Craig Wrote: "Maybe the the problem is that the FCC is no longer necessary. They cannot do anything without authorization from Congress, and they are pretty much a toothless tiger in terms of their regulatory role. Nearly every significant decision they make is overturned by the courts... " Mark Aitken Wrote: "The FCC should be involved with technical policy, NOT ideology!" The purpose of the FCC's technical policy is to support an ideology as stipulated by our Congress. So in a way, the FCC is involved with ideology. But I imagine that Mr. Aitken is stating that the FCC should not enact upon or develop their own ideology, for which I agree. The truth is, we all work within an ideology. In fact, without one, there is no reason to do anything. The questions, is the executive branch going outside of their defined boundaries within our current (or foundational) ideology? What I find really interesting, and I think this is what Craig is alluding to, is that Congress can stipulate (legislative branch) and the FCC enforce (executive branch) but our third branch (judicial) can overrule both and insert their own ideology, simply by overruling the FCC's regulations and enforcement of those regulations. Of course, this is why we have a third branch, should both be working outside of our foundational Constitution. But I do not think this is the case and the courts are hurting our foundational system by taking away both our representation and policing. As to the issue of the FCC creating policy, technical or not, I'll make this statement. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to manage the resources. It would be wrong to fault an executive organization to be proactive when the representation is silent. But it would also be wrong for the organization to overrule the legislative branch. Do you think this is what is happening?