FCC Claims Regulatory Power Over Home Computers

Pointing to Assistant Professor of Law Susan Crawford's blog, iman1003 writes "The FCC has filed a brief where it claims regulatory power over all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus 'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication according to a blog published by Susan Crawford. The blog can be found here and the brief here (in PDF format). Kind of scary if you ask me." Ars Technica has good commentary on this, also referencing Crawford's findings.

They'll take my mouse

[spidergoat2 (715962)]

When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

Attention Slashbots

[aborchers (471342)]

Stop posting here and WRITE to your congressional representatives.

Congress defines the mandate of the FCC, and without your input, all they hear is the clatter of change from the entertainment lobby.

Re:Attention ~American~ Slashbots

[jeblucas (560748)]

I'll make it easy for you. If you live in the US, you can look up your ZIP+4 number at the USPS [usps.com]. You'll need that to find and write your Congressman found over here [house.gov].

Here's the letter I wrote my rep:

Dear Representative Waxman,

Congratulations on your recent re-election, and thank you for your diligence regarding the disturbing trends coming out of Iraq contracts and their recipients. I wonder if you could turn your attention to another abuse of governmental power: the FCC. In response to a recent lawsuit questioning whether the FCC could regulate HDTV transmissions after their reception in a household, the agency responded with the letter linked here http://scrawford.net/courses/04-1037%20(Amer.Lib.) %20FCC%20Brief.pdf [scrawford.net] You could probably find it another way, but that's how I saw it. To be frank, it is appalling. The FCC has decided they have the power to regulate: my television, my computer, my iPod, my cellphone, my telephone, and anything else that falls under this language: "'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication."

With the recent election, it looks like we're going to head in a direction that says the government controls our bodies, can we do anything to keep them from controlling all of our stuff too?

.

Re:Attention Slashbots

[aborchers (471342)]

Keep telling yourself that. While you're at it, stop voting. RIAA, MPAA, TV, and Walmart love you.

The FCC *will* change its tune if the public outcry is great enough. In the absence of public outrage driving their Congressional bosses, there is no reason for them to. Look only to the recent bruhaha over the Hubble Space Telescope to see how a government agency can be forced to reevaluate its position at the behest of an outspoken electorate, and a whole lot more people watch TV than give a damn about HST.

The democracy only fails to be representative when the constituency fails to participate. If the public is more engaged, then people who only want corporate retainers will become consultants and CEOs and stay the hell out of public office.

How pendantic do I have to be? Corporate money may finance campaigns, but CORPORATIONS DON'T VOTE!

Re:Attention Slashbots

[dave420 (699308)]

Corporations don't need to vote. That's the thing. They're not apolitical, they ARE politics. We're not. The FCC is looking to allow its "friends" to make money. That's what they do. They aren't there to help people - just look at that Janet Jackson bullshit to see. They're there to push ideology. Continue to tell yourself your democratic process is working fine - you'll still be writing letters to your congressman when he's dragging you down your street in a tank.

Re:Wrong!

[dave420 (699308)]

No, when you write congress, some intern just has one more letter to open, swiftly read, and type into a database. The representative then just fills out "Stock response letter #24", signs it, then goes to lunch with the next lobbying group in his schedule. Of course, it LOOKS like they are listening, but until you line their pockets with something, you're on your own. We're not dealing with "country first" politicians, but professional politicians. They care about money, not the country. They care more about their bank manager than you. They care more about their yachts than the constitution.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's thinking like that which has allowed the US to become what it has. You really think the politicians turn away from their lobbying groups and say "You know, thanks, but no thanks. You keep the $1,000,000, and I'll do what Mr. X asked me in his letter". No, he'll write you a letter saying he takes it very seriously, that he values the voices of his constituants, that democracy is the best, and America is great. The letter will be sent to you, and he'll forget it. It won't affect anything he does.

Re:Wrong!

[bluGill (862)]

If you are alone in your views, you are right. Money talks. However money is a means to the ends. At the end of the day, if they notice that they sent more of letter #24 than anything else, and a quick database search reveals that most letters were opposed to something, that means more than money from lobbiest.

Congressmen have been known to go against those lobbiests with all their money when enough letters are written. They know that following the will of people who write letters (which is also the people more likely to vote) is likely to give them a vote next time, while ignoring those letters is likely to cost them the election.

Re:They'll take my mouse

[Technician (215283)]

From the way I see it, after reading the blog, you should be fine as long as your PC does not have a tuner.

