[opendtv] Commentary: FCC is taking a wrong turn
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: OpenDTV Mail List <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:34:23 -0400
=46CC is taking a wrong turn
April 14, 2004 12:00am
Source: CNET Networks, Inc.
2004-04-13, ZDNet News: COMMENTARY--Forty years=20
ago, there was a scary TV show called "The Outer=20
Limits."
The show started with the narrator's words: "We=20
can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen=20
it to crystal clarity. We will control the=20
horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the=20
next hour, sit quietly and we will control all=20
that you see and hear."
Who knew that today the Federal Communications=20
Commission would be trying to turn that sci-fi=20
introduction into a regulatory reality? Not only=20
is the commission considering rules that would=20
result in the digital television picture from=20
reaching its full, sparkling potential, but the=20
=46CC also is considering defining where, when and=20
with what rights consumers can use digital media.
There are two separate, but related, issues that=20
the FCC is considering. What they have in common=20
is that they are generated by the fear, yet=20
again, by the "content community"--principally=20
the movie industry--that consumers will have too=20
much say in how and when and where we can have=20
access to digital TV or cable.
It's hard to believe, but one issue is whether=20
the broadcasters should be able to make their=20
picture quality more fuzzy as a means of limiting=20
the distribution of programming, say over the=20
Internet. The technical term is=20
"down-resolution," or "down-rezzing."
In an FCC proceeding to set the rules for=20
allowing consumers to see digital cable without a=20
cable box, Public Knowledge opposed any use of=20
down-rezzing. The content industry wants to aim=20
this feature at consumers who want to record=20
digital programming. There's no clear reason for=20
down-rezzing, except that the content companies=20
want to transform the consumer electronics=20
industry into something that's more controllable.
Overlooked by the proponents of down-rezzing is=20
the obvious question: Why would anyone pay=20
thousands of dollars more to buy a TV set that=20
sometimes could have a picture scarcely better=20
than the one they already have? Also overlooked=20
is the irony that the FCC years ago started to=20
create the digital television service in a bid to=20
provide better picture quality and service than=20
currently exists.
While the FCC has put some limits on how=20
down-rezzing could be used, the fact that it's=20
still being considered in some context at all=20
contradicts the commission's entire philosophy to=20
date. Broadcasters were given billions of dollars=20
worth of spectrum for the conversion to digital=20
TV, particularly outrageous given the fact that=20
consumers are faced with the prospect of buying=20
new digital TV sets.
At the same time that the FCC is considering=20
whether to make your TV picture worse, it's also=20
considering another program--the Personal Digital=20
Network Environment (PDNE), which would set=20
boundaries on where consumers can view and use=20
the digital programming that comes into their=20
homes.
Consumers seem intent on having the right to use=20
digital TV and other content wherever they want,=20
despite what the big media companies would like.=20
As part of FCC proceedings on the "broadcast=20
flag," which is supposed to prevent copying and=20
redistribution of digital TV by embedding a=20
warning flag in the signal, the commission=20
recognized that in some cases, the Internet could=20
legitimately be used by consumers to move=20
programming they might want to use other than in=20
front of the TV.
The FCC proposed the PDNE as the solution--a=20
boundary, within which consumers could shift=20
their digital content. The agency suggested that=20
the PDNE could be thought of as a zone, "within=20
which consumers could freely redistribute digital=20
broadcast television content." The problem is=20
that there really is no way that such a zone=20
could be defined, and it would be silly, as well=20
as wrong, to try to do so.
As our technology, particularly wireless=20
technology, advances, a PDNE could expand until=20
it's either meaningless or would become the most=20
all-encompassing regulation ever suggested. Think=20
about it, the next time you stop into a coffee=20
shop that has wireless Internet access or board=20
an airplane that has Internet connections.
The PDNE "zone" could be everywhere--from the=20
office in your home to 30,000 feet in the air, as=20
you fly across the country. However, that may be=20
what the content providers have been thinking, as=20
they try to put even more restrictions on what=20
you can do with material you want to see, as it=20
is distributed over cable or through the air.=20
Whatever they were thinking, the idea that the=20
=46CC, at the behest of the big-media lobby, should=20
control our technology--and deprive consumers of=20
their rights--is just wrong.
There was one other part to that "Outer Limits"=20
introduction. It started out by saying, "There is=20
nothing wrong with your television set." If the=20
=46CC and the content community get their way,=20
there will be.
Gigi Sohn is president and co-founder of Public=20
Knowledge. .end (paragraph)<<ZDNet News --=20
04/13/04>>
<< Copyright =A92004 CNET Networks, Inc. >>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [opendtv] Commentary: FCC is taking a wrong turn
