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
>
>
(text/plain)