Slashdot Log In
Sununu Sets Aim on Broadcast Flag Again
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Fri Jan 12, 2007 06:20 AM
from the fcc-be-damned dept.
from the fcc-be-damned dept.
Flag waver writes "Senator John Sununu (R-NH) will introduce legislation that will prevent the FCC from creating technology mandates for the consumer electronics industry. As a result, the FCC would be hamstrung in its efforts to revive the broadcast flag. '"The FCC seems to be under the belief that it should occasionally impose technology mandates," Sununu said in a statement. "These misguided requirements distort the marketplace by forcing industry to adopt agency-blessed solutions rather than allow innovative and competitive approaches to develop."' Sen. Sununu previously tried without success to remove the broadcast flag provisions from the massive telecommunications bill that died before reaching the Senate floor during the last Congress."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Amendment To Kill Broadcast and Audio Flags 64 comments
Bruce Perens writes "Senator John Sununu is proposing an amendment, H.R.5252, to strike both the broadcast flag and the radio flag from this year's U.S. telecommunications bill.
If the amendment does not pass, we will be faced with mandatory DRM in video and audio devices, and with a prohibition on the use of Open Source software for such devices (because it can be modified to remove DRM). Time is short, the committee markup of the telecommunication bill is proceeding now in Washington and it's important to show your Congressperson that there is constituent support to remove the broadcast and audio flags. Please see the alert and please use the information there to call your Congressperson today."
If the amendment does not pass, we will be faced with mandatory DRM in video and audio devices, and with a prohibition on the use of Open Source software for such devices (because it can be modified to remove DRM). Time is short, the committee markup of the telecommunication bill is proceeding now in Washington and it's important to show your Congressperson that there is constituent support to remove the broadcast and audio flags. Please see the alert and please use the information there to call your Congressperson today."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I wish he was my representative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a classic case of throwing the baby out along with the bath water as this will also prohibit FCC to enforce mandatory interoperability and adherence to standards.
Parent
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no mandatory interoperability or standards enforcement the FCC does with respect to these kinds of technologies.
In essence, the FCC doesn't have the power to dictate which road technology takes. They can, however, dictate by whom and how the frequency spectrum can be used, and also regulate censorship on public broadcast networks.
Parent
Cell phone networks (Score:2, Flamebait)
It basically put US 10 years behind the rest of the world with regard to cell phones.
Re:Cell phone networks (Score:4, Insightful)
I know a lot of europeans who agree with this sentiment. I haven't spent a lot of time in europe so I'm unfamiliar with what it's like over there. However, looking strictly from a technological point of view CDMA (e.g. verizon, sprint, et al) seems to be much more innovative than GSM. With GSM everyone gets timeslices to use the air whether they're actually using it or not. With CDMA, only those who are talking use the air. As a result, with CDMA you get a *LOT* more people using the same frequency than you can with GSM. It's no surprise to me that EV-DO (highspeed data on CDMA networks) is much more widespread than is UTMS/HSPDA (highspeed data on GSM networks). The CMDA networks had a lot more bandwidth available. (*)
If it's true that CDMA is more innovative than GSM, then it's not true that the US is 10 years behind the rest of the world w.r.t. cell phones. The result of not having a mandated standard for how digital cell phone technology was to be used has been that the market was able to innovate. And the result is more efficient use of the bandwidth, which means that the scarcity of the airwaves is lower. Which means cheaper cell phone service is cheaper. Which means more bandwidth available for high speed data.
Personally, I prefer the market based solution.
(*) There are, of course, technical details that override this summary. The technical details are not the point.
Parent
Re:Cell phone networks (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:4, Interesting)
No it won't. Their position as enforcers will remain.
It'll just keep them from using that position to making their own laws, which isn't the same thing at all. They'll still be the ones to find you and get you arrested if you start broadcasting your own pirate radio station.
I think this generally makes sense. The FCC is supposed to be just an enforcer, aren't they?
I'm not sure that I wouldn't prefer the FCC to be the ones making the rules, though, since the alternative is that Congress makes 'em, but it might be for the best. What process do you have to overturn FCC mandates? How can you guarantee that you know about all the rules that they've made up?
