[opendtv] Re: Senate Drafts Huge Telecom Bill
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 20:33:27 -0400
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> Looks pretty good to me.
>
Except it grants the FCC the power to implement things like the
Broadcast Flag, limiting what technology can be legally implemented to
record OTA signals. Meanwhile the FCC has already shown they are fairly
insensitive to the costs of mandating various robust copy protection
technologies since they already passed the flag once. (yes, "copy
protection"!)
Various individuals will now try to claim that there are only
restrictions for redistributing material over the Internet. But the
costs of trying automatically make this infeasible will have fairly far
reaching implications in terms of which technologies can be effectively
marketed.
For instance it is unlikely that Tivo would ever have gained approval as
a new startup if the flag had already been part of law. And PCHD cards
are likely toast.
However it should again be a big boost to software radio development.
It should be interesting to see the FCC try to ban that.
- Tom
chorus: But Tom, don't you feel that the IP owners have a right to
protect their investments?
Tom: Yes, but only in so far as the net benefit to the public at large
stays positive.
> This draft bill does a more complete job of leveling the playing field
> wrt cable vs. telecom systems, given the reality that both types of
> system are merging in services they provide. So all special requirements
> levied on voice telephony, for example, apply to any voice telephone
> system. Video franschising rules will apply equally to cable an telecom
> TV distribution nets, all being streamlined to some extent. And all
> service requirements to under-represented segments apply equally to any
> technology, within reason. It also gives incentives to deploy broadband
> everywhere.
>
> It reiterates the rules for redistribution limitations of TV content,
> and audio content, specifically to allow for redistribution inside one's
> home. I didn't see any reiteration of the time shift recording
> permissions, but the older orders still apply. So all the dates we
> already know about, i.e. 1 March 2007 and 18 Feb 2009, and what
> equipment they apply to, remain. By the way, that includes recording
> devices.
>
> It allows cable systems to convert digital TV to analog, which is good
> because it keeps the 85 percent Feree interpretation valid to push on
> with analog OTA cutoff. Conversion can be accomplished in the head-end,
> on customer premises, or anywhere else.
>
> It permits cable systems to offer the TV stations' programs in any
> format, digital or analog, as long as all program-related material is
> retained and as long as there's no material degradation of the content
> quality. I read this to mean that in principle, even analog HD over
> cable, with all pertinent subchannels also offered in analog, would be
> allowed. Since analog HD over NTSC is not possible, and since carrying
> "all program-related material" in analog would be prohibitive, I guess
> this means that all "program related" DTT multicasts have to be carried
> by cable companies in their digital tier, for stations whose signal is
> carried by the cable company or telecom IPTV system.
>
> I read this to say that cable companies have to carry the DTT multicasts
> when multicasts are "program-related," and may also convert to analog if
> they wish. Which is quite sensible.
>
> It does require a bit of propaganda to be included in DTV product
> labeling, explaining why DTV migration is good, but okay. Other labeling
> requirements seem logical.
>
> It mandates that announcements be aired to explain about analog TV
> cutoff.
>
> I'm sure there will be plenty of complaints, but overall I think it's a
> logical draft bill.
>
> The "network neutrality" aspect has to be addressed carefully. I think
> lawmakers need to be clued in that just because a telecom might use
> Internet Protocols to transfer TV video, that does not make this telecom
> link "the Internet." Protocols shouldn't matter. Services matter.
>
> Bert
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: