informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0981.txt

986 lines
49 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
Computer underground Digest Thu Nov 6, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 81
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.81 (Thu, Nov 6, 1997)
File 1--The FCC Wants V-Chip in PCs too
File 2--Text of FCC "V-Chip Proposal"
File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:04:57 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-cyber-liberties@aclu.org
Subject: File 1--The FCC Wants V-Chip in PCs too
Source: Cyber-Liberties Update
Monday, November 3, 1997
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The FCC Wants V-Chip in PCs too
Mandating that all new televisions have built-in censorship technology
is not the only thing that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
is seeking, said ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt, it is also
looking to require that the same technology be added to all new personal
computers.
Last year, culminating a protracted campaign against TV violence,
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a law requiring that
new televisions be equipped with the so-called V-chip. The V-chip is a
computerized chip capable of detecting program ratings and blocking
adversely rated programs from view.
Now, the FCC has announced that it is soliciting public comments through
November 24, on the idea of placing V-chips inside personal computers
since some are capable of delivering television programming.
At the time the V-chip was being considered we warned that with the
growing convergence between traditional television (broadcast and cable)
and the Internet, it was only a matter of time before the government
would move to require that the V-chip be placed in PC's. Now that has
happened, Steinhardt said.
Hardwiring censorship technology into the PC is part of the headlong
rush to
a scheme of rating and blocking Internet content that will turn the
Internet into a bland homogenized medium in which only large corporate
interest will have truly free speech, Steinhardt said.
The ACLU has criticized the mandatory requirement of V-chip arguing that
it is a form of censorship clearly forbidden by the First Amendment.
Although its supporters claim the V-chip gives parents control over
their
children's viewing habits, in fact it will function as a governmental
usurpation of parental control, said Solange Bitol, Legislative Counsel
for the ACLUs Washington National Office.
Under the legislation, it is the government (either directly or by
coercing private industry), and not the parents, that will determine how
programs will be rated. If a parent activates the V-chip, all programs
with a "violent" rating will be blocked. What kind of violence will be
censored? Football games? War movies? News reports? she added.
The ACLU is opposed to mandatory addition or use of censoring
technologies and we will be filing comments with the FCC later this
month. We believe people are smart enough to turn off their television
sets or PCs on their own if they dont like what they see.
Tell the FCC what you think. Submit comments to them online at
<http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/>, and send us a copy as well so that we make
sure your voice is heard. E-mail them to CSehgal@aclu.org.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Cyber-Liberties Update is a bi-weekly e-zine on cases and
controversies at the state and federal level. Questions or comments
about the Update should be sent to Cassidy Sehgal at csehgal@aclu.org.
Past issues are archived at
<http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates.html>
To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body of your
message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties" in the body.
To become a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, visit the ACLU
web site <http://www.newmedium.com/aclu/join.html>
For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 97 15:33 CST
From: Jim Thomas <TK0JUT1@mvs.cso.niu.edu>
Subject: File 2--Text of FCC "V-Chip Proposal"
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Considering the brouhaha the FCC proposal
has caused, here's the full text and readers can judge for
themselves)).
Source: http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/welcome.html
=============================
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Technical Requirements to Enable Blocking )
of Video Programming based on Program ) ET Docket No. 97-206
Ratings )
)
Implementation of Sections 551(c), (d) and )
(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 )
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: September 25, 1997 ; Released: September 26, 1997
Comment Date: [45 days after publication in Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [60 days after publication in Federal Register]
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this action, we propose to amend Part 15 of our Rules
to require t hat most television receivers be equipped with
features that enable viewers to block the display of video
programming with a common rating. In addition, we propose to
amend Parts 73, 74 and 76 of our Rules to ensure the ratings
information that is associated with a particular video program is
not deleted from transmission by broadcast television stations,
low power television stations, television translator and booster
stations, and cable tele vision systems. We also propose that
similar requirements should be placed on other services that can
be used to distribute video programming to the home, such as
Multipoint Distribution Servi ce (MDS) and Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service (DBS). We take this action in response to the
Parental Choice in Television Programming requirements contained
in Sections 551(c), (d) , and (e) of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (the Telecommunications Act), which amended Sections 303
and 330 of the Communications Act of 1934.
