Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Ask FCC Chief Technologist David J. Farber 100

Posted by Roblimo from the straight-from-the-source dept.
Professor David J. Farber, a true Internet pioneer, has been featured on many of the "100 most important people online" and "visionaries to watch" lists that trendwatchers like to put out, started the famous Interesting-People e-mail list, and was an expert witness in the Microsoft antitrust trial. In real life, he's a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, but since January 2000 he has served as the FCC's Chief Technologist, a position that usually carries a one-year tenure, which means he may be leaving (literally) at any moment. What to ask? Up to you. Take a look at the linked pages first, then post questions below (one per post, please). We'll send 10 of the highest-moderated ones tomorrow, and publish Prof. Farber's answers as soon as he gets them back to us.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask FCC Chief Technologist David J. Farber More

Ask FCC Chief Technologist David J. Farber

Comments Filter:
  • In recent months there has been some, well, lots of debate over changing the DTV standards to include COFDM instead of VSB. What do you think will happen with this standard? Is every digital TV sold going to become obsolete? How do you see this effecting television sales and broadcaster deployment?

  • FCC approval of AOL-TW (Score:5)

    by AntiNorm ( 155641 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:09AM (#490764)
    Being that you are with one of the government agencies that oversees this sort of thing (the communication aspect of it, anyway), what is your position on the merger of America Online and Time Warner? Do you think it will be too powerful? Too large? And also, what will be done if it uses its quasi-monopolistic position in what is deemed to be an unfair manner?

    ---
    Check in...OK! Check out...OK!

  • What now? (Score:3)

    by TDScott ( 260197 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:11AM (#490765)
    You've seen the Internet grow from its early days - what do you see as the future for the net? Broadband? VR? Subscription-sites? Or will integration bring the net and television together?
  • With your tenure as the Federal Communications Commission's Chief Techologist potentially coming to an end in the very near future, what are your plans regarding your position at the University of Pennsylvania (or another university, for that matter)? How do you plan to use these past few years full of awards and recognition to support your life, your career, and those with whom you surround yourself and will surround yourself in the approaching future?

  • Low power community radio...when? (Score:4)

    by ktakki ( 64573 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:12AM (#490767) Homepage Journal
    Over the last few years the broadcast spectrum has been a battleground, between low-power FM broadcasters trying to serve the community and commercial broadcasters who are beholden to their advertisers. Invariably, the FCC comes down hard on the "pirates", making me wonder if the public trust has been misplaced and if the public interest is being served.

    My question is this: what steps is the FCC taking to resolve this situation? Or is it a moot point now that the Republicans control all three branches of government? Will the broadcast spectrum be exploited for maximum commercial gain like drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve? Or is there indeed a legal niche that can be carved for low-power broadcasters serving communities that the commercial broadcasters ignore?

    k., trying hard not to be too dogmatic.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people
    are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  • In the past, the FCC has regulated what constitutes a relatively minor part of the American Experience (tm). When I say minor I am comparing telephone, telegraph and radio transmissions to things like National Security, Defense, Education, the Envrionment, Housing, etc. All of these things have a 'Secretary of' and the FCC, as yet, does not. The arenas (namely the internet) in which the FCC operates are becoming more central to American life every day. The internet will (or does) need an advocate in government, to shepard (for lack of a better word) its growth throughout this century. Also, the net faces unique challanges since it does not fall under the jurisdiction of any one country, and as such, is an internation resource. Given all this, do you think it is likely that a president in the near future will create a Department of Information, or rather a department whose job it is to regulate, safeguard, and develop the resources of our national communications medium?
  • If a company chooses to send a digital or analog signal into my home, whatever the method, shouldn't I have the right to do whatever I wish with the signal? Cable descramlers, for instance; if a cable signal is flowing from a wire into my home, where I own the wire, don't I own the signal coming into my home, and therefore should have the right to descrable it if I please? The same goes for DeCSS, or encrypted data over the internet. If it leads to my computer, should the basic rule be: "If it's on your property, such as in your home or on your computer, a corporation can't tell you what you can do with it."?

  • IPv6 (Score:3)

    by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:14AM (#490770) Homepage Journal
    What do you think about it? What can we do to speed adoption? Do you think we should speed adoption? Also what do you think of IPsec? With the same questions as above.
  • A better question would be:

    What the fuck were you guys smoking at the FCC when you approved the AOL/TWC merger?

    $50 Followup:

    Where can I get some?

  • FCC and Copy Protection (Score:5)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:15AM (#490772) Homepage
    It seems that the FCC's requirement that broadcasters move to the new digital standard may have an unintended consquence. The consequence is that digital formats offer greater possibility to control/eliminate the ability to copy and time shift materials produced by broadcasters (abilities that have overall lead to the creation of new services and increased consumer choice).

    Being that the FCC is a government agency, deriving it's mandate from the citizens, what do you see as the FCC's role in preserving the rights of consumers to copy and time shift broadcasted materials? How do you envision the interaction between the media, the broadcasters, and the viewers in a future where analog is no longer an option?

    ---

  • Copyright & Big Money (Score:5)

    by PureFiction ( 10256 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:15AM (#490773)
    I want to know what your view on the copyright wars of late might be.

    Specifically, the FCC passed a law prohibiting the recording of HDTV digital content. Do you feel that this is a violation of the home audio recording act/betamax decision?

    Does the FCC have any interest in large media corporations planning systems to prohibit time shifting of broadcast context? (unrecordable music / tv / etc)

    Thanks...

  • If HDTV is the answer, what is the question? (Score:5)

    by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:16AM (#490774) Homepage
    In a few short years, trillions of dollars of equipment - and at least that much in prerecorded viewing materials already in place - will be obsoleted by what seems to be a totally arbitrary decision to replace it all with incompatible HDTV systems. My question is simple: Why? What do I get out of the deal? Why should I spend thousands of dollars for what will be at best a limited return?


    This change seems to benefit nobody but the manufacturers of TV receivers and other consumer equipment. For the consumer, HDTV is an answer in search of a question.
    --

  • I don't know if it's possible to provide an unbiased answer to this question, but try and put your personal opinions about open source aside for this one:

    Can the open-source model evolve into a legitimate (and possibly the best) way to produce quality software AND turn a profit? As it is now, it depends heavily on talented programmers investing significant amounts of time for free. Is closed source the way it will always be for software companies to flourish financially?