The FCC is frustrated at the slow adoption rate of digital television..

On one side of the coin, Content providers don't want to put out content unless it's protected to prevent sharing on the internet.
The television stations have made the investment to broadcast digital television signals. The infastrusture is in place.

On the other hand the content is scarce and locked down to be useles and expensive. Therefore the adoption rate is very poor by consumers. The transmitters are there, but the home receivers are not. Nobody is watching. Nobody is even interested. It's expensive and the content is mostly worthless. Why bother. Nobody will be interested until the local electronics stores show real (not a demo loop) off air DTV reception. (the closest to a real demo I've seen is dish network subscription satelite TV, not over the air local TV)

It's the chicken and egg complicated by a Mexican Standoff. Providers won't provide content because of no viewers. Viewers won't switch due to cost, restrictions, and lack of content in roughly that order. The biggie is of course cost. For those with smaller spaces, finding an affordable TV is the problem. There are some home theatre type TV's that actualy contain a tuner, but the number of under $400 sets with the tuner for college students, basement dwellers, dorm dwellers, etc just doesn't exitst yet. My biggest TV is 20 inch. There are lots of monitors that are digital ready, but the lack of complete TV's is disturbing. Price, selection and content are the biggest showstoppers to digital TV rollout.

Somebody needs to do something to break the standoff if digital TV is going to get adopted. In the meantime, broadband Internet and it's wide selection of content is making a quick end run past the standoff. I speak for myself. I spend way more online time in a week than I spend watching TV in a year. Why spend the money to upgrade? The content is ad ridden junk aimed at the lowest common denominator.

I know they would like us to be like the Simpsons and rush for the sofa to watch their over the air content. It's just not happening. Drive the neighborhood. Count the VHF and UHF antennas.. It's not like it was in the '60's and '70's. Now almost nobody is watching.

Stupid power grab

[sjames (1099)]

I have a digital satellite system now. It has no broadcast flag support. Somehow, content manages to get sent over it without unleashing a plague of locusts or whatever it is the FCC thinks might happen without a broadcast flag.

Why in the world would I want to cough up more money to recieve over the air DTV broadcasts that tell me what I may or may not record and/or where I can watch what I do record when I have a perfectly adequate system now? I grew up watching analog TV, and my brain learned not to percieve the imperfections in the signal unless I compare side by side. I watch television for content, not for the presentation. Beautifully rendered crap will lose out to sorta decently rendered but good programming every time.

Short summary: Beautiffly rendered end-to-end digital video with restrictions has a lower value to me than sorta decently rendered but unrestricted video with analog steps. This is because the change will restrict access to the content (which I care about) in exchange for quality rendering (a distant second concern). As a rational consumer, I will not spend money in order to have a net negative value.

If the FCC wants me to switch, they'll have to give me some incentive to do so. That is they'll have to INCREASE my access to quality content. Since in their entire history, they've demonstrated no will or ability to improve the quality of content in general, and they are now focused on degrading my level of access to the existing quality programming, they're destined for failure.

Oh, to be young and naive again....

[coyote-san (38515)]

I hate to turn your dream into a nightmare, but all of my experience screams that this claim has nothing to do with the broadcast flag. It's a naked power grab to control the internet within the US, cloaked in the semi-defensible argument that it's merely ensuring that the (controversial itself) broadcast flag is enforceable.

Consider this: our theocracy has resumed obscenity prosecutions. The defense, in a nutshell, is that the "community" that establishes "community standards" no longer exists in the era of the internet - the porn palace is not some seedy theater that you need to keep your kids from, it's a consumer viewing porn (via subscription, encrypted channels or the internet) in the privacy of their own home. The alternative is to allow the most repressed community in the country to define what's acceptable for the rest of the country.

Maybe this defense will succeed. Maybe it won't. But if it succeeds the feds won't have much authority to go after porn sites - or anything else that offends them. (I'm especially concerned about a latter-day Pentagon Papers case. There's a staggering disconnect between what this administration claims is true and what's the ground reality... and the incoming cabinet and Congress looks like it's moving even further into fantasyland.)

Enter this brief. Even if the government loses this obscenity case, the FCC can step in and say that it's shutting down any site containing "obscene" material as it, alone, defines it. There's far, far too many sites to monitor manually so they'll undoubtably turn to secret lists like the kiddie filters - and besides hard and softcore porn we'll undoubtably discover that the filters block breast cancer and chicken recipes, sites that discuss your rights under the Bill of Rights (except for the second, oddly), the Constitution itself, websites critical of the incumbent president or supportive of the challenger....

In these circumstances, discussing and criticizing The List itself will undoubtably be verboten. That might give the nasty porn guys (and liberals) ideas on how to circumvent the restrictions.

Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[EmagGeek (574360)]

"Congress hasn't said that we DON'T have the power to do this, so we're going to go ahead on the assumption that we do."

Uhhh, that's not the way the government works. A government agency must be given the authority to regulate by Congress, which is ultimately accountable to the People. A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it. They must have a mandate and be granted Congressional authority to do so.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[by Anonymous Coward]

The rules are what the Bush admistration and their FCC, Supreme Court buddies say they are.

If anyone else was doing it, they would be called fascist.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[by Anonymous Coward]

The rules are what the Bush admistration and their FCC, Supreme Court buddies say they are.

We're all going to have to drop the liberal/conservative paranoia if we're going to stop the power grabs like the continued FCC expansion. This is not an "evil Bush" thing, nor is it an "evil Clinton" thing or any administration in particular. The FCC has been an increasing problem ever since Carter's era where it felt underappreciated, and Reagan when deregulation of Bell gave it a whole new world to flex its muscles in.

Instead of pretending evil Bushies/Clintonites are out to get you, take it to its foundation and fight from there. Do we want unchecked power in Federal bureaucracies, such as the FCC, DOE, FBI, CIA, etc, or not? The 10th Amendment of the US Constition has been gutted in practice; just as "interstate commerce" has been interpreted as anything in order to provide Federal jurisdiction, these agencies are completely unchecked in their empire building power drives.

Frequency auctions (a lousy "let's bring in a few extra bucks" measure by Congress) have corrupted the FCC immensely. It is so driven by money that it makes decisions based solely on lobby. Legalized bribery and influence has paralized its ability to do its basic charter. Look at BPL (Broadband over Power Line) for instance - while agreeing BPL studies conclusively show it fundamentally interferes with other licensed services, the FCC waves a magic wish wand and declares that BPL may continue. It's almost like the scene out of the Producers where the same company has been sold a hundred times over. BPL interfers with the frequency purchased by others previously, but as long as the FCC can sell it again, they go ahead. The Nextel fiasco is another good example of this nightmare, as well as unbundling requirements of monopoly service (e.g. DSL unbundling) being thrown aside.

If anyone else was doing it, they would be called fascist.

Lets hold the criminals themselves accountable in these bloated, money/power hungry bureaucracies. Look at the CIA as an example - their top brass is suddenly quitting because Congress sent a new boss who doesn't say 'pretty please' when scheduling meetings, and is not mindful that you never have meetings on Monday or Friday (WTF?) unless it is a mixer with cocktails. And we're surprised we have a deficit, with Federal agencies acting like this with our money?

Both sides need to start kicking some administrative ass and quit falling sucker to each party's finger pointing at the other.

Naive

[w.p.richardson (218394)]

That's how it's supposed to work, but when you are dealing with bureaucrats, that's not likely to be what actually happens.

Witness the FDA's attempt to regulate tobacco. There is no authority for them to do so, yet they are still trying to assert regulatory authority over tobacco. Say what you will, there's no authority for that to happen.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[mordors9 (665662)]

Actually Bush and his party have little if any effect on this. Sorry, but both parties have collected power to the Federal Government through out our history. This process accelerated after the Civil War and continues today. The Constitution is rather clear when read with the 10th Amendment, most of what the government does these days is unconstitutional. But depending on where your ideology stands, you approve when it is your group accumulating power but disapprove when it is the other group. After both sides get their way long though, most every area of our lives are now controlled by the Federal Government. I don't think the average citizen today even realizes that the states are supposed to be the controlling authority in most aspects of our lives, not the central government.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[Speare (84249)]

A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it.

No doubt. The wrong Powell is leaving office.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[by Anonymous Coward]

*rolls eyes* That's a straw man argument. They don't have to get permission for every decision.

The FCC does not have control over everything under the sun. They have been granted control of certain types of devices. Hence, the FCC has control over cellphones. They have to get permission for a decision in an area where they have not already been granted control.

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[Jameth (664111)]

"If the FCC had to get congress to put their heads together and pass something (house and senate) every time they wanted to make a decision, they would never get anywhere. The IRS does it's job without congress pulling every puppet-string, while it looks like the CIA may need a little congressional intervention."

Don't be suckered by the press. The IRS doesn't do its job. The IRS is hugely understaffed and underbudget and tax fraud is rampant, yet the media doesn't say much about that. However, the CIA gets

Re:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[EvilTwinSkippy (112490)]

The FCC has jurisdiction over RADIO transmissions. The purpose of their power is to prevent one company from shouting the other out by installer a bigger amp. The radio spectrum is finite, thus it needs to be managed accordingly.

WiFi aside, computer communication is more akin to telephones. It's point to point, so there is no way in which an individual node can crowd out everyone else... at least once it's plug being pulled.

This is a power grab. Pure and simple. Nevermind that the Supreme Court has rule

Bush Junta sez:

[markbark (174009)]

All Your Computers Are Belong To Us

The Cure for 1984 is 1776

FCC: Get the Hell Out

[salesgeek (263995)]

If there is one industry that does not need regulated, it's the computer industry. We are doing fine without you. Kind of makes you wonder what the state of radio, telecommunications, etc... would be without the FCC locking us into paradigms that are literally older than most of the people reading this message.

Get the hell out FCC we don't want or need your help.

-- the entire computer industry

Re:FCC: Get the Hell Out

[peragrin (659227)]

Damn I can't believe I am going to say this.

MSFT?? Hell even IBM there are more monopolies in the computer industry than ANY other industry. Why becuase a select few force control on the rest.

The simple solution would of been the break up of Microsoft a few years ago. two-three companies would of created compition and add features and security by NOW. Unlike the Current XP SP2 which has holes in it, and it's the most secure version of windows to date.

Now do i want to see FCC trying to control the hardware industry? not really as there is lots of competition there and low prices as a result. The software industry is dominated by one company that tries to control everything. The only two saving idea's is that they screw up eveything they don't control, and once they control an area they stop workig on it.

voIP

[snig64 (793215)]

another step in regulating voIP may be a driving instrument behind this.

Re:voIP

[will_die (586523)]

you mean like this [com.com]?

hate to say it

[by Anonymous Coward]

but the FCC is heading right to the crapper. Michael powell needs to resign and let someone else more qualified do the job. if only he was 1/4 the man his father is.

Since when did the the tenth ammendment read...

[by Anonymous Coward]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the FCC??!

Re:Since when did the the tenth ammendment read...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the Constitution mean anything anymore? The government wipes its collective ass with it every day Congress is in session.

FCC

[RagingChipmunk (646664)]

So if the FCC has regulatory domain over PCs, does that mean they're the ones to contact so i can download Janet's Titty Shot ? If they can regulate the content on Radio, Television, Print and Cable, does that mean they're willing to step up to regulating content on the Internet? Ha! Will I have to get an "Internet User License" like ham/cb hobbyists? Does that mean my TCP/IP driver will require little stickers of FCC compliance like my modem does? Just when I think that the economy is really suffering, and begin to stress about layoffs and outsourcing, I re-assure myself that beuracracy always grows, and so creates a never ending employment trough. I should start studying for my GSA exam.

The regulatory power

[Pan T. Hose (707794)]

The regulatory power should mean the power to regulate our equipment so it wouldn't break the infrastructure and other equipment, or jam the spectrum in the case of wireless communication. It shouldn never mean anything more than that. Specifically, it should mean that our modems cannot send high voltage down the line and the prohibition of DOS (a digital equivalent to spectrum jamming) but should never mean which software do we use and how do we use it, provided it does not damage other equipment, and equipment only. In that context we should have nothing to worry about, though of course every regulatory body tends to increase its power way beyond what is reasonable, if it itself isn't regulated as well. What we need are better checks and balances, not more legislation.

Layer creep

[dpilot (134227)]

The real issues are interference and interoperation. The FCC has long been accepted as being in charge of layer 1 - the physical stuff. But in another way of thinking, one could consider DDOS attacks to be analogous to RFI. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but it's certainly one that could be sold to a bureaucrat, maybe even to a legislator. So by this reasoning, the FCC may be trying to extend their authority into layer 2 and even layer 3, in order to meet their real requirements of interference and interoperation.