2. The proposals contained in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking are int ended to give parents the ability to block
video programming that they do not want their children to watch.
They are also intended to provide a regulatory framework that
will acco mmodate the possible development and use of multiple
ratings systems, giving parents the fl exibility to choose the
ratings system that best meets their needs.
II. BACKGROUND
3. In the Telecommunications Act, Congress determined that
parents shoul d be provided "with timely information about the
nature of upcoming video programmin g and with the technological
tools that allow them easily to block violent, sexual, or oth er
programming that they believe harmful to their children . . . ."
Accordingly, Congress (1) mandated the inclusion in most new
television receivers of the so-called "V-chip" technology , which
will enable viewers to block the display of all programs with a
common rating, and ( 2) authorized the Commission to "Prescribe .
. . guidelines and recommended procedures for th e identification
and rating of [such] video programming, . . . ." if distributors
of video programming do not establish acceptable voluntary
procedures within one year.
4. With respect to V-chip technology, Section 551(c) of the
Telecommunic ations Act directs the Commission to adopt rules
requiring that any "apparatus designed to receive television
signals that are shipped in interstate commerce or manufactured
in t he United States and that have a picture screen 13 inches or
greater in size (measured diagonall y) . . . be equipped with a
feature designed to enable viewers to block display of all prog
rams with a common rating . . . ." Section 551(d) states that
the Commission must "require that all such apparatus be able to
receive the rating signals which have been transmitted by way of
line 21 of the vertical blanking interval . . . ." That
provision also instructs the C ommission to oversee "the adoption
of standards by industry for blocking technology," and to ensure
that blocking capability continues to be available to consumers
as technology advanc es.
5. With respect to the ratings, the Telecommunications Act
directs the C ommission, on the basis of the recommendations of
an advisory committee, to prescribe guid elines and recommended
procedures for the identification and rating of video
programming, but only if the Commission determines that
distributors of video programming have not: (1) established
voluntary rules for rating video programming that contains
sexual, violent, or other indecent material about which parents
should be informed before it is displayed to child ren, and such
rules are "acceptable to the Commission;" and, (2) agreed
voluntarily to broadc ast signals that contain ratings of such
programming. On January 17, 1997, the National Associa tion of
Broadcasters (NAB), the National Cable Television Association
(NCTA), and the M otion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
submitted a joint proposal to the Commiss ion describing a
voluntary ratings system for video programming (the "industry
prop osal"). We have opened a separate proceeding, CS Docket No.
97-55, to consider whether thi s joint proposal meets the
requirements of the Telecommunications Act. On August 1, 19 97,
NAB, NCTA, and MPAA submitted a revised industry proposal. The
revised filing provi des for the display and transmission of
certain content-based indicators in addition to the six age-based
ratings categories. We have issued a public notice seeking
comment on this rev ised proposal.
III. DISCUSSION
6. We are adopting this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
begin the proce ss of requiring television manufacturers to
include blocking technology in their tele vision receivers and to
ensure that any ratings information that is provided with video
programm ing is transmitted to the television receiver intact and
without disruption by any bro adcast, cable television, satellite
or other video programming distribution service. We reco gnize
that, at this time, we have not yet determined whether any of the
voluntary ratings syst ems proposed by industry are acceptable
under the Telecommunications Act. Nevertheless, we believe that
it is appropriate at this time to propose the technical
transmission and manufa cturing standards into which future
decisions on the ultimate ratings system can be incorporated.
7. Blocking Technology Standard. The Telecommunications
Act requires th at our rules: 1) provide for Commission
oversight of the adoption of industry standar ds for blocking
technology; and 2) require television receivers to receive
ratings signals that are transmitted via line 21 of the
television vertical blanking interval (VBI) and which confor m to
industry standards. Line 21 of the VBI is currently used
primarily for transmission of closed captions that allow the
hearing impaired and other viewers to read a visual depiction of
the information simultaneously being presented on the aural
channel. On a secondary, space-ava ilable basis, line 21 field 2
may also be used to transmit other data information.