  • Pressures on the FCC (Score:5)

    by MillMan ( 85400 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:17AM (#490776)
    Where does the pressure come from? The "best interests" of society are typically different than what corporations want or need to stay profitable. Does it come from lobbyist groups, politicians who have large financial backing, or somewhere else? Since the stance of the EFF in my opinion is far different than what the FCC usually does (the "donation" of the HDTV frequency spectrum comes to mind), how do you deal with this? And do you have the power to push through policies that the EFF would favor?

  • What were the real benefits of the AOL/TW merger? (Score:3)

    by nharmon ( 97591 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:20AM (#490777)

    The immediate result of AOL and Time Warner merging into one company, being the first time that an entertainment and telecommunications company have come together, was a vast termination of employees.

    I really wonder first of all, how much a merger could have EVER happened in our country. The washington post ran an article [washtech.com] a while back dicusssing how Micheal Powell (FCC commissioner) had an influence on the direction the merger was heading. Seeing that his father (Colin Powell), sits on the AOL board.

    My question is, being an established expert, do you believe that the merger between AOL and Time Warner is a rare fluke of our system, or is this something that we're going to be seeing again shortly.

  • Look out for "The Little Guy" and force companies like SBC and others to actually share their networks in the last mile? More than once, living in the St. Louis area, I have seen friends and neighbors order DSL service, and not get it for weeks on end. Some of whom were even told (when they complained) that SBC could hook them into SBC's DSL within hours but that they would not be able to connect them to a third party any time soon. What's up with that!!!

    Fawking Trolls! [geekizoid.com]
  • Are they gonna get rid of Joe Paterno and start using a modern offensive line?
  • One of the true challenges facing the Internet is the issue of Intellectual Property. I understand that law isn't your specialty, but as someone who feels like "... an inside the beltway figure", how do you see IP issues (legal and otherwise) affecting the growth and evolution of the Internet?

    --Mid

  • With the exponential increase in demand for Bandwidth, do you see a need for access to be regulated on a federal (or global) Level?

    Will Goverments need to intervene to ensure we all have access to our "fair share" of pipe? With the merger of AOL/TW (and more to come, I'm sure) How will regulators manage our rights for access to information?
  • My cable company says Dynamic Feedback Arrangement Scrambling Technique (DFAST) came from Congress and to talk to them. In FCC info it looks like DFAST came from the cable industries' Cable Labs (FCC PDF doc 6512258522 [fcc.gov]). Where did DFAST come from and what is its status?

  • DSL desperately needs to be regulated by the FCC. (Score:5)

    by AFCArchvile ( 221494 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:24AM (#490783)
    Right now, Verizon, the largest local telephone company in the country (and therefore the largest owner and operator of the central offices which handle DSL traffic) is cheating DSL customers out of bandwidth. Right now, my Covad ADSL connection rated at 608kbps/128kbps performs at 108/109. Furthermore, as reported in this DSLReports article [dslreports.com], Verizon is closing down its DSL Call Center on March 31. This center "employs over 500 people in DSL sales, customer care, and technical support," and yet Verizon still runs away from its disgruntled customers like a scared horse. CLECs (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) which use Verizon's central offices to serve their customers, have reported that Verizon shuts off data pipelines and feigns equipment failures as an anti-competitive measure (one such "Denial of Service" attack was reported by 2600.com [2600.com], whose website was effectively shut out by Verizon, whose technicians bumbled about like drunkards, leaving 2600.com in the dark for four days [in that time, they missed a debate with Jack Valenti at Harvard, and their Internet store experienced massive lost revenues]).

    In closing, this is my question to David Farber: When will the FCC begin strict regulation of Digital Subscriber Lines? And when will Verizon be held accountable for their nefarious acts?
    (Recently, a class action suit against Verizon was initiated [cmht.com] on behalf of Verizon DSL customers)

  • Specifically, the FCC passed a law prohibiting the recording of HDTV digital content. This is factually wrong in many ways. The FCC is the executive branch, so they have no lawmaking power -- however, they do have authority given to them by Congress to handle communication signals and such. In this case, they approved a plan between broadcasters, equipment makers, and the gov't regarding HDTV.

    Second, the agreement does not prohibit the recording; it simply allows that an extra bit of data be included in the HDTV broadcast that says "can be recorded" or "cannot be recorded", and that this will be standardized so that equipment makers need to know how to handle it. Certainly there is abuse for this, say if NBC sets this bit to non-recordable for ALL of it's programming, but the idea is that it is meant to protect pay-per-view events and premiem cable channels. Mind you, the FCC should have put more clauses in this (such as "not more than 5% of your programming can contain this if you are a public or non-premium cable channel") as to protect fair-use.

  • Radio stations (Score:5)

    by MetalHead ( 54706 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:29AM (#490785)
    The relaxed rules on how many radio stations a single entity may own in a given market have, in my opinion lead to a severe decline in the quality of programming available on radio. For example, take a look at this page to see the
    radio stations owned by Clearchannel Communications:

    http://www.clearchannel.com/corpoffices.htm#radi o

    They own a terrifying number of radio stations, and the programming quality is suffering. The stations do not have to compete in many markets because Clearchannel has an effective monopoly in many markets.

    The airwaves, a public resource, are being abused by this mega-corporation.

    What are you going to do to fix this mess?

  • Dude, -123 k? You are my fscking hero. 'Nuff said.



    .
  • I, like you, generally assumed that The Man was putting The First on Low Power Radio, until something happened. I heard a story about it on NPR.

    First of all, there are several low power stations coming into existence (I think they said 500 licenses were granted).

    Second, NPR itself also opposed the granting of low power licenses. They didn't say exactly why, although a broad statement about all opposition was given as being about "technical issues".

    Granted, NPR has advertisers--but I trust their integrity a LOT more than commercial stations.
    --
    MailOne [openone.com]
  • I know I'm no expert but don't you sign an agreement with companies such as the cable providers agreeing to pay them to send the signal into your house. Now wireless or sattelite providers might be a different story.
  • Cable descramlers, for instance; if a cable signal is flowing from a wire into my home, where I own the wire, don't I own the signal coming into my home, and therefore should have the right to descrable it if I please?

    Actually, isn't the signal owned by the cable company, and the fact that it comes into your house the result of you subscribing to it (and hence the contents are protected by copyright law)?

