Slashdot Mirror
FCC Claims Regulatory Power Over Home Computers
Pointing to Assistant Professor of Law Susan Crawford's blog, iman1003 writes "The FCC has filed a brief where it claims regulatory power over all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus 'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication according to a blog published by Susan Crawford. The blog can be found here and the brief here (in PDF format). Kind of scary if you ask me." Ars Technica has good commentary on this, also referencing Crawford's findings.
The rules are what the Bush admistration and their FCC, Supreme Court buddies say they are.
If anyone else was doing it, they would be called fascist.
If there is one industry that does not need regulated, it's the computer industry. We are doing fine without you. Kind of makes you wonder what the state of radio, telecommunications, etc... would be without the FCC locking us into paradigms that are literally older than most of the people reading this message.
Get the hell out FCC we don't want or need your help.
-- the entire computer industry
-- $G
another step in regulating voIP may be a driving instrument behind this.
http://dont.spam.me.anymore.com
So if the FCC has regulatory domain over PCs, does that mean they're the ones to contact so i can download Janet's Titty Shot ? If they can regulate the content on Radio, Television, Print and Cable, does that mean they're willing to step up to regulating content on the Internet? Ha! Will I have to get an "Internet User License" like ham/cb hobbyists? Does that mean my TCP/IP driver will require little stickers of FCC compliance like my modem does? Just when I think that the economy is really suffering, and begin to stress about layoffs and outsourcing, I re-assure myself that beuracracy always grows, and so creates a never ending employment trough. I should start studying for my GSA exam.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
The regulatory power should mean the power to regulate our equipment so it wouldn't break the infrastructure and other equipment, or jam the spectrum in the case of wireless communication. It shouldn never mean anything more than that. Specifically, it should mean that our modems cannot send high voltage down the line and the prohibition of DOS (a digital equivalent to spectrum jamming) but should never mean which software do we use and how do we use it, provided it does not damage other equipment, and equipment only. In that context we should have nothing to worry about, though of course every regulatory body tends to increase its power way beyond what is reasonable, if it itself isn't regulated as well. What we need are better checks and balances, not more legislation.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Shame that the head of the FCC doesn't have the same grace, dignity, honour and intelligence as his father.
If the FCC had to get congress to put their heads together and pass something (house and senate) every time they wanted to make a decision, they would never get anywhere. The IRS does it's job without congress pulling every puppet-string, while it looks like the CIA may need a little congressional intervention.
If cellphones interfere with hospital equipment, the FCC needs the power to indepentantly step in and tell people to shut the damn cell phones off anywhere near hospitals without waiting for congress. If congress, the courts, or a presidental directive ("The voice of the President") wants to overrule them, so be it.
*rolls eyes* That's a straw man argument. They don't have to get permission for every decision.
The FCC does not have control over everything under the sun. They have been granted control of certain types of devices. Hence, the FCC has control over cellphones. They have to get permission for a decision in an area where they have not already been granted control.
Stop posting here and WRITE to your congressional representatives.
Congress defines the mandate of the FCC, and without your input, all they hear is the clatter of change from the entertainment lobby.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Since when did the Constitution mean anything anymore? The government wipes its collective ass with it every day Congress is in session.
Jan, 25th 2005:
The FCC announces that all computer equipment sold in the USA must now incorporate CCC (Complete Control over Content) technology.
CCC is, by the most incredible coincidence, almost equivalent to Microsoft/Intel Palladium specifications.
Early Feb. 2005:
Dell, IBM, HPaq and most other computer manufacturers quickly announce their support for the initative and the tech industry goes into an orgy of upgrading. All machines not incorporating CCC are then outlawed and/or barred from connecting to the Internet.
Dec. 2005:
FCC, in its capacity as Internet regulators, introduces the "Great Homeland Firewall", which bars USA citizens from connecting to foreign sites deeemed dangerous and/or terrorist. Some people note that Democratic blogs also appear to be rejected by the FCC Firewall.
Liberal cries about "freedom of the press" and "right of information" are promptly dismissed by Fox News and Republican lawmakers as "treasonous" and "unpatriotic".