Now think about how they implement their authority over layer 1. There are things like FCC Type Acceptance, FCC Classes, and FCC Certification. You know that modem that operates over controlled wires, or that transmitter that operates over controlled frequencies... You can't TOUCH them without a LICENSE. So far, so good. If you touch it, you may change its operation, and make it cause interference. The device's FCC Type Acceptance is to guarantee that it will interoperate correctly. Your FCC License is supposed to guarantee that you know how to touch the device without breaking its FCC compliance.

Now extend that to layer 2. That means the FCC owns your ARP, and the bottom of your TCP stack. No more compiling from source without an FCC License, in fact you'd probably need signed modules. For that matter, you'd need a layer of the OS that guarantees that you can't load anything other than FCC certified modules for layer 2 - unless you've got an FCC License.

Now extend that to layer 3.... and the FCC owns the rest of your stack. And the part of the OS that checks its FCC signature and loads it.

This sounds terribly heavy-handed, but the Internet has become enough of a mess that the general public might well accept it. I see several major issues here:
1: Do the FCC and Congress realize what it *really* means to regulate PC communication. Do they understand that it also means requiring DRM Operating Systems to guarantee that an FCC Type Accepted stack is loaded.
2: What will licensing look like? How expensive will it be, and will it be truly knowledge based, or more interface based. (like MSCE) Will there be some sort of "Amateur Internet" equivalent to "Amateur Radio" and what will its requirements and capabilities be.
3: Will the Corporate Linux presence really care about ANY of this, because they'll just license their developers.
4: Finally, to they even understand that NONE of this MATTERS, because you don't stop DDOS or spam at layers 1, 2, or 3, anyway. To really stop DDOS and spam, you need to FCC certify *every single executable* that can connect to the stack, and that includes networked games.
4a: In reality, this probably means inserting the layer 3.5 shim, that *attempts* to police network connections, and prevents direct communication to layer 3. Of COURSE we all know how well that would work in practice, that it would preserve performance, as well as stop DDOS and spam.

As for anti-regulatory philosophies of Republican administrations, I don't buy it having any bearing here. In practice, I see two pieces of anti-regulatory agenda, owning weapons and making money. Allowing FCC increased domain over PCs does not directly affect either of those, so it could well happen. In fact, including FCC certification probably improves corporate control/profitability, so that's a plus.

Re:The regulatory power

[Tassach (137772)]

To paraphrase: Wah, Wah, Wha. I don't like getting spam in my inbox, so Big Brother needs to do something about it.

If getting 300 offers a day for penis pills is the price I have to pay to keep the Government and it's corporate masters OUT of my computer, then that is a price I'm willing to pay. Freedom isn't free -- the price of Free Speech is having to occasionally listen to people say things you'd rather not hear. Deal with it.

Spam and script kiddies are a tolerable nuisance compared to the power of having a global communications network which is outside the control of any single government or corporation.

Re:The regulatory power

[Casualposter (572489)]

You don't get it. This isn't about regulating computer misuse or spam, which have laws already in place. This is about regulating all forms of transmitted communication. If this is upheld they'll start censoring the web just like they do broadcast TV. Look at the WWW and see how many cases of "Fuck" are on the web. Googling the word fuck brings up 40,000,000 hits. At five grand a hit, you've got enough in fines to fund the war on the world. As far as FCC regulating equipment interference, it's been done for years. Modems, TV's, monitors, computers, all comply with FCC regulations for electronic devices.

So you put up a web site with a comments section like Slashdot. The FCC will then come by and say... Hmm Casualposter put up the word fuck three times and so we've got to fine that ripe little bastard fifteen grand, and slashdot as well for "broadcasting" the whole rotten lot. Oh yeah, did I mention that broadcasters have to have FCC liscenses. How about the same thing for websites?

And then we've got that anonymous fellow. He's a potty mouth and owes the FCC several billion for the f-word. So cough up his ID oh slashdot or else we'll haul comander taco off to jail, just for starters, for contempt you see. We can't have this immoral stuff on the net. It's bad for the kiddies. You see the internet is just like TV or radio. Somebody sets up a website (like a radio station), and anybody with the right kind of equipment (like a radio) can find the URL (like dialing in the radio station) and load up the website (like a radio program). As you can see, the website folks are just like radio stations and therefore they should be FORCED to protect our precious children from the dreaded f-word.

And all that porn, why that doesn't belong where anyone who isn't willing to drive out into the boonies or a dangerous part of town to hang out at a sleazy theater with other scummy people to see some really ugly, stoned people doing bad things. Put the porn back in the ghettos where it belongs.

So the real effect is to do though regulation what the courts have not allowed congress to do via laws like CIPA. The FCC already regulates the content of broadcast TV and radio, and with the power grab will be regulating what ever gets put up on the web. That should reduce the web to little more than static TV for your computer.

As to regulating spam and viruses. Since when has the FCC ever gone after international criminals? All the laws in the world won't reduce spam as long as a few billion dollars can be made. It's like drugs. Outlaw Spam and the spammers will be criminals and the spam will get worse, not better, just like the war on drugs has made little dent in the drug problem, but it has made a lot of folks more dangerous to the rest of us.

Oh yeah, I could be wrong. But I've never ever seen a government do GOOD regulations of communications content. Aircraft reliability and equipment reliability and non-interference? Yes the regulation is good. But why the fuck should I pay twenty grand for typing 16 characters in a comment? Or howard stern pay fines for saying fuck on the air? That's content control.

Shame

[by Anonymous Coward]

Shame that the head of the FCC doesn't have the same grace, dignity, honour and intelligence as his father.

Good

[ch-chuck (9622)]

You should have to take a test and obtain a license to get an IP address, before you can spew into the ether(net), just like for radio. The test should cover things like installing anti-virus, de-worming and spy-catcher software, turning on firewalls and the proper way to deal with attachments from strangers. Especially if you insist on using low quality, consumer grade software like Windows.

Re:Good

[EvilTwinSkippy (112490)]

So, what keeps me from getting a colo box in Canada and running a website from there? Or England, or Nigeria, or (nearly forgot) Poland.

Unlike Radio, it doesn't make a difference where I transmit from.

While we are on the subject, what constitutes using an IP. Do I need a "license" for a dial up account? Will I have to license every stinking moron in my building if I decide to do NAT translation? And what if someone hijacks my IP? Do I get fined?

The Internet is working very well as it is, thank you very much. If it's not suitable for some secure purpose, or it's not some idealic playground where we can set our kids loose and abdicate our responsibility as parents, then maybe we out to look at the wisdom of those 2 ideas. prima face they are stupid, and no amount of regulation is going to change that. Parents DO need to a) know what their kids are doing and b) prepare them to meet and overcome the temptations of this world.

As far as security goes, putting the FCC in charge is not so much to protect the integrity of messages sent, as to filter the content of what can't be. I refuse to live in a world where 7 words can't be sent over email.

An incompetent interpretation of the law

[lenski (96498)]

The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals in most wireless frequencies and at some power levels. The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals over the phone lines. The FCC has absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada authority over *MY* PC.

Authority over Cable companies, for instance, is also held by local communities.

This same FCC that doesn't bother to even *look* at how broadcasters are misusing their licenses? (to quote an oft-quoted phrase) They can pull my OPEN SOURCE, PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED PC out of my cold dead hands.

So that's where Palladium is going to come from!

[Noryungi (70322)]

Jan, 25th 2005:

The FCC announces that all computer equipment sold in the USA must now incorporate CCC (Complete Control over Content) technology.

CCC is, by the most incredible coincidence, almost equivalent to Microsoft/Intel Palladium specifications.

Early Feb. 2005:

Dell, IBM, HPaq and most other computer manufacturers quickly announce their support for the initative and the tech industry goes into an orgy of upgrading. All machines not incorporating CCC are then outlawed and/or barred from connecting to the Internet.

Dec. 2005:

FCC, in its capacity as Internet regulators, introduces the "Great Homeland Firewall", which bars USA citizens from connecting to foreign sites deeemed dangerous and/or terrorist. Some people note that Democratic blogs also appear to be rejected by the FCC Firewall.

Liberal cries about "freedom of the press" and "right of information" are promptly dismissed by Fox News and Republican lawmakers as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic".

In 2008, after successfully repelling the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, President George W Bush is triumphantly re-elected as President for a 3rd term.

Misleading Title

[wiredog (43288)]

"FCC Claims Regulatory Power Over Home Computers"? By extension, yes, but the Ars Technica piece describes this as being mostly in the context of the broadcast flag on HDTV transmissions.

And, whether we like it or not, the Federal Communications Commission does have regulatory authority over interstate communications. It was set up specifically to regulate interstate communications.

The question (and the lawsuit) is, does this authority extend to what is done with a broadcast after it has been transmitted and received?

everything at its extreme becomes its own opposite

[kardar (636122)]

Or the Eastern theory of extreme yin becoming yang, extreme yang becoming yin. It's hard to understand.