    --

  • This is a remarkably stupid question and one that has been answered very, very clearly on numerous occasions. Naturally, since it's phrased in a whiney "gimme, gimme" way, it's being moderated up to the moon so that it may be posed to the interviewee and thus, make the Slashdot crew look - once again - like a bunch of spoiled children who simply refuse to pay for anything and are hiding behind stances of freedom they don't even understand or truly believe in.

    Although it's unfortunate that this crying simp is the example you moderators wish to purvey of an average Slashdot reader, I'll give you credit for at least being consistent.

  • Re:DSL desperately needs to be regulated by the FC (Score:3)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @08:39AM (#490791)
    Actually, I'd have expanded this question to include: Who regulates the ISP industry in general? If it's not already under the FCC, it should, and even if it is, is there a special taskforce within the department to handle how ISPs work specifically?
  • Does anyone else find it interesting that the Farber Institute solicits donations from movie audiences nation-wide? In fact, you are donating directly to the FCC, which your tax dollars already pay for. Interesting, no ?
  • The FCC does have lawmaking power, practically speaking. Although administrative agencies cannot make laws as such, Congress may pass laws authorizing agencies to make regulations. There are certain procedures that agencies must follow, but these administrative regulations have the force of law.

    If you ever get a chance to visit a law library, check out the Code of Federal Regulations. The volumes will fill a good-sized bookcase (I may be misremembering--maybe they'll only half fill it), and every one is full of rules that no legislature ever voted on and no elected official ever reviewed. Everything in there is legally binding on you and me, though.

    Have a nice day.
  • Ummm, the DSL situation sucks, about which I will post questions, but isn't your lack of truth-in-banwidth problem an issue with your DLEC (Covad, as you indicated) or you ISP? Even if it is a Verizon DSLAM, the upstream suppliers contract with Verizon or another MAN carrier for upstream bandwidth, which sounds like the source of your problem.
  • I think the number was closer to 150 given out. The reason NPR used was that because their stations carried emergency broadcast information, they didn't want any low power stations to interfere with the major stations in the event of an emergency. So licenses were given only to those applicants whose requested stations did not interfere at all with the major stations (including times when the weather sent the signal out of its designated range).
  • That wire isn't yours, and you can't get a cable signal flowing from it to your home without signing an agreement with the cable company. That contract presumably includes your agreement not to descramble premium channels you haven't paid for.

    With satellite TV, you could make a good case for being able to record/retransmit/etc the signal, because they're beaming it to your house whether you signed up with them or not. The trick is that IIRC digital satellite TV actually uses real encryption, and so you can't do anything interesting with that encrypted signal without the keys, which you can't obtain legally without (again) signing an agreement with the TV service.

    The one place I think your argument is bullseye correct for is broadcast analog television. What the hell gives Fox the right to pump the Simpsons unrequested into every home in America, then send in the goon squads when someone decides to record that signal and put parts of it on the web?

    But that's all just Randesque rambling. In a libertarian fantasy world, copyright follows from force/fraud in the sense that you have to agree to respect copyright law before you are given physical access to someone's copyrighted work, and so breaking copyright law requires breaking (or assisting someone else in breaking) that agreement. Broadcast TV comes into my home whether I've asked for it or not, so no agreements apply. And it's (currently) unencrypted, so I don't have to snitch any other data to do what I want with the TV signal.

    Of course, in the real world, copyright law sticks to a work once it's produced, and even giving it away in volume can't take off those strings attached.
  • Still, my Covad installation took 69 days from order to live, and that's Verizon's fault. I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon was at least partially responsible for the speed issue.
  • You're a person of broad interests, with friends and acquaintances that span the globe. Who are the people you consider "most interesting," and why should others pay attention to them?
  • I know this is not a purely technological question, but as you deal with the FCC, how do you feel about the almost purely arbitrary application of "community standards" to judge content of films, TV, and radio? (IE: Howard Stern can get away with something that other broadcasters cannot, or vice versa, due to the media watch-dogging of Mr Stern.) And do you feel that that application can be applied to the Internet (or will it) in that something residing on a server in the Barbados can be criminal content for someone in Salt Lake City versus someone in New York City, where "community standards" say that is legal?

    Thank you.

    Maeryk
  • Is the FCC content protection agnostic (that is, is the FCC opinionated about the "protection" of the bits flowing through the ether)? Do you see this position changing in the near-term/long-term? How does this position get reflected in FCC policy, spectrum sale, cable policy, etc.?
  • So many things have happened recently that seem to contradict many of the supposed missions of the FCC (AOL/TW: communications regulation. CPRM: consumer rights protection. And so on.). Quite often, the cry is raised, "Why didn't the FCC do anything about this???".

    So I ask: What in your opinion is the primary function of the FCC?

  • It may be practical lawmaking power, but it's only because they were given power over a small subset of 'things' by Congress when the department was set up. And if they overstep those bounds, then either Congress or the Judical can take it away.

    A good recent case: here in Chicago there was ex-stripped-mine land that had filled over the years and migratory birds were using the small landlocked lake as a temporary waypoint during the early spring/late fall. Local communities, looking to expand their landfills and who owned the rights to the land, wanted to use this area and turn it into landfill. The EPA tried to step in and say that it was protected land because of the migratory birds. It went to court, and just recently was completed by the Supreme Court, which said that the EPA did NOT have the power to controll non-navigatable bodies of water as such, and therefore the cities could go ahead and use it as a new landfill. The EPA has also lost similar cases in the past, particularly when they say they will find companies that put out a hazardous chemical above a certain regulation limit, and affected companies have taken them to court, winning on the arguement that the EPA does not have that much power as granted by Congress.

    Now, what the FCC has done here is certain not any regulations; they were more a mediator between content providers and those that will make what that content will be displayed on, as to make sure that there is a common format. They aren't forcing any content provider or manufacture to do anything here; in particular there's no fine or punishment that the FCC hands down if a given manufacture decides to ignore the specification. True, there is the realistic penalty that manufactures that don't comply will have equipment that fails to work with the signal that the olgiarchy of broadcasters plan to put out, but the FCC can't really comment on that until it sees how the system pans out.

  • How is the Chief Technologist chosen ?
    Is the position subject to political bias ?
    What differences are we likely to see in FCC policies as a result of the change of Government ?

  • DLEC and DSL ISP meltdown (Score:4)

    by Zigurd ( 3528 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @09:01AM (#490804) Homepage
    In theory, the Telecom Act of 1996 sets up a competitive multi-vendor environment. In theory, I should have my pick of DSL ISPs and wholesalers. In fact, the DLECs have been dropping like flies, soon to leave only the ILECs (Baby Bells) standing. Which would not be a problem if the big ILECs had better service. But service complaints against incumbents are still very high.

