Hans,

The FCC has jurisdiction over *all* communications media, not just spectrum. Cable, Telephone, Internet (the long-haul interconnects, not necessarily the ISP's), Satellite, etc... Everything, all communications methods, techniques, and media, no exceptions, even "unlicensed" spectrum is subject to FCC control, they decide who can use it, what for, and in what way.

Cable is not *currently* subject to decency standards as part of a deal made about 25 years ago. The FCC is currently considering extending decency standards to cable.

ALL radio spectrum, from 0Hz on past the Gamma Ray range (sub nanometer) is counted a public resource (when used to transmit free-space signals) and is subject to full FCC control. There is *NO* spectrum outside the "public spectrum".

Satellite uses licensed spectrum, leased from the FCC (when the coverage includes the US).

Satellites use spectrum licensed for their use, and because Satellites are cross-national, they actually have to license their spectrum in every jurisdiction under their "footprint", which usually includes at least 2, and as many as 30, individual countries. There are international treaties to help with that issue, but it still gets to be a real pain in the neck for the companies that put satellites in space, hence the rather high fees they often charge for transponder space, especially in Europe.

The current viewpoint at the FCC is that content that is separately purchased is a free-speech resource, hence is not to be regulated as to content, but that viewpoint can change anytime they like. The debate is whether cable in general is a separately purchased commodity, or whether it can only be treated as such on a channel-by-channel basis (yes, they want the cable companies to switch to ala-carte, and yes they are using decency enforcement as a subtle threat). Keep in mind, the FCC has authority to enforce community decency standards on ANY transmitted content, regardless of medium. The Supreme Court long ago asserted that decency standards are not an offense to the first amendment when applied to broadcast material, provided some basic rules are met (no unequal enforcement, common standards, not political, etc...).

As to the broadcast flag, it's a standard for equipment that receives broadcast HDTV signals only, the FCC has full authority to enforce such standards for broadcast receivers, since they "own" the HDTV standard. One might question their authority to mandate standards for cable-only devices, but they have full authority there as well, since they do, in fact, regulate the cable industry, just as fully as they regulate broadcast content.

The FCC is probably the most broadly empowered agency of the US government, so it's a *REALLY* Good Thing that they're very conservative about regulation. The occasional case where they go too far is best handled by legislative action. This is reasonable, and has happened only a few times in their history. I suspect the "broadcast flag" is another such case, the only difficulty being how to convince Congress to do the right thing.

BTW, I agree that the content "providers" are really just trying to maintain their stranglehold on distribution, rather that responding to a criminal threat. Unfortunately the technology community has done a poor job of educating Congress regarding how digital content actually works, and what is really going on behind the MPAA/RIAA lobbyist smokescreen.

==Joseph++

der.hans wrote:

Am 06. Mar, 2005 schwätzte Joseph Sinclair so:

Any equipment that connects to, consumes, or produces content that is
typically transmitted via any domain over which they have jurisdiction
may be controlled to whatever extent the FCC deems appropriate.
All other equipment may be regulated to the extent necessary to ensure
an interference-free environment for licensed equipment.


Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable and satellite? I thought it does
not since neither spectrum are public resources ( yeah, satellite could
be, but I think it's licensed otherwise ).

Cable is the property of the various cable companies.

Satellite is licensed bandwidth outside the public spectrum or some such,
I think.

The broadcast flag has nothing to do with electronic interference.

Can the FCC regulate cable content? I'm told there's lots of porn there
available 24/7 for those who'll pay for it. One of the semi-celebrated
features of cable is that they can use whatever language they want 24/7
rather than just at night after kids have gone to bed.

The FCC's scope is exceptionally broad, which is why they generally
avoid regulation unless perceived as truly necessary.  The broadcast
flag is an example of what happens when they are mislead about the
nature and extent of a "problem" (in this case, "piracy"[copyright
violation] of on-air digital broadcasts), and react to the
misinformation, instead of the reality that there isn't a significant
problem of HDTV copyright violations, and even if there was, there are
better ways to handle it.  Besides, this new regulation really just
prevents regular time-shifting and similar activities, all of which are
legal, since criminals will just build a hacked box without the required
protections, or a simple data filter to add/remove the flag in the
incoming stream.  Getting around the broadcast flag is a clearly trivial
exercise in data processing and electronics, but such activities would
only be undertaken by a small minority of skilled persons, and those who
would violate copyright.


Yes, it makes me think that the industry is getting kickbacks on mass
copyright violation since the broadcast flag really only stops consumers.

If they were concerned with mass violation they would put their efforts
there rather than going after law-abiding customers.

ciao,

der.hans