<-- Warning: charset 'X-UNKNOWN' is not supported -->
While I do not know, I would think since they have controle over the content
put out on cable (They even censor the XXX chanles) and since they have
controle over the implementatio of the hardware and how it can play on the
cable (Since infestructure is requierd to be shared when resonable, much like
MCI renting transmition time on AT&Ts lines) that it stands to reason they
would have even broder controle over the equipment.
But I do think this is purly a censorchip issue :)
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, der.hans wrote:
> Am 06. Mar, 2005 schw?tzte 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
> --
> # https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.AZOTO.org/
> # "Communications without intelligence is noise;
> # Intelligence without communications is irrelevant."
> # Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)