FCC to Require Anti-Piracy Features in Digital TVs 344
RobTerrell writes "The FCC is now requiring that next-generation digital TVs and VCRs use anti-piracy feature so that programming can be tagged as copy-protected. " Not only will this slow HDTV adoptance even more, but it will make a lot of existing sets incompatible with formats. Thanks Uncle FCC.
Uncle FCC (Score:4)
AHRC (Score:3)
Doesn't that still apply?
And do they think it will stop anyone? Macrovision didn't stop anyone from copying VHS tapes, they just buy a little "video stabilizer" box. CSS hasn't much stopped anyone...
If there is a video out, there is a way.
So much for the protest emails. (Score:4)
But fuck it. I don't need a goddamn digital TV. I don't really need an analog one. This will just further push real creativity away from a medium that desperately needs to be replaced, and the indie film producers (think George Lucas in Love) will be the beneficiaries.
sulli
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
"My fear is that the American consumer . . . walks away with a set that is fully capable of hooking up to cable but incapable of receiving any [over-the-air] signal," Ness said.
Susan Ness, who said that, is an FCC commissioner.
But the FCC is possibly precenting people from getting what they want to watch by restrcting the use of it through this piracy-protection thing...
Hypocrisy.
Can't wait until mod-chip.com starts selling TV mod chips...
Re:All the more reason to kill your TV (Score:2)
It already happens in the UK... (Score:4)
Seems like we've just rolled over and accepted it though.
I wonder how hard it would be (Score:2)
Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?
-------------------
Control is really the issue as usual (Score:3)
T-Shirts (Score:4)
In the immortal words of the Beastie Boys, "Something's got to give."
Mod Chips (Score:2)
This is really bad news (Score:5)
Bruce
all the HDTV owners will have to upgrade... (Score:5)
Re:Time-shift recording (Score:5)
Yes, but now they are trying to have that decision overruled! Soon you will only be able to watch exactly what they want you to watch, and even have the gall to charge you for it! Ve Vill Kontrol the Vertical and ze Horizontal. Sometime in the near future:
Warning, coporate subject A-3451 is in violation of copyright law in sector 7 grid 9. Send an anti-pirate dispatch immediately
Its really sad when a Richard Stalman's Satire "The Right to Read" becomes closer to reality every day. He was wrong about one thing though. Its happening a lot quicker than even he predicted
Intellectual Property is Theft!
Blargh (Score:5)
I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.
Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC [fcc.gov] is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.
Guess all those protest letters meant nothing... (Score:3)
Government is totally being owned by corporations (Score:3)
Now they have turned their amazingly large resources we gave them into political control and stronger and stronger ownership of their resources. Expect marketting to get so good in the future that when you see a McDonald's commercial on a "free" tv, you've agreed to purchase a Big Mac by watching "their" program. Just as soon as a child is born in this country, he learns how cool mattel or hasbro or fisher price is and how much he wants it. Soon they will have the same control on all age groups. And we won't own the commercials, the tv, or the government anymore. (not that we do now)
-Ben
GAK!!! KEYS, KEYS!!! (Score:2)
You have a central db, it has keys, one for every consumer device. The consumer devices have the other half of their key pair in an eprom. The do not have any digital output. You encode the content for the player upon which it is to be played. It works. It is the only approach that could posibly work.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Re:Sony DVD (Score:2)
History Lesson (Score:4)
Time Shifting? (Score:3)
The again, it's never a good idea to bet on your enemiy's stupidity, so we should probably nip this one it the bud. Hmmm, I guess that implies the US government our enemy... uh oh, looks like I'm about to be put on a list of persona non gratia.
--
Related Story (Score:2)
revisionism (Score:5)
Where the US leads, the world follows. This will lead to widespread adoption if it catches on in the USA. If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.
To extend this a bit further, what if means were included to "revoke" privledges to record broadcasts after the fact, and disable existing copies? Then we'd be getting into an Orwellian nightmare.
--
Wait a second... (Score:2)
The reason: it prevents all copying, assuming that all copying is for criminal purposes. This is not true; there are plenty of legal reasons for copying, several of which (such as time-shifting, the most popular legitimate reason) have been explicitly defined as legal; "traditional rights" are not the only defense.
Therefore, this regulation assumes that a consumer copying a program is guilty of a criminal act until proven innocent, when in fact there is very reasonable doubt (how do you know the consumer isn't copying for legal reasons; chances are that's precisely the case!) That's indisputably unconstitutional, having been added to the Constitution before even the Bill of Rights was added.
Incidentally, this also means that the provision in DMCA about banning devices that can conceivably be used in piracy is also unconstitutional (forget fair use; it's about presumption of guilt!)
----------
I may never ... (Score:2)
Yes, millions of people break copyright law and distribute illegal music, but how many people are distributing 'illegal' copies of digital television shows? Has anyone even considered it? How are they going to go about giving them to the masses? Put them on video tape and send it to all their friends? Come on, if that was an effective solution, then Napster would have never come along, because people would be distributing their cassette tapes years ago! But they didn't, because it is too much trouble! No one is going to spend hours uploading and downloading a movie or a 30 minute talk show, or anything else. No one cares that much.
The only way that these digital shows are being 'pirated' is through several buddies getting together, swilling a few cheap beers, and watching the nudie channel, or the boxing match. The biggest profit they are making is from one of the friends who brought over the beer or chips.
I am so disgusted at this, I may do something that hurts. I may never watch TV again. Really, it will not be that big of a loss. I already do not watch it, and have not for over a year. I never could find anything worth watching, and I see that pattern continuing. Why should I sit in front of a television, watching an hour-long show, that is at least 20 minutes of commertials? There is no reason I need to pay the media services for the privilage of watching their advertising, making them more money. I can get my news from the newspaper, my entertainment will come from a wonderful thing called the library, and my social interaction will come from real people, not people pretending to be over glorified people on TV. Anything else, (as well as those) can be filled up by the Internet. Who needs television anymore?
worse than that... (Score:2)
It's another incremental step in completely shutting off Open Source from all involvement in consumer-level media. CSS was another.
