[Politech logo]

Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.

Sen. Hollings wants FCC to implant "broadcast flag" in hardware



Politech archive on Sen. Hollings' related efforts:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=hollings

Note the MPAA anticipates new federal laws or regulations:
>http://www.mpaa.org/Press/Broadcast_Flag_QA.htm
>"Full implementation is expected to require a legislative and/or 
>regulatory mandate."

Because who would use it otherwise?

-Declan

---


July 19, 2002


The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Suite 8C453
Washington, DC  20554



Dear Chairman Powell:


         I am writing to urge that you implement a ‘broadcast flag’ 
solution to protect digital content delivered over the broadcast 
airwaves.  I believe the Commission has the authority, pursuant to specific 
statutory provisions in the Communications Act, as well as under its 
general public interest authority, to implement such a solution for the 
benefit of the digital television transition and consumers across America.

         For the better part of a decade, the U.S. copyright industries, 
the consumer electronics industry, and the information technology industry 
have been engaged in negotiations over how best to protect copyrighted 
content transmitted over a variety of platforms, such as DVD players, 
analog VCRs, digital broadcast television, and the 
Internet.  Notwithstanding some limited successes (for example with respect 
to copy protection for DVD players, conditional access systems for cable 
and satellite distribution, and analog VCRs) these talks have largely 
languished as technology has advanced.  And as technology has advanced, 
copy protection schemes developed voluntarily in the marketplace have not 
kept pace.  While the advance of technology has undeniably benefitted 
consumers, it also has facilitated piracy.  The content industries are 
understandably reluctant to provide their top quality products in digital 
form in areas (such as over-the-air digital television) where potential 
piracy is a real threat.

         This reluctance has real and adverse consequences for the digital 
television transition, for consumers, and for the broadcast 
industry.  Absent robust protection, copyright owners may increasingly 
restrict their best television programming to cable and satellite networks, 
which are conditional access systems that can accommodate digital rights 
management (“DRM”) solutions that protect content.    As you know, Congress 
and the Commission have mandated that local broadcasters construct digital 
facilities  at a significant cost  premised on the notion that widespread, 
high quality digital content will lead consumers to purchase digital 
television sets.  But broadcast stations that have spent considerable 
capital to upgrade their facilities are currently denied access to a broad 
consumer base as consumers are unwilling to pay thousands of dollars for 
digital television reception equipment, when there is little high quality, 
digital broadcast content available in the absence of agreement on copy 
protection technologies.

         In light of this growing problem, I am pleased that the leading 
representatives of the affected industries have come together to solve this 
problem.  Broad multi-industry consensus has emerged around the 
appropriateness and feasibility of the ‘broadcast flag’ technology since it 
was originally proposed by a coalition of the motion picture studios and 
equipment manufacturers late last year.  This consensus originated in talks 
organized by the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), which was 
set up in November 2001 specifically for the purpose of seeking input from 
all affected companies and interest groups on the technological merits of 
the “flag” proposal.  The final report submitted by group Co-Chairs from 
Intel, Mitsubishi, and Fox on June 3, 2002 confirm that the fundamental 
technological aspects of the ‘broadcast flag’ proposal are now both fully 
understood and supported by numerous affected industry participants.

         These developments represent a considerable achievement by the 
private sector.  I would particularly like to commend the consumer 
electronics and information technology industry representatives for 
negotiating in good faith and agreeing on the need to protect digital 
broadcast content from redistribution over the Internet.  Moreover, the 
representatives of the content industries warrant praise for agreeing to a 
proposed technological solution that allows consumers to make physical 
copies of digital content for use on compliant devices (consumer 
electronics devices designed to comply with the ‘broadcast flag’ 
technology), regardless of where those devices may be.  This give and take 
by affected industry parties is exactly what I had hoped to achieve through 
introduction of broad bipartisan legislation earlier this year.  While we 
do not want to have to legislate in this area, the industries must know 
that the government stands ready to ratify consensus agreements, and to 
step in if no agreements can be reached after a reasonable time is given 
for negotiations to move forward.

         Indeed, additional legislation to protect digital content has 
already been announced in the House, on the heels of the successful 
‘roundtables’ conducted by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman 
Billy Tauzin.  I have discussed this matter with Chairman Tauzin, and look 
forward to working with him, and ranking member Dingell on this and other 
critical issues associated with the digital television 
transition.  Similarly, our ranking member, Senator McCain has a long 
standing interest in this area and I expect that we will work together this 
August toward the development of DTV legislation.

         With respect to a ‘broadcast flag,’ however, the FCC may act 
absent legislation.  Such implementation is clearly authorized by statutory 
provisions in the Communications Act specifically delegating to the FCC 
wide authority to facilitate the digital television transition.  For 
example, 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(4) authorizes the FCC to “adopt such technical 
and other requirements as may be necessary or appropriate to assure the 
quality of the signal used to provide advanced television services,” and 47 
U.S.C. § 336(b)(5) grants the FCC the authority to prescribe regulations 
relating to advanced television services “as may be necessary for the 
protection of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”  It is 
beyond dispute that the public interest would be served by regulations 
protecting digital broadcast content; while at the same time preserving 
lawful consumer use of that content such as making a physical copy for time 
and/or device shifting purposes.

         Moreover, I must note that intervention is consistent with the 
FCC’s authority under Title I of the Communications Act, which provide 
jurisdiction that is “reasonably ancillary” to its specific grants of 
authority over numerous telecommunications issues.  Specifically, Title I 
grants the FCC the authority “to perform any and all acts, makes such rules 
and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as 
may be necessary in the execution of its functions.”  47 U.S.C. § 154(i).

         When the Commission acts to implement a ‘broadcast flag’ solution, 
it is critical that the views of all relevant interested parties, including 
consumer groups, be incorporated through the standard notice and comment 
process at the FCC to protect digital broadcast television from 
piracy.  Any solution, and the process that led to it, must be credible and 
transparent. At the same time, however, given the central importance of 
broadcast content protection in expediting the digital television 
transition, it is imperative that the FCC quickly arrive at a final 
resolution and implementation.

         Thank you for your quick attention to this important public 
interest matter.


                                              Sincerely,



                                              Ernest F. Hollings
                                              Chairman




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Enter your email address to join Politech, Declan McCullagh's moderated technology and politics announcement list:

Return to politechbot.com