    The Common Carrier Bureau's industry analysis reports [fcc.gov] show excellent growth in CLEC line count, but the recent bankruptcies among DLECs indicates a serious rupture in competitive markets. What should the new administration do to keep telecom markets open to choice among carriers that compete on the basis of excellent products and support?

    Specifically, should telecom competition be separated from the ownership and maintenance of last-mile facilities? Should every carrier be a CLEC?

  • Government's Expertise in Regulating Technology (Score:3)

    by rshah ( 29912 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @09:03AM (#490805) Homepage
    Your position inside the FCC should provide considerable insight into how government agencies and personnel deal with new technology. For example, how independent are their technical judgments or are they easily manipulated by what powerful interest?
    Finally, government is widely seen as incapable of dealing with the advances of new technology. Do you think this is the case?

  • Why are smiley-faces always yellow?
  • While this is off-subject somewhat, I do not think that it's just one supplier. I actually think that phone companies as a whole were feeling the heat from cable companies offering broadband access and jumped on the DSL bandwagon without proper infrastructure to support it. I have Ameritech DSL at home (a subsidiary, I think, of SBC). They likewise suck, and my down/up rate is always bouncing all over the place. (If I can manage to stay connected to their servers for more than an hour at a time!) It would be nice if the FCC tried to be a little more hands off, and let the consumers choose with their buying power, rather than letting regulations control everything. Although I'm rather pissed with my DSL service, I would rather just move to a better service than force the FCC or government to make companies do things for me. If a company cannot serve me as a customer correctly, than I am just going to give a different company the chance to do so.
  • I agree. One of our local radio stations got bought out by someone big, and now I don't have a really good rock/alternative station to listen to. Competition does seem to have been stifled in the radio market lately.

  • Are closed protocols a threat to our freedoms? (Score:5)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @09:12AM (#490809)
    There was a time when the FCC used the law to make sure there was a plurality of news and information sources available to the public, from a variety of platforms (paper, radio, TV) and a variety of vendors.

    Presumably, this was to prevent any single entity from controlling the media (and therefore public opinion) the way Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini did before WWII.

    Given the Microsoft proprietary strategies for information exchange (Exchange, .net), as well as the AOL/TW merger, does anyone care about the problems with concentrated media anymore, or has America just decided "it can't happen here"?

    After all, the FCC regulated signalling and protocols between TVs, radios, and broadcasters for ages...it was all specified and open...yet the FCC appears to have turned its back entirely on enforcing cross platform protocols on the net.

    Can you foresee a future where proprietary products and protocols could be used to concentrate information in such a way that our fundamental rights to speak and publish could be easily throttled by a single powerful entity? Or am I just paranoid? Personally, I am increasingly concerned with this possibility.

  • I went through 3 DSL providers (including Verizon) and eventually settled on cable. I've been amazed.

    Not only was the process a lot more painless (installing filters on all your phones, anyone), but I'm getting blisteringly fast speeds. My Verizon DSL was similar in speed to the original post. My cable is giving me upwards of 2-3 Mbps, way above the advertised 1.5.

    And all those warnings about bandwidth dropping with more users? I've been on for close to 6 months, and my bandwidth has actually increased.

    Generally I'm not a big fan of cable, but this is one field where they have the competition beat (and seem to have engineers who recognize the value of good routers).

    Now let me go download a few MP3's in less than 10 seconds. :)

    -
    -Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.

  • FCC reporting requirements for Internet providers (Score:4)

    by apostle ( 63895 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @09:22AM (#490811) Homepage
    I understand that the FCC requires that telephony service providers report all outages lasting 30 minutes or more and affecting 30,000 customers or more. As far as I know, no such reporting requirements exist for Internet providers. Why not? Are there any discussions underway within the FCC to help make the Internet as reliable as the telephony network?

    Regards,
    apostle
    kwalsh@ucsd.edu
  • This is a "I want to have my cake and eat it too" kind of false argument. The cost of delivering the signal to your house is enormously cheaper using the shared bus cable architecture than if it were necessary to provide a true switched broadband arrangement. In effect, you want the benefits of access to the cheap bus, but you refuse to play by the rules and pay for premium content if you can figure out a way to steal it.

    It's certainly possible to deploy a more complex cable architecture where only the signals that you pay for in advance get through to your house. Basic cable would start at $100/month...

  • That's easy. Didn't you read the Mr. Men books? Mr. Happy is yellow. He's also a walking talking smiley. QED. (Whatever QED means - it was used in H2G2 and was funny there.)
  • Granted, NPR has advertisers--but I trust their integrity a LOT more than commercial stations.

    Funny, cause I don't.

    NPR is trying to protect their turf, just as every other qango does. They see LPR as a threat, and will attempt to stop it.

  • Given the limitations of traditional media such as radio and television it was necessary to separate certain content so as not to create a hostile environment only used by one or a few groups.

    (To be honest the issue comes up in terms of /. itself as well)

    However, given the expandability of the net such that one group cannot drown out another, does it still make sense to talk of communications standards regarding content?

    Wouldn't the same people who want some say in what their children see for example be better served by constructing local nets, much like the early days of BBSes?

    I can see a number of plusses:

    1. A couple of neighborhoods can get connected with technology as advanced as Gigabit Ethernet more efficiently and less costly than waiting for current ISPs to make the money required to wire every neighborhood themselves.

    By the time ISPs replace their own hardware to begin to support such services, communities could complete the project several times over.

    2. Internet compatible technologies, local advances. Communities that attract talented engineers can move forward with innovations that have less impact on the generic Internet (and so fewer standards issues) but have a greater impact for their area. Rather than waiting for technology to trickle down and gradually evolve as anyone can foresee (it isn't that hard), communities can have a say in where it leads. Not only that but I'm reminded of a joke about an Aborigine using an IBM modem to crack nuts and his comments about the usefulness of the modem. Communities could express their distinct character by building their networks around it enhancing what they already have rather having it blurred into a bland melting pot of lowest common denominator services.

    3. From rural to urban to rural construction almost at will as needed. Once communities have a say in what happens in their world they become more able to sustain local economies because the service providers will come from their midst. The talent will come from within the communities. No longer will you have people striving to leave their home towns for better opportunities always chasing a fleeting chance.

