RealTechNews.com - Independent Tech

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

FCC sticks its foot up your butt and twists...
Conservative that I am, the thought of rules and regulations is not automatically abhorrent to me. However, there are limits to even what I'll agree to, especially when the government is trying to interfere in what little bit of enjoyment my pathetic life has left. F'rinstance, the FCC just submitted a brief (PDF file) to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Among the 55 pages of this document is the following:

Specifically, the Commission concluded that the potential threat of mass indiscriminate redistribution [of DTV programming] will deter content owners from making high value digital content available through broadcasting outlets absent some content protection mechanism and that preemptive action is needed now to forestall any potential harm to the viability of over-the-air television. The Commission also determined that DTV programming is inherently at a greater risk of widespread redistribution as compared to its analog counterpart because digital media can be easily copied and distributed with little or no degradation in quality. Citing comments from content producers and broadcasters, the Commission further concluded that absent redistribution control regulation for DTV broadcasts, the record indicates that content providers will be reluctant to provide quality digital programming to broadcast outlets and will instead direct such content to pay television systems that can implement adequate content protection mechanisms. Moreover, the Commission found, the diversion of high quality digital programming away from broadcast television will lead to an erosion of our national television structure and not only will free, over-the air broadcast television deteriorate, but a critical element necessary to the success of the DTV transition the availability of quality digital broadcast programming will not develop.

The key points of this section, as well as the entire brief, focus around the words, "indiscriminate redistribution," "content control," "cable," and "broadcast television." In other words, unless you let us put a clamp down on the ability to copy (i.e., record) DTV, the DTV people will only provide content to pay cable. (By the way, although there's no provision in its charter to do so, the FCC was granted governance over cable broadcasting thanks to the Supreme Court.)

This is a LOT of horse puckey, especially the part about analog television being degraded through the copy process. Have any of these guys seen what analog TV looks like lately when it's not delivered by cable? (And even sometimes when it is.) How degraded can crap get when it's delivered as crap in the first place?

Of course, the FCC does a neat job of CYA:
"...consumers can continue to use existing DTV equipment without purchasing new or additional equipment to receive and view broadcast television signals. Moreover, as noted, consumers ability to make and view digital copies will not be affected; the broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass redistribution over the Internet or through similar means. In addition, the Commission found that the broadcast flag-based system could be implemented at a minimal cost to both consumers and manufacturers."

Or did it...
The Commission acknowledged that among the 13 technologies it was approving to implement the broadcast flag were two that employed copy restraints. The Commission explained that there were special circumstances relating to its approval of these two technologies and that its approval should not be interpreted as precedent supporting the future adoption of technologies that impose copy restrictions on digital broadcast television content.

So it's just playing around with copy protection then, don't pay any attention to to it, means nothing. My ruddy Irish red butt it doesn't.

Let's see if I have this correct: The Executive branch of the government suggests the laws, the Legislative branch makes the laws, the Judicial branch ensures the laws are properly enforced and enforceable. Okay, so when did they add the FCC branch to the government and why wasn't I notified?

Oral arguments will take place on Feb. 25, 2005. The brief is NO. 04-1037.
You can e-mail FCC Chairman Powell. Be nice. That's not a request. Be nice.
You can post a message at First-Gov.gov. Ditto. Ditto the nice part.
You can e-mail your state Senator. (Use the finder at the top of the page to determine who your Senator is, then got to his/her site, if one exists, and hit the "contact" link.) Ditto, ditto.
You can e-mail your state Representative. (Use the finder at the top of the page to determine who your congressperson is, then got to his/her site, and hit the "contact" link.) Ditto, ditto, ditto.
And don't leave the President and the Vice President off your list. (Click the email link. 100x Ditto. No matter what you might have heard, they're both decent guys.)

You probably should do all six. Something's wrong here. I'm not going to tell you what to say. Nobody reads form letters. Just be nice. (And thanks to Andy for the heads-up.)

# Permalink Posted at 9:05 PM 15 comments Email this Link

Comments on this Item:

Ahem. "[F]ree, over-the air broadcast television [will] deteriorate". Obviously, no one at the FCC watches free, over-the air broadcast television.

As Marty Feldman once said, "too late!"

# posted by Roy 6:07 AM

Didn't he also say, "A..., B..., Normal! That's the one I want!"

# posted by Bill 8:17 AM

I wish the response I got back from all those wonderful sources you suggested (like my congressman) did something other than put me on their mailing list. I've almost given up writing anyone as they seem to like cash better than votes.

# posted by Anonymous 9:42 AM

I like what they are doing, the FCC is legislating itself to irrelivance. The restrictions they place on the public will force many to alternate outlets for media. One such outlet is satelitte radio and on Jan 1, 2006 i will make the switch to a non FCC regulated medium. Why, because of FCC indecency regulations are being enforced in a random manner. Let them regulate all they want, if only a few people use what they regulate it matters not.

# posted by Anonymous 10:30 AM

Shhh.... if you don't point out that sattelite radio is unregulated, maybe they won't notice....

# posted by Anonymous 10:46 AM

To both you Todds...

1. Even though you're getting back form letters, trust me, they count the mail. It does make a difference. The idea behind the form letters is to make you think it doesn't so you won't bother to write and annoy them into doing something.

2. The FCC has no direct jusrisdiction over cable either --until it suddently said it did as a natural consequence of its reason for existence and the Supremes upheld the decision (1968). Don't be very surprised if they take on the same mantel of authority for satellite.

# posted by Bill 10:49 AM

Seems that they are voting themselves the power not just to keep signals from interfering, but also to insure that those signals happen. So its trying to regulate just what hardware people have that can record shows so that people won't pirate those shows, thus insuring that the shows get made.

Of course, this is all in benefit of TV networks, not the consumer. If people pirate the shows until networks can not proffit anymore, then a new medium will spring up to feed the people's need for entertainment. In the end, the consumer will get the entertainment it wants. Its just the big-buck network suits that won't be a part of it.

Throughout history, new technology has eclipsed old. What if the mail carriers had fought against telegraph wires or radio telegraph?? Afterall, both of those new mediums allowed people to freely copy what they used to have to pay mail carriers for.

Funny how some people claim they are against government regulation, but then let this kind of thing move forward.

The FCC needs to get out of the way of digital signals. If the people want digital shows, the demand will encoruage the networks to switch. If the networks can't find a way to deal with people making copies, then someone else will (without pissing off their customers in the process).

Personally, I'm not switching to digital cable or tv anytime soon because I've already got enough boxes in my living room. I don't want another one (with the associated remote).

When the digital line plugs directly into the back of my TV like the analog line does, then I'll reconsider.

# posted by Anonymous 11:46 AM

"If people pirate the shows until networks can not proffit anymore, then a new medium will spring up to feed the people's need for entertainment."

Only if there's a way to make money doing it. Artists may love to make films, music, whatever just for the joy of it, but that doesn't stop their landlords from wanting a rent cheque every month.

# posted by Anonymous 12:25 PM

I don't get it. I've heard of this before, but mostly just ranting and raving about how bad it is. Can you provide a list of what the offenses are? What is the "broadcast flag"?

# posted by Dean 12:37 PM

Dean, click on my name at the end of this comment then click on "e-mail." Send me a note requesting a copy of the brief and I'll forward one to you (PDF format).

# posted by Bill 2:33 PM

Better still, click the link on the post.

# posted by Bill 2:41 PM

Bill,

The FCC branch of government was added in 1934 when Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934. It gives almost autonomous control of all things relating to telecommunications to the FCC. Same goes for the Atomic Energy Commission, the TVA, and numerous other "commissions" and "agencies". The only control congress has over these commissions and agencies is budgetary. However, they can modify the commission's charter as they did with the FCC in 1996.

daver

# posted by Anonymous 7:33 AM

So, what you're saying is that the 1934 Communications Act gave the FCC the right to monitor and regulate the WiFi signals broadcast from my computers?

# posted by Bill 8:12 AM

Bill, you're welcome for the tip.

Has anyone noticed something about the UIP laws lately?

They are NOT about preventing piracy. Remember when the BSA sued me for running Linux, saying that I was breaking the law by not paying for my OS?

These laws are about concentrating the power in the hands of the elites. It's about keeping me from writing part of the Linux Kernel (ehich I did) running Linux (which I do) and doing things my way.

These (congressional) criminals legitimately believe that if you listen to a CD made by a firend's band, that that's wrong. You must listen to something from their big money interests, or they will throw you in jail.

That's why I'm heavily armed.

Andy Out!

# posted by Andy@RecycledElectrons.com 10:14 AM

My arms are heavy as well, although that's a general full-body statement too. Perosnally, I think it has more to do with stupidity than conspiracy. Let's go far astray for an example - pooper-scooper laws.

Some politico somewhere probably stepped in it, became outraged, and then through a series of inane arguments, convince enough of his colleagues that he was correct. "Dog waste pollutes are drinking water, causes disease, lowers the value of the dollar vs. the Euro, etc..."

On it's face, the argument sounds good. Out here in the 'burbs of NJ, the water going into our storm drains (not sewer drains) carries goose, crow, squirrel, hedge and ground hog, deer, bear, rat, and chipmonk poop, along with fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, manure, and soil with its own collection of macro- and micro- scopic wildlife. Dog crap is the least of our worries.

Unfortunately, there is an unerring disconnect when someone sees a pile of dog crap sitting in the street. The ability to reach a logical and factual conclusion disappears. I believe it's essentially the same for every such argument (personal use video, music, timber harvesting, environmental protection, etc.). We like to be lead while we think we're doing something important.

# posted by Bill 11:14 AM

Post a Comment