"………The camera shot includes a full view of her buttocks and her upper legs as she leans across the sink to hang up her robe……….."

In years past, I would have been in the dark. Thanks to the power of Internet video, however, I was able to find a copy of the video within 30 seconds and view for myself what the FCC considered obscene.  The image below is a screen capture of one of the tamer shots.    

You can see the video by clicking on this link (assuming that ABC doesn’t make YouTube remove it).      

The point is, what was obscene on broadcast television does not violate FCC rules on broadband television; at least yet. This skirting of broadcast television rules could be the biggest impact that broadband TV has on the future of television, as this provides a new medium for the broadcast networks to create derivative products (e.g. an even coarser version of the “Family Guy”). Things like limits on advertising to children, hard liquor advertisements, the fairness doctrine, nudity and swearing are beyond the FCC’s current scope for regulating video over the Internet. 

Another piece of evidence that the television business model and rules are changing is Hulu’s deal with PBS to put advertisements in front of its programming [thanks Viodi View reader, Peggy for pointing this out).   This would have been a huge deal 20 years ago, when PBS was available only in a broadcast medium.

Where it will get interesting is when politicians start hearing complaints from constituents about “FCC rule violations.” Of course, the FCC won’t have rules (although they will probably try to figure out how to expand their powers) and Congress will get involved and it will get real political. Knowing how long it generally takes the Federal Government to act, this sort of political uproar may still be a long ways out (it took 5 years for the FCC to rule on the aforementioned NYPD obscenity case). 

Just as I was about to publish this article I saw today’s issue of the OPASTCO 411, which summarized the Markey Bill ( H.R. 6320).  This Bill is an indication that the future may be closer than I thought.  H.R. 6320 calls for captioning and providing emergency alert info for video over the net, as well as adding requirements for other IP devices. Clearly, this is a grab to regulate the Internet and it probably will not be successful in this election year, but it is start of what could be a very long and interesting fight.    

To avoid future legislation, the Broadband TV industry should adhere to current broadcast rules as much as possible and, as needed, set new guidelines.   This may require the various industry players to reach across ecosystems and proactively work together. 

The interesting thing is that IPTV operators, although inherently all-digital, are going to have to offer a separable security solution that allows for interoperability with consumer electronics equipment by July 1st, 2008. 

What does that mean?  Does that mean if AT&T connects an X-Box to U-verse, then this condition will be met?  How will the small operators, the real innovators in IPTV, comply with a July 1, 2008 date?  How are they going to get the attention of the Consumer Electronics industry?  The CE suppliers will probably not answer the phone for a current market that measures in the hundreds of thousands with a total market of probably 5 million.  This order creates more questions than it answers and does not look good for small provider of IPTV services.  

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-437A1.pdf

The footnote of interest:

See Consolidated Requests For Waiver Of Section 76.1204(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules, 22 FCC Rcd 11780,11802-04, ¶¶ 58-62 (2007) (“All-DigitalOrder”). While we do not decide in this order whether IPTV providers are in compliance with Section 76.1204(a)(1) as they claim, consistent with our precedent, we grant them waiver of that provision, which will afford them relief similar to what they seek. Id. It is our understanding that set-top box manufacturers have not developed any nonintegrated high definition or digital video recording devices for use with Internet Protocol (“IP”), Asynchronous Transfer Mode (“ATM”) or hybrid QAM/IP systems. To the extent that this understanding is correct, we will allow operators to deploy HD and DVR devices with integrated security elements for use on such systems until July 1, 2008. Those operators should work to develop and deploy a separable security solution that will allow for interoperability between their systems and consumer electronics equipment, preferably a downloadable solution based on open standards. All-DigitalOrder, 22 FCC Rcd 11804, ¶ 61.

These reports look like they will be well worth additional study.  What is truly impressive is that Working Report #43 actually tries to speak to the language of the new generation with a Flash Video. It could use a voiceover, but it is a big improvement for the FCC and a step in the right direction for communicating to a broad audience.  

• Enhancing Spectrum’s Value via Market-Informed Congestion Etiquettes
• Modeling the Efficiency of Spectrum Designated to License Use and Unlicensed Operations
• A Market-Based Approach to Establishing Licensing Rules: Licensed versus Unlicensed Use of Spectrum

Last week the FCC released new rules cutting the rates independent programmers must pay to lease channels on cable systems.  Under federal law, cable systems must set aside up to 15% of their channels for this purpose.  The FCC lowered the ‘maximum reasonable rate’ for these channels to 10 cents per subscriber per month – however, the lower rate is not be available to programmers who offer predominantly home shopping or infomercial programming.  Cable operators seeking to charge programmers more must show that a higher rate is reasonable.   The FCC has also adopted rules designed to speed up the process of leasing channels.  Although the cable industry may appeal all of this, that may not stop the new rates from going into effect this summer.

The FCC is considering whether to prevent local television stations from requiring cable operators to carry extra programming services as a quid pro quo for giving retransmission consent.  Likewise, the FCC also is considering whether cable networks should be prohibited from ‘tying’ other programming to their channels.  This rulemaking remains open, so interested parties may still make their views known to the FCC.

I have heard that there may be some confusion over the FCC’s new viewability requirements for cable systems that carry DTV signals.  This has nothing to do with multicast must-carry, which remains an open issue.  Instead, cable systems that provide analog service must downconvert DTV must-carry signals to analog format at their own expense and deliver them to subscribers who do not have DTV sets.  This obligation is scheduled to sunset on February 19, 2012.  A group of programmers (including C-Span, A&E and The Weather Channel) has already appealed the new requirement on First Amendment grounds, claiming it amounts to a dual carriage requirement that may force them off their cable channels.

The FCC recently voided all exclusivity clauses in service contracts between cable systems and owners of MDUs (the cable industry has already filed an appeal and asked for a stay of the FCC’s decision).  This does not apply only to apartment buildings – it also applies to other centrally managed residential properties such as gated communities and mobile home parks.