8. The Electronics Industry Association (EIA) has adopted
an industry st andard, EIA-608, "Recommended Practice for Line 21
Data Service," that contains informa tion on data formats and
specific data packets that may be sent using line 21. We have
relied upon this industry standard to provide the specific
information on how line 21 infor mation should be transmitted and
used. On February 12, 1996, the EIA prepared for ballot a r
evision of EIA-608 that included, among other things, a proposal
on how program ratings in formation could be transmitted on line
21 field 2. However, after recognizing that the v ideo
programming industry was beginning to develop a program ratings
system that mig ht differ somewhat from the specific ratings
system contained in the proposed revision, E IA prepared a
further revision of EIA-608 that deletes the detailed rating
system information . The ballots for these revisions were
approved within EIA. As a result, EIA-608 now provide s a
non-specific methodology on how program ratings information can
be incorporated int o other information that is transmitted on
line 21 field 2. This methodology can be mo dified to allow for
the use of one or more specific program ratings systems.
9. We previously have found industry standard EIA-608 to be
extremely he lpful -- it has allowed television programmers,
closed-captioning service providers and tel evision receiver
manufacturers to have a standard method for transmitting and
using dat a information transmitted on line 21. It ensures
compatibility between the various uses of t his information and
minimizes the need for government regulation in this area. Due
to its broa d acceptance within the industry and its
applicability to the transmission of data on line 2 1, we believe
that it is appropriate for us to rely on EIA-608 as providing the
methodology for tr ansmitting program ratings information.
Accordingly, we propose that our rules be amended to require that
all television receivers with picture screens 33 cm (13 inches)
or larger, measured diagonally, shipped in interstate commerce,
manufactured, assembled, or importe d from any country into the
United States, receive program ratings transmitted pursuant to
industry standard EIA-608 and block video programming, both the
video picture and the as sociated audio on both the main and
second audio program (SAP) channels, based on a rati ngs level
specified by the user of the television receiver. To accomplish
this, we propo se to incorporate the appropriate provisions of
EIA-608 into our regulations. Althou gh we have tentatively
concluded that EIA-608 is the appropriate standard to use, we
invit e comment on whether other technical standards for blocking
technology are being developed o r have been developed, and
whether they should be used instead of or in addition to EIA-608
.
10. Multiple Ratings Systems. In comments filed in CS
Docket No. 97-55 regarding the industry ratings proposal, several
parties have indicated their desire for open standards and
regulatory policies that would allow for the development and use
of multiple ra tings systems. Some of these parties have also
indicated that they are developing th eir own ratings systems
that they would like to make available for general use. Genera
lly, we prefer an open, flexible approach to the development of
industry standards and regulat ions that would accommodate the
possible development of multiple ratings systems. Such a n
approach could give parents the flexibility to choose a rating
system that best meets th eir needs.
11. Technically, the EIA-608 methodology could be used to
transmit more than one ratings system for the same video program.
EIA-608 already supports the transm ission of MPAA motion picture
ratings (the familiar "G", "PG", "PG-13", "R", "NC-17" and "X"
ratings that are used with movies shown in theaters). And
EIA-608 can be easil y modified to support the industry ratings
proposal if it is ultimately accepted by the Commi ssion. It
would also appear to be relatively simple to further modify
EIA-608 to allow fo r the transmission and use of additional
ratings systems that might be developed. H owever, in CS Docket
No. 97-55, CEMA has raised concerns that accommodating multiple
ratin gs systems could make it more difficult for parents to use
program blocking and co uld slow the delivery of ratings
information to television receivers.
12. We invite comment on how many ratings systems are
likely to be devel oped that would involve transmissions on line
21 of the VBI. We further invite comment o n the specific
ratings information and categories that these systems are likely
to us e. Under the presumption that the number of alternative
ratings systems that are likely to b e developed is relatively
small, as evidenced by comments filed in CS Docket No. 97-55, and
th at EIA-608 can be modified to include the necessary ratings
information for each of these systems, we are inclined to
encourage, as part of our industry standards oversight role
mandate d by the Telecommunications Act, that EIA include the
flexibility to accommodate such a dditional ratings systems
within EIA-608. We also seek comment on whether to require tha t
all television receivers that are subject to our blocking
technology requirements b e equipped to handle any alternative
ratings systems contained in EIA-608. We invite comment s on
these proposals, and specifically on whether the capability to
handle multiple rating s systems can be included in television
receivers in a manner that will not lead to significant user
confusion or significant added costs. We also invite comments on
how these proposals should be modified if the anticipated
alternative ratings systems cannot be accommodated within EI
A-608 or if the number of alternative rating systems would lead
to excessive user confusion . In addition, we invite comments on
whether and how we should require television receivers to handle
any ratings systems that may be developed in the future.
13. We recognize that it may not be practical or desirable
for all ratin gs systems to be transmitted on line 21 of the VBI.
However, it is not clear as to what steps w e could take to
accommodate alternative ratings systems that are not transmitted
on line 21.
We understand that some television receivers and video cassette
recorders (VCRs) a lready incorporate the ability to block video
programming on a date/time/channel basis . Such
date/time/channel blocking capability could facilitate the use of
alternative r atings systems that are not distributed by line 21.
Section 330(c)(4) of the Communications A ct, as added by Section
551(d) of the Telecommunications Act, directs the Commission to
conside r the existence of appropriate alternative blocking
technologies and to permit use of a technology that: (1) "enables
parents to block programming based on identifying programs w
ithout ratings"; (2) "is available to consumers at a cost which
is comparable" to the cost of ratings-based technology; and (3)
"will allow parents to block a broad range of program s on a
multichannel system as effectively and as easily" as
ratings-based technology. We seek comment on whether
date/time/channel blocking capability would meet the require
ments of Section 330(c)(4) and should be allowed as an
alternative to blocking technolog y based on line 21.
Additionally, we seek comment on: 1) whether ratings are likely
to be distributed via means other than line 21; 2) whether we
have the legal authority, and whether t here is a compelling
public interest, to require both line 21 and date/time/channel
block ing; and 3) whether there are other alternative blocking
technologies that should be acc ommodated under our rules. In
order to evaluate possible alternative blocking technologi es, we
solicit information regarding the cost of any alternative
blocking technology, as well as the cost of implementing line 21
ratings blocking technology pursuant to EIA-608.
14. User Interface. We tentatively conclude that the
program blocking t echnology should be implemented in as "user
friendly" a manner as possible. Parents shou ld be able to
program their television receivers easily to block categories of
programs they do not want their children to see with a common
rating. Similarly, we tentatively conclud e that the program
blocking technology should be secure enough to ensure that
children can not easily override their parents' decisions.
EIA-608 currently does not contain informat ion on these aspects.
We invite comment on whether, as part of our industry standard
oversi ght responsibility, we should request EIA to include in
EIA-608 specific guidance f or television receiver manufacturers
on how parents should be able to program their televisio n
receivers to block programs and steps that should be taken to
ensure that children cannot ov erride blocking instructions. We
also invite comment on whether such guidance should be included
in our rules. Parties suggesting that guidance in these areas is
needed should provide specific proposals for such guidance. Also,
we invite comment on other requirements that may be necessary for
us to implement.
15. Timing. Section 551(e)(2) of the Telecommunications
Act requires th at the Commission, after consultation with the
television manufacturing industry, spec ify the effective date
for the applicability of the program blocking requirement, and p
rovides that the effective date shall not be less than two years
from the date of enactment of t he Telecommunications Act.
Accordingly, we may not require that television receiv ers
include program blocking capability until February 8, 1998, at
the earliest. We unders tand, through informal consultation with
TV manufacturers, that television receivers are typi cally
introduced on an annual basis, with each new model year beginning
around June 30. This me ans that television receivers that would
be marketed in February, 1998, would have been introduced to the
marketplace in mid-1997. The design cycles for these 1997
receivers would have been completed in early 1997. We also
understand that the television manufacturers generally redesign
only half of their products in any given year. Based on these
conside rations, we do not believe it would be reasonable to
require television manufacturers to imple ment program blocking
capability in television receivers beginning in February, 1998.
Inste ad, we propose that television manufacturers be required to
provide blocking technology on at least half of their product
models with a picture screen 33 cm (13 inches) or greater in size
by July 1, 1998. The remainder of the models would be required
to contain blocking techno logy by July 1, 1999. We believe that
this proposed implementation schedule would accommoda te the
product development cycle of television manufacturers and ensure
that televisio n receivers with blocking technology are available
in the marketplace as soon as possible. We invite TV
manufacturers, and other interested parties, to comment on this
proposal. I n particular, we seek information on the extent of
changes that would be needed to television receivers to
incorporate program blocking technology, how long it would take
manufacturers t o incorporate program blocking capability in
television receivers during their no rmal course of re-design,
and what the cost and benefits would be of accelerating this
process . We recognize that we have not yet acted on the
industry ratings proposals and that we will h ave to adopt final
rules in this proceeding before television receiver manufacturers
can be sure of the specific requirements that will be place on
them. Therefore, we invite comment from television manufacturers
on when final decisions on the industry ratings propos als and
when final FCC technical rules and the EIA-608 standard would
have to be adopted in order for them to meet the proposed
implementation requirements.
16. Digital Television and other Future Systems. Section
330(c)(4) of t he Communications Act, as added by Section 551(d)
of the Telecommunications Act, requires that we take action to
ensure that program blocking capability continues to be available
to consumers as new video technology is developed. In this
regard, we recognize t hat digital television (DTV) technology is
beginning to be tested and that television stati ons intend to
implement DTV operating on a commercial basis in the near future.
Digital tele vision is likely to provide additional capability
for implementing program blocking syste ms because it has been
designed to support transmission of a large volume of data
compared to today's television. It will provide the ability to
transmit, and make available to par ents, significantly more
ratings information than is possible with the existing analog
television s ystem.
17. On December 24, 1996, we adopted a standard for the
transmission of digital television. This standard is a
modification of the digital television standard developed by the
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC). The adopted DTV
transmission standard does not provide for transmitting program
ratings information. Howeve r, the ATSC has adopted a standard
for transmitting a DTV program guide that includes provi sions
for transmitting program ratings. This program guide information
would be transmit ted on a sporadic basis to provide information
to viewers on current and future programm ing. We understand
that ATSC has started further standards development work on how
to t ransmit the rating information more regularly as part of the
"transport" layer. The ATSC s tandard may provide for the
possibility of "downloadable" ratings; that is, ratings systems
that could be changed periodically over time. We understand that
ATSC's goal is to complete its work in this area within the next
several months. We invite comment on the current ATS C program
guide standard and its usefulness in providing DTV program
ratings information.
We also invite comment on: 1) how often it may be necessary to
transmit program rating s information within the DTV signal; 2)
whether program ratings information should be transmi tted
outside of the DTV program guide service; 3) whether the
capability to transmit downloa dable ratings systems is
desirable; 4) how such downloadable ratings systems should work;
and 5) whether we should place different requirements for
blocking technology for DTV as compa red to the existing analog
television (for example, requiring support for additional ratin
gs systems), and if so, what sort of requirements. Pursuant to
our standards oversight responsi bilities, we will work to ensure
that whatever conclusions are reached in this regard are conside
red by ATSC as they continue to develop DTV standards. We note
that the DTV transmission s tandard provides the ability for
either high definition television or multi-channel sta ndard
definition television (SDTV) programming to be transmitted. We
tentatively conclude that the DTV program blocking standards must
also provide the capability for ratings informa tion to be
transmitted for all video programming services that may be
transmitted during e ither high definition television or
multi-channel SDTV operation.
18. We have not adopted rules regarding DTV receivers. In
particular, w e note that our existing rules on closed-caption
decoder requirements for television receiv ers will have to be
updated to reflect the new encoding methods that will be used in
DTV. Simil arly, we will need to develop rules for implementing
the program blocking requirements i n DTV receivers. We
understand that EIA is developing a new DTV receiver standard th
at would be similar to EIA-608. It would contain, among other
things, guidance on how prog ram blocking should be implemented
within DTV receivers. We invite comment on how program blocking
should be implemented within DTV receivers, including whether it
shoul d be done generally in the same manner as program blocking
in standard analog television receivers. We also invite comment
on whether there are steps we should take to ensure that blocking
capability will continue to be available after the implementation
of digital te chnology and whether we should allow the use of
alternative blocking technologies in DTV rec eivers.
