. Baraka of Newark, New Jersey; Kathryn de Wit, project director of Broadband Access Initiative; Thomas Hazlett, Macaulay Endowed Chair in Economics at Clemson University; and Howard Neukrug, executive director of The Water Center at Penn. Notable Quotes: “We are also using this money for flood mitigation, rehab our water and waste pump stations, upgrade fire hydrants, to deal with resiliency. Hurricane Ida hit us very hard in New Jersey, and we had serious flooding in and around Newark and the North Jersey area.” Mayor Ras Baraka. “What we ultimately found was that state programs were really successful by focusing on the ‘why?' of broadband, and then on implementing inclusive and community-based approaches,” Kathryn de Wit. “Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, in current dollars about $225B have gone out. These funds are awarded annually, and in recent years they have reached levels of about $10B,” Thomas Hazlett. “The new goal of the industry is to become greenhouse gas neutral facilities, and that is a remarkable change from just ten years ago,” Howard Neukrug. Be sure to subscribe to Special Briefing to stay up to date on the world of public finance. Learn more about the Volcker Alliance at: volckeralliance.org Learn more about Penn IUR at: penniur.upenn.edu Connect with us @VolckerAlliance and @PennIUR on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn Special Briefing is published by the Volcker Alliance, as part of its Public Finance initiatives, and Penn IUR. The views expressed on this podcast are those of the panelists and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Volcker Alliance or Penn IUR.

In episode 2 of the Crushed Monocle Podcast, Jon and Coop discuss the pop culture fallout of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 The post Crushed Monocle Podcast: Episode 2 – The Ballad of 1996 appeared first on Bearded Gentlemen Music.

Even if you have not listened to the NH Secrets episode about the proposed cell phone tower on historic Cone Mountain in Thornton, NH, you have undoubtedly heard tales of small towns embattled by armies of lawyers, consultants, engineers and others over a proposal to site a cell tower on a cherished spot. Most people respond to such a proposal with the usual frustrated sense of powerlessness, resigned to the belief that there is nothing that can be done to halt the seemingly inevitable process. But did you know that a town has the right to hire a land-use attorney and other engineers and consultants - paid for by the applicant? Did you know that the town can require that the applicant cover the cost of maps, alternative site plans and other studies to verify - or refute - claims made by the applicant? These are only some of the rights outlined in the Telecommunications Act that covers the rights and responsibilities of both the companies seeking to site a tower and the communities who will be affected.

Ale Cohen and Mark "Frosty" McNeill share their journey through “experimenting with sound” and community in building the Internet radio collective DUBLAB over the past two decades. They share what inspired and drove them to build this institution and how it has shifted gears in our listen-from-home global era.   Dublab is not your average radio station. Mark calls it “experimentation with sound” that was formed as a reaction to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which forced the closure of low-power stations. We talked about online radio as a “misuse of technology” -- as a “hack” and a mutant use of tech. Initially, dublab acted as “an excuse to gather the creative community of Los Angeles.” They share stories of how contemporary much often started out of the studio and how dublab became a testing ground for new sound and to honor the music that went before. Guests: Mark “Frosty” McNeill, Founder, and Alejandro Cohen, Director, dublab Alejandro Cohen is a musician and composer from Los Angeles, and the Director of non-profit radio station DUBLAB. Over the last two decades, Cohen has released music under numerous projects and groups including Languis and Pharaohs. He has composed music for TV shows, documentaries, and educational materials, and recorded more than two hundred solo artists and bands as a sound engineer and consultant forhttp://dublab.com/ ( dublab.com), KPFK 90.7 FM, Sony/Columbia, and the Society for the Activation of Social Space Through Art and Sound (SASSAS). As Executive Director of the Internet radio station and creative collective DUBLAB, Cohen curates the station's programming and podcast offerings, fundraises for the organization, and curates the annual ambient music event Tonalism. Mark “Frosty” McNeill is a DJ, radio producer, sonic curator, filmmaker, and creative community builder based in Los Angeles. He was the founder of http://dublab.com/ (dublab.com), a pioneering web radio station that has been exploring wide-spectrum music since 1999. McNeill hosts https://www.dublab.com/shows/celsius-drop/ (Celsius Drop), a weekly dublab radio show and has produced long-running programs for Red Bull Radio, Marfa Public Radio, and KPFK 90.7fm. McNeill co-curated/produced the https://lightintheattic.net/releases/4714-pacific-breeze-japanese-city-pop-aor-boogie-1976-1986 (Pacific Breeze) compilations of Japanese City Pop music for Light in the Attic Records as well as Somewhere Between, a forthcoming album focused on the more experimental side of Japanese pop. His output on a multitude of international media platforms has focused on sharing transcendent sonic experiences. Mentioned Links Email: info@dublab.com Frosty Web: http://dublab.com/djs/frosty (dublab.com/djs/frosty) Twitter: http://twitter.com/dublabfrosty (@dublabfrosty) Instagram: http://instagram.com/dubfrosty (@dubfrosty) Facebook: http://facebook.com/dubfrosty (@dubfrosty) Ale Web: https://www.dublab.com/djs/ale Dublab Web: https://www.dublab.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/dublab Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dublab/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dublab/ (https://www.facebook.com/dublab/)  Linktr.ee links: https://linktr.ee/dublab (https://linktr.ee/dublab)  KUSC - https://www.kusc.org/ (https://www.kusc.org)  KXSC - https://kxsc.org/ (https://kxsc.org)  SASSAS - The Society for the Activation of Social Space through Art and Sound - http://sassas.org/ (http://sassas.org)  Echo Park Film Center - Your Host: Gigi Johnson, EdD I run transformative programs, speak/moderate, invest, advise, and produce multimedia on creativity and technology.  I taught for 22 years at UCLA, where I ran the Center for Music Innovation and the podcast "Innovating Music," built four industry-connecting programs, and taught undergraduates, MBAs, and executives about disruption in creative industries.  Before UCLA, I financed media M&A at Bank of

Today we're speaking with Rick Lane a strategic advisor and the CEO of Iggy Ventures LLC. He's an expert on the future of work, looking at how a range of technologies are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds and how they impact all disciplines, economies and industries. Our conversation focuses on Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com