In 2008, after successfully repelling the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, President George W Bush is triumphantly re-elected as President for a 3rd term.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Actually Bush and his party have little if any effect on this. Sorry, but both parties have collected power to the Federal Government through out our history. This process accelerated after the Civil War and continues today. The Constitution is rather clear when read with the 10th Amendment, most of what the government does these days is unconstitutional. But depending on where your ideology stands, you approve when it is your group accumulating power but disapprove when it is the other group. After both sides get their way long though, most every area of our lives are now controlled by the Federal Government. I don't think the average citizen today even realizes that the states are supposed to be the controlling authority in most aspects of our lives, not the central government.
And, whether we like it or not, the Federal Communications Commission does have regulatory authority over interstate communications. It was set up specifically to regulate interstate communications.
The question (and the lawsuit) is, does this authority extend to what is done with a broadcast after it has been transmitted and received?
Best Slashdot Co
Or the Eastern theory of extreme yin becoming yang, extreme yang becoming yin. It's hard to understand.
More is sometimes less, less is sometimes more. The danger is that by trying to be more, agencies like the FCC end up having their authority weakened. People will not take their policies, and other policies seriously. The more they do to try to crack down, the less effective they become. This is a proven fact, at least in theory.
I guess you'd better buy any hdtv equipment at the mid 2005 'non compliance' sale. I always find that early generations of any given new technology are easier to use because they have fewer copyright type restrictions on them.
A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it.
No doubt. The wrong Powell is leaving office.
[
More importantly, this affects all of us because of the economies of scale. If unencumbered equipment can't be sold in the US, it will be at least more expensive elsewhere as a massive potential market is cut off. Think of the Taiwanese motherboard industry being forced to produce two models - one DRMd for the US and the other unrestricted for non-US use.
Yes, even as a non-US resident, I care deeply about the foolishness going on in the US. If only I knew what to do about it, besides donate to the EFF...
At first I thought, "fuck you, FCC", but you have actually convinced me that this probably wouldn't be a bad thing. It would teach people to use a computer as a complicated piece of engineering, instead of a mere appliance. It shouldn't be very hard of course, but it's not like it needs to be, given the average person's intelligence.
In a really sad way, I kinda agree with you. Too many stupid end users out there who need to get their head out of the sand and need to learn these lessons, rather than rely on us techies to fix their computer every time.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
...let's all call the FCC with complaints about viruses/worms/crackers/etc. They should be able to "regulate" it.
FLR
"If the FCC had to get congress to put their heads together and pass something (house and senate) every time they wanted to make a decision, they would never get anywhere. The IRS does it's job without congress pulling every puppet-string, while it looks like the CIA may need a little congressional intervention."
Don't be suckered by the press. The IRS doesn't do its job. The IRS is hugely understaffed and underbudget and tax fraud is rampant, yet the media doesn't say much about that. However, the CIA gets a bad rap because they gave accurate information to the administration about the situation in Iraq and were ignored, because they only gave a fairly good report about how 9/11 would happen and weren't given enough funding or freedom to do anything about it, and because they do a generally fairly good job until the administration orders them to stop.
Maybe the brief linked to in the posting was the wrong one.
...
... IANAL
There is a mention of associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received but it is just a small quote.
From the PDF brief
The issues presented here are:
* Whether the FCC reasonably concluded that the Communications Act provides authority for it to adopt broadcast flag rules.
* Whether the particular rules the Commission adopted were reasonable and supported in the record
* Whether the rules conflict with copyright law.
Although the expansion of FCC authority is of valid concern its neither the topic of, nor addressed in, the brief mentioned.
But
You're confusing what IS and what SHOULD BE. There are huge differences. An election should count every vote - that doesn't mean to say all the votes in the last election will be counted. Government does what Government wants.
Unlike Radio, it doesn't make a difference where I transmit from.
While we are on the subject, what constitutes using an IP. Do I need a "license" for a dial up account? Will I have to license every stinking moron in my building if I decide to do NAT translation? And what if someone hijacks my IP? Do I get fined?