    Now I'm not suggesting that everything will happen because of computer networks. I just think that as catalysts for other types of networking such job contacts, business partnerships, even simply a congregation of church goers, networking technologies will allow local economies to flourish without waiting for the entire Internet to mature from this embarassing novelty stage.

    4. Complete Control vs Nimble companies. Current ISPs will save millions as communities divide the cost among their citizens and are able to pay for work as money is exchanged mostly within. ISPs will be able to completely separate content services from technology services. Issues like community standards will be moot as communities will be able to decide what content enters their world. Media companies will simply go where there's a demand rather than bombarding every community with desperate offers which sound like something only a daytrader could conceive.

    Once this is extended to the individual, I can only see that everyone wins. Media companies will simply learn where to market rather than pandering to everyone, communities will have to make up their minds about what they consider dangerous, and individuals will have a choice between a community cooked network, the great highway of the net, or a private network.

    And they will be able to guarantee that what they choose is what they get.

    Wouldn't assuming some responsibility and shaping the net locally be more effective than arguing constantly about who's rights are infringed with no end in sight?

    I think it resolves fundamental questions because it localizes the effects which means that people can learn from the results as well as make responsible decisions about their world. Rather than telling Yahoo not to post Nazi auctions which are relatively harmless in the middle of nowhere but could become a problem in an area where people struggle to survive, individuals and communities could opt out of ever coming in contact with that sort of content.

    I'm pretty sure some communities oculd survive a dozen Klan parades without being influenced. Others probably would not.

    I'm for 1st 2nd and 4th amendment rights quite strongly however this madness (filtering for federal funds) isn't going to end if everyone feels as if the collective Internet is imposing its presence in their world.

    I hate to say it but, it might be wise to allow communitites to make fundamental "mistakes" as long as they don't affect everyone.

    I'm not saying to ignore injustices that would likely result, but to guide a community through a situation rather than force it into a straight jacket.
  • There are a great many forces pulling the internet in different directions. Businesses, large and small, wanting to make the internet safe for their customers and their intellectual property, ordinary users who want access to information but want their privacy, hackers (good and bad) exploring the limits of what the internet can do, and governments charged with keeping the laws of their countries trying to maintain those laws within the internet.

    Who will be able to exercise control over the internet? Do you think it can be regulated? Do you think that technologies will be put in place to more easily track people on the internet? Will government be able to exercise the nearly unrestrained freedom to monitor communication that it desires? Do you feel that there is a atmosphere of paranoia about hackers?
    -----------

  • Will we ever get the TV spectrum back? (Score:4)

    by jjo ( 62046 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @09:59AM (#490817) Homepage
    Right now, there is a crying need for spectrum to support novel (digital) wireless applications. Five years from now, the spectrum shortage will be far worse.

    In spite of this, each US TV station now has been given, free of charge, a lock on 12 MHz of prime spectrum (6 MHz analog and 6 MHz digital). This is despite the fact that all they would need for a crystal-clear standard-definition digital TV signal would be 1-2 MHz of spectrum. The 'digital TV transition' seems to be dead in the water, especially with the FCC's recent refusal to impose digital must-carry rules on cable operators.

    Will the broadcasters ever be made to give up this spectrum grab? Will the only solution be to let them sell this spectrum (that they got for free) to the highest bidder?

  • Accountability? (Score:5)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @10:02AM (#490818) Homepage Journal

    Some of FCC's decisions are controversial, but the people who make those decisions are not elected by voters. In what way (if any) is the FCC held accountable to the public for their decisions?


    ---
  • This is a really simple question, and one that hopefully will not be overlooked for its brevity, but I must ask anyway: Just what in the hell makes the FCC think that it has the mandate from the people to defecate on our First Amendment rights and fine radio stations for content?

    Also, and on the same vein, while I understand why regulation of radio bands is important to a degree, it is an obvious violation of our Constitutional rights to prevent us from transmitting on X, K, Ka, and other police radar bands. If my car can be bombarded by a cop in support of his local speed tax, I should have the right to return the favor. I'm covered here in so many ways its freaking ridiculous. I have the right to defend myself, especially considering that there is no probable cause to check my speed; I also have freedom of expression, and if that means that I choose to express myself on a police radar band, that's none of your damn business. I understand the arguments on both sides, but the FCC is horibbly wrong here, bowing to the pressures of government, big business, and powerful lobbies. What exactly are the people getting out of your existence?

  • Re:NPR not to be trusted (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    NPR is 'independent radio'??

    What a joke. They're totally dependent on a liberal bueraucracy.

    The most shrill beacon of liberalism in the country today.

  • The Good and the Bad, in short (Score:5)

    by plastickiwi ( 170800 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @10:33AM (#490821)
    In your opinion, what is the one thing the FCC could be doing to better serve the people, but isn't?

    What is the one thing the FCC shouldn't be doing, but is?

  • Also, given that copyrights will eventually expire, is the agency incorporating that knowledge into their standards decisions?
  • Evidence on bandwidth growth trends shows that the second half of the 1990s doesn't look much different than the first half. See paper on bandwidth at http://www.galbithink.org

    Folks claiming that data traffic is doubling every ninety days must be passing around something other than their sig file. It just ain't like that.

    So what's gonna be in those big optical pipes? Doesn't look like HDTV... How interesting is an all optical internet running between a few major business centers and serving a few large corporations? When is such technology actually going to matter in most people's lives?
  • I think I will get cable. I'm moving into a college dorm for Fall 2001, and RCN does the cable there. I was going to cancel my DSL in July anyway so that I could start with that. I just hope that the cable rates don't skyrocket; back in August, when I got Verizon, that sucky package was the same price as MediaOne's offering. Now that AT&T has gobbled them up, there might be a hike war ensuing. I can only pray.
  • If so, then that's why you're being disconnected every hour. Verizon did the same when I had them. I've set up a petition against PPPoE [petitiononline.com]. Perhaps the baby bells will listen to many disgruntled customers complaining in unison, instead of a few here, a few there.
  • I probably would've asked those, but the text in the body of the article prevented me from doing so:

    post questions below (one per post, please).

  • Television Spectrum (Score:4)

    by def ( 87618 ) on Monday January 22, 2001 @11:12AM (#490827) Homepage
    A few years ago, the FCC gave away a large amount of spectrum that would have been ideal for 3g wireless or any other application involing medium-distance transmission intended to penetrate into the home. Instead of this, they gave it away to existing broadcasters for use in ATV (aka DTV/HDTV). By 2006, or when 80% of homes had ATV access, the original VHF TV spectrum was to be vacated.

