Good thing the FCC is already down the road toward using satellite spectrum for land-based broadband. Right now looks like major spectrum shortages may be close as four years away.
From the second link:
Mobile data traffic in the U.S. will be 35 times higher in 2014 than it was in 2009, leading to a massive wireless spectrum shortage if the government fails to make more available, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said in a paper released Thursday.
While the paper may not get the projections exactly right, the U.S. government needs to act fast to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband, John Leibovitz, deputy chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, said during a spectrum summit at the FCC.
“From where we sit, the numbers that we’re putting out are a matter of ‘when’ and not ‘if,'” Leibovitz said. “The demand trends are so strong, the growth is so incredible, that just overrides most of the other considerations in the analysis in the near term.”
The FCC and Congress need to move forward with plans to release more spectrum for mobile broadband, including incentives for television stations to give up their unused spectrum, added FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “The explosive growth in mobile communications is outpacing our ability to keep up,” he said. “If we don’t act to update our spectrum policies for the 21st century, we’re going to run into a wall — a spectrum crunch — that will stifle American innovation and economic growth and cost us the opportunity to lead the world in mobile communications.”
… a lot of talk (a whole lot of talk) and no action.
These battles are growing very, very old. You’d think Hollywood would’ve gotten the message from the RIAA’s brainless battles against the digital world that this is going to solve very little to nothing, but the blowback can and will be significant. Just another entertainment dinosaur howling and thrashing at the changing world of smaller, nimbler and smarter competitors.
From the boing boing link:
The battle over your home entertainment equipment is heating up again and the time to make your voice heard is now. Hollywood wants the FCC to grant the studios permission to engage in so-called “”Selectable Output Control.” SOC is a tech mandate that would allow movie studios to shut off video outputs on the back of your cable box and DVR during the screening of certain movies over cable.
Also from the link:
Yes, you read that right. The studios want the right to randomly switch off parts of your home theater depending on which program you’re watching. And the FCC is taking this batshit proposal seriously.
So do something.
Tell the FCC to Say “No” to the Cable Kill Switch (Thanks, Alex!)
Disappointing news from the Arizona senator.
I’ve never felt McCain was in the pocket of corporate America, but unless he signed off on a bill he doesn’t understand that’s the only conclusion for this move. And the name — the Internet Freedom Act? That’s some Orwellian obfuscation worthy of well, standard GOP talking points which is exactly where it probably came from.
It is interesting to see the various sides lining up for and against net neutrality now that the FCC has brought the regulation argument to the actual table.
From the first link:
U.S. Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from creating new net neutrality rules, on the same day that the FCC took the first step toward doing so.
McCain on Thursday introduced the Internet Freedom Act, which would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications. Net neutrality rules would create “onerous federal regulation,” McCain said in a written statement.
The FCC on Thursday voted to begin a rulemaking process to formalize net neutrality rules. The rules, as proposed, would allow Web users to run the legal applications and access the legal Web sites of their choice. Providers could use “reasonable” network management to reduce congestion and maintain quality of service, but the rules would require them to be transparent with consumers about their efforts.
The new rules would formalize a set of net neutrality principles in place at the FCC since 2005.
McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the proposed net neutrality rules a “government takeover” of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an “already anemic” job market in the U.S. McCain was the Republican challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and Obama has said net neutrality rules are among his top tech priorities.
Net neutrality is a good thing, and here’s the latest on the topic from D.C.
From the second link:
The top U.S. communications regulator plans to unveil proposals Monday for ensuring Web traffic is not slowed or blocked based on its content, sources familiar with the contents of the speech said on Friday.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce plans to ask his fellow commissioners to adopt as a rule net neutrality and four existing principles on Internet access issued by the agency in 2005, one of the sources said.
Net neutrality pits open Internet companies like Google Inc against broadband service providers like AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc and Comcast Corp, which oppose new rules governing network management.
Advocates of net neutrality say Internet service providers must be barred from blocking or slowing traffic based on its content.
But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services, like video sharing, requires active management of their networks and some argue that net neutrality could stifle innovation.
“He is going to announce rulemaking,” said one source familiar with the speech due to be delivered at the Brookings Institution, a public policy think tank.
The rule proposal will also try to seek greater clarity into what constitutes “reasonable” network management by Internet providers.
The FCC could formally propose the rule aimed at both wireless and landline Internet platforms at an open meeting in October.
From the Daily Dish:
Jay Wexler was amused by FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc, a Supreme Court case about profanity:
The oral argument in the case had many funny moments. By far the best one was when, in the midst of a back-and-forth with Carter Phillips regarding how the words “fuck” and “shit” may or may not get their special force from being connected to sexual and excretory activity, Justice Scalia said, and I kid you not, “Don’t use golly waddles instead of the F word.”
Ladies and gentlemen, your Supreme Court. Afraid of language as it is actually used. I shudder to think about Antonin’s dirty talk.
Seriously though, this is ridiculous. This is the highest court in our land. There is no room for prudery or the need for juvenile euphemism when discussing matters that in some cases involves life and death. (Obviously this doesn’t quite meet that standard.) Frankly, it’s fucking embarrassing.