Sununu Sets Aim on Broadcast Flag Again

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."

I wish he was my representative

[packeteer]

I am sure i am not the only one who wished i was being respresented by someone sensible on topics like this.

Re:

[Dissman]

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, i campaigned for a congressional candidate in my district, he lost... but if he were in Washington right now, i *bet* he'd be a cosponsor to this kind of sensible legislation.

Re:I wish he was my representative

[indifferent children]

I like the effect of Sununu's proposed legislation on the broadcast flag, but the intent of the legislation (worshipping 'market forces', not promoting fair use), and the wider effects are terrible. The FCC was instrumental in standardizing, for instance, ATSC (the 'new' digital television standard). If there were no coercive body to create and enforce such a standard, how much do you want to bet that we would have a broadcast version of the HD-DVD/BlueRay wars? Do you really want to have to buy one TV to watch CBS and ABC, and a different TV to watch NBC and Fox?

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.

Re:

[vokyvsd]

No no, the market will cause standardization on its own, it doesn't require a non-business body (unless you call the consumers as a whole the "superceding, non-business body"). Look at Betamax/VHS, or mobile phone formats in the U.S. Do you honestly think that Blu-Ray and and HD-DVD will both live on forever until a committee makes a choice? The real difference between standards in a regulated and an unregulated market: the unregulated market will choose the best format, while a regulated market will ch

Re:

[illegalcortex]

I agree with you, partially. The recent story about the FCC mandating that cable boxes not be locked down to a specific provider is an example where I like for the FCC to stick its nose in. The FCC just needs to have a "Rule #1" that any guidance they give is to serve the consumers. The broadcast flag would have failed that test quite easily.

Re:

[DavidShor]

My understanding is that is more of a anti-trust issue

Re:

[illegalcortex]

Clarification, please.

Re:

[DavidShor]

Cable companies were locking down their set-top boxes so that consumers would be forced to pay monthly for them(It also allows for easier DRM, but that is really a secondary concern). The bigger problem is that there are only 4 major cable companies(and therefore only a couple of set-top companies), so if cable companies are doing the buying instead of consumers, it creates a monospony situation and opens the door to collusion.

By forcing interoperability(all of the set-top boxes were using similar standar

Re:

[illegalcortex]

What you said simply doesn't make sense. There are four major cable companies - hence no monopoly. If you don't count DISH and DirectTV, then you could maybe argue they have a regional monopoly on premium tv programming. But if the history of local phone companies has taught us anything, it's that the federal government considers regional "monopolies" OK.

Re:

[illegalcortex]

All of this seems beside the point. Since when in modern times has the US government done anything against a oligopsony, monopsony, or oligopoly? Even though Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, they escaped with relatively little punishment. Since the 30s, the only real use of the anti-trust law has been against AT&T in '82 (again, a monopoly). While I WISH there were more competition in different regions for cable, phone, power, etc., the reality is that anti-trust law doesn't really enter into t

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

funny you should mention VHS/Betamax as consumers selecting the better format. Consumers selected the worse format. Consumers may or may not select a format.

Re:

[HeroreV]

From Wikipedia:

With Long Play (LP) technology available by the mid-80s, a VHS cassette using the PAL system could run for up to 8 or even 10 hours, at the expense of picture quality and inter-machine compatibility. The longest Betamax tape marketed is the L-830 which runs for 3 hours and 35 minutes on the PAL system.

Sony suffered by their reluctance to sign licensing agreements with studios to have films made available in Betamax. Sony also refused to allow pornographic material to be released for their sy

Re:

[packeteer]

I think the biggest issue was the fact that the VHS tapes were cheaper for content producers to release on. The 2nd biggest issue was probably the lack of porn.

How exactly can you say betamax was a better technology if it cost more and you cant even watch any porn?

Re:

[Your Pal Dave]

No no, the market will cause standardization on its own, it doesn't require a non-business body (unless you call the consumers as a whole the "superceding, non-business body").

As a counter argument I submit AM Stereo [wikipedia.org]. The FCC decided to let the market decide (this was in the early Regan years) and 5 'standards' came about, none of which prevailed.

