Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com) [LWN.net]

InternetNews.com describes proposed legislation to be introduced by representative John Sununu which would prevent the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from imposing technology mandates - like the broadcast flag. "'Whether well-intentioned or not, the FCC has no business interfering in private industry to satisfy select special interests or to impose its own views,' Sununu said in a statement. 'My legislation will ensure that decisions about the design and development of products and services to meet FCC rules are made by technology experts, not government regulators.'"

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 9, 2007 19:31 UTC (Tue) by horen (guest, #2514) [Link] (2 responses)

"My legislation will ensure that decisions about the design and development of products and services to meet FCC rules are made by technology experts, not government regulators."

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want FCC rules to be made by "technology expert" Steve Ballmer, or others with vested interests like his. OTOH, there are any number of "government regulators" whose careers have been dedicated to the common weal.

"Show me the money?" Nah; show me the names!

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 9, 2007 22:56 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] (1 responses)

Ballmer is probably still better than Ted "Series of tubes" Stevens.
I doubt that you would find any expert who doesn't have one or the other vested interest in the topic. Disclosure of the vested interests is the important thing.

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 9, 2007 23:04 UTC (Tue) by horen (guest, #2514) [Link]

Ted "Series of tubes" Stevens

It's quite funny that you mention him -- I was stationed in Alaska from 1972-74, back when Ted Stevens was a "junior" Senator, and I remember him more regarding "series of tubes" in terms of the Trans-Alaska pipeline (not that he used those words, but it's certainly turned-out to be much the same, conceptually, eh?)

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 10, 2007 2:50 UTC (Wed) by dfsmith (guest, #20302) [Link] (3 responses)

...the FCC has no business interfering in private industry to satisfy select special interests or to impose its own views

I thought the FCC was created for exactly that purpose. E.g., reserving frequency bands, issuing rules for ex-government monopolies, etc..

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 10, 2007 8:02 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

WEll it would be nice to see a lot less of the FCC.

Or actually I think that we probably would be better off without it. I am sure that it's doing some very good things, but is that greater then the damage it causes?

Who knows, maybe don't get rid of it. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, I guess. But right now it's probably safe to say that it's doing more bad then good.

Then moving on to the DMCA that would be nice to get rid of that also.`

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 11, 2007 17:18 UTC (Thu) by malor (guest, #2973) [Link] (1 responses)

FCC was intended to allocate and safeguard the airwaves, which are considered a public trust.

Mandating the imposition of copyright controls would appear to be entirely out of their purview.

Sununu Wants to Squelch FCC Flag Raising (InternetNews.com)

Posted Jan 13, 2007 1:10 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

Yes, Sununu's view, as he states it, is entirely consistent with the FCC's, so his legislation shouldn't be necessary. The FCC believes the FCC's own views and those of special interests are irrelevant to its decisions. It has always said that the broadcast flag was intended to advance the public interest, just like when the FCC has required TVs to include UHF tuners. There's plenty of debate on what the public interest is and what effect particular regulation has on it, but that's a different matter.

The courts have already said that the broadcast flag is outside the FCC's jurisdiction (because it doesn't have to do with facilitating transmissions). That's why we don't have it today. So no leglislation is required for that either.

Sununu doesn't even claim to be stripping the FCC of policy power; just the power to dictate implementation. While I'm a great believer in Smithian free-market policymaking, I have a hard time seeing that system producing a decent transmission protocol.

Come On, THINK about this....

Posted Jan 11, 2007 20:53 UTC (Thu) by bimbam (guest, #42715) [Link] (1 responses)

The article 'sounds good', the idea 'sounds good', but what prevents the following 'situation' to just accidently happen?

<Start Paranoia>
My presumption is that Sununu wants government regulators out of the way, so that "technology experts" make the decisions. Who are the "technology experts"? Private interests. If the Content Vendors (RIAA/MPAA) get together with the hardware manufacturers (Sony, Philips, etc.) and decide on a new 'standard' - e.g. for a broadcast flag, then presumably NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY etc. has any legal standing to oppose this 'advance'. Not only that, no Private Individual will have any standing to sue either, especially with 'strict constructionist' judges.
</Start Paranoia>

<Rant>
Remember this next time one complains about Government Regulators: at least government regulators are (somewhat) accountable to the general public. Private Interests are accountable to no one.

Fundamentally, businesses have exactly one purpose: to extract value (e.g. money) from others and accumulate it within each business. The fact that most businesses produce a product or provide a service, or that there is competition and 'honest' businesses is irrelevant.
</Rant>

Come On, THINK about this....

Posted Jan 11, 2007 21:47 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]

Sure. But they could do that with it in the government's hands. And so long as it's entirely a private agreement, there's nothing protecting them from a company not part of the agreement from violating it. And so long as there's enough customers out there with the demand, there will be companies out there with the supply.