    The transition, however, is going much slower than originally planned, and it would be a miracle if 80% of homes had digital televisions. There are several problems as I see it. For one, broadcasters are not taking advantage of the benefits they could get from HDTV, like datacasting or multicasting. For two, HDTV's are very expensive and those likely to buy one will almost certainly have cable or sattelite TV.

    What steps, if any, are being considered to free up one of the television spectrums for use? Are any incentives being considered to get broadcasters to make better use of their ATV spectrum?

  • I've always believed that terrestrial broadcasting represents a terribly inefficient use of public spectrum. HDTV appears to be a disaster on many fronts, as does the U.S. radio industry's refusal to adopt the global Eureka standard. IP-based communication provides the most efficient delivery of real-time local content. There's an insatiable demand for point-to-multipoint bandwidth, and extremely efficient spectrum reuse by satellite- and terrestrial-based systems make this the "highest and best use" of the public's finite resource. All that said, what's the future of local broadcasting?
  • Forget widespread deployment of LPFM. The battle's already been lost.

    There *is* a viable addition to the broadcast bands that makes efficient use of *existing* spectrum and that nobody's talking about.

    The receivers already exist and are in ubiquitous use for broadcast reception throughout the rest of the world. The current use of this spectrum is being phased out, leaving it available for an alternative use in the U.S. Since no one would be encroaching on existing broadcaster's turf, that war shouldn't have to be fought. The propagation characteristics are ideal for urban use, unlike FM. The technology is the simplest --and lest expensive-- available. At the same time, technological advances like the "crossed field" antenna make the use of this frequency band more viable for inexpensive broadcasting than ever before.

    My proposal for additional broadcast spectrum? Longwave! Just *expand* the existing broadcast band downward!

  • I love the way you assume republicans will zonk LPR.

    Traditionally, individual and state rights have been central to republican policy...

    Obviously you aren't trying hard enough not to be too dogmatic.
  • As the FCC's Chief Technologist, what say (if any) do you have in decisions like the one where the FCC has sided with the MPAA against consumers in requiring content protected HDTV signals? Incidentally, since this decision had the effect of obsoleting all existing HDTVs being sold in the US, effectively eliminating all possibility of achieving the 80% US market penetration by 2006, what was the thought process behind this decision? Do you agree with this decision, if so why? In many people's minds, the FCC has gone from being a consumer advocate to a corporate advocate. How do you respond to that characterization?
  • At the current rate of legislation, copyrights won't expire. They've (relatively) recently moved from 20 years, to 75 years or 95 + life of creator... all of these were effective immediatly, essentially granting large windows... things copywritten up to 15 years before i was born will probably still be more than 15 years after I die.
  • offtopic? WTF man... that is just stupid.
  • In your opinion what can be done to de-corperatize (remove corperate influence) the FCC?

    Example - In Canada, it is legal for every citizen to have a FM broadcast station in the 88-108FM commercial band that has an ERP of less than 10 watts and causes no spirious emissions. Why has the FCC steadily enforced silly laws that limit the US citizen to milliwatts for no other reason other than to make corperations happy, while ignoring the rampant CB'ers that transmit at Kilawatt levels disrupting communications while they travel.

  • This original question needs to be moderated down. In addition to the FTC given their approval on the merger, the FCC was consulted as well. The FCC's position on the merger is a matter of public record. Just a quick search on the FCC home page turned up this link. [fcc.gov] I'm sure there's more out there...
  • I know that the FCC, through license renewals, can make life hard on broadcasters that 'inflict' unwanted (inappropriate or obscene) material on unsuspecting listeners / viewers. Similarly, content that people pay for (movies and music) often are voluntarily rated by the producer. However, you have seen that a disorganized free market usually loses to an organized monopoly or cartel (the Microsoft case). The movie and entertainment industries have gotten DCMA passed, and the FCC is being asked to facilitate the movement to HDTV and (copy-controlled) digital formats and protocols.

    My question relates to copy control in the current environment. The latest scheme in DVD encoding is to force-run commercials when the DVD is inserted into the player.

    I just learned this; the DVD of High Fidelity by Touchstone Home Video forced the playback of commercials on me of several other movies. When I tried to fast-forward past this involuntarily-inflicted-upon-me tripe, the DVD player responded with "Operation prohibited now."

    This galls me.

    (It actually ruined my whole movie watching experience this evening. I did not pay the rental fee to be subjected their dirt. At least with VHS, fast-forward works.) Now that I know that the movie producers are willing to use copy control to force upon me unwanted material, I would like the option to boycott these types of DVDs. Obviously, the producers won't warn me about this type of content. So I have two questions: 1) What remedies do I have available to keep me free from the abuse of copy-control? (other than to bend over and grab my ankles) and 2) What do you think the FCC's role is in copy-control? Advocate? Enforcer? And which aspects for which sides? People grumble about mandatory labeling on products, but for me, this type of 'government interference' is a good thing.

    Feel free to comment on where you see the future going with soon-to-be online movie rental and real-time video delivery.

    Thanks in advance for your time and insight.

  • Not where I live. The signal is coming into my home, and I've never been a cable customer. Same with the last house I lived in. Only the "premium" channels are being scrambled by CableVision in my city, so you need a descrambler only for those channels, even though the signal is fed into homes without my asking for it.
  • 1) What's the stupidity of the question?
    2) What's the answer?
    3) What's the "gimme, gimme" being asked for? It's a question of rights, not attainment.
    4) I'm barely a member of the "Slashdot crew," but if you don't like this "bunch of spoiled children" then don't read the posts.
    5) Where's your highly intelligent, intellectual question which would obviously be beyond our simpleton minds?
  • okay. if we had the FCC regulating protocols on the internet, a scary analogy to radio broadcasting might happen, where there's no chance you'd ever get a license to serve unless you could sustain 10% of the hits yahoo gets (I would give a hard figure but I don't know any), and you're serving a regional demographic without interfering with a pre-existing one. Oh sure, you can pick up a dynamic IP from any licensed ISP, but the minute you start looking like you're actually serving content of any kind, you'd be fined, banned for a period, possibly jailed after repeated offenses. Yep, this applies to running a quake 3 server too.
  • Would you happen to know why FCC has decided that it is "illegal to offer citizens the capability to record HDTV programs"?

    Who *exactly* has the power to break most basic laws/rules of existance and try to enforce rules like this?
  • The question is perfectly valid, if only in need of little rephrasing.

    I for one can only suspect David Farber had political motivation for his testimony against Microsoft, the technical anlysis just don't hold water. Certainly his support of the feds and polliticos in the DOJ haven't hurt his career thus far!

    And it should, if you read his testimony it comes down to his making fanciful claims disguised in tecno lingo that would have flew far above Jackson's head, about what should, and should not be included in an 'operating system' versus an 'application'.

    Anybody out there proved for themselves that Dataquests 'client' versus 'server' market share statistics are all out of wack, say by running Napster on their 'client'?

    Generally technology development in this country is by no measure stagnant, and certainly not in need of the kind of political freeing the DOJ has attempted.

    Specifically and especially, software API's move fast, faster than any judge or federal official can make responsible plans for.

    I think it an extremely short sighted and irresponsible claim, Farber's attempt to define what should, or should not be in an OS from a technical perspective.

    His dangerous words supported the clearly heavily biased political attacks of the DOJ against Microsoft.

    Remember Boies basicaly lying to the judge, saying that there was _no valid technical reason for bundling a browser_? Despite the browsers out now that build on IE services, despite the developer and consumer convenience of using a 'browser', built, tested and distributed along with the 'OS'?

    A browser doesn't belong in an OS??? Despite the fact that a browser is as to the web as file manager is to your local drives?

    Perhaps Mr Farber believes that Apple should be prevented from bundling their own browser in their flavor of computing architecture by Federal decree?

    For the sake of US industry I hope not.

    We'll see how well Jackson's attempt at designing software API's holds up during the review of DOJ vs Microsoft in the higher courts.

    There is no doubt that if the government starts dictating software APIs, and we lose our international lead in technology as a result, it will be partly thanks to David Farber.
  • What the hell do all those charges on my phone bill mean?

    Thank you
  • As horrible as outsourcing your IT needs might sound to /.ers, I believe that it is becoming more and more viable as companies become more dependent on technology without wanting to increase their spending on specialists. Basically, what do you think the base requirements are for a company to move away from the perception of a customer-service oriented local company to the perception of a customer-service oriented national company? Without losing the focus on service, i.e. MindSpring.
    Protector of Capitalist views,
  • Okay, I'll bite.

    1) It was a stupid question because illegal descramblers, oddly indicative by their name, are illegal. Cable companies, whether right or wrong in your mind, generate revenue by charging for their service. If they were no longer able to charge for said service, the industry falls apart and you wind up with nothing. Is it really such a foreign idea to you that not everything is free?
    2) The answer is "no".
    3) Come on - now you're playing naive. It's no secret that the vast, vast majority of Slashdot readers are those who don't like paying for things (especially services) and tend to whine and bitch when faced with doing so. Despite the prevailing viewpoint around here, asking for and expecting payment for some things does not breach any of your rights, and if you feel that it does, I encourage you to remove the cable wires running to your house.
    4) You have a right to your opinion and so do I. I feel that your post was blatantly pandering to the readership described in my response number 3, and I felt the need to bust your chops as a result. Considering the positive moderation of your post, there are apparently several who agree with you for one reason or another.
    5) I never claimed to have a better question.

  • Perhaps his example was poor, but the question is still pretty solid. Why is he not free to access and copy signals being beamed into his home (source is irrelevant as long as he is not trying to cheat anyone -- i.e. if the signal were not free he would not pay for access to it).

    The better examples below are related to copy'ing Digital TV broadcasts -- which the FCC is also going to ban, but the actual question relates to signal ownership and signal possesion. In the land of digital media, possesion is no longer 9/10'ths of the law. You are not free to access or use a signal in your possesion, even if you do not want it.

    It is also important to note that you have made a good point as well. If my intent is to cheat the signal provider or anyone else by using a signal I would otherwise have purchased, then the law is being broken -- and the medium is irellevant (e.g. the law would be broken if you were using land you would otherwise have purchased to accomplish your goal). I would also like to add, that I amost didn't get your point because of the negativity surrounding it. Its easier on my brain if you just provide logical explanations.
  • With more and more people and things connecting to the internet, what happens to our previous technical playground/laboratory - amateur radio?

    Will the new "codeless" licenses turn the amateur bands into uncontrollable "chat" rooms, ala CB?

    Are all of our future technical innovators to be networked instead of wireless?

    What do you see as the future(s) for amateur radio? (And did you ever have a license?)

    73...
  • nononononono, i didn't say anything about "licensing your server".

    my concern is that having one or two large entities controlling all comms from end-to-end, via proprietary protocols, could (for example) enable some kind of "cut off" or "tracing" that would be applied to those who disagree with the status quo, while those espousing "support" would be emphasized.

    this is my concern w/ having a minority of large players controlling the wire.

    Let's hope Microsoft and AOL/TW don't become America's Isvestya (sp?) and Pravda.

  • The Yahoo case, where a US corporation, under a US domain name, with facilities in the US, breaking no US law is ordered to comply with French law or face penalties?

    <COMMENTARY>Any questions in the remainder of this post are rhetorical, and not part of the interview.

    If a French court can force Yahoo to comply with French law on Nazi memorabilia, what is to stop an equally clueless French court from forcing Yahoo to comply with French laws concerning French Language content? (oops! I gave them the idea) Now that France has set the prececent, what happens if a Saudi Arabian court issues an order for a French site, based in France, violating no French law, to obey comply with Saudi Arabian laws on say... oh, nudity? Perhaps the French Court should look at what happens when things are turned around?
    </COMMENTARY>
  • I agree that cable companies would no longer be able to offer service were they unable to charge for it.


    I'll even agree (for the duration of this thread) that if descramblers (which aren't illegal everywhere) were common, cable companies would be unable to charge for their service and so would go out of business.


    That still doesn't explain to me why it is justified for an individual to be limited in what they can do with equipment they own simply because it operates on a signal being piped into his/her house by a 3rd party. I would rather see the cable companies go out of business before seeing my rights to do what I wish with my own property violated (as they presently are).


    You jump from "these people would go out of business if this law didn't exist" to "this law must exist" without drawing any line. Why should I give up my rights to guarantee someone else their occupation?

  • How do you see the market changing in light of the FCC now allowing carriers and content-providers (e.g., AOL and Time-Warner) to merge?