Re:

[AK Marc]

No no, the market will cause standardization on its own, it doesn't require a non-business body (unless you call the consumers as a whole the "superceding, non-business body"). Look at Betamax/VHS, or mobile phone formats in the U.S.

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

Re:

[DavidShor]

I do not think that HTTP was mandated by the goverment, and gopher sites still exist. But at some point, the overwhelming majority of users pick a particular one.

Companies want to force spending, but they rarely have the power to. Making something incompatible with a competitors products has costs as well as benefits, and most of the time, the former outweighs the latter.

And when it doesnt, thats what we have anti-trust for.

Re:

[Ambidisastrous]

More likely, each competitor in the industry builds a patent portfolio around their own proprietary standards, and they all duke it out for a few years while consumers hold off on committing themselves to the new technology due to the obvious vendor lock-in. Eventually one competitor pulls ahead and enjoys near-monopoly status for a few more years, while everyone else scrambles to build interoperability with the new de-facto standard. Then next disruptive technology comes along, early adopters begin scrappi

On the other hand...

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Sure, if the FCC isn't toothless, then it has the power to do much good for us. No argument there, but I think the old maxim still applies with regard to government authority: "Only relinquish power to your friends that you would not fear in the hands of your enemies."

Put another way, give the FCC as much power as you'd let a Sony exectutive have in setting technology mandates, because one day the Sony executive will be pulling the strings of the FCC's processes.

Re:

[Hatta]

But either choice is better than what we have now, which is: both.

Or neither. Seriously, what incentive does the average consumer have to "upgrade" to either format? DVDs and players are cheap, plentiful, and do everything anyone but the most extreme videophile wants. When they flop, it won't be because of the format war. It will be because there's just no demand for them.

Re:I wish he was my representative

[arivanov]

If I was an american - I wish he was not my rep.

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.

Re:I wish he was my representative

[kg4czo]

Why? This kind of legislation is good. It allows the market to grow on it's own as opposed to the FCC dictating what technology can and can't do with respects to DRM.

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.

Cell phone networks

[Per Abrahamsen]

> Why? This kind of legislation is good.

It basically put US 10 years behind the rest of the world with regard to cell phones.

Re:

[HUADPE]

As an American living in Canada (going to McGill), I'll take the disparate and fighting networks over the Canadian GSM system. Why? I pay twice as much here. My American phone costs around ~$40 USD/month, my Canadian, ~$80 USD/month. Same services, no ringtones or music.

Re:Cell phone networks

[mjh]

It basically put US 10 years behind the rest of the world with regard to cell phones.

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.

Re:Cell phone networks

[wiredlogic]

GSM is much overhyped by the Euros. It's only notable feature is the ease of transferring SIM cards between different devices. Incidentally, this makes it easier to steal and clone phones as well. It's worth noting that the next generation CDMA protocol, CDMA-2000, which is used to provide the EV-DO services has preserved forward compatability for older phones. This makes it easy to gradually deploy CDMA-2000 with a focus on the more profitable urban markets while keeping a fully functional network for all users. Data services can still drop down to 1xRTT where EV-DO is unavailable. The GSM networks are in a terrible bind because their next generation upgrade path is the entirely incompatable W-CDMA. During the transition phase GSM providers will have to install equipment to support both protocols and the phones will have to support both systems as well.

Re:

[david.given]

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.

So what happens on a CDMA system if everyone talks at once? Do half the connections drop out because it's overcommitted resources?

Re:

[Tancred]

No, it's complicated, but code division allows multiple simultaneous signals with the ability to pick out each signal at the receiving end. See the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for some details.

Oh, and to the grandparent - in GSM everyone does NOT get timeslices whether they're using them or not. Your phone in idle state monitors a paging channel, just like everyone else's. If you're called, you'll receive a message on that channel and arrangements for a dedicated timeslice are made. That dedicated resource is release

Re:

[unity100]

yea. good legislation. good legislation that removes all barriers from whatever cable/telecom companies might want to do with whatever they have. Good for us - you wish.

Re:

[abaddononion]

Yeah, I agree with you. More poignantly, though, I think we're seeing more and more these days that you cant have one single organization who has too much complete say over a field of commerce. For example, look at the troubles we're having with the RIAA, for whom the entire music industry is a personal (or professional, I suppose) interest. I'm sure there are several music studios who DONT think you need to go after music pirates all blood and vinegar, but it doesnt matter, because the RIAA isnt acting und

Re:

[jejones]

Two words: AM stereo.

Re:

[djrogers]

Two words: AM stereo.

You're proving the GP's point. The market decided that we didn't need or want AM stereo, so we don't have it. I didn't have to spend extra money on every radio I've bought in the past 20 years, and radio stations didn't have to upgrade their equipment, all for something nobody wanted. If the FCC had mandated AM stereo we'd have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars as a country for something nobody wants.

Re:

[jejones]

That's not how I remember it... I recall there being multiple mutually incompatible systems, with only a few broadcasters or manufacturers willing to bet on any of them, so that AM stereo fizzled. In one room of my house I still have a Realistic AM tuner that can decode one of those systems, assuming anyone out there still uses it.

Re:I wish he was my representative

[fireboy1919]

will also prohibit FCC to enforce mandatory interoperability and adherence to standards

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.

Re:

[cptgrudge]

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.

Here's how I see it.

With the FCC, the technical decisions may somewhat cater to corporate interests and the average consumer has little control over them, but they (mostly) stay within the confines of each subject addressed and (mostly) make informed decisions.

With Congress, the legislation that makes technical decisions will most definitely cater to corporate interests, include other irrelevant pork attached to it, and IMHO Congress lacks the background to make an informed judgment on the technical

Re:

[x2A]

That's what standards body's are for, and they seem to be doing a good enough job at the moment - i'd hate to see how backwards standards would be if left to a government body to dictate. Also, people should be free to move away from standards, and then it's up to the consumer to decide whether they think it's worthwhile or not. Consumer "voting" dictates which way standards go, that choice should not be taken away from people, especially not by an inept body like the government.

Re:

[caseydk]

Oh come on!

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

[rollingcalf]

"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."

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.

Of babies and bath water...

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

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.

I'd like to have my cake and eat it to; I'd like the FCC to be able to enforce interop (mandating *open* systems) without them having the ability to enforce DRM (mandating *closed* systems). Taken as a whole, our laws have never been that philosophically consistent, anyway... why start now? ;-)

In reality though, the baby is just as bad

Re:I wish he was my representative

[2.7182]

"Wonder if Sununu's fired now ?"

(It's a palindrome I just made up.)

Re:

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

You will not be able to copyright it - Goggle shows clear evidence of prior art.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Goggle shows clear evidence of prior art"

Finally, someone giving those bastards at google a run for their money

http://goggle.com/ [goggle.com]

Re:

[chrisgeleven]

While I disagree with a good portion of his views, this is definitely one time where I can say that I am proud to be represented by him.

Re:

[Zabu]

Living in NH, I am represented by Sununu.
He also voted against accepting the Patriot as is after it expired. He is the only congressman I have ever written concerning his actions. I think he is a genuinely great politician.
btw I am an independent.

Sununu is in trouble

[fistfullast33l]

That's why he's pulling legislation like this out again. His state went primarily to the democrats last election (two house races, which was completely unexpected). So previously red new hampshire is now more indigo. Doesn't help that the state Republican party had a few problems in the 2004 election with the phone jamming scandal [concordmonitor.com], which pissed the voters off a lot. So Sununu is currently the conventional wisdom's most vulnerable senator in the upcoming 2008 election. Both parties know this so I have a

Re:

[DavidShor]

Lets be honest, anyone stupid and racist enough to be scared by the "Uppity blacks are fucking white women!1!1" thing was almost definitely not going to vote for Ford. If the add was shown in any state outside outside of the south, it would have guaranteed Ford's victory unless everyone involved with the ad was fired.

