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.

hate to say it

[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.

Naive

[w.p.richardson]

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.

Good

[ch-chuck]

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:Business As Usual?

[benzapp]

existential duty

Please, tell me more about these existential duties.

An incompetent interpretation of the law

[lenski]

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.

The wrong Powell...

[beaststwo]

Sounds like the wrong member of the Powell family resigned.

And this is the party that claims to get Government off the people's backs? The founding fathers' dust would roll over in their graves, except the FCC probably claims juridiction over that as well!

Re:FCC: Get the Hell Out

[peragrin]

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.

So?

[nwbvt]

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.

Layer creep

[dpilot]

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:Their entire argument is fallacious at best

[Anonymous Coward]

The Communications Act of 1934 as Amended has a bunch of different titles. Title I gives general power to do certain things. Title II gives specific power over the phones, Title III gives specific power over radio waves, Title V gives powers to fine companies, Title VI is cable services.

When the FCC is acting under the Act, it gets broad latitude to do things not specifically contemplated by Congress but generally authorized by them (called "Chevron Deference"); This regulation has roots in Title III and Title I. Title I is very vauge, however, and whether the FCC can reasonably derive these powers from Title I is what ALA is challenging.

That is, the entire point of this case is whether or not the act gives the FCC control over what radio receiving devices do after reception.

Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

You know things are bad when the above comment (while certainly on track with its predictions) is moderated "Insightful" rather than "Funny".

Re:Attention Slashbots

[aborchers]

I don't vote every four years. I vote in every election, which can amount to multiple times per year, because I recognize that participatory government works from the ground up.

And, if you'd like to critique my grammar, you can read copies of many of my letters in my journal.

They brought it on themselves.

[way2muchsense]

First they want to show more and more commercials, to the extent that they make up over 50% of the content, then they dive head-first into reality TV.

I don't mind shows like Survivor. I don't watch them, but that's me. My problem with reality TV is that it dominates the TV landscape to the extent that there is no longer anything for me to watch. They're slowly coming to the realization that not only am I not alone, but after they've made their quick buck, nothing they've produced is re-runable. No syndication, no more money.

How much money has been made on "Bewitched" over the past 40 years? Can you see the networks showing reruns of Survivor even five years from now, let alone on Nick At Nite in 2044? Disposable TV costs the networks money, and the jeniuses who run the networks are finally coming to realize that. Too bad most real TV fans have switched to HBO.

Re:Attention ~American~ Slashbots

[jeblucas]

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

[demachina]

"The FCC *will* change its tune if the public outcry is great enough"

I don't think there is ANY chance the FCC will change its tune though there is a slim chance Congress might step in and change it for them. They sure didn't change their tune on media consolidation in the face of truly massive public outrage.

I think its a little naive to think a bunch of slashdotter's are going to send letters to congressman and change their course. If you want to get on the list of people your Congressman actually listen to you need to accompany your letter with a $1,000 campaign contribution.

"but CORPORATIONS DON'T VOTE!"

Yea but they do control the media and the news most people use to get their view of the world so they do for the most part control the minds of the people that vote. They pay for the ads both commercial and political that decide how most people think these days. Some people are breaking off from this corporate and media hegemony, thanks in particular to the Internet, but I'd say we are a tiny minority.

Most importantly corporations pay tons of money for the lobbyists who actually control Congress. For example when the Medicare "Reform" bill was on the floor of the house it wasn't citizens out in the lobby of the capital building expressing their opinions to our Congressman, it was lobbyists mostly for the drug and healthcare industry. In the case of Rep. Billy Tauzin they gave him a multimillion dollar job as a drug industry lobbyist after he delivered "Medicare Reform" to them on a silver platter. the name is kind of a euphemisms since its really just a scheme to transfer our tax dollars in to the pockets of the drug industry.

I'd say bottomline is it would have to be a really impressive letter writing campaign to change their course, if there is no money behind it. But if anyone can pull it off its /., its just a major uphill battle.

"Look only to the recent bruhaha over the Hubble Space Telescope"

Last I recall the bruhaha resulted in a bizarre mission to use a robot to try to repair Hubble. There is a good chance its going to end up costing at least twice what an ordinary shuttle repair mission would cost, and there is a high chance the mission will either get cancelled or fail after spending a staggering sum of money, like 2 billion dollars, so in the end those fond of pork will be the only true winners. I don't think I would really call it a success story for public involvement just yet. Here [spacedaily.com] is a pretty good editorial from Space Daily on NASA's penchant for squandering money on doomed programs and the Hubble repair mission smacks of being one.

Re:Attention Slashbots

[aborchers]

You're right, to a greater or lesser degree, on all points of course. Mostly, I think you're niggling, but that's OK, so long as you don't use it as an excuse for apathy.

I'm just completely fed up with whiners and their excuses for not participating in their participatory government. Oh boo-hoo, the corporate media controlled blah blah right wing conspiracy woof woof government for hire ad nauseum. Sick of it. These bastards get their power from our tacit consent, and if we don't exercise our rights as citizens it is only natural that their will to power increases their position.

I stand by my point that if the citizens were actually engaged in their government instead of sitting back sucking down chicken wings and diet coke and wondering whether they should ask their doctor about prozac (or pounding away at a keyboard posting on /.) we would have a radically different society than the one we "enjoy" now.

BTW, I'm aware of the problems with the Hubble repair mission (Astronomy magazine recently had a good feature on it, too) and was wincing even as I used that example, knowing that someone would call me out on the technicalities. HOWEVER, I think that it was public outcry directed via congress that forced NASA to reevaluate their decision to abandon HST is still useful as an example of the kind of activism I'm describing.

Re:Attention Slashbots

[demachina]

"we would have a radically different society than the one we "enjoy" now."

If's, and's and but's were candy and nuts it would be a merrier Christmas for all.

I appreciate the sentiment and the idealism but there are structural barriers that create inertia that is working against you. The main one being most American's could care less what Congress does day in, day out. They are two busy fixating on reality TV and celebrity trials. Most Americans don't have a clue what Congress, the President or the FCC is doing to them. Corporate execs and lobbyists now exactly what they are doing and how to manipulate them and how to make a LOT of money doing it. They can spend a few million dollars in the right place and reap billion dollar windfall profits from our tax dollars.

"(or pounding away at a keyboard posting on /.)"

This seems to be what you're doing :)

" I think that it was public outcry directed via congress that forced NASA to reevaluate their decision"

Yes and it is an example of how the bureaucracy and coporations will probably thwart the public outcry in the end. Some opportunistic companies saw a chance to make some easy cash on it, and play with cool toys, so they pitched this cool sound robot thing. NASA can waste some money on it for a while, declare it hopeless, cancel it and say , "Sorry guys, we did our best but its just impossible and we can't afford it", or they can launch it, watch it fail and say "oh well". They conveniently gloss over they could just do another shuttle repair mission, like they've already done twice, and actually do something useful with the shuttle, but they seemed determined to make the shuttle expensive and completely useless too so no one will complain when they eventually kill it. Then they will work on the CRV for a while and it will become expensive and useless and it will eventually be killed too. The cynic in me says this is all just George W's way to kill the space program because he hates NASA(rightly so since they deserve to be despised), science and spending money on it. I wager CRV and the moon and mars was more a plan to:

- sew up votes in the crucial space coast in Florida in 2004
- distract space enthusiasts while he slowly kills the space program.