We need Open Media. Now.
Next: Cars limited to under 75mph (Score:3)
Should-Happen-Irony: the DRM installed on HDTVs creates interference.
So yeah. Car manufacturers don't make cars that can't go over 75mph, even though it's widely illegal for cars to go over that speed limit. Can you imagine having to call in to the DPS/DOT office and get centralized permission before speeding to the emergency room? NO, of course not, that would be STUPID.
The reality will be that these techniques will be circumventable, the hackers (JArgon-file definition) will be sued under the DMCA, the documentation for the hack will be widely available, and nothing will actually change.
What happened to the Betamax time-shifting ruling??? Will the TV have IR sensors to make sure fewer than 15 people are watching, etc.??
Is this the end of superbowl parties?
Severe Orwellian nightmare (Score:2)
Seriously. Moderators, give this one an Insightful.
Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe.
But my old analog VCR still works. So there.
sulli
will we see parallels to DVD players/blackboxes? (Score:2)
Ok, lets take a look at what happened with DVDs...
Product released which isn't what consumers want. Smart manufacturer ... avoids... some of the restrictions: product sells like wildfire...
If "hidden" features don't start getting built into the TVs, how long before someone creates an add-on (like a blackbox) which removes that signal...
Also, is the FCC restricting what this signal can be put into???
Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph (Score:2)
And what if you a really fat guy who gives off the body heat of 16 people? Will you be prevented from watching tv, your sole source of enjoyment in life, because you are so huge? What an outrage!
Contrary to popular belief, I am not speaking personally, really...its a friend of mine, really!
hmm, what if... (Score:2)
that said, isn't it possible that maybe the fact that anti-piracy technology was not included is why it's taken forever for digital television and HDTV to be more available? I mean, if the powers that be (media) don't like it because it's a "risky scheme", they would just not support it enough and then it would not make sense to buy one...
just a thought.
Re:All the more reason to kill your TV (Score:5)
and its one of the best decisions i've ever made.
at first it seems like the end of the world when you dont have TV, but soon you realize that there are all sorts of other, much more useful ways to spend the 6+ hours/day that the average american is watching every day.
all of a sudden, i had time for hobbies, reading, coding, hanging out with friends... Its amazing how much time that damn thing sucks up of yours.
One of funniest things that I've come across is the reaction that I get when I tell most people that I dont have cable, and hardly ever watch TV. Most people say something along the lines of "I cant survive without TV". Kindof sad, really...
After you dont watch TV for a while, you being to realize how exploitive the advertising is, and how manipulative the programming is. My favorite example is the damn Prilosec "Purple Pill" commercial. It gives you the impression that taking this pill will save your life... when all it does is stop heartburn :-)
so... I dont exactly see myself buying one of these HDTV's.
tagline
Re:Related Story (Score:2)
If this falls under copyright, how come they have not tried to defend it until now? shure VCR quality isn't the same as digital, but Mpeg is crap compared to VHS and they are going after that in a big way.....
Note to studios, get your story straight...
I did not say it was a good answer. (Score:2)
Far to many people are convinced that computers are 'magic', and thus can do anything, even solve NP complete probs in linear time. They can't.
Digital content cannot be secure in a system where it is decoded outside of it's player. So the network isn't ready for it. Big deal, no one said it was. But it will be. There is an upper limit to how much computational power/bandwidth is needed, and computer power is growing FAR faster than consumer population.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
Special Case of Trusted Client Issue (Score:5)
This appears to be a special case of the Trusted Client issue. There is a wonderful article on Technocrat.net [technocrat.net] entitled, Is "Trusted Client" the Wave of the Future [technocrat.net]?
This might the long term solution for owners and defenders of intellectual property. One possible future: (1) all commercially, or at least corporately produced, data will be encrypted; and (2) a new law would require all future information display devices for different types of data (music, photographs, video, whatever) to have built-in hardware decryption.
There are those of you who will say, "so what, it has to be decrypted at some point in order to be displayed, and at that point I'll just attach a wire and run it to my VCR, CDR, TIVO, computer, etc., etc." You might be able to, but the vast, vast majority would never be able to, nor would they be inclined to void thier warranties (and perhaps risk future civil or criminal penalities) for opening their box. There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.
Another possible further legal response to the threat posed by the internet to intellectual property would involve:
Re:Oh my god! (Score:5)
It means that you have less control over the things that you own. Your television, your VCR, you will no longer precisely "own" them, it will almost be like they belong to someone else. A television is supposed to be a simple device, it displays TV broadcasts, a VCR is supposed to be equally simple, it records and plays back TV broadcasts. They will no longer be like that. They will have restrictions that prevent you from doing anything you want with them. The first thing is to prevent you from recording certain shows so you will have to fork out the money to buy their tapes or DVDs if you want to watch it more than once (or if you have a job or other responsibility that prevents you from seeing it the first time).
Do you have any doubt that the industry will expand this and make as many shows as they can copy-protected? Forget about taping the super bowl, you have to buy the tape. The industry will increasingly push copy-protection onto as many shows and broadcasts as they can get away with. And then, who knows what may be next? When they have the power you can bet your ass they will abuse it. There are so many possible scenarios for abuse of this kind of technology it's unbelievable. You've seen what the industry has done already with DVD, certain parts of the DVD you can't skip. What if they could do that to your VCR? It's only a half skip away from this technology.
Imagine this, recording of most broadcast television is illegal (because it's copy-protected). Wouldn't it be tempting for the industry to stop selling you movies and tapes? It would be much more lucrative if they went to a "service" model where you buy / watch TV shows or movies on demand but cannot record them (or skip the commercials). Parts of the software industry are already on their way to being service oriented instead of "item" oriented. Look at microsoft's dot Net crap.