Corkers subsequent win is more of a indicator for why I should stay away from Tennessee then of Republican dirty tricks.

Re:

[fistfullast33l]

Possibly, but poll numbers before the ad were in Ford's favor. After, they were in Corker's. So you do the math on how many people it unconciously swayed. That said, I didn't really like Ford as a Democrat anyways. He was way to conservative for my taste. Of course, now he works for the DLC I think, so I don't think we've heard the last of him.

Good, more limits on the FCC

[Ingolfke]

The FCC is taking on too much power. Limiting their abilities is a very good thing.

Re:

[x2A]

Yes I think this is a good move, and would like to see it in more places around the world, perhaps even at the constitutional level, so that technology mandates cannot be pushed through other areas of government either.

Re:

[Ingolfke]

I agree... I'd take it farther though. These government agencies use minor clauses and loopholes to radically expand their power. Government agencies need to have a specific and clear charter and have their ability to extend their authority into new and emerging technologies or problems limited.

Re:

[x2A]

Except perhaps weapons, yeah. When our (us brits) constitution began formation back in 1100's, it was designed to protect against the king (who was the all powerful of the land), and over the hundreds of years following, limit the power of the crown, and move more power to the people of the land. Well now, the government formed, is becoming too powerful, and whilst we have "the vote", the power is not in the peoples hands as much as it should be, and government are free to pass laws that they shouldn't be.

I disagree!

[matr0x_x]

Am I the only one that feels these technology mandates are not a major impedence to innovation?

Re:

[Ed Avis]

'Innovation' is just a code word you have to use because if you say what you really mean then people will be upset. See Microsoft. The senator couldn't say that people should have 'freedom' to record what they like in their own homes - although the 'free market' is still an acceptable phrase.

Re:

[wiredlogic]

Am I the only one that feels these technology mandates are not a major impedence to innovation?
It cut's both ways. They were working for "The People" when they forced a decision on ATSC, mandated support for closed captioning, and mandated support for CableCard. They were working against "The People" with the bogus broadcast no-copies flag.

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! A bill "for the people." From a republican, no less. Wonders never cease.

he's a "real" republican

[r00t]

In recent years the party has been pretty much hijacked by Bible-thumpers, but Sununu still has the old-style republican values. The traditional republican values are/were reduced government, individual responsibility, not favoring random odd special interest groups, welcoming others into a melting pot rather than supporting divisions amongst ourselves, keeping down the taxes, and retaining a military strong enough to deter the troublemakers of the world.

Somehow this turned into the War on Porn, kissing cor

Re:

[ettlz]

Even those conservative New England housewives?

Re:

[endianx]

I can not claim to know much about New Hampshire, but I can say that the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] probably picked it for reasons exactly like this. That is to say, I am not surprised by a vote from New Hampshire that is opposed to government involvement in business.

Sununu

[Götz]

My first thought was about an Opensolaris distribution by the Ubuntu folks.

Re:

[ettlz]

Yeah, Debian/Solaris crossed my mind too.

Oh my God, I'm a geek.

Re:

[niconorsk]

>quote>Oh my God, I'm a geek. And this revelation surprises you somehow. I mean, you are posting on Slashdot after all. :)

Re:

[ettlz]

>quote>Oh my God, I'm a geek. And this revelation surprises you somehow. I mean, you are posting on Slashdot after all. :)

Yes, not least because Slashdot is "news for nerds". I'm quite relieved to not be the latter.

Good and Bad

[mastershake_phd]

While I usually think the less government interference is best. The FCCs plan to make all broadcast TV digital will speed up adoption. As a person without cable(yes I know its 2007, but I refuse to pay $40/month) who gets his TV from an analog antenna and bitorrent. Im not sure where this leaves me. Ive looked into how I can watch digital broadcast now, and Im not entirely sure what kinda hardware I need without buying a new TV. Once digital broadcast is the only choice Im sure I can get a digital anten

Re:

[Rob the Bold]

The FCC already sold off the cell spectrum, which is now being sold back to us at riduculous prices. $.05 for a text message?

