Broadcast flag back in congress

[flavius]

Here comes take two:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article...id=188&tid=219

[Jason]

And again...


http://news.com.com/Politicians+want...6722&subj=news

-Jason

[dbfresh23]

This is the kind of stuff that makes you wonder who these politicians are really working for.

[waynedunham]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

This is the kind of stuff that makes you wonder who these politicians are really working for.

I don't wonder at all, it's whoever comes through their door with the biggest check. Of course I live in Connecticut and for every corrupt politician that we indict, and/or put in jail, at least 2 or 3 more pop up. So I might just be a little more jaded than the average Joe.

[Jason]

Don't just post a message about it... Send your Congressman and Senators your message!


https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy...rAction&id=129

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by Jason

Don't just post a message about it... Send your Congressman and Senators your message!


https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy...rAction&id=129

Color me jaded as well but unless each of those messages arrive with a $10,000 check, they stand little chance of making a difference. Welcome to the Corporate States of America.

Nevertheless, I keep crossing my fingers and sending them.

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by sleonard

Nevertheless, I keep crossing my fingers and sending them.

The checks?

It's disgusting that the officials that we elect soon forget who put them there and become open to the highest bidder.

[salsbst]

It's disgusting that we keep electing Republicans and Democrats, when both parties are for sale to the highest bidder.

[src666]

Enough messages sent DO make a difference, because they tell the people in Congress that we are watching what they do on this issue. However, a couple hundred form e-mails is not the most effective way to do it.

The number 1 most effective way is to say it in person, if you ever get a chance to meet your local congress-critter. After that, an mailed actual letter is next best, followed by faxes/phone calls, and lastly e-mails. The oft-quoted statistic is that each letter recieved represents 1000 people who agree but don't take the time to write. This ratio has probably exploded, as most of the people take the easy way out of e-mailing these days.

Also, it is best to write your own letter, rather than just blasting the form-letter provided by EFF/whoever. If you can't write the whole thing, change the wording a bit. Add a paragraph or two on why this issue is important to you. This shows that you aren't just "joining the crowd", but are really interested in the issue, and therefore more likely to keep up with what they actually do.

Also remember that the letter will probably never be read by your local slime-bucket, but instead will be seen only by their staff. Make sure you clearly indicated what issue you are referring to, either by the bill name/number, or if possible by the sponsor's name and their name for it.

When enough people take the time to express their personal dislike for a bill, the people in congress have to take the effect of disappointing those people into account, and are more likely to take a closer look.

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

The checks?

Hmm, left myself open for that.

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

It's disgusting that the officials that we elect soon forget who put them there and become open to the highest bidder.

Oh, they never forget the corporations and rich donors who put them in office. You can be sure of that!

Originally Posted by salsbst

It's disgusting that we keep electing Republicans and Democrats, when both parties are for sale to the highest bidder.

Very true but I would have to say that the Republicans have really sunk to all-time record lows in the Machiavellan dirty politics game.

Originally Posted by src666

Enough messages sent DO make a difference...

This is a much harder view to counter because there is a lot of truth to it and ultimately the people do have controlling power over their elected officials. The reality is that they continually fail to exercise that power or even bother to interest themselves in the issues. I don't see this changing for the better until a lot of average American people are feeling serious pain.

Even when elected officials do recieve enough feedback from the people to make them reconsider an issue, all that usually happens is that the particular bill is temporarily shelved. If the corporate interests are strong enough, then the corporations just have their lawyers redraft the bill in new language (Especially easy since those same corporate lawyers drafted the original) and have their pet senator re-introduce it at a more opportune time. If it again gets too much attention by the people they just keep repeating the process until they are able to slip it by. It is an enormously successful method for passing legislation that is harmful to the interests of the American people.

Ok, I gotta get off the for now and go to bed. My blood pressure is rising and I'm starting to feel like a conspiracy nut who can't find his tin foil hat.

[Opus4]

The original topic was relevant to the subject of this forum, but but arguing the merits of any political system or parties is a bit outside the scope of this forum. There is certainly no conclusion everyone can agree on, so let's not get into arguing politics.

Thank you.

- Andy

[silkshadow]

I understand the new broadcast flag is being bundled in a omnibus budget bill that will be very hard to stop. Is the 3rd time the charm for those greedy crooks?

[salsbst]

Originally Posted by Opus4

The original topic was relevant to the subject of this forum, but but arguing the merits of any political system or parties is a bit outside the scope of this forum. There is certainly no conclusion everyone can agree on, so let's not get into arguing politics.

Thank you.

- Andy

I wholeheartedly disagree, and ask that you think through it one more time, but will comply with your request.

[DFA]

I agree that in general this is not the place to discuss politics at large. However, the BF is in a a political context at this time and seems unavoidable and not all that inappropriate. As long as the discussion does not devolve into a Rep. vs. Dem. thing and/or failings of our political system and stays focused on how best us little guys can voice our disapproval with as much effectiveness as possible, I don't see the harm.

The methods and techniques by which controversial things are moved through the system these days are indeed troubling (fictional i.e.; a bill to help and save flood-stricken people of La. in conjunction with BF approval) but need not be disscused.

Andy, please reconsider some political discourse if it can remain centered around the defeat of BF legislation without regard to personal political preference and opinion. Just set the ground rules.

DFA

[Opus4]

Oh, great... now we're going to argue about arguing about politics...

Originally Posted by DFA

I agree that in general this is not the place to discuss politics at large. However, the BF is in a a political context at this time and seems unavoidable and not all that inappropriate. As long as the discussion does not devolve into a Rep. vs. Dem. thing and/or failings of our political system and stays focused on how best us little guys can voice our disapproval with as much effectiveness as possible, I don't see the harm.

I already said the BF stuff was fine for the forum, since it was relevant to this forum's subject. I just don't see the point in an extended politics discourse when there are lots of other political thought outlets on the web.

I sent a PM to salsbst since he asked about it, but I suppose I'll post what I said...

------
The reason I asked that the political argument not continue is that, like religion, there doesn't seem to be a 'right' answer that everyone can calmly agree on, or even calmy agree to discuss. Too many such discussions that I've seen in various places seem to start out with everyone treating each other decently... then someone says such & such party are all <insert some slur>, leading to someone else to say that isn't the case, your side are all <same slur>, leading to "my side can beat up your side, you $#%@!^", and so on.

This isn't conjecture on my part; it has already started. The post prior to mine already commented how "Republicans have really sunk to all-time record lows in the Machiavellan dirty politics game." I can just see some Republican deciding that isn't the case, the party needs defending, and then proceeding to sink to an all-time record low on the forum in a response.

I just feel that such discussions lead nowhere in a SageTV-centric forum and I would rather not get that started.
------

- Andy

[DFA]

No arguement to argue here. You're decision and reasoning behind it is valid and understood.

DFA

[Opus4]

I seem to have put a complete halt to this topic, but that wasn't really my intention... The Broadcast Flag is an important topic around here and after some internal discussions at SageTV about this thread, we've decided to encourage more participation here. Please continue posting your thoughts on the entire BF BS.

- Andy

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Opus4

I seem to have put a complete halt to this topic, but that wasn't really my intention... The Broadcast Flag is an important topic around here and after some internal discussions at SageTV about this thread, we've decided to encourage more participation here. Please continue posting your thoughts on the entire BF BS.

- Andy

Well, while I don't want to play politics either, it appears that the MPAA has raised bipartison support in the recent