More is sometimes less, less is sometimes more. The danger is that by trying to be more, agencies like the FCC end up having their authority weakened. People will not take their policies, and other policies seriously. The more they do to try to crack down, the less effective they become. This is a proven fact, at least in theory.

An oldie but a goodie

[Meredeth (821492)]

I guess you'd better buy any hdtv equipment at the mid 2005 'non compliance' sale. I always find that early generations of any given new technology are easier to use because they have fewer copyright type restrictions on them.

And why folk outside the US should care too

[e6003 (552415)]

Firstly there are already rumblings of a European Broadcast Flag equivalent (despite the fact that unencumbered DTV equipment has been on sale over here for 6 years or more, providing an even more massive hole than the anything-up-to-July-2005 FTC rulemaking). We all know how US media interest-sponsored IP laws tend to get "exported".

More importantly, this affects all of us because of the economies of scale. If unencumbered equipment can't be sold in the US, it will be at least more expensive elsewhere as a massive potential market is cut off. Think of the Taiwanese motherboard industry being forced to produce two models - one DRMd for the US and the other unrestricted for non-US use.

Yes, even as a non-US resident, I care deeply about the foolishness going on in the US. If only I knew what to do about it, besides donate to the EFF...

If this is true...

[Cytlid (95255)]

...let's all call the FCC with complaints about viruses/worms/crackers/etc. They should be able to "regulate" it.

So?

[nwbvt (768631)]

I can claim that I own the Empire State Building. Doesn't mean anyone (specifically the courts) will agree with me.

Wake me up if this request is actually granted, then I'll start to worry. Until then, I'll let the courts do their job.

Is the brief unrelated?

[danwiz (538108)]

Maybe the brief linked to in the posting was the wrong one.

There is a mention of associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received but it is just a small quote.

From the PDF brief ...

The issues presented here are:

* Whether the FCC reasonably concluded that the Communications Act provides authority for it to adopt broadcast flag rules.
* Whether the particular rules the Commission adopted were reasonable and supported in the record
* Whether the rules conflict with copyright law.

Although the expansion of FCC authority is of valid concern its neither the topic of, nor addressed in, the brief mentioned.

But ... IANAL

THIS IS ZERO NEWS!!

[Phreakiture (547094)]

If any of you have been PAYING ATTENTION to your computers, you will find that ALL of them have an FCC logo on them indicating that they have passed certifications. Every computer must pass under part 15 regs, and if it connects to a phone line, it must also pass under part 68 regs. Thus has it always been.

Re:THIS IS ZERO NEWS!!

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

ALL of them have an FCC logo

You mean the logo indicating that the equipment in question doesn't spew excessive EM interference? That's different. Apparently, the FCC wants to regulate the content of your communications.

Re:Business As Usual?

[benzapp (464105)]

existential duty

Please, tell me more about these existential duties.

Karma Whoring

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

With a link to the song [pythonline.com].

Re:can you say greed

[dave420 (699308)]

Isn't that what you're paying for? No. Not even close.

You're equating getting the signal in your house and being allowed to do whatever you want with it. That's not the case. If you read your HDTV contract, you'd notice that there are many, many provisions in it. They state that the signal (and copyrighted material it contains) ISN'T yours, and that you are only allowed to display it on agreed hardware, and use it in ways they see fit. Just because you have the cable running into your house doesn't mean you can then burn it to CDs and pass out to friends, or even burn to CDs and keep for yourself.

You see, copyright is a weird thing. You are getting a copy of the media, not the rights to copy it yourself. You can get those rights if you want, they are available - you just have to buy the copyright holder's permission for whatever it is you want to copy. Simple.

By your logic, if I come over to your house, you can take my wallet. "Heck - he was in my house! my wallet!". It could be argued that your stance is pure greed (as in you want to have the rights to copy something, but not pay for them).

Re:Scope of Brief . . .

[z80kid (711852)]

> Accept that your computer is bound by FCC regulations...

Only to the extent that your computer emits RF interference, and/or communicates over phone lines. You're confusing the issue.

There's an FCC ID on almost all electronic equipment. Does that mean the FCC can regulate what bread you put in your toaster? What food you heat in your microwave? Can the FCC tell you you cannot record a phone message on your answering machine? or what you can do with that recording?

The FCC regulates the physical transmission of information, and to some extent the content in the case of public transmissions. Once you receive the transmission, its out of their hands.