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
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 01:55:43 -0400
- To: politech@politechbot.com
- Subject: FC: Sen. Hollings wants FCC to implant "broadcast flag" in hardware
- From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to politechbot.com