I read an interesting piece of garbage a short while ago. The MPAA is petitioning the FCC to allow the industry to take advantage of using a method to protect “new releases” when broadcast on television.
I can’t say I blame them for trying.
Of course there’s a bunch of people in a tizzy over it, claiming that the idea of having a movie protected in such a way that they can’t record it on their DVR is ridiculous. Understandable.
Neither of those points are what I came here to write about, though. What I wish to mention is a silly little claim in the MPAA’s petition.
“Granting the limited waiver will further the digital transition.”
Okay… how? I mean, really. Think about it. The content that the MPAA wants to protect would be broadcast on services like cable and satellite–services which do not affect the end viewer of the content to begin with. The FCC isn’t all that worried about cable viewers not being able to pick up a local “over-the-air” station, because all the DTV issues lie on the cable provider’s end.
Also, here’s an interesting thought. the MPAA stated in the petition that the broadcasts would be in HD, thus a move might get more people to buy HDTV equipment. Ok, fine — but the FCC really isn’t pushing HD either. If they were, then why am I watching SDTV signals through a converter for my soon to
be “obsolete” television?
I don’t know why that simple statement bothered me. It’s just so…. stupid.
Tag: fcc
…rambling on about cell phones an termination fees.
I’ve seen a story pop up a few times now on a proposal Verizon is making with the FCC over Early Termination Fees. The gist of it is that Verizon and other carriers want to re-word the rules so that the “fees” become “rates”. This would enable the charges to be controlled by the carriers without having any regulation by individual states. The carriers would plan to change these new rates to a determined figure which would be prorated for the remaining term of the contract. The idea also keeps the carriers from becoming involved in class actions over said fees. (at least, that’s what I’ve read)
I do not see where this move would be beneficial to the public.
A few years ago when I was selling phones and service, both Verizon and Cingular were already doing this. (If I remember correctly Verizon charged $175 and Cingular charged $250.) After reading these stories, I must assume that the reason these charges were already being prorated was due to something that Kentucky had already put into place.
A move to change fees to rates could potentially do more harm than good by eliminating a state’s regulatory power.
I hope the FCC figures that out.
…and as a side note, with regard to how early terminations were handled where I worked:
In an instance where a customer shopped an “agent” instead of a “corporate” location the customer might’ve faced contractual obligations with the agent in regards to an early termination. We were an agent.
When a customer terminated a contract within the first six months, our store was charged a “termination fee” of sorts; our commission earned for the sale was pulled. Not a good thing. The commission covered our equipment costs. We’d buy a phone at near-retail, then mark the price down to “contract-price” and cover the difference using commission. So, in an effort to recoup that cost should termination come, customers would enter into a separate agreement with us, in which they agreed to pay us a termination fee. (cheesed off several people–mainly those who were too busy playing with their new toy while terms were being explained.)
…and the point?
I dunno, I really can’t remember now.
—
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/05/21/cell.phone.fees.ap/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_bi_ge/cell_phone_fees
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080521-wireless-industry-negotiates-to-duck-costly-class-actions.html
dtv and cta requirements…
If you read the last post, I mentioned that I had noticed that WKYT had taken down their weather subchannel, leaving in it’s place a note stating something to the effect that they got caught by an FCC SNAFU, and wouldn’t be putting it back up until they got things ironed out. Out of curiosity, I searched a bit and found a forum where someone had said it was most likely due to the Children’s Television Act (CTA). So, this morning, I set out to search the FCC, to find the dirt on the CTA and how it effects digital television broadcasts (DTV).
From what I took from the FCC said on DTV, stations broadcasting subchannels, or multiple “streams”, must comply with the prior rules of three hours per week for the regular broadcast, with an additional half-hour of children’s educational/informational (E/I) programming for every twenty four hours broadcast on any other stream. I did not, however, see where the FCC mandates that the additional E/I content be aired on the stream in question. From what I read, the FCC is encouraging the stations to experiment with the new capabilities of multicasting, and that the stations can even dedicate one stream to E/I programming to fulfill the CTA requirements. (My interpretation could very well be wrong.)
However, should my interpretation be correct, it may be possible for WKYT to add more content to either the primary broadcast (the CBS affiliate programming) or the second stream (the CW programming). Personally, I would like to see WKYT attempt to adopt a fourth subchannel, and dedicate it to E/I programming.
I did find an interesting bit in what the FCC said in regard to certain exceptions to the rules. A station can rebroadcast the main signal over another stream either simultaneously or time-shifted without the need of broadcasting additional E/I content. This is logical, since the “rebroadcast” would already contain the initial requirements. So, a station could broadcast the main programming on a secondary stream, have it shifted to such a point where children’s programming was knocked out of the required block, and the station would not be in violation of the rules. I don’t see where any station would want to do so, but it could be done.
…and I have no idea why I find any of this interesting, nor do I really think anyone else does. So why did I write any of this in the first place?
…and, should you want to see if I’m completely wrong in my understanding of the rules, here’s what I read:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-221A1.doc or view it in scribd form!
http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/212