Congress has a well-known process in place already to deal with both these questions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The DoD's standardization on Ada worked out beautifully! Sure, it took them 12 years to decide on it and then ended up granting exceptions anyway, but think of all the useful code they developed and could be shared with other Ada developers. Think of all the efficiencies!
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. They can continue to set transmission standards. Then it is up to the market for devices on the receiving end to choose the extent to which they will interact with those standards. The delivering of the broadcast flag is a transmission standard that the FCC can control, but the way the devices on the receiving end handle the flag should be left up to the market.
Parent
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:5, Funny)
(It's a palindrome I just made up.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sununu is in trouble (Score:2)
Re:I wish he was my representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations are terrible at cooperating, and they don't give a rat's ass about the consumers' persepective. If they think that they can make more money by selling incompatible devices or services, then they will. Only a superceding, non-business, body can force standardization.
I don't expect that the FCC will make the best decisions all of the time. If they had been in the position to choose HD-DVD vs BlueRay, they might have made the 'wrong' choice (whichever one that happens to be). But either choice is better than what we have now, which is: both. By forcing one standard, even a suboptimal one, they also create profitable network effects and reduce expensive waste for corporations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was never a standardization in VHS/Betamax. I know of some places still using Betamax (and last I checked, you can still buy Betamax gear, though expensive). Mobile phones have at least 4 completely different and incompatable communication styles. There is a move to g
Good, more limits on the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sununu (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Debian/Solaris crossed my mind too.
Oh my God, I'm a geek.
Good and Bad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds pathetic, but who is your "low cost" text message carrier? ATT/Cingular/Whatever-they-call-themselves-tomorro w is bumping up rates to 15 cents per. In my back of the envelope calculations, text rates are about 100x voice rates per unit of network bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's fine for them to require or allow the broadcast flag to be transmitted, but not to dictate that the flag must be interpreted by end-user devices in the way the content makers want.
I don't think I could support this bill (Score:5, Insightful)
While the broadcast flag was a travesty amoung quite a few travesties surrounding the ATSC standard the FCC needs to be able to impose standards on the industry. Without mandated standards the cable industry would fragment with each manufacturer of devices coming up with their own standards like Motorola and Scientific Atlanta and all the different access control device manufacturers did in the 1990's. At the moment the FCC is pushing OpenCable(TM). It is in fact anything but open, but it is marginally better for the consumer than the current state of things in the USA because it allows you to buy a box from Motorola, SA, or TiVo you are not locked into whichever one your cable company chooses for their entire system.
But under a different administration the FCC might push for something like Europe's DVB CAM standards which are a better trade-off between allowing broadcasters to encrypt copyrighted material+ and allowing consumers to watch the material as they please once they've paid for it. In Europe they allow broadcasters to encrypt the material but once the consumer decrypts it with the key they buy from the broadcaster the copyrighted material is now a normal video they can transfer to their laptop or iPod to watch there. With "Open" Cable the materials are locked in your OpenCable receiver and can only be transfered to other DRMed devices if the broadcaster specifically allows it.
This bill looks like it would bar the FCC from doing the only good thing it does do, promulgate technical standards. It would basically religate the FCC to enforcing government mandated censorship and to enforcing technical standards directly dictated by congress, i.e. laws written by companies that write the largest checks to legislators and their families. If get the FCC out of the business regulation business, it would be much more wise to have it give up it's monopoly regulation powers and hand those over to the FTC. The FTC could apply the same standards to telecommunications as it does to other industries and could be more effective without getting into nitti-gritty regulation of specific fees, etc. It could simply bar a cable company that used anti-competitive tactics from selling any content over their pipes, or prevent a content company from owning any cable in the ground.
If you want to pass a simple law that makes any future broadcast flag moot, pass a law that removes copyright protection* from any work where the a paying customer can not easily remove DRM from media without paying an additional fee. You would quickly see content producers begin to police the broadcasters to prevent them from implementing any unworkable and expensive "content protection" schemes. The broadcasters would instead do something smarter like embedding your subscriber ID in the file when it exits the CAM so that any bit-perfect or even decent looking copy could be traced back to the subscriber who originally lost control of it.