The Internet is working very well as it is, thank you very much. If it's not suitable for some secure purpose, or it's not some idealic playground where we can set our kids loose and abdicate our responsibility as parents, then maybe we out to look at the wisdom of those 2 ideas. prima face they are stupid, and no amount of regulation is going to change that. Parents DO need to a) know what their kids are doing and b) prepare them to meet and overcome the temptations of this world.
As far as security goes, putting the FCC in charge is not so much to protect the integrity of messages sent, as to filter the content of what can't be. I refuse to live in a world where 7 words can't be sent over email.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The rules are what the Bush admistration and their FCC, Supreme Court buddies say they are.
We're all going to have to drop the liberal/conservative paranoia if we're going to stop the power grabs like the continued FCC expansion. This is not an "evil Bush" thing, nor is it an "evil Clinton" thing or any administration in particular. The FCC has been an increasing problem ever since Carter's era where it felt underappreciated, and Reagan when deregulation of Bell gave it a whole new world to flex its muscles in.
Instead of pretending evil Bushies/Clintonites are out to get you, take it to its foundation and fight from there. Do we want unchecked power in Federal bureaucracies, such as the FCC, DOE, FBI, CIA, etc, or not? The 10th Amendment of the US Constition has been gutted in practice; just as "interstate commerce" has been interpreted as anything in order to provide Federal jurisdiction, these agencies are completely unchecked in their empire building power drives.
Frequency auctions (a lousy "let's bring in a few extra bucks" measure by Congress) have corrupted the FCC immensely. It is so driven by money that it makes decisions based solely on lobby. Legalized bribery and influence has paralized its ability to do its basic charter. Look at BPL (Broadband over Power Line) for instance - while agreeing BPL studies conclusively show it fundamentally interferes with other licensed services, the FCC waves a magic wish wand and declares that BPL may continue. It's almost like the scene out of the Producers where the same company has been sold a hundred times over. BPL interfers with the frequency purchased by others previously, but as long as the FCC can sell it again, they go ahead. The Nextel fiasco is another good example of this nightmare, as well as unbundling requirements of monopoly service (e.g. DSL unbundling) being thrown aside.
If anyone else was doing it, they would be called fascist.
Lets hold the criminals themselves accountable in these bloated, money/power hungry bureaucracies. Look at the CIA as an example - their top brass is suddenly quitting because Congress sent a new boss who doesn't say 'pretty please' when scheduling meetings, and is not mindful that you never have meetings on Monday or Friday (WTF?) unless it is a mixer with cocktails. And we're surprised we have a deficit, with Federal agencies acting like this with our money?
Both sides need to start kicking some administrative ass and quit falling sucker to each party's finger pointing at the other.
You're equating getting the signal in your house and being allowed to do whatever you want with it. That's not the case. If you read your HDTV contract, you'd notice that there are many, many provisions in it. They state that the signal (and copyrighted material it contains) ISN'T yours, and that you are only allowed to display it on agreed hardware, and use it in ways they see fit. Just because you have the cable running into your house doesn't mean you can then burn it to CDs and pass out to friends, or even burn to CDs and keep for yourself.
You see, copyright is a weird thing. You are getting a copy of the media, not the rights to copy it yourself. You can get those rights if you want, they are available - you just have to buy the copyright holder's permission for whatever it is you want to copy. Simple.
By your logic, if I come over to your house, you can take my wallet. "Heck - he was in my house! my wallet!". It could be argued that your stance is pure greed (as in you want to have the rights to copy something, but not pay for them).
Only to the extent that your computer emits RF interference, and/or communicates over phone lines. You're confusing the issue.
There's an FCC ID on almost all electronic equipment. Does that mean the FCC can regulate what bread you put in your toaster? What food you heat in your microwave? Can the FCC tell you you cannot record a phone message on your answering machine? or what you can do with that recording?
The FCC regulates the physical transmission of information, and to some extent the content in the case of public transmissions. Once you receive the transmission, its out of their hands.
Isn't tobacco a food and a drug? You injest it, and it contains chemical stimulants, along with other nice substances.
FDA's Mission Statement
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.
If there's a product which clearly falls under a government agency's mandate, but doesn't because of political machinations (bribes, intimidation, and lies), it's tobacco.