19. At this time, it is difficult to determine when the
ATSC and EIA sta ndards related to DTV program blocking will be
completed. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to f orecast when DTV
receiver manufacturers would be able to provide program blocking
capability within a DTV receiver. Nevertheless, we believe that
all DTV receivers should include p rogram blocking capability
within a reasonably short period after a decision is reache d in
this proceeding. We recognize that some design work on DTV
receivers has already st arted; however, it would appear that any
program blocking requirements could be implem ented rather
quickly and easily through use of digital processing technology
that wil l be contained in DTV receivers. Accordingly, we
propose that all DTV receivers with picture screens of 33 cm (13
inches) or larger be required to include program blocking
capability wit hin a relatively short period of time, e.g.,
within 180 days, after rules are adopted in this pr oceeding. We
invite comment on the practicality of this approach. We are
concerned as to wh ether a short deadline may cause delay in the
availability of new DTV receivers, particularly given the lack of
completed DTV standards and lack of information on how the
program ratings i nformation would be transmitted.
20. Distribution of Ratings Information. Video programming
can originat e and be transmitted through a variety of sources,
including over-the-air television bro adcasting, cable television
systems, MDS systems including Multichannel MDS (MMDS) systems,
DBS systems, and video platforms operated by local telephone
companies. Each of th ese distribution methods uses different
techniques to deliver the video programming . For blocking
technology to function properly, the program ratings information
must be properly encoded into the video programming and the
distribution system must not adverse ly affect the ratings
information. While we do not believe that video programming
distributo rs would intentionally disrupt the availability of
program ratings information, we recog nize that they are
constantly looking at ways of enhancing the value of their
service, utilizi ng techniques to compress video programming and
provide additional, non-program related data ser vices. Some of
the new technologies or services that they might adopt could
inadverten tly affect the ability of closed captioning and
program related information to be provided to viewers of video
programming.
21. Our existing cable television rules require that
closed-captioning i nformation that is contained within video
programming be distributed intact and without disrupt ion.
Similarly, our existing broadcast rules provide priority to
closed captioning i nformation as compared to other data
information that might be transmitted on line 21. Becau se both
closed captioning and program ratings information will be
transmitted on line 2 1, the existing rules may provide some
indirect protection for the program ratings information.
However, to avoid potential problems, we propose to amend Parts
73 and 76 of our rules to c larify that both cable television
systems and television broadcast stations must not delete or
modify program ratings information carried on line 21 of the VBI.
These rules would c ontinue to give highest priority within line
21 data services to closed captioning informa tion; however,
program ratings information would receive priority over other
data information, such as program guide or text service
information. We invite comment on whether our pr oposed priority
system would have a negative impact on businesses using or
planning to use line 21. We similarly propose to amend Part 74
of our rules to require that low power te levision, television
translator, and television booster stations do not delete or
modify in transmission line 21 captioning and program ratings
information. We tentatively conclude th at similar requirements
should be placed on MDS, DBS, telephone, and other service
operato rs that may distribute video programming to the home,
including multichannel video programm ing distributors as defined
in Section 602(13) of the Communications Act. We seek comment on
how this should be accomplished. We also seek comment as to
whether similar requirements should be placed on those services
that may be used to distribute video programming to cable
television systems and other video service providers. Fin ally,
we invite comment on whether any other technical rules are
necessary to ensure that the p rogram blocking technology will
work with all video programming services.
22. Other Television Receiving Apparatus. We recognize
that most video programming today is viewed on television
broadcast receivers. Cable televisio n systems, MDS, and DBS all
convert the video programming signals they supply so that a st
andard television broadcast receiver can be used to view the
programming. In the futu re, this may not be the case --
different receivers may be developed, sold and utilized depe
nding on how the video programming is distributed. In addition,
personal computer systems, which are not traditionally thought of
as television receivers, are already being sold with t he
capability to view television and other video programming.