In the future you may not be able to own movies, or software, or TV shows, or music, or maybe even books. All of these things must be rented on demand with a per-use fee from the big corporations. Now, imagine that world. Imagine the sheer power the corporations would have over all us little guys. Imagine how easy censorship would be. All it would take to effectively ban a book would be for no one to be willing to offer it for use, or for the publisher who owns the copyrights to decide not to offer it. And, using your rented software owned by faceless corporation # 317, it may not even be possible to determine the existence of a "subversive book". Imagine how easy it would be to track down the people who "abuse certain software programs" or "read the wrong books", etc. The technology to do that is only this far -> || away from what is being used today. I doubt things will be that severe (at least not right away), but it could and seeing as how it would be in the interests (and profit) of the industry I would be very wary in this area of technology.
Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph (Score:4)
Hell, California plans to do that one better, by requiring a remote shutoff switch [ca.gov] for cars.
/.
Because by about 2006, that will be all there IS. (Score:3)
HDTV is actually more spectrally efficient than analog, in spite of the increased resolution because of MPEG2 and they plan on auctioning off much of the old analog spectrum (which has appealing propagation characteristics (which is WHY they used it for TV)).
Re:AHRC (Score:5)
Up until now, the media cartels have grudgingly tolerated home recording because of quality degradation inherent in analog signals. All of a sudden "digital" comes along with the promise of infinite flawless error-corrected non-degrading copies. No tapes that wear out, no records that scratch up, no magnification of error from copy to copy. At fist they were cool with it since the equipment to write it to media large nough to hold it was beyond the means of normal people. But abruptly storage, bandwidth, compression, and processing power all caught up and turned digital media into a two way street: people could once again record their own media. Now they're all scrambling to "secure" their digital media without understanding the meaning of the word: to keep others from getting something you already have. I hate to break it to them, but they have already given or sold their stuff to us, and the only think copyright allows them to prevent us from doing is giving it to someone else. Anything else is our business.
Want to stop piracy? Convince people that copying is wrong because you honestly deserve their money and don't give them a reason to willfully rip you off because they want to see you go into bankruptcy. Hiding behind the "protecting the artists" excuse isn't working, especially when the artists don't want your protection [latimes.com].
Re:Sony DVD (Score:2)
doesn't matter. (Score:2)
too bad. Once they phase out analog TV, the TVs with the mandatory digital anti-piracy measures will be the only ones availible.
I guess people like your relatives will just have to give up on TV then. Not such a loss, really.
Too bad the FCC's given the airwaves to the corporations. Otherwise, us Open Source types might be able to do things like make our own (short-range) analog TV stations using old equipment, broadcasting Open Content that could be viewed on non-crippled devices.
My FCC Comments (Score:5)
Here are the comments I sent to the FCC last week. I'm disappointed they did no good. (I've reformatted the submission for viewing on Slashdot.)
Schwab
________________
Comment on Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 00-67
1. I, Leo L. Schwab, am a resident of Redwood City, CA. I am a software engineer of over 15 years professional experience and, as such, have direct experience with "copy protection" measures as employed to combat unsanctioned copying of computer software. I am also an owner and buyer of consumer electronics and computer equipment.
2. The FCC has been asked to resolve compatibility issues surrounding digital broadcast and cable television and consumer electronics equipment. My comments will focus primarily on the issue of "copy protection."
3. I urge the Commission to oppose mandating copy protection measures in consumer electronics equipment, for the following reasons:
Inherent Fragility
4. In general terms, copy protection measures operate by attemptng to distinguish between "legitimate" copies (i.e. copies manufactured by the vendor) and unsanctioned copies (as typically made on a home computer). Because computers -- and indeed all digital equipment -- are designed to copy information perfectly, making this distinction is a difficult technical challenge.
5. Many methods have been employed to attempt to make this distinction, all of which have attendant advantages and drawbacks. However, no matter which specific method is employed, they all basically introduce artificial fragility and unreliability into the system. More clearly, by introducing copy protection measures into a product or system, that product or system is by definition rendered less reliable, since it now has a deliberately introduced capacity for failure. Some copies will work, whereas others will fail, having been identified as, "illegitimate."
6. There is not, nor can there be, a 100% reliable method of distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned copies. As such, all existing copy protection methods can and do yield false results, causing legitimate store-bought copies of software to fail (and allowing unsanctioned copies to operate unhindered). The reasons for the false results may be manifold: damaged distribution media, incompatible hardware, incompatible operating system software, etc.
7. Working remotely (as do cable system operators when dealing with subscribers), it is impossible to determine if such failure is due to an "honest" flaw in the hardware or distribution media, or because the user is attempting to use an unsanctioned copy. Direct examination of the system and media is necessary to make such a determination.
8. Thus, employing copy protection measures in consumer electronics will render such equipment inherently less reliable, resulting in undue inconvenience and cost to the consumer and equipment manufacturer alike.
Lack of Compelling Need
9. Until the mid-1980's or so, consumers were tremendously inconvenienced by copy protection systems. This was due not only to their fragility, but also by their preventing users from copying their software from the vendor-supplied floppy disks to internal hard disks, which were gaining popularity at the time.
10. Consumer opinion on the issue was overwhelming and adamant. Bowing to market pressure, many vendors agreed to abandon copy protection measures. This was done with much trepidation because vendors feared that, without them, individuals would make unsanctioned copies in such overwhelming numbers that the potential market for the software would be diluted to the point where even recovering development costs would be impossible. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance throughout the history of the computing industry where such fears have materialized.
11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.
Undue Burden to Consumers
12. In my experience, copy protection measures, as applied to computer software, are expensive to develop, both in terms of engineering time and resources. It is reasonable to believe that the same will be true for measures applied to digital broadcast content. These costs must be recovered somewhere. If the Commission mandates copy protection measures in consumer electronics, the consumers will solely bear not only the direct costs of their development and manufacture, but the indirect costs associated with decreased reliability.
13. If copy protection were a feature being requested by consumers, then it would be reasonable to expect consumers to pay for it. But they are not requesting it. Indeed, they are demanding the precise opposite.
14. The only organizations professing a need for copy protection are television and movie studios, and cable system operators. It therefore seems reasonable that those organizations solely bear the costs of development and deployment, and leave end-user equipment unencumbered.
Squelching Future Innovations
15. My review of proposed copy protection methods involve the use of viewers or viewing software that are "approved" by a central licensing authority under the control of film and television studios (this is currently the case with DVD playback devices, which have been licensed by the DVD Copy Control Authority). To obtain such approval, the viewing device typically may only have functionality deemed appropriate by the licensing authority, and nothing else. This functionality is typically limited to playback only, with pause, fast-forward, and rewind features (and even these are handicapped in certain circumstances). In the proposed protection schemes, any individual wishing to employ new or different functionality must first petition for and obtain approval from the licensing authority, or risk being sued.
16. One use to which an individual might put digital broadcast content is to incorporate it into their computer's "screen saver" facility. For example, images from a digital television signal could be received by a computer (possibly through a IEEE-1394 interface), mathematically transformed into a sphere, and bounced around the screen. Such use of broadcast television content is not (currently) unlawful. Indeed, it would strain credibility for content producers and broadcasters to argue such use was even unethical. As such, seeking approval from a licensing authority for such use would seem to throw an unnecessary roadblock in the path of developers conducting lawful research and development.
17. While my example is admittedly a trite one, I hope it serves to illustrate that there are non-obvious uses to which digital content may be put that are useful, interesting, beneficial to consumers, and non-infringing. Full exploration of such possibilities has yet to begin. Mandating copy protection would seriously cripple such explorations.
Not a Commission Function
18. At this point, I stray from my expertise into admittedly inexpert readings of the Commission's charter and contemporaneous intellectual property disputes. Nevertheless, I request the Commission bear with me.
19. I can find nothing in the Commission's charter that suggests it should be involved in interpreting intellectual property law. By mandating copy protection measures, the Commission will effectively serve as an interpreter of Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not applied in a blanket manner, but on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Courts. Moreover, the meaning of Fair Use is constantly changing as circumstances evolve and technology advances.
20. Should the Commission choose to mandate a form of blanket copy protection, it is easy to envision a future Federal Court decision declaring that consumers have Fair Use rights that extend beyond those provided by equipment containing the Commission-mandated protection measures. In practical terms, however, such a decision would be virtually moot, since the Commission's previous interpretation of Fair Use has been cast in stone (or, in this case, silicon). The Commission would then find itself in the unenviable position of having to implement the Court's order. Whatever form that took, it would be tremendously burdensome to the Commission, electronics manufacturers, and consumers.
21. Finally, my readings of intellectual property disputes show that -- if the Commission will permit the colloquialism -- the field of intellectual property law is extremely hairy bananas. It is inordinately complex, frequently self-contradictory, and its interpretation is crucially dependent on the specific circumstances of a given case. I respectfully suggest this is a field of endeavor the Commission would wish to avoid. It would take Solomonic wisdom to design a technical specification that would serve the interests of copyright holders without impacting the ever-changing Fair Use rights of consumers.
Conclusion
22. In summary, I urge the Commission to oppose mandatory copy protection measures for consumer electronics equipment because:
23. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide comment, and sincerely thank the Commission for its time and attention.
Re:Oh my god! (Score:2)
I agree to a large extent, but what about those times when there's something on that you want to watch, but you have to work? If the station says you can't tape it, then you're screwed. My wife wouldn't be too pleased if suddenly she couldn't tape As the World Turns, and I wouldn't be to amused if I suddenly couldn't tape Buffy on nights that I'm unavailable to watch it. And no, I don't have a lage collection of Buffy tapes that I've held onto. I do just tape to watch and then tape over (movies from HBO and PPV are a diffent story, I'll admit).
Kids and TV (Score:3)
When my wife and I made this decision, we got some flack - NOT from any of my friends and co-workers (they thought it was a great idea), but from people like my parents.
They said things like:
"Do you want her to grow up different" (answer - Hell yes)
or
"She won't understand the other kids, and the kids won't like her"
(Maybe, but she seems to have a lot of friends who like her, because she always has good ideas for new games)
There is nothing like curling up on the couch with your child, and a good book.
Note: I don't speak for my employer - all opinions my own
Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare (Score:2)
I posted a bunch about this in another post [slashdot.org] about some of the implications of this kind of technology. It's not pretty, it's pretty damn scary if you ask me.
worse... (Score:2)
Let's not forget that his wife and running mate are big supporters of media censorship, net filtering, mandatory ratings, anti-video-game stuff (Leiberman, mainly), you name it...
With this stuff going on at the same time, I'm starting to think a Gore presidency would be extremely detrimental to our digital and intellecutal rights.
Conversely, I have no clue what to make of Nader (he's way too secretive), and don't even get me started on Buchanan...
Anyone happen to know what Bush's involvement in things has been? (or would like to suggest another party+candidate?)
Re:If you don't like the editorial comments... (Score:2)
Copyright bit can be beneficial, but also misused (Score:2)
Of course, then there is the problem of a station that gets overprotective of it's work, and tags everything with their copy-protection bit. There needs to be some way to place complaints and have them followed through if stations behave in this fashion.
Re:Blargh (Score:2)
What the FCC actually said (Score:5)
This really had me worried, so I went to the FCC site to read what they actually ruled, and I am now convinced that the linked article above is REALLY screwed up, freely mixing comments and opinions about two rulings that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other
Here is the summary of what the FCC actually said concerning copy protection:
Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:
In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.
With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.
Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.
Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).
