Talk:Communications Act of 1934

message: --207.224.135.2 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would keep it here but not add to it here. I would add other such related cases here. I took a look at the other article and what I would do there is expand it so that the entire complicated case and related cases along with Congressional Record comments and further Supreme Court opinions and to dissents are added. The handy book I referenced at the bottom of this page (Documents in American Broadcasting) has these cases in it. Do you have access to this material? MPLX/MH 20:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good (the chain case didn't exist until i just created it:) -- i'm afraid i don't have access to the material in question, but i think you're right -- keep the "power of the FCC issues" on the FCC page, and let the case page blow where she will:). Ungtss 20:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I moved the CellAntenna case because it was buried in the House, as well as added the Internet Kill Switch bill that Senator Lieberman was proposing. It seemed to make more sense to go in the History of the Bill since neither of these two are law...therefore probably not worthy of being up on top.CMTucker (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on Changes

message: :Should there be some further annotation about the case that CellAntenna has brought against the FCC? (referring to CNet link to 2006 article) It appears that the challenge has been rejected. However, I have found some information that the House is currently looking at legislation called The Safe Prisons Communications Act. Though it may be unrelated, that outdated link makes it appear that the Homeland Security Act might threaten all regulations in the Act.CMTucker (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on link #2

message: Was the Communications Act the first legislation to include the PICON standard, or did the Radio Act have it as well? (PICON=="public interest, convenience, or necessity") 121a0012 16:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PICON

message: I am doing research on the requirements of radio broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc.
Any idea which section of which federal document provides this direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admospheres (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadcaster's Requirements

message: The subsection entitled "Creation of the Federal Communications Commission" begins with the following sentence "In the early 1900s (decade), Congress was given the responsibility of regulating interstate and foreign commerce, due to the Commerce Clause."  This introductory sentence is poorly worded and contains some glaring errors.  First, while the Commerce Clause does grant Congress the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it wasn't drafted "in the early 1900s."  And even if the Constitution were drafted in the first decade of the 20th century (which, again, it was not) the phrasing "in the early 1900s (decade)" is sloppy-- why would the precise year not be listed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdog1447 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording regarding the creation of the Federal Communications Commission 

message: I can't help but notice that the source for the 'Text of Document' links to a website called 'CriminalGoverment.com'. Investigating the homepage makes it clear that it might not be a reliable source, especially when there should be more reliable sources for the text of the act itself Mattbru77 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern About First Citation

message: In my quest to uncover the many and various things that the term "information services" can mean in different contexts, I ran into Net neutrality in the United States and then this article. As the definitions are actually covered by the Communications Act of 1934, I added a section in the article, lifting some of the info from the net neutrality one for convenience. I do not pretend to understand anything about US law (nor the detail re the net neutrality saga), but if anyone wants to look over what I've done and correct anything that I've not represented clearly, that would be good. It is mainly a place to park another definition of "information services", for the DAB page. Also - I'm not sure if the terminology has changed or if there's something I'm missing - but the version of the US Code I looked at called the sections Subchapters rather than titles, so I changed those. If it's a change through the whole act, it's possible that it may need updating elsewhere in the article too? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Net neutrality section