5 ms·

OTA TV is a matter of public interest. The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS collectively. Public broadcast licenses are rooted in the idea of a well informed

OTA TV is a matter of public interest. The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS collectively. Public broadcast licenses are rooted in the idea of a well informed public is good for everyone. Encryption is just a move to monetize what is otherwise a public resource. I object to that and will be making a comment to that effect. Thanks for the heads up.

phh 3y ago
The electromagnetic spectrum is used by many private companies, like carriers. Would you want to disband that as well, and make it free for everyone to use? (I'm a huge proponent that all infrastructure should be public, but I still think that carrier usage should be paid by the users, at least beyond some minimal usage)
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Apples and oranges. Broadcasting is a "one-to-many" operation, where the target "many" is indeed the public. Concern about public interest is relevant. Carriers create a "one-to-one" service. Users of the service are not being addressed in a public manner except in an infrastructural way (broadcast addresses in a content-oriented as well as infrastructural method). Concern about public interest can only be limited to "can any member of the public obtain this service?"
  - eddieroger 3y ago
    Exactly. It's also a very finite resource, and while some of the spectrum is allocated for private use, it is the FCC's job to protect that which is for public interest as well. Broadcast television is the only kind of television some people can receive, and it is in our collective interest to keep that open and accessible.
KingLancelot 3y ago
[dead]
ww520 3y ago
Public spectrums are public goods. They're indirectly funded by our tax dollars. Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  To belabor the metaphor, it's like a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park, but also no maintenance is ever performed and there is no financial overhead to keep the park operational. It's like being charged to breathe.
- macNchz 3y ago
  > Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park. Sadly not all that far from reality given how Booz Allen Hamilton has profited off of running recreation.gov. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting-us-back https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
  - nofunsir 3y ago
    Funny, I see you replied the same thing! It's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and asinine that we have to go through a private defense contractor to access PUBLIC SPACES. It makes me livid.
    - stateofinquiry 3y ago
      This is bad, so is not getting critical information without relying on a private social media company! I felt as you do when I realized my county was using Twitter for emergency alerts during a crisis. I happen not to have an account, but was fortunate to get the information from another person nearby.
- nofunsir 3y ago
  You mean like Booz Allen Hamilton (CIA's private IT department) running Recreation.gov, which you MUST USE even if you show up to a park that allows reservations on the spot (they tell YOU to break out YOUR phone and go to recreation.gov), and which you CANNOT USE IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COMPUTER TO CONNECT TO GOOGLE'S SERVERS a la GOOGLE TRACKERS???
charcircuit 3y ago
>The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS But the content being played over it likely isn't.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  It's not as though the encryption only kicks in when copyrighted shows/movies are on the screen; it covers the ad breaks, the breaking news/emergency alert interruptions, and everyone else on the channel too.
- int_19h 3y ago
  The point is that we as a society collectively get to set the rules. For example, if you want to use OUR spectrum to play your content, that content must be accessible to anyone who has a standard-conforming implementation.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    And part of that standard can be that the implementation must secure protected content from being copied by people.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      If we give that permission, sure. I don't see why we should do so for OTA.
    - Osiris 3y ago
      DRM does not prevent copying. Everything that is broadcast or streamed is copiable. DRM has never worked.
      - forty 3y ago
        Yeah I don't understand why it's not clear for everyone now that the only people benefiting from DRM are DRM makers. It never actually protected anything. The most outrageous example is HDCP, for which I believe one of the master key has been leaked and it's publically known (so the protection it might have offered is void), but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...

phh 3y ago

The electromagnetic spectrum is used by many private companies, like carriers. Would you want to disband that as well, and make it free for everyone to use? (I'm a huge proponent that all infrastructure should be public, but I still think that carrier usage should be paid by the users, at least beyond some minimal usage)

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
Apples and oranges. Broadcasting is a "one-to-many" operation, where the target "many" is indeed the public. Concern about public interest is relevant. Carriers create a "one-to-one" service. Users of the service are not being addressed in a public manner except in an infrastructural way (broadcast addresses in a content-oriented as well as infrastructural method). Concern about public interest can only be limited to "can any member of the public obtain this service?"
- eddieroger 3y ago
  Exactly. It's also a very finite resource, and while some of the spectrum is allocated for private use, it is the FCC's job to protect that which is for public interest as well. Broadcast television is the only kind of television some people can receive, and it is in our collective interest to keep that open and accessible.

KingLancelot 3y ago

[dead]

ww520 3y ago

Public spectrums are public goods. They're indirectly funded by our tax dollars. Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park.

BizarroLand 3y ago
To belabor the metaphor, it's like a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park, but also no maintenance is ever performed and there is no financial overhead to keep the park operational. It's like being charged to breathe.
macNchz 3y ago
> Putting DRM encryption on it is similar to a private company putting a gate on a national park and charging people to go into the park. Sadly not all that far from reality given how Booz Allen Hamilton has profited off of running recreation.gov. https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting-us-back https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...
- nofunsir 3y ago
  Funny, I see you replied the same thing! It's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and asinine that we have to go through a private defense contractor to access PUBLIC SPACES. It makes me livid.
  - stateofinquiry 3y ago
    This is bad, so is not getting critical information without relying on a private social media company! I felt as you do when I realized my county was using Twitter for emergency alerts during a crisis. I happen not to have an account, but was fortunate to get the information from another person nearby.
nofunsir 3y ago
You mean like Booz Allen Hamilton (CIA's private IT department) running Recreation.gov, which you MUST USE even if you show up to a park that allows reservations on the spot (they tell YOU to break out YOUR phone and go to recreation.gov), and which you CANNOT USE IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR COMPUTER TO CONNECT TO GOOGLE'S SERVERS a la GOOGLE TRACKERS???

charcircuit 3y ago

>The electromagnetic spectrum is OURS But the content being played over it likely isn't.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
It's not as though the encryption only kicks in when copyrighted shows/movies are on the screen; it covers the ad breaks, the breaking news/emergency alert interruptions, and everyone else on the channel too.
int_19h 3y ago
The point is that we as a society collectively get to set the rules. For example, if you want to use OUR spectrum to play your content, that content must be accessible to anyone who has a standard-conforming implementation.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  And part of that standard can be that the implementation must secure protected content from being copied by people.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    If we give that permission, sure. I don't see why we should do so for OTA.
  - Osiris 3y ago
    DRM does not prevent copying. Everything that is broadcast or streamed is copiable. DRM has never worked.
    - forty 3y ago
      Yeah I don't understand why it's not clear for everyone now that the only people benefiting from DRM are DRM makers. It never actually protected anything. The most outrageous example is HDCP, for which I believe one of the master key has been leaked and it's publically known (so the protection it might have offered is void), but customers still pay the HDCP tax to Intel on every device that must support it to work with other devices...