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:

[rollingcalf]

Dictating what is transmitted is not the same as dictating what features manufacturers must put in their devices. It is not entirely unrelated, but it isn't the same thing.

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.

Re:

[wiredlogic]

As a person without cable(yes I know its 2007, but I refuse to pay $40/month) who gets his TV from an analog antenna and bitorrent. Im not sure where this leaves me. Ive looked into how I can watch digital broadcast now, and Im not entirely sure what kinda hardware I need without buying a new TV.

As a fellow holdout you should know that the current plans are for the government to provide up to two $40 coupons per eligable household to be used for ATSC converter boxes. Eligable households are defined as those

Re:

[Seraphim_72]

FFS! Really? Of all the ills the government could be fixing and they are going to hand out TV coupons?? Gads.

I don't think I could support this bill

[zenyu]

As a MythTV developer I'm as anti-broadcast flag as one could be, but I don't think I could support this bill.

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.

Nobody imposed standards on the PC industry

[Anonymous Coward]

And free and open markets took care of that "problem".

Re:

[K'Lyre]

Mod parent up.

Re:

[AB_Positive]

Libertarian - in Sununu's section of the state too. I've had correspondance with him and frankly he's a jackass. I wouldn't be surprised to see that there was some interesting wordings attached to the end of the bill as well.

Do not trust Sununu.

-AB+

Re:

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I remember him as George Bush the Elder's enforcer, he was the one who whipped people into line to get Bush's Supreme Court nominee confirmed. The nominee was Clarence 'Long Dong Silver' Thomas.

Re:I don't think I could support this bill

[mangu]

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

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.

TV is not a neccessity

[FatSean]

It's OK if some people buy the 'wrong brand' and end up with a doorstop in a year or two. Why does the government have to make sure everybody can get fucking television?

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:

[PopeJM]

It seems as though every single time someone makes some kind of defensive fortification (be it stone walls or coding), someone finds a way around it. Just because things are DRM'ed doesn't mean they can't be un-DRMed unless they are made utterly flawed. People built huge stone walls, other people built cannons and the stone walls didn't stand a chance. You don't see too many castles in use as military bases these days.

Re:I don't think I could support this bill

[rollingcalf]

The FCC should only be in the business of setting standards on what is *transmitted*, and should not be in the business of dictating what end-user devices *must* do. It is then up to manufacturers to implement devices that interoperate with one or more (or none) of those transmission standards, and the market will decide their fate.

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.

Re:

[boldtbanan]

Someone please mod parent up.

This isn't about the transmission format of the signal, which the FCC still regulates and creates standards for, it's about how end user devices interpret that signal and that is completely outside of the defined scope of the FCC.

Re:

[awtbfb]

This is somewhat in line with one of my thoughts. Closed captioning is managed by the FCC. I'm a bit concerned that the language of this bill may much things up on this front.

Re:

[tmarklund]

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.

Actually, some content providers (at least in Sweden) are starting to screw us consumers by implementing their specific encryption algorithms in only "approved" boxes. So, a DVB-S (satellite) box sold by one program distributor is no longer able to receive programs from another distributor,

Re:

[Dachannien]

There's really no good reason to oppose this legislation (caveat: we still haven't seen the legislation, so it may be too early to have this debate). If a governmentally-mandated technology standard is necessary, Congress can specifically instruct the FCC to develop such a standard by narrowly construing the scope of the FCC's power in developing that standard.

The problem is when the FCC attempts to essentially create law on its own without the involvement of our duly elected legislators, and this legislat

Re:

[Dachannien]

Asking unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.... ;)

The content cabal's interest in getting the FCC to adopt particular standards isn't because of a desire to force interoperability. Interoperability is good, and once an open standard begins to emerge, most manufacturers will design for that standard (or design for compatibility with multiple standards, in the case of things like DVD-R and DVD+R). No, the content cabal wants FCC-mandated standards because it forces manufacturers to implement DR

PLEASE support this!