    How does the FCC justify the fact that it did not oppose this merger, since it appears to be highly anti-competitive and against the public interest, and since prior to this it was very much against FCC policy?

  • I, like you, generally assumed that The Man was putting The First on Low Power Radio, until something happened. I heard a story about it on NPR.

    Now that you mention it, I remember hearing that same segment last fall. As I recall, NPR produced a CD that demonstrated the potential crosstalk and interference that an NPR affiliate would suffer. But it seemed like NPR's CD was like the rigged Microsoft demo during the anti-trust hearings.

    I am under the impression that it's still an open issue and that licenses haven't been granted. And it's my understanding that the competition isn't so much an issue of funding, but one of frequency, as it's the 88-92 MHz non-commercial segment of US FM that's in question.

    But I'm probably wrong about the licenses being granted. I'm a Radio Free Allston [abfreeradio.org] listener and a fan of 90.3 WZBC [wzbc.org] and NPR junkie.

    It's all good. But it could be better.

    k.
    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people
    are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  • I'd like to ask him why the FCC didn't work harder to keep low-power radio alive.

    But it's too bad he's gone...

    Bush Names Younger Powell to Take FCC Reins

    By Jeremy Pelofsky

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Michael Powell, the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), was tapped on Monday by President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to head the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), where he will oversee the telecommunications and cable industries.

    The article is here [yahoo.com].

  • Why do we need digital radio?

    I hear that the U.S. is going to adopt digital radio using the DAB IBOC (Digital Audio Broadcast, In-Band On-Channel) system. With this system, backward compatibility is maintained for a short time by transmitting the digital information slightly above and below the analog signal in the spectrum. Then, when it is believed there are very few analog receivers left, digital takes over the full frequency and the station goes all-digital. Perhaps I have a few details incorrect... Please correct me if so.

    Why do we need digital radio? A high-end analog FM receiver receiving a strong signal provides excellent quality. Sony markets FM receivers boasting up to 76dB of dynamic range when receiving a strong signal. And with AM radio, you could just use AM stereo [amstereoradio.com], which has much better quality than regular AM and maintains perfect backward compatibility with existing AM receivers -- with no transition to incompatibility as with digital.

    Will the new digital radio incorporate any features like copy control (as will be present in HDTV). Perhaps like SCMS (Serial Copy Management System)? Will my kids and grandkids still be able to tape their favourite music from the radio?

    It seems to me that IBOC, especially on FM in crowded markets, could seriously threaten [radiocitizen.com] low-power broadcasting. It also makes it difficult for hobbyists to receive far-away signals that have frequencies close to local stations. The IBOC transmissions sit over a much wider piece of the spectrum, eating more of the dial and requiring greater spacing between stations.

    Finally, this is digital radio, so like with DVDs, and the upcoming DVD audio discs, will there be any encryption involved in the signal? Could it be engineered so would electronics manufacturers have to license the decryption algoritm from someone? It would really suck if it weren't possible to build or repair one's own radio. Will it be illegal to reverse-engineer or break the algorithm? Will the digital encoding of the audio, itself, use a proprietary algorithm, or a widely known one like MPEG?

    It would also suck if IBOC drove up the price of radios. I've got many perfectly good radios right now and I would hate for them to become useless in 10 to 15years.

    Why do we need digital radio?

  • Will the new digital radio incorporate any features like copy control (as will be present in HDTV). Perhaps like SCMS (Serial Copy Management System)?

    Just to clarify, I was referring to SCMS in whatever digital recording systems we have in the future. It would be easy to capture the analog output of the digital radio and tape it with an analog tape recorder.

    Though this does make me wonder about watermarking in the analog audio output...

  • As I understand it, the FCC made a last-minute allowance for television stations to allow them to transmit any DTV format, not just HDTV. Now, if I were a television station owner, and you gave me a choice between replacing all of my equipment (cameras, monitors, mixing boards, tape decks, etc.) in order to transmit one HDTV signal, or adding just an A/D and being able to transmit 6 or 7 channels down the same pipe (including using all of my old archived footage), I'm going to choose the advertising revenue I can generate from 6 or 7 sets of eyeballs over 1 set. What was the FCC's justification for sinking HDTV in this manner?
  • What is your opinion of Michael Powell's appointment as chairman???
  • With the proliferation of spread-spectrum devices,
    won't large numbers of these RF devices add up to
    increase the overall background RF noise, and
    leave traditional weak-signal communications
    compromised or unworkable?

    Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont
    tking@together.net
  • On an un related topic, having had an early hand in this languages' development, how well do you think it has done? It seems to me that there is a LOT of functionality accessible within the pattern matching constructs supported by Snobol/Spitbol. (I often see people trying to make Perl jump thru hoops for various text processing tasks that are EASILY done in Snobol/Spitbol.) Do you think Snobol/Spitbol are languages that are obsolete, or do you think that Snobol/Spitbol are languages that are hidden gems, waiting to be discovered again? Languages that, IMO, for text processing could easily give Perl a run for its' money! thanks Russ
  • Bit late to the game here, but for the sake of the archives...

    NPR itself might not be hurt too much, but the local NPR affiliates might be.

    Think about the type of programming that NPR stations do - often times it's somewhat more indepth reporting on 'offbeat' issues that don't rate much merit on national networks. I'm thinking primarily LOCAL items. LPFM promises to put more local issues and music programming on the air - just the kind of thing that would (short term anyway) cause NPR stations to lose listeners.

    All just imo of course...

  • Short answer -

    Write letters. Get others to do the same. To heck with Touchstone - contact the advertisers directly and tell them that you specifically will NOT do business with them because of this. If you get enough people to do this, it won't matter what type of 'operations' are 'prohibited' - the movie maker won't put this kind of crap in the DVD.

    The more I hear about DVD crap like this (region encoding, etc) the less I want one. Just got a new VHS player and it's fine. OK, I can't skip around as quickly, but I CAN skip around! :)

  • Yes, I was thinking of contacting NetFlix, and other DVD rental services, along the same lines. My statement will be "If you warn me which ones have commercials, then I will sign up for your service." Don't know how effective one consumer will be, but at least I can make myself feel better this way. Besides, one of the services might even come through. {:-}
  • Some of the recent bids for radio spectrum has resulted in bids so high that the consumers will be forced to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars that end up going to cover thouse bids. This will make many services over priced and that is unfair use of the spectrum. Is there any way that the FCC can help fix this problem?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android

Close