It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: The FCCs Position: We Control Everything

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
In a recent brief filed by the FCC the U.S. government agency has clarified that they do indeed control everything. Specifically, the Broadcast Flag intended to protect the content of HDTV from replication must be applied to all devices capable of receiving digital content that originates from broadcast sources. This would include your computer.
 

arstechnica.com In March of this year challenges were brought against the FCC's authority in this matter when the Electronic Frontier Foundation and eight other public interest groups filed a lawsuit over the matter. The brief was updated with further challenges last October, which merit repeating. ...the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress. While the FCC does have jurisdiction over TV transmissions, transmissions are not at issue here. The broadcast flag limits the way digital material can be used after the broadcast has already been received. The heart of the matter is rather simple: does the FCC have the legal status necessary to regulate digital TV or not? Susan Crawford has been following this, and posted the brief (PDF) that was filed by the FCC in response to this question, along with her thoughts on the implications of the FCC's increased bravado: The FCC's brief, filed in response to PK's challenge to FCC's jurisdiction in the flag matter, is breathtaking. FCC's position is that its Act gives it regulatory power over all instrumentalities, facilities, and apparatus "associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received" via all interstate radio and wire communication.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
As you can see, such a broad ruling can easily be determined to include your personal computer. Of late, the FCC's position has been that it has dominion over items such as this, but that it has chosen restraint. And simply because it has not acted on certain items it should have, does not mean it can't or won't. While the broadcast flag merely limits how you can use the material you receive, and is not (currently) a personal privacy intrusion, this seepage of the FCC into your desktop is concerning and alarming. Related News Links: www.engadget.com scrawford.blogware.com




posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   


Petitioners also suggest that, under the jurisdictional interpretation of the Report and Order, the FCC could in the future assert jurisdiction to regulate the copying of faxed documents or to regulate automobiles simply “because the car contains a satellite radio receiver.” Petitioners ignore the fundamental difference between regulation of receivers and regulation of received material.


This statement just doesn't pass the sniff test, IMHO. It seems to me that, particularly in the case of a media PC, the "receiver" and the "received material" are inextricably linked.


Any "experts" around that could shed some light on this?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   


Susan Crawford comments on her blog: "Why should we care about all of this? We should care because if the FCC has the power to act on anything that has something to do with communication, we have only the FCC's self-restraint to rely on when it comes to all internet communications. We should care because we want open platforms and open communications to continue. We should care because the future of the internet is at stake -- the FCC will use its "ancillary jurisdiction" to impose "social policies" on any services that use the internet protocol, and will point to its broadcast flag action as support for its jurisdictional claims."


This could lead to the bleeping out of offensive words in your emails! Seriously, though, this is a frightening expansion of Big Brother's power to intrude into our lives.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
After a short stint working for a Clear Channel company, I got a scary education on what happens when corporations team up with the FCC. I can only imagine the damage when the companies sharing the FCC's "vision" of dominion start (continue) pushing their Bush-approved agendas. The so-called liberal media may have been shockingly (to conservatives) open minded and progressive. The conservative media should play out as shockingly repressive and, if the FCC starts exercising their dominion over computer "broadcasts", forums like this one will be drastically curtailed. I don't care for Howard Stern's schtick, but the way he was run off the air was a warning of sorts.

--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
If you read the brief, they use the terms “high-quality programming” and “broadcast television” in the same sentence, not once, but several times. I wonder how they were able to do that and keep a straight face?



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hehe. Well, I've always said that there will probably come a day when I have to just unplug this computer from the Internet altogether and never update and hard or software on it to avoid the future of digital licensing and whatever else. That day may soon come.

I thought a vote for the Republican party meant LESS government, not TOTALITARIAN government. ?? *Rethinks political stance*.

Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

I thought a vote for the Republican party meant LESS government, not TOTALITARIAN government. ?? *Rethinks political stance*.

Zip




...I'm wondering if this might help explain swinging search results - like what's happening with Google (there's a thread about this on ats), and the fact that searches can be REALLY erratic in terms of outcome. ...I've personally seen my results drop from 10,000 to say 5 or 50.

Hmmm. Could this mean mind control is not an entirely mystical matter?



.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:57 AM
link   
This is just more proof of government out of control. The "Communications Act of 1934" is what gives the FCC their power. It states the FCC can only govern transmitters. And this on the unscientific belief that a transmit signal goes forever and therefore passes State boundary lines. The Communications Act went further and stated the FCC would never be able to stop you from receiving a signal coming in your backyard.

It can be argued that receivers and computers "transmit" (the IF oscillator in a receiver, or the CPU Crystal is a signal generator and can be heard and monitored) a signal and therefore fall under FCC control. The FCC has "Part 15" (unregulated transmitters) rules that these devices must follow and be tested for. You will probably notice a sticker on such devices stating they have passed Part 15.

I think this is already an abuse of FCC power. I know of nothing in the Communications Act that allows the FCC to control receivers, or what is done with a signal when it enters my yard. An FCC regulation was passed that prohibits the reception of Cellular and Paging Signals back in the '80's (?), but I don't know of any court cases testing their power. The FCC also states it is illegal to decipher an "encrypted signal" but I don't know of any court cases.

How much power do we allow the FCC to take from us? They say the airwaves belong to the public (that's why they can fine CBS for the Janet Jackson Superbowl ficasso) but now they want to "Regulate" what we can receive and do with that received signal on a frequency that belongs to the public.

I say it is none of the government's business what I do with a "Harmful" RF (radio) Signal that enters my yard or house. And I further recommend to any Broadcaster to keep their "Harmful" RF out of my house and yard if they don't want me to receive and decipher it.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hear, hear! The notion of the existence of a "federal communications commission" is interesting. Communication is the basis of intelligence in all life forms and an all-encompassing agency to regulate it in America should be given its powers very sparingly and specifically.

Zip



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join