Traditionally, the legal rationale behind regulating broadcast TV is
that broadcast spectrum is a finite and very limited resource which
can only accommodate a relatively small number of channels (or radio
stations, for that matter). Hence the government has to step in and
make sure the available spectrum is used wisely and in the public
interest--which it does by licensing chunks of the airwaves, subject
to certain conditions such as no obscenity, equal access, closed
captioning, and technical rules like power limits and encoding
standards.
This is how the federal government can legally impose standards on
broadcast stations which might otherwise run afoul of the first
amendment. That's also why a lot of FCC rules don't apply to cable.
It would be a huge stretch for the U.S. government to try to impose
old-media style regulation on Internet video. There's no licensed
and limited resource, no presumption that internet "broadcasters"
should operate in the public interest, and that pesky first amendment
problem.
Heck, we can't even agree on the technical standards (i.e. flv vs.
mov vs. wma).
Captioning online video isn't a bad idea (if for no other reason than
it will increase your potential audience). But as a legal
requirement? I doubt it, and if the U.S. government tried, it would
almost certainly fail any court challenge. Any sort of content
fairness regulation (like the old equal time rule) is almost
laughable under current legal standards as long as there's no fraud
involved.
-Peter
On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean_m_garrett wrote:
> Very true, Heath. And, I'm sure many of us had our Ayn Rand phase and
> then got over it ;)
>
> Still, what Jeff and I warning of is the slippery slope of regulation.
>
> Take, for example, something far away from sex and politics. How about
> closed captioning for the hearing impaired? That's something that's
> hard to disagree with and that's why it's mandated across the
> traditional TV spectrum
> (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html).
>
> I've already read of disabled rights activists suggesting that these
> rules be applied to broadband video delivery.
>
> Now, I'm not suggesting that this would happen anytime soon, but I am
> suggesting that these issues be considered and pre-empted. And the
> best way to avoid regulation is to self-regulate.
>
> Continuing on the closed-captioning example, Google Video proactively
> started adding CC to select content in September. That's a healthy
> way to begin to address an issue like this. See:
> http://video.google.com/videocaptioned
>
> Likewise, when I see Rocketboom filming official campaign video for
> John Edwards and then running what looks like to an old-media eye as
> an objective interview on a news-like entertainment program the next
> day, I can't help but wonder if the online video "community" should be
> discussing appropriate standards for political liaisons before others
> do. (And, I appreciated Andrew Baron's reponse on this issue
> yesterday).
>
> Again, if issues like these are completely avoided "because it's the
> Internet", than, I'm afraid, folks might be surprised down the road by
> incremental encroachments on their commerce and/or art.
>
>