Section 551(c) of the Telecommuni cations Act makes it clear that
the program blocking requirements were intended to apply to any
"apparatus designed to receive television signals" that has a
picture screen of 13 inches or larger. Accordingly, we believe
that the program blocking requirements we are proposing should
apply to any television receiver meeting the screen size
requirements, r egardless of whether it is designed to receive
video programming that is distributed only th rough cable
television systems, MDS, DBS, or by some other distribution
system. These requ irements would also apply to any computer
that is sold with TV receiver capability and a monitor that has a
viewable picture size of 13 inches or larger, as we currently do
for clos ed captioning.
23. We note that DTV receivers and personal computers may
employ similar digital technology. We also recognize that it is
likely that plug-in circuit boards th at allow personal computers
to act as DTV receivers may eventually become available. We
believe that it will also be relatively inexpensive for DTV
receiver boards to include blocking tech nology. Based on these
considerations, we propose that all DTV receiver boards themselv
es (regardless of whether they are sold with a computer and
monitor with a viewabl e picture size of 13 inches or larger) be
required to include program blocking capability purs uant to the
appropriate ATSC and EIA standards.
24. Finally, we recognize that the program blocking
technology requireme nts that we are proposing would not prevent
children from using VCRs to tape video programm ing that might be
blocked if they were trying to view it on a television receiver.
Howe ver, because VCRs generally record the line 21 information
along with the program, it would appear that the blocking
technology that is contained in the television receiver would
bloc k the viewing of that program when it is played back at a
later time. Nevertheless, we invit e comment on whether VCR
technology could be used to delete the program ratings
information and potentially expose children using VCRs to video
programming that would otherwis e be blocked. We also invite
comment on whether cable decoder boxes, DBS converter boxes, and
other commercially-available devices could be used, advertently
or inadvertentl y, to defeat the blocking technology.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
25. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S. C.  603, the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of th e expected
impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this
document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comme nts must be
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on
the rest o f the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but they must
have a separate and distinct heading designa ting them as
responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The
Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibilit y
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordan ce with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
B. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceedings
26. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule
making proceed ing. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except
during any Sunshine Agenda period, pr ovided they are disclosed
as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. 
 1.1200(a), 1.1203, and 1.1206.
C. Authority
27. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(f),
303(r), 303( v), 303(x), and 330(c) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i) , 303(f), 303(r),
303(v), 303(x), and 330(c).
D. Comment Dates
28. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections
1.415 and 1. 419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415
and 1.419, interested parties may file c omments to the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making on or before 45 days after publication in th
e Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Fede ral Register. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want
each Commissioner to rece ive a personal copy of your comments,
you must file an original plus nine copies. Yo u should send
comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments, and
reply comments will be avail able for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of the Federal
Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 2055 4.
E. Further Information
29. For further information concerning this Notice of
Proposed Rulemakin g, contact Neal McNeil, Office of Engineering
& Technology, at (202) 418-2408, via interne t email at
nmcneil@fcc.gov.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A
INITIA L REGULATORY
FLEXIBILITY A NALYSIS
As required by Section 603
of the Regula tory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected
sign ificant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this N otice of Proposed Rule Making
(Notice). Written public comments are requested on the IR FA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the d eadlines for comments on the Notice provided
above. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Adm inistration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules.
The proposed rules are intended to address the Parental
Choice in Te levision Programming requirements contained in
Sections 551(c) and 551(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Congress has determined that parents should be provided "with
timely information about the nature of upcoming video programming
and wit h the technological tools that allow them to block
violent, sexual, or other programm ing that they believe harmful
to children. Accordingly, Congress (1) mandated the inclusion
in most new television receivers of the so-called "V-chip"
technology, which will be capabl e of reading program ratings and
blocking programming, if requested, and (2) authorized the
Commission to establish a rating system and rules requiring the
transmission of program ra tings if distributors of video
programming do not establish acceptable voluntary procedu res
within one year.