FCC Press Release [fcc.gov]
So the FCC clearly IS concerned with ensuring that "reasonable" home copying is possible, although it isn't clear from this summary what EXACTLY that means. It is also not clear to me after reading this whether the quote from Jeff Joseph is complaining about the inclusion of copy protection itself, or whether it is complaining about the loss of backward compatibility. The latter is a problem, but allowing copy protection into some devices was already decided. I'm not sure exactly what the copy protection is allowed to copy, but this ruling was covering the narrow question of exactly where in the digital decoding process that copy protection has to go.
It seems that the original linked article was mixing comments concerning TWO FCC releases; this copy protection rule clarification, and another one regarding uniform labelling rules that make it clear what "Digital Cable Ready" means: FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR LABELING OF DTV RECEIVERS [fcc.gov]. THIS is what Commissioner Ness was complaining about, not about the copy protection ruling.
In summary, this article is highly confused about the events it is reporting.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with the potential for abuse with embedded copy protection, just that I'm not sure this article had a clue. I'm also pretty certain that the FCC is not "trying to get around AHRA" as some others have said. I'd just like to understand what is really going on here, and not jump to outrageous conclusions.
Re:Sony DVD (Score:2)
Uh, actually, you have to go out of your way to build a CD/DVD player that will reject gold discs.
We, in fact, did this at 3DO when we were designing the low-cost version of the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The CD-ROM guys (both hardware and software) were instructed by management to detect and reject CD-R (gold) copies of 3DO CD-ROMs. This took extra work and code to accomplish.
The new players did play gold audio CDs, but they could just as easily have added the code to reject them as well. But since that wasn't a specific management request, the techs didn't do it.
Schwab
corporate influence, again :( (Score:2)
The point is that the FCC was not willing to put it's foot down and force a smaller number of standards...keep in mind the more standards used, the more the hardware tends to cost. The FCC allowed the corporations to do what they wanted, and as profit mongering crybabies, they couldn't agree on anything.
The digital TV spectrum giveaway was another fiasco, as the bandwidth was given away for free by uncle sam. It could have been sold for billions. You can thank the industry's lobbyists for that.
Which brings us to today's news. I don't think the government has any reason to give a damn, I think this is clearly a corporate move to "preserve" profits, even though it will hurt corporations in the long run, just like any other copy control strategy.
I read up quite a bit on current TV/stereo info/issues, and I have to say for me this is the final straw. I was looking at getting some sort of digital TV in the next year or so, now, it might be years, if I ever get one. Hollywood and content makers have been dragging their heels on this because of this issue, broadcasters have been slow to upgrade their facilities to HDTV probably for the same reasons. It's truly sad.
We all know where this is going. Anti-piracy controls might be legitimate for, say, movies on HBO. However, I think we all know we won't be allowed to record anything, except for a "small fee", I'm sure.
The fundamental problem from a corporate / consumer standpoint is this: corporations view new technology as a way to extract more money from the public, once they finally understand it, whereas the public sees it as a way to drive down costs, and will only pay more if the new technology is vastly superior.
Digital technology is not worth the price of pay per play. I think we've reached the point of true robbery....pay per play, of every damn thing. This is exactly what hollywood wants, and the exact opposite of what consumers want.
Re:Oh my god! (Score:2)
Sure, go ahead, take me for an imbecile. It's certainly easier than arguing coherently. That's not what I said, and you know it.
Re:Because by about 2006, that will be all there I (Score:2)
It's considered a serious enough possiblity that one of the things the actor's guild is considering striking over is the fact that the actors in old reruns that are beamed out via pay-per-download TV won't see a dime of that theoretical money.
The big question is, what new laws will be enacted to prevent a private citizen like me from broadcasting my own show in this way?
DON'T Blame the Constitution for this... (Score:3)
But then came the Bureaucratic Imperative: "Regulate or die!" and the word "regulate" came to mean "control." That's where we are today.
Replacing the current meaning of "regulate" with the far superior 18th century meaning will take some doing, but those of us that use the Internet know the benefits of doing so.
The FCC is an unconstitutional organization, since nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to control the "press" (meaning: the way in which information is distributed). Since the First Amendment specifically forbids federal control of the press, the FCC is thus unconstitutional.
When Libertarians are elected, the FCC will be replaced by a free market bandwidth auction, and property rights will once again apply to the electromagnetic spectrum.
Don't like it? Don't watch it! (Score:2)
I gave up on TV about three years ago. Let's face it - it sucks - the news is sensationalized and devoid of real facts. If you think the news gets it wrong about computer issues - think about what they get wrong in other issues! I know they are completely incapable of getting the facts right about aviation for a start.
Even the good programs on TV are so advertisment-filled that it's become annoying to watch them. The only channel that's not annoying to watch is PBS. (They have Red Dwarf on Saturday nights here!)
The real problem is that the vast majority of people aren't people at all - they are sheeple who just lap up and follow whatever the marketing suits and talking heads on the news say. Don't be a sheeple; kick the TV habit and do something more intelligent - learn a new language, ride your bike, get outdoors or whatever!
Re:All the more reason to kill your TV (Score:2)
He realized how pathetic that was, and cancelled his cable.
tagline
Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio (Score:5)
Vote for Ralph Nader. I can hear you screaming already, "But he can't possibly win!" You're absolutely right. He will not win. But that DOES NOT mean that your vote is wasted. Consider:
Vote for Nader. [votenader.org] You'll sleep better. And after a few more election cycles, you'll live better.
/\/\/\/
Re:Oh my god! (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot--we're not allowed to have weapons. Well, overthrowing the Corporate Hegemony with a fruitbat probably won't work too well. Guess I'll continue getting shafted. Might as well lay back and enjoy it...
Re:Oh my god! (Score:2)
The piracy that hurts is done by organized counterfeiting, it exists now, it will still exist tomorrow regardless of any technology.
Provide the average person with content at a reasonable price and there is very little motivation for copying. It is just not worth the trouble. AW... Yes I can copy VHS tapes from my friends, but why, if I can rent a tape for less cost and effort. Home copying only becomes a problem when the price of content is artificially raised, such as CDs. If a CD was 5 dollars, or I could download a very cheap lower quality MP3, what modivation would there be for me to copy it other than for my own personal use.
So what is the motivation of these laws?
It is simply greed, big-money wants to be able to charge whatever price they want. They want to remove fair use and charge you when ever and however they want.
Terms of Service subject to change at any time with out notice.
Degrading of Copied works as a solution? (Score:4)
I have a proposal. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems better than what I've seen so far. Right now there seems to be the option of no copy controls whatsoever, or these iron fisted copy controls. What I would propose is to apply an analog world concept to the digital realm, that of copy degradation.
Rather than saying, you can't make a copy, what about having it so that you can make copies, but that those copies, in transfer are degraded. So, if you copy your DVD to your computer, it degrades it so that it's only VCR quality. That way the fear of perfect digital copies goes away and it still provides for fair use of the information.
So, if you make a copy of your Magic Digital Media Disc, your friend can play the copy on his machine at VCR quality. If he makes a copy for somebody else it gets a little worse, maybe it's only mono sound now or a bit grainy. People will still make copies, but it will create an incentive to go out and buy the originals (which is what the media companies are so pissed about).
I think the FCC and the government need to start actively defending fair use, rather than selling us down the river to these corporate gluttons. There is a middle ground if somebody will try to stake it out.
---
Re:Future Slashdot Article (Score:5)
fight the fcc and nab in the streets of sf (Score:2)
Come to the huge protest/counterculture party outside and hopefully inside the annual National Association of Broadcasters meeting in San Francisco next week!
For details, see Media Democracy Now! [mediademocracynow.org] and the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center [indymedia.org].
Tons of pirate radio. Tons of pirating of corporate copyrighted muzak. Drown out corporate radio in San Francisco on the Day of a Million Microradio Broadcasts.
Brought you by the same discontent which was at Seattle, Washington, Philly, LA, the list goes on and on. The police have already been in touch to "work out details" and they were told to fuck off.
Be there, be creative, fuck shit up!
Re:Blargh (Score:2)
Re:AHRC (Score:2)
Re:revisionism (Score:2)
More or less. I'd also say: where the world leads, the US doesn't follow. Take the cell phone networks. Take the minidisc. To name just a few. OTOH, you can say: where the US leads, Canada follows, and that's just too bad.
Re:So much for the protest emails. (Score:3)
Why do so many people self identify as a "consumer"? 10 years ago that word wasn't used except to describe someone sitting at the dinner table. Where exactly did we stop being citizens, or even customers?
I think on a subconsious level it is easier for groups/businesses/government to trample over our rights when we are thought of as consumers. It has such a parasitic tone to it, as if we need them more than they need us.
Funny how a small change in terminology can swing the power base.
No... Thank you MP3 pirates! (Score:2)
It wasn't the FCC who forced this decision to be made...
Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio (Score:2)
Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare (Score:2)
RAT
talking about?
We RAT all
RAT know that the
RAT
major RAT candidates are
decent RAT
upstanding citizens who would
RAT
never try a thing like that.
RAT
Re:Kids and TV (Score:3)
My husband and a few of my friends grew up in TV-less households and they all wound up doing much better things with their time. Occasionally they feel bad about not "getting" some brady bunch reference, but I'm quick to point out that knowing how to play several musical instruments is way cooler than having seen every episode of the brady bunch, benny hill and three's company. Dispite growing up in very differnt households, they all learned to play multiple musical instruments, were extremely well read and had various interesting hobbies and side projects.
Of course, as adults, they all have a positively morbid facination with TV. Hopefully they'll get over it soon. My husband will watch absolutely anything (pro-wrestling if nothing else is on) since it is all a new a facinating insight into our culture (yeah right).
But once your daughter starts school, the other kids will gladly get her "up to speed" on important commercialism, materialism and brand-conciousness issues
Anyone remember the "public airwaves"? (Score:3)
The article doesn't mention whether the FCC wants to make it illegal to receive DTV transmissions without government-approved hardware. If so, then the sellout is complete.
Anyone know which candidate is less likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold this kind of crap? Land of the free, my ass. We're headed back to a feudal system of information lords and consumer peasants.
Re:What the FCC actually said (Score:2)
I had the other day? This article would go up up
up if I had the power right now.
In this context, the FCC uses the phrase "is
consistent with..." Careful reading shows that
this ruling (tentatively) _allows_ such copy
protection to be put into place, it does not
_require_ such things.
The article seemed to be missing that subtle (like
a brick!) point.
Re:All the more reason to kill your TV (Score:2)
He starts in on his schpiel about how digital cable is just the best thing ever and I say "well, my tv is really really old and crappy so i won't really get much out of the enhanced signal or the digital music stations"
"out of curiosity, why don't you get a new tv?"
"actually, i've been thinking about getting rid of the tv all together, i was really a much better person when i didn't have a tv."
At this point the guy starts laughing, "A better person? What do you mean?"
"You know, I did all those things that I usually mean to do but never get around to doing, I read more, did more artwork and crafts, went out more, socialized more, did volunteer work, I was the best possible version of me."
More nervous laughter, I can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief. "Well this was, umm, a really 'interesting' conversation
The sad postscript is that I ended up caving in when they moved the sundance channel to a "digital only" station. I feel so 'dirty'.
Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio (Score:2)
Having said that, vote for Nader if you really do believe in his socialist policies. (That's not intended as an insult, just a factual statement). Both he and Browne are at least principled, unlike the major candidates.
Re:revisionism (Score:2)
It won't be long before photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings aren't considered proof of anything anymore.
It won't be long before the US$500 PCs for sale at Best Buy will put the finest graphical workstations now available to shame. With a few tens of GFLOPS on tap, even Joe Six Pack will be able to manufacture video, audio, and photographic "proof" of whatever the heck he wants - faces on Mars, the president is an alien, Nixon shot Kennedy, etc. Movie studios have used digital FX for years - and it looks, in some cases, better than photography of the actual event or situation would. TV networks are already capable of modifying live video (for ad insertion) in real time. In 10 years, Quake IX will probably require that kind of horsepower - it will be everywhere.
The government will have an easy time revising history if it wants - no help needed from a rule like this. They can simply claim that any recording that doesn't jibe with the "official" version is a fake. And the luncatic fringe will produce some fakes, anyway, strengthening the government's case.
Re:Degrading of Copied works as a solution? (Score:4)
Actually this is already essentially guaranteed, since the FCC has promised that before TV stations have to give up their analog TV frequencies, there will be affordable (~$200?) set-top boxes to let you convert HDTV signals to be played on your current analog NTSC TV. So you could just use one of these boxes to strip out any digital copy protection, but at the same time it would degrade the video quality to VHS. You could then take the NTSC stream and run it to your VCR, or to your PC, or pipe it over the net. The first two would still be legal under Fair Use, the latter would depend on the circumstances.
FCC authority (Score:2)
The FCC should not have the authority to require this. If this rule is truly desired (yeah, right), then it should be passed as a law by legislators who are accountable to voters.
Why should the FCC just be able to make up whatever it wants without having to answer to anyone?
---
I suspect... (Score:2)
of copies. Of course this killed DAT decks. You could make a DAT copy of a CD, but not a copy of that DAT tape (a copy of a copy didn't
work).
Perhaps you're off the deep end here? (Score:2)
If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.
Yeah, because lord knows we only get out news and history from the TV set.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Re:This is really bad news (Score:4)
The DMCA does supercede the AHRA because of the word Digital. It changes everything. Face it, the content providers have one by buying legislation that favors them.
All hope is not lost, however. We (the people) can challenge the legality of all copyright extention acts (such as Sonny Bono) on a Constitutional basis (why should extentions apply to extant works).
Furthermore, to challege the definition of "Sciences and the Useful Arts" as set by the Constitution.
And finally, to pursue monopoly charges against content providers and device manufacturers. By this, I mean that if all device manufacturers make products that conform to content provider wishes, then that creates a monopolistic environment. For example, Sony produces (in a supreme irony of the term) music and devices to play that music. The situation forces me to buy both content and access devices from the same source (e.g. RIAA and cronies).
I am, in general, not very hopeful. The recent suck.com article (am I allowed to link to it anymore? http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/) brought the point home. It is apparent to me now, that in the USA, We (the People) don't have bubcus on The Corporation. Warren Buffet's recent article on how to limit soft money contributions was particularly glaring. I wish I had the link to it.
The point is, laws are bought. The People's will matters not a wit.
Back to the matter at hand - the point is: the RIAA (and MPAA) have bought the laws. They have the lawyers. They own the judges. They own the parties. Geeks have no legal hope in any of these matters. No matter how absurd the law is, no matter what rights they take away, there is no short term hope for remedy.
Let's face it, have you heard one candidate's stance on Intellectual Property? Do you even know if your Congresscritter voted for or against DMCA (passed by voice vote, so you don't).
Intellectual Property laws (as they stand) were designed for the Industrial Era. And while everyone talks of the promise of the Informtion Era, most of the USA lives in the Industrial Era. There is no overwhelming call to re-examine IP/Copyright law. The Machiavellian Quote that has been floating around
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
We have an uphill battle to face. The Revolution will not be Televised. The Revolution will not be Digitized. The Revolution will not be Re-broadcast or Re-Transmitted without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, the Motion Picture Association of America and the RIAA. Any attempts to reverse engineer the Revolution will be prosecuted under the DMCA.
Re:Looking down the road a bit (Score:2)
- No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that
is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
with that person with that person's knowledge for use in
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title.
because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.The same is true of compilers (used to write tools that infringe), scissors (if someone uses cloth as an access control device), or brains (can potentially crack anything).
Has lock technology stagnated because of laws against lockpicking? Possibly, but not completely. However, at some point we have to say that it's not right for a person to initiate agression against another person.
--
Re:So much for the protest emails. (Score:2)
True enough. But citizens need to be treated with respect as consumers and businesspeople. The argument that somehow we don't have the right to make choices about what we buy is a bad one that inevitably leads to bad products and service.
ah! (Score:2)
I did. Thank you for the information.
(someone mod him up please?)
Nader? Nah, vote for Hagelin. (Score:2)
http://www.hagelin.org/
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Re:revisionism (Score:3)
So perhaps companies should be required to maintain a copy of all released works, to ensure they are available for the public domain (since a consumer can't use a device to unlock a purchased copy).
That would also solve the history problem.
--
Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio (Score:2)
I believe that Ralph Nader truly has good intentions, and is generally a guy of decent character...
That being said, I firmly believe that the policies he proposes would greatly *increase* political corruption in the U.S. Nader proposes to vastly increase the size of the federal government and its control over businesses... thereby increasing the incentive for business people to lobby/bribe politicians for favors, access to markets, and thwarting of competitors ( this is how it works in China and Russia which, as I am sure you are aware, have very large governments)
If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries.
Favoritism, lobbying and political manipulation doesn't just happen at the Federal level.... it goes all the way down to your local 'Economic Development Commission' - the one that grants 10-year tax breaks and free infrastructure buildout to certain companies that it wants to attract, but not to others.
I'd like to wind up my rant by saying that I agree with the other posters... If you want your freedom, are tired of seeing your tax dollars wasted, want to end the completely absurd War on Drugs, and not leastly want to reduce corruption, Vote Libertarian [lp.org], from the presidential ticket [harrybrowne.org] all the way down to the state and local [lp.org] level.
--
DMCA not required (Score:2)
--
Re:What the FCC actually said (Score:2)
To do this, they must restrict the devices as they do DVD players, and DMCA will apply. That means no Open Source software for TV recording or reception.