+As a guy with a liberterian bent I have no problem with allowing DRM without restriction when dealing with non-government protected creative works in a competitive landscape.
*Copyright protection is a very non-liberterian form of restriction on property that prevents you from improving your property once it begins to look like something someone else did in the last 150 years or so. We accept this restriction on our liberty because the term of the restriction is short and it presumably encourages the distibution of new ideas into the public domain. When DRM prevents the entry of a work into the public domain this alone makes copy rights on works "protected" in this manner troublesome. Combine that with the current term of copyright, which has actually lengthened in these last two hundred years instead of shortening as the means of distribution became cheaper, and extending any copyright protection to a DRMed work in this day and age is downright immoral.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do not trust Sununu.
-AB+
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think I could support this bill (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean, like the video tape industry was fragmented between VHS and Betamax? Let the market take care of fragmentation.
If you want to pass a simple law that makes any future broadcast flag moot, pass a law that removes copyright protection* from any work where the a paying customer can not easily remove DRM from media without paying an additional fee.
I'd go much further than that. Copyright protection should be awarded only to human-readable material. At most give it to non-DRM digital media that uses open standards. If you put any for of encryption you shouldn't need or receive any additional protection from the legislation. Copyrights are granted on the provision that the material will eventually enter public domain. If your work is distributed with any protection, how will the future generations use it after the temporary protection against copying granted by copyright law ends?
Likewise, copyrights should be granted to software only under the condition that it's distributed with source code. There are methods, such as hardware dongles, that protect executable software against unauthorized copying, you don't need copyright for that.
Parent
TV is not a neccessity (Score:2)
Oh yeah, because the economy depends on you buying shit you don't need...and without TV telling you what to buy...you'll buy less shit you don't need.
So cynical today.
Re:I don't think I could support this bill (Score:5, Insightful)
So it would be appropriate for the FCC to set a standard on how the broadcast flag is delivered in the signal, but not for them to force end-user devices to interpret it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
PLEASE support this! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm posting anon for damn good reason.
I work engineering for one of the largest cable companies in the country. We've been hearing that all the new contracts have clauses forcing us to provide broadcast flag measures. We've been told to have it ready this spring for a test run against customers this summer.
I'm talking about:
- Disable record
- Limit playback to N times
- Disable analog
- Limit outputs to 480i
- Disable fast forward/rewind/skip forward/skip back
I feel it's unethical... especially since you're already paying for these channels.
Please support this legislation. I don't want this to happen!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course a cable company would not want a government body to force them to use a standard. They are feeding you FUD. It's like saying you work for AT&T and they are telling you how network neutrality is awful and you should vote against it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before reading this article, I was hating the FCC's technology mandates because of the broadcast flag. But now I see that the FCC's technology mandates, in general, seem to be pretty good. B&W TV, Color TV, standardizing cable signals, standardizing set-top boxes. The FCC is a blight that the courts fixed. But it seems like we are better w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a thought.
wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me, I need to go check to see if cats and dogs are living together, and how many other of the seven seals are open.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Some Republicans are right wing assholes all of the time, and some Republicans can be right wing assholes some of the time, but not all Republicans are right wing assholes all of the time.
I say, let them implement the Broadcast Flag... (Score:2)
Worst case scenario: MPAA snaps out of it and realise it's suiside
Best case scenario: People avoid Cable like the plague and view non-MPAA material off the Internet.
Who ... to ... hate .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legislating the market (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody needs to go back and relearn their civics(not the ones from Honda).
See the FCC is part of the executive branch, it(the FCC) should be executing the laws from Congress(the legislative branch)instead of just making up mandates through some sort of fiat the FCC does not posses. It's all about checks and balances.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Big difference between "introducing laws" and "oversight" and calling the U.S. Senate "another government agency" in comparing it to the bloody FCC is ridiculous.
When you talk about "introducing laws"(laws ==legislation) I presume that you mean implementation as opposed to some sort of suggestive effort. THAT is a power reserved for the LEGISLATIVE branch of government. Congress may pass legislation g