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.
When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
Dear FCC... PISS OFF!
-=sig=-
"Congress hasn't said that we DON'T have the power to do this, so we're going to go ahead on the assumption that we do."
Uhhh, that's not the way the government works. A government agency must be given the authority to regulate by Congress, which is ultimately accountable to the People. A government agency can't just do whatever the hell they please just because they feel like it. They must have a mandate and be granted Congressional authority to do so.
All Your Computers Are Belong To Us
The Cure for 1984 is 1776
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
but the FCC is heading right to the crapper. Michael powell needs to resign and let someone else more qualified do the job. if only he was 1/4 the man his father is.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the FCC??!
Witness the FDA's attempt to regulate tobacco. There is no authority for them to do so, yet they are still trying to assert regulatory authority over tobacco. Say what you will, there's no authority for that to happen.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
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.
Save us Howard Stern!
You should have to take a test and obtain a license to get an IP address, before you can spew into the ether(net), just like for radio. The test should cover things like installing anti-virus, de-worming and spy-catcher software, turning on firewalls and the proper way to deal with attachments from strangers. Especially if you insist on using low quality, consumer grade software like Windows.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
existential duty
Please, tell me more about these existential duties.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals in most wireless frequencies and at some power levels. The FCC has authority over the *transmission* of signals over the phone lines. The FCC has absolutely no, zero, zilch, nada authority over *MY* PC.
Authority over Cable companies, for instance, is also held by local communities.
This same FCC that doesn't bother to even *look* at how broadcasters are misusing their licenses? (to quote an oft-quoted phrase) They can pull my OPEN SOURCE, PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED PC out of my cold dead hands.
And this is the party that claims to get Government off the people's backs? The founding fathers' dust would roll over in their graves, except the FCC probably claims juridiction over that as well!
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.
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)
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.
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...
...let's all call the FCC with complaints about viruses/worms/crackers/etc. They should be able to "regulate" it.
FLR
With a link to the song.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wake me up if this request is actually granted, then I'll start to worry. Until then, I'll let the courts do their job.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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
If any of you have been PAYING ATTENTION to your computers, you will find that ALL of them have an FCC logo on them indicating that they have passed certifications. Every computer must pass under part 15 regs, and if it connects to a phone line, it must also pass under part 68 regs. Thus has it always been.
www.wavefront-av.com
The real issues are interference and interoperation. The FCC has long been accepted as being in charge of layer 1 - the physical stuff. But in another way of thinking, one could consider DDOS attacks to be analogous to RFI. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but it's certainly one that could be sold to a bureaucrat, maybe even to a legislator. So by this reasoning, the FCC may be trying to extend their authority into layer 2 and even layer 3, in order to meet their real requirements of interference and interoperation.
Now think about how they implement their authority over layer 1. There are things like FCC Type Acceptance, FCC Classes, and FCC Certification. You know that modem that operates over controlled wires, or that transmitter that operates over controlled frequencies... You can't TOUCH them without a LICENSE. So far, so good. If you touch it, you may change its operation, and make it cause interference. The device's FCC Type Acceptance is to guarantee that it will interoperate correctly. Your FCC License is supposed to guarantee that you know how to touch the device without breaking its FCC compliance.
Now extend that to layer 2. That means the FCC owns your ARP, and the bottom of your TCP stack. No more compiling from source without an FCC License, in fact you'd probably need signed modules. For that matter, you'd need a layer of the OS that guarantees that you can't load anything other than FCC certified modules for layer 2 - unless you've got an FCC License.
Now extend that to layer 3.... and the FCC owns the rest of your stack. And the part of the OS that checks its FCC signature and loads it.
This sounds terribly heavy-handed, but the Internet has become enough of a mess that the general public might well accept it. I see several major issues here:
1: Do the FCC and Congress realize what it *really* means to regulate PC communication. Do they understand that it also means requiring DRM Operating Systems to guarantee that an FCC Type Accepted stack is loaded.
2: What will licensing look like? How expensive will it be, and will it be truly knowledge based, or more interface based. (like MSCE) Will there be some sort of "Amateur Internet" equivalent to "Amateur Radio" and what will its requirements and capabilities be.
3: Will the Corporate Linux presence really care about ANY of this, because they'll just license their developers.
4: Finally, to they even understand that NONE of this MATTERS, because you don't stop DDOS or spam at layers 1, 2, or 3, anyway. To really stop DDOS and spam, you need to FCC certify *every single executable* that can connect to the stack, and that includes networked games.
4a: In reality, this probably means inserting the layer 3.5 shim, that *attempts* to police network connections, and prevents direct communication to layer 3. Of COURSE we all know how well that would work in practice, that it would preserve performance, as well as stop DDOS and spam.
As for anti-regulatory philosophies of Republican administrations, I don't buy it having any bearing here. In practice, I see two pieces of anti-regulatory agenda, owning weapons and making money. Allowing FCC increased domain over PCs does not directly affect either of those, so it could well happen. In fact, including FCC certification probably improves corporate control/profitability, so that's a plus.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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).
Even if we accept your premise that the software/hardware industry needs regulation, the proper venue for such regulation is the Federal Trade Commission, not the Federal Communications Commission. Your complaints about business practices clearly fall under the category of trade regulation.
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!
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 think Bush is a great leader and visionary. He belongs in the White House, and the same can't be said of his opponent. I believe he approves of this message.
whether or not he's actually got anything to do with it.
Or, if you want to sound like an exceptionally smart slashbot, you blame it on Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
You left out the birth of skynet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hereby declare, that I have regulatory powers over the FCC.
Objections?
I didn't hear any, so it must be ok. FCC it's time for a timeout. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.
Or maybe I should go my dad's route? FCC, bring me my belt.
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
First they want to show more and more commercials, to the extent that they make up over 50% of the content, then they dive head-first into reality TV.
I don't mind shows like Survivor. I don't watch them, but that's me. My problem with reality TV is that it dominates the TV landscape to the extent that there is no longer anything for me to watch. They're slowly coming to the realization that not only am I not alone, but after they've made their quick buck, nothing they've produced is re-runable. No syndication, no more money.
How much money has been made on "Bewitched" over the past 40 years? Can you see the networks showing reruns of Survivor even five years from now, let alone on Nick At Nite in 2044? Disposable TV costs the networks money, and the jeniuses who run the networks are finally coming to realize that. Too bad most real TV fans have switched to HBO.
Republicans are idiots.
Here's the letter I wrote my rep:
.blarg.
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.