[Anonymous Coward]

All:

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:

[silas_moeckel]

The FCC is involved how? Those are contracts between the cable companies and the broadcasters. Since they only cover devices that they provide people with G3 tivo's should not be affected. I could support this law if and only if it required cable companies to utilize open standards and not impose restrictions on top of those standards. Cablecard is a step in the right direction it needs to be made more free by disallowing charging per cable card and stop the cable card people from dictating what can be

Re:

[MobyDisk]

Hold up! The FCC's broadcast flag requirement has been removed [wikipedia.org]. If you're company is rolling out the broadcast flag, they are doing it of their own volition.

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:

[MobyDisk]

Ohhhh, THIS [slashdot.org] is why the cable company wants the FCC's powers limited. The FCC is standardizing cable boxes and the cable companies are going to lose their lock-in.

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:

[glindsey]

Working in engineering as you say, your group has the ability to "accidentally" insert backdoors into the system that disable all of these restrictions. If enough people are in on it, these backdoors might, oh, I don't know, mysteriously not get caught by code reviews... curiously not be documented in QA test procedures...

Just a thought.

Re:

[pipingguy]

...a test run against customers...

Tech lingo or the attitude of the cable companies?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Scudsucker]

Hold on... something praising a Republican? On Slashdot?

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...

[denis-The-menace]

Only then will joe six-pack will give a damn about the DRM, etc.

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 ....

[cascadingstylesheet]

Google's Sununu ... checks standard list of geek prejudices ... head explodes ...

regulation sometimes a good thing

[Scudsucker]

Yes, the broadcast flag is a horrible idea, but one that comes from zealous copy control, rather than a new technical standard. IIRC, one reason it has taken so long for HDTV to catch on is that at one point there were 40 different standards floating around. Few consumers would committ to buying a TV for thousands of dollars when there was a good chance it would be useless if a different standard was adopted. If the FCC had steped in, and said "ok, this is the standard - make your own version if you want

Re:

[vtcodger]

***one reason it has taken so long for HDTV to catch on is that at one point there were 40 different standards floating around.***

Well, yes, it probably is. But's not the only reason or even the primary reason. Reasons why HDTV hasn't caught on:

• Not that many stations on the air because no one thought to ask how long it would take to put up new transmitters and antennae for essentially every TV station in the US. [Answer ... quite a while]
• High cost of DTV recievers and the fact that many house

Taking Things Seriously

[flanaganid]

I like to oot, oot, oot, ooples and Sununus

That's all I ever hear when I see Sununu's name.

Raffi for Senator!

Sununu and the FCC

[TimTerrific]

Mr. Sununu does not seem to understand why the FCC was created.

Snu-Snu

[pipingguy]

I like his last name, it sort of encourages you to keep going: Sunununununu...

Re:Legislating the market

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

The irony of the attempt to introduce a law to prevent the ability from another government agency introducing laws in the area it was set up to oversee is amazing - laws to castrate the law-making powers of a government body?

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.

Re:

[gravesb]

Orginally, the FCC was set up to regulate the radio spectrum. Radio stations were interfering with each other, and only through government regulation could radio become useful to the public. Since the spectrum was a scarce and limited resource, and was allocated by the FCC, the FCC was given certain powers that were deemed in the public's best interests. Examples include a requirement to provide opposition the opportunity to respond (The Fairness Doctrine, now largely discredited) and the requirement to

Re:

[dodongo]

It's well understood, I think, in policy theory that regulatory agencies are fully-legitimate actors in the policy process. They're given mandates by Congress, and of course, the House and the President control appropriations to the various departments and agencies. But once that mandate has been made law, the agencies are free to create regulations to enact that mandate however they see fit, until either public or legislative outcry against that regulation actually effects a change.

So you're half-right:

Re:

[moeinvt]

"prevent the ability from another government agency introducing laws in the area it was set up to oversee"

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

Re:

[rizole]

I know it's poor work to reply to your own post but modding my post Flamebait? What? It's supposed to be a Futurama reference and I was aiming for +1 funny. I wouldn't mind a -1 unfunny or -1 offtopic but.....

Sigh!