Bruce
Re:FCC authority (Score:2)
FCC decisions can be overturned by the courts if they violate the constitution/laws or if they overstep their bounds. (see here [google.com]).
--
I didn't forget... (Score:2)
Of course, in the end it would take the SUpreme Court to shut down that travesty once and for all. But even the battles we lose will end up in our favor when that time comes, because we can use them to show the RIAA/MPAA/DVD-CCA/etc. for what they truly are.
----------
Re:What the FCC actually said (Score:2)
Are you refering to something along the lines of this post: DMCA is anti-open source [slashdot.org]? I disagree with the post **. One could say that compilers, computers, or employees aid in accessing protected copyright works. The law certainly has to draw the line somewhere, or else brains will be outlawed. 17 U.S.C sec. 1201(a)(2)(A) [cornell.edu] says:
- No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is
- primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
So as long as an open source digital TV viewer was made with the intention of viewing only, then I think it would be legal. (IANAL) If someone subsequently went in and modified an OSS viewing program to allow copying, then that act would probably be illegal under DMCA.** No, I'm not schitzo. I changed my mind a little bit, and playing devil's advocate often results in information gained.
--
Re:All the more reason to kill your TV (Score:2)
Life is too short to watch TV
I excercise more, I read more, I code more, I do more things not related to computers, I date more women, I spend more time with my family and friends. Best part of all, I'm not contaminating my brain with the pointless garbage that fills up what we call TV, how many shows are on TV simply because of short skirts and breasts? Pro-wresting is one of the most popular shows on TV, it's fake violence. I woke up one day and I couldn't stomach the crap that I dedicated time to, the idea that I would setup the VCR to tape something because it was too important to miss makes me sick when you really look at it all. And then there are the commercials, it seems like they can't even put together a complex thought and communicate it to you anymore without a fricking commercial getting in the way.
What I want is an HDTV without the tuners, they are optional plug-ins anyway... I just want it to be a monitor for a digital VCR type device, be it HDVD or whatever and I don't care if I have to pay to view. I just want it to watch movies on occasion.. BTW, I go to more movies now, and yeah it costs more money but there is something about getting up, leaving the house and watching a movie with other people, it's probably a good thing for a lot of geeks to do more often.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush... (Score:2)
I don't want to throw a vote at Nader and have Bush be president. That would be insane.
READ *MY* LIPS: NO NEW BUSHES.
W
-------------------
Re:revisionism (Score:2)
Re:Looking down the road a bit (Score:2)
Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA as long as they're advertised as they currently are. 17 USC 12 (2)(C):
Last year, breaking simple encryption to watch a japanese import DVD on your Linux box wasn't a felony. In the '80s, the idea of an encrypted CD was laughable and a copyrighted show you saw in your childhood would be public domain before you died of old age.
Things change, and they're not changing for the better here.
Re:This is really bad news (Score:2)
"...content providers have won by buying..."
To further clarify why DMCA trumps AHRA - it was passed after (1998 to 198?) so, my understanding, is that anywhere the DMCA and AHRA conflict, the DMCA wins. Unless, of course, it violates the Constituition.
Re:revisionism (Score:2)
Yet another reason to be disturbed by the DMCA.
Re:FCC authority (Score:2)
If this rule is truly desired (yeah, right), then it should be passed as a law by legislators who are accountable to voters.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here... but my understanding is that most federal rules and regulations are administrative law - that is, they are independently created and enforced by the various three-letter acronymic agencies that Congress has created in the past 75 years. Congress delegates authority over certain sectors of the economy to these Agencies, Boards, Bureaus, and Commissions, and generally only steps in if there is a public outcry of some sort.
I am really looking forward to the day when we have a U.S. Department of Software!
--
Re:Blargh (Score:2)
I'll admit that this is just my own vague feeling on the subject. IANAL. Still, I have some means of backing up my statement: that the DMCA, as I currently understand it, violates Article I, Section 8 [usconstitution.net], of the U.S. Constitution [usconstitution.net]:
What the DMCA provides, in effect (where "effect" == Judge Kaplan's ruling), is perfect, eternal control of the media so protected. This seems to me to be in direct violation of the above clause.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this could just be wishful thinking on my part.
I'm definitely not saying that it was given to the companies free of charge, though I can understand why you might think I meant that. I'm not really even saying that they weren't charged enough. What I meant to express, rather, was that the FCC is granting rights that it shouldn't be granting, regardless of how much the licensees paid for their respective spectrum allocations.
When you're granted a license to broadcast, you're already given a monopoly on a given frequency band, for a given wattage (or geographical area, I'm not sure). But the spectrum still belongs to the people, not to any particular company. It seems, therefore, that we, the people, should be entitled to fair use of the content broadcast. Right now, we are: you can tape the last episode of Survivor, if you want, or record the year-end countdown of top hits on your favorite radio station. You can even save it for posterity, or give the tape (or whatever) to your friends. You just can't sell it.
The technology that this regulation would require would effectively push the people off of the last toe-hold they had on the radio spectrum. The people as individuals (not as represented by their government) would lose their last semblance of ownership of the frequencies licensed to the television networks.
Going too far. (Score:2)
THey should be able to regulate limited public resources only.
RF spectrum.. yes. We need regulation here. THis regulation should be based on use & benefit to society, not the 'highest bidder'. Keep people from hogging spectrum just to maintain monopoly, but don't keep people from using underused spectrum either.
Television, Telecom: This only works out as a 'public' resource for a couple reasons. 1) the amount of land and right-of-ways across the country used for this (people 'own' property, but as a whole, the people of a country 'own' their country). The ohter is that, without the public, it is useless. Telecom has no power without customers.... similar to some trade unions. If the people get together, the people can demand things.
However.. the FCC regulating what kind of TV's oyu can sell is getting out of hand. Now they are trying to regulate a MARKET, and that is wrong. Stick to resources.