B. Legal Basis.
The proposed action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i),
303(f), 303( r), 303(v), 303(x), and 330(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 15 4(i), 303(f),
303(r), 303(v), 303(x), and 330(c).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Propo sed Rules Will Apply.
For the purposes of this Notice, the RFA defines a
"small business" to be the same as a "small business concern"
under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unles s the
Commission has developed one or more definitions that are
appropriate to its ac tivities. Under the Small Business Act, a
small business concern is one that: (1) is ind ependently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) meet s any additional criteria established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities appl icable to V-chip technology. Therefore, we will
utilize the SBA definition applicable to manufa cturers of Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.
According to t he SBA's regulations, television equipment
manufacturers must have 750 or fewer employee s in order to
qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data
indicates that there a re 858 U.S. companies that manufacture
radio and television broadcasting and communications equipment,
and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees and
would be classifi ed as small entities. The Census Bureau
category is very broad, and specific figures are n ot available
as to how many of these firms are manufacturers of television
equipment. However, we believe that many of the companies that
manufacture television equipment will be affect ed by this
rulemaking may qualify as small entities. We seek comments to
this IRFA regard ing the number of small entities to which the
proposed rule pertains.
According to SBA regulations, a computer
manufacturer must have 1,000 or fewer employees in order to
qualify as a small entity. Census Bureau data indicates that
there are 716 firms that manufacture electronic computers. Of
those, 659 have fewer than 500 employees and qualify as small
entities. The remaining 57 firms have 500 or mo re employees;
however, we unable to determine how many of those have fewer than
1, 000 employees and therefore also qualify as small entities
under the SBA definition .
This proposal will begin the process of
requiring televisi on manufacturers to include blocking
technology in their television receivers and to ensure that any
rating s information that is provided with video programming is
transmitted to the television receiv er intact and without
disruption by any broadcast, cable television, or other
television prog ram distribution services.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements.
The Commission's rules require television
receivers to be verified for compliance with applicable FCC
technical requirements. See 47 C.F.R. Sections 15.101, 15.117,
and 2.951, et seq. Documentation concerning the verification
must be kept by the manufacture r or importer. The rules
ultimately adopted in this proceeding will require that te
levision receivers comply with industry-developed standards for
blocking display of video programm ing based on program ratings.
However, verification testing regarding program blocking i s not
necessary because compliance with the industry-developed
standards, and the ass ociated Commission rules, can be
determined easily during the television receiver desig n process.
The Commission may, of course, ask manufacturers and importers to
document upon occasion how a particular television receiver
complies with the program blocking require ments.
E. Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rules which Minimize
Significant Econo mic Impact on Small Entities and Accomplish
Stated Objectives.
Section 330(c)(4) of the Act directs the
Commission to con sider the existence of appropriate alternative
blocking technologies and to amend its rules to permit, as an
alternative to the ratings-based approach, use of a technology
that: (1) "enabl es parents to block programming based on
identifying programs without ratings"; (2) "is avail able to
consumers at a cost which is comparable" to the cost of
ratings-based technolog y; and (3) "will allow parents to block a
broad range of programs on a multichannel system as effectively
and as easily" as ratings-based technology. At this time, we are
n ot aware of any such alternative blocking technologies.
Accordingly, we invite comment regardi ng the existence of such
alternate blocking technologies and whether it would be appro
priate to permit them at this time in lieu of ratings-based
blocking technology. In orde r to evaluate possible alternative
blocking technologies, we solicit information regarding th e cost
of any alternative blocking technology as well as the cost of
implementing ratings-bas ed technology pursuant to EIA-608.
Section 303(x) of the Act makes it clear that
the program blocking requirements were intended to apply to any
"apparatus designed to receive television signals" tha t has a
picture screen of 13 inches or larger. We believe that the
program blocking requiremen ts we are proposing should apply to
any television receiver (including personal computers ) meeting
the screen size requirements, regardless of whether it is
designed to receive video programming that is distributed only
through cable television systems, MDS, DBS, or by some other
distribution system.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with
the Proposed Ru les.
None.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.81
************************************
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink