Broadcast Flag Supporters Begin Operation Obfuscation
from the say-what? dept
Just when you'd thought that the supporters of the broadcast flag had gone about as far as they could lately when they failed to sneak the broadcast flag into law by adding it as a rider amendment no politician would read, we find out that they're now taking the argument to the public with bizarre results. Ernest Miller deftly picks apart the odd claim by a broadcast flag supporter that, in saying the FCC had no mandate over the broadcast flag, the courts were harming the emergency alert system. If that sounds totally unrelated, you're absolutely correct. The stretch (and, boy, is it a stretch) argument, is that the new and improved emergency alert system needs new and advanced technology in TVs -- but without the ability to force TV makers to include this new technology, TV makers might not. In other words, we should allow the broadcast flag to pass, because it might impact a totally unrelated issue -- when there's no evidence that the unrelated issue is really facing any problem. Companies could decide to simply support the new emergency alert system because it's a good idea -- having nothing to do with FCC mandates. Either way, the logic is twisted, tying together two entirely separate issues, and making it out as if the broadcast flag has something to do with public safety when it is entirely separate. You almost expect the writer of the article to bring up "the children" that would be saved by this new emergency system. Allow the broadcast flag... for the sake of the children...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The logic is right, the reason is wrong.
If you're wondering whether the police/fire radio point is real, read the 9/11 report. Analog TV spectrum is prime and solves a lot of problems, especially with its ability to penetrate walls. This, of course, doesn't mean FCC has jursidiction over the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The logic is right, the reason is wrong.
Whether or not there's a broadcast flag, broadcasters will eventually offer up their content in digital format, and the FCC will reclaim the necessary spectrum that the broadcasters have been needlessly hoarding for years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The logic is right, the reason is wrong.
Getting the spectrum back "eventually" isn't good enough. As one guy put it, the broadcasters would rather "eat their children" than give it back. The one thing that allows the spectrum to be reclaimed immediately is if 85% of the country have digital TV sets.
Consumers got the best of both worlds for once: placated (evil) Hollywood for a time without the flag actually being implemented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The logic is right, the reason is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The logic is right, the reason is wrong.
It's a non-issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]