IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, May 6, 2005

What's Left of Title I After the Broadcast Flag Case?
(previous | next)

The DC Circuit's vacation of the broadcast flag rule leaves the FCC's supposed Title I authority in tatters. The broadcast flag, a rule concocted as part of the compromise on the digital television transition, required broadcasters to "flag" digital content s as to make it harder to pirate.

Personally, I had no great enthusiasm for the flag, as I thought it inadvisable to found a new strain of intellectual property law in the FCC, an agency that has enough trouble with its current mandate. That said, the flag could be tolerated when seen in the context of the DTV transition as a whole, where its imposition was indispensible to the content industry signing-off. This "end justifies the means" thinking is not to be encouraged very often, but the value of completing the DTV transition is enormous, as I've spoken about here.

Title I always seemed a thin reed on which to premise a de facto copyright protection law, and now the DC Circuit has confirmed that it is not the empty vessel into which all sorts of broadband aspirational goals can be poured. Thus, this case has enormous implications for those who would want to regulate

broadband (or rather free broadband) using Title I authority. As Adam Peters has pointed out, the authority to regulate port blocking of VoIP over cable is premised on supposed (and now rather ephermeral) Title I authority. [The Madison River port-blocking case was done under Title II, as it was a DSL provider.] Judge Edwards has said no that, and perhaps to good purpose.

Ancillary jurisdiction, for practical purposes, is now a very small source of authority for the FCC. Thus, the questions shift to Congress:

1. Do you want to authorize the FCC to impose the broadcast flag?

2. How do you want the FCC to regulate broadband now that the Title I avenue is foreclosed?

As to the second question, I don't mean to imply this case completely forecloses Title I authority. In reading it through once, Judge Edwards has written a rather tight opinion premised on the ancillary jurisdiction authority to regulate content. That said, once cannot help but look for broader implications in his reasoning that do not portend well for broadband authority under Title I.

So short-term this case puts a crimp in the DTV transition (bad) and makes any regulatory action premised on Title I shaky (maybe good given the indeterminacy of the provision). Congress and the FCC now have some difficult decisions back squarely in their respective laps.

Among other things, this is a great opportunity for Chairman Martin to set forth his legal vision for the DTV transition and broadband regulation generally. The preferred Title I paths of Chairman Powell look closed, or at the very least quite narrow. Therefore, over to you, Mr. Chairman...and I don't envy you at all for having to figure a way out of this.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 4:15 PM | Broadband , Cable , Digital TV , IP , The FCC

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation