[opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:18:05 -0800

You presume several times, all wrong.  You can't do this in a few seconds;
you need to read the holdings in the FCC rulings that implemented rule
changes.  It's the "regulatory record" and helps explain any ambiguities.

You can't use letters from petitioners to support positions.  You can use
their perceived need (or desire) to see what the underlying rules are.

And, while you may have said several times that the FCC gives cable systems
the option of how to implement channels, you were wrong each time.  Some of
these regulations only were written a few months ago (and the
clarifications), so they haven't made their way into the Code of Federal
Regulations.  You need to refer to the FCC Record for parts, but all
regulatory changes need to be published in the Federal Register for at least
60 days before they can be incorporated into the Code of Federal
Regulations, which generally is only updated as of October 1, each year.  

I've actually read the rule changes -- and the FCC proceedings -- which I
allude to in this matter.  It's so tiresome dealing with you, that I won't
even point you in the right direction by giving you a document citation.
Heck you even get those wrong, by citing the FCC number, and not the DA
number (Delegation of Authority.)

I don't need to search the FCC web site for them; I grabbed them when they
were released, because I knew the significance when they were issued.  And,
I never read Commissioner statements or news releases; only the texts.  The
former are almost exclusively blather (your type of thing) and the latter
have no procedural value (it's been plainly stated on the news releases of
Commission decisions for more than 2 decades.)

Congress can't tell an independent regulatory agency to reword something;
it's out of their jurisdiction.  They can decide to not fund an agency, or a
part of an agency, until rules are written to their satisfaction.  And, they
can change the IRA (independent regulatory agency) jurisdiction, or even
change the underlying code.

I can run rings around you with 3/4 of my brain tied around my back.

John Willkie


-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Albert Manfredi
Enviado el: Sunday, December 28, 2008 4:06 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Comcast sued for not selling set-top boxes, CableCARDs



Cliff Benham wrote:
 
> In reality, just like the cable and satellite companies
> today, all [the bell companies] wanted was to keep those
> equipment rental fees coming in every month.
 
Congress giveth, and Congress could take away.
 
It looks like Congress gave the FCC the authority to make th rules for
consumer device compatibility with cable systems, in 1992, which the FCC did
in 47 CFR 76.630. So this applied to analog basic tier channels, and they
had to be unscrambled.
 
When digital cable appeared on the scene, the FCC wrote 47 CFR 76.640, which
does not specifically discuss a "digital basic tier," and instead it does
discuss this POD device requirement for DTV sets, to unscramble the digital
tier signals. Presumably, at the time, the "basic tier" was assumed to be
analog.
 
At the same time, the broadcast flag issue was still alive, so the NCTA
petitioned the FCC to allow the scrambling of the digital tier to be used as
a de facto implementation of a broadcast flag compliant technology (MB
Docket 02-230).
 
In this letter, the NCTA petitions the FCC to adjust the old rules of 76.630
(which were written for analog and no issue with broadcast flag) for a
digital basic tier ruling which would not read like 76.630.
 
Since then, as I showed previously, the FCC gives cable systems the option
of several ways to transmit their basic tier (OTA channels), in analog or in
digital. And never in any of this does the FCC mandate use of clearQAM, that
I have found. Even though in principle, now that the broadcast flag was
determined to be beyond the FCC's charter, the FCC could mandate something
along those lines.
 
Enfin bref, while it is easily shown that FOTA stations cannot copy protect
or scramble content that they transmit free (over the air), in the wording
of 17 USC 1201 and the wording of the Betamax decision, I don't see anywhere
that such provisions apply to anything transmitted over digital cable. And
it's not a leap to include DBS in this too.
 
And then of course, cable companies are allowed to decide when to dismantle
their analog tier.
 
Still, Congress could decide to change all of this. Possibly, a
Democrat-controlled Congress could tell the FCC to reword 76.630, I would
think, to explicitly mention clearQAM for a digital basic tier.
 
Bert
 
_________________________________________________________________
It's the same HotmailR. If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_1
22008 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2008