I believe Eric Idle put it more succinctly- go download FCCSong.mp3 from that link. (Be warned, there's about 5million in fines worth of F-bombs in the song... :-)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
No, the 22nd amendment should be expanded to include Congress. That way, everyone's in the same boat.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
From the way I see it, after reading the blog, you should be fine as long as your PC does not have a tuner.
The FCC is frustrated at the slow adoption rate of digital television..
On one side of the coin, Content providers don't want to put out content unless it's protected to prevent sharing on the internet.
The television stations have made the investment to broadcast digital television signals. The infastrusture is in place.
On the other hand the content is scarce and locked down to be useles and expensive. Therefore the adoption rate is very poor by consumers. The transmitters are there, but the home receivers are not. Nobody is watching. Nobody is even interested. It's expensive and the content is mostly worthless. Why bother. Nobody will be interested until the local electronics stores show real (not a demo loop) off air DTV reception. (the closest to a real demo I've seen is dish network subscription satelite TV, not over the air local TV)
It's the chicken and egg complicated by a Mexican Standoff. Providers won't provide content because of no viewers. Viewers won't switch due to cost, restrictions, and lack of content in roughly that order. The biggie is of course cost. For those with smaller spaces, finding an affordable TV is the problem. There are some home theatre type TV's that actualy contain a tuner, but the number of under $400 sets with the tuner for college students, basement dwellers, dorm dwellers, etc just doesn't exitst yet. My biggest TV is 20 inch. There are lots of monitors that are digital ready, but the lack of complete TV's is disturbing. Price, selection and content are the biggest showstoppers to digital TV rollout.
Somebody needs to do something to break the standoff if digital TV is going to get adopted. In the meantime, broadband Internet and it's wide selection of content is making a quick end run past the standoff. I speak for myself. I spend way more online time in a week than I spend watching TV in a year. Why spend the money to upgrade? The content is ad ridden junk aimed at the lowest common denominator.
I know they would like us to be like the Simpsons and rush for the sofa to watch their over the air content. It's just not happening. Drive the neighborhood. Count the VHF and UHF antennas.. It's not like it was in the '60's and '70's. Now almost nobody is watching.
The truth shall set you free!
Here's a deep one for ya:
Anyone notice how the government is slowly using laws about technology to gain more and more control over the populace?
Pretty soon you won't even be able to 'buy' something. Everything will be 'rented'.
I think its time for what will be known as a Consumers Constitution.
We need a formal mandate that will state that corporations cannot fuck with us like they have been. Same goes for the Government.
Funny, knowledge is power. If us geeks have the knowledge to run/make all the gear, then why the fuck aren't we the ones telling THEM what to do (like SHOVE IT)?
I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's thinking like that which has allowed the US to become what it has. You really think the politicians turn away from their lobbying groups and say "You know, thanks, but no thanks. You keep the $1,000,000, and I'll do what Mr. X asked me in his letter". No, he'll write you a letter saying he takes it very seriously, that he values the voices of his constituants, that democracy is the best, and America is great. The letter will be sent to you, and he'll forget it. It won't affect anything he does.
I have a digital satellite system now. It has no broadcast flag support. Somehow, content manages to get sent over it without unleashing a plague of locusts or whatever it is the FCC thinks might happen without a broadcast flag.
Why in the world would I want to cough up more money to recieve over the air DTV broadcasts that tell me what I may or may not record and/or where I can watch what I do record when I have a perfectly adequate system now? I grew up watching analog TV, and my brain learned not to percieve the imperfections in the signal unless I compare side by side. I watch television for content, not for the presentation. Beautifully rendered crap will lose out to sorta decently rendered but good programming every time.
Short summary: Beautiffly rendered end-to-end digital video with restrictions has a lower value to me than sorta decently rendered but unrestricted video with analog steps. This is because the change will restrict access to the content (which I care about) in exchange for quality rendering (a distant second concern). As a rational consumer, I will not spend money in order to have a net negative value.
If the FCC wants me to switch, they'll have to give me some incentive to do so. That is they'll have to INCREASE my access to quality content. Since in their entire history, they've demonstrated no will or ability to improve the quality of content in general, and they are now focused on degrading my level of access to the existing quality programming, they're destined for failure.
I hate to turn your dream into a nightmare, but all of my experience screams that this claim has nothing to do with the broadcast flag. It's a naked power grab to control the internet within the US, cloaked in the semi-defensible argument that it's merely ensuring that the (controversial itself) broadcast flag is enforceable.
Consider this: our theocracy has resumed obscenity prosecutions. The defense, in a nutshell, is that the "community" that establishes "community standards" no longer exists in the era of the internet - the porn palace is not some seedy theater that you need to keep your kids from, it's a consumer viewing porn (via subscription, encrypted channels or the internet) in the privacy of their own home. The alternative is to allow the most repressed community in the country to define what's acceptable for the rest of the country.
Maybe this defense will succeed. Maybe it won't. But if it succeeds the feds won't have much authority to go after porn sites - or anything else that offends them. (I'm especially concerned about a latter-day Pentagon Papers case. There's a staggering disconnect between what this administration claims is true and what's the ground reality... and the incoming cabinet and Congress looks like it's moving even further into fantasyland.)
Enter this brief. Even if the government loses this obscenity case, the FCC can step in and say that it's shutting down any site containing "obscene" material as it, alone, defines it. There's far, far too many sites to monitor manually so they'll undoubtably turn to secret lists like the kiddie filters - and besides hard and softcore porn we'll undoubtably discover that the filters block breast cancer and chicken recipes, sites that discuss your rights under the Bill of Rights (except for the second, oddly), the Constitution itself, websites critical of the incumbent president or supportive of the challenger....
In these circumstances, discussing and criticizing The List itself will undoubtably be verboten. That might give the nasty porn guys (and liberals) ideas on how to circumvent the restrictions.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Actually Bush and his party have little if any effect on this. Sorry, but both parties have collected power to the Federal Government through out our history.
It's an ill omen when your first two sentences contradict each other.
The referenced FCC doc is a response to petition. In it's response the FCC supports it's regulatory jurisdiction with past 'pro-consumer' rulings. Examples:Closed caption capability, All channel capability. These are required in TV receivers and have nothing to do with current president or conress. The libertarians have been telling you all along that the govt. can justify doing things you don't like by applying the same arguments used to support the things you wanted them to do. It's the same old story, 'majority rules' is great until you're in the minority. The govt. protection of consumer advocates gave the FCC most of it's ammunition here, not GWB.
Technically the ATSC flag is optional for the broadcaster and does not prevent copying. It prevents multiple copies. Requiring it in a DTV capable receiver applies to DTV receivers, even if they are installed in computers. It's still up to the broadcaster to turn the flag on and off. If you want to get around it anyway, gnuradio will decode ATSC broadcasts, is open source, and you can disable the flag at your end. What you say, the FCC will require the flag in the receiver so how can I do this? Flag is required for digital receivers. gnuradio uses an analog receiver and decodes the ATSC on your PeeCee.
The flag will do nothing to prevent hard core (read 'beyond the shrink wrap') radio/TV hackers from removing the flag.
I have not read the specifications, but I would not be surprised if it were pretty simple to reset the flag in the allowed first generation copy. Resetting the flag in each subsequent copy would effectively disable it. Anyone looked at this?
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
If you are alone in your views, you are right. Money talks. However money is a means to the ends. At the end of the day, if they notice that they sent more of letter #24 than anything else, and a quick database search reveals that most letters were opposed to something, that means more than money from lobbiest.
Congressmen have been known to go against those lobbiests with all their money when enough letters are written. They know that following the will of people who write letters (which is also the people more likely to vote) is likely to give them a vote next time, while ignoring those letters is likely to cost them the election.
Got news for ya. Congressmen are people too, and they don't respond to threats any better than anyone else you know.
Don't say "I won't vote for you unless", that just pisses them off. Say "I am very concerned about", or "This issue affects me directly", or "Please consider voting against". Be POLITE! They understand that if you took the time to write it must be very important to you and will probably affect your vote.
What is off topic about discussing effectiveness of congressional communication when the topic is legislative activism?