Not us. Internet law professor Susan Crawford. She's currently poring through the 271 pages of the Telecom Act of 2006 and providing her editorial comments at her blog.
It's oh so much more than net neutrality. Some nuggets...
The Video and Audio Flag portions of this draft bill are among the most pernicious....
The first part of the bill claims to be aimed at protecting digital broadcast video content, but is actually directed towards controlling devices that attach to the internet....The bill provides very few limits on the FCC's discretion to create rules and procedures -- and the FCC's track record in this area so far is not a good one.
The digital audio broadcasting section is curious -- earlier versions of the bill prohibited personal copying. Now the draft vests complete discretion in the Commission to promulgate regulations about all kinds of digital transmissions....
...When did the FCC become the internet lawmaker? Why should the Commission be making rules about content online? There seems to be no limit to the power granted to the Commission under this section:
[T]he Commision may promulgate regulations governing the distribution of audio content with respect to --
(1) digital radio broadcasts;
(2) satellite digital radio transmissions; and
(3) digital radios
Here's a dive into "protecting children"....
Title VIII ... requires video service providers to comply with future FCC regulations on child pornography.
Preventing the abuse of children is one of the few almost-international norms we have. But the next section requires a very careful look: it requires "warning labels for websites depicting sexually explicit material."
This is an old, bad issue. Congress keeps working on laws that will have the effect of limiting access by adults to speech that is legal for adults. This is an incredibly broad new entry in this old, bad story. The definition of "sexually explicit" is vague -- it covers "material that depicts sexually explicit conduct." That could be almost anything in any popular movie today. The FTC is supposed to develop labels that "will inform any person who accesses that website of the nature of the material and to facilitate the filtering of such pages or screens."
A recent letter by the Center for Democracy & Technology makes clear why this is such a bad idea. The labeling requirement will hurt voluntary labeling efforts, won't prevent kids from accessing porn originating from outside the U.S., is tied to a disproportionate criminal sanction, and will prompt sites to self-censor. Enacting such a provision will lead to years of litigation and won't help to protect children.
On spectrum, a quick look at the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006...
....it doesn't seem very innovative. It says that "certified unlicensed devices" (oxymoronic) may use "eligible broadcast television frequencies."
The certified unlicensed devices have to submit to Commission testing ("to protect licensees from harmful interference from certified unlicensed devices") and have to be remotely disable-able if the Commission decides they're dangerous. That is a big deal -- that means that these devices always have to be controllable. A PC isn't remotely disable-able, but it could certainly be something that could use broadcast frequencies. This requirement could have substantial chilling effects on whatever newfangled "certified unlicensed devices" the Commission has in mind.
Now to Captain Crunch and School Buses...
The next section prevents children's programming from presenting interactive commercial matter. I know that children are big marketing targets, but why not let them interact with the cereal? How can that hurt? If parents don't like the programming, can't they just turn it off? (ducking)
The last bit suggests a study of "bus-casting" -- broadcasting on school buses. Now, I'm against being forced to watch anything -- on planes or buses or in taxis. So I'm all for looking closely at this. But I still wouldn't mind interacting with the cereal (or licensed character) if I were six. Heck, children are exposed to so much media they'll be totally jaded -- they won't care if the licensed character can wave to them. Stifling interactivity is likely to have negative economic effects on this programming -- look what COPPA did to children's web sites.
Check back to Professor Crawford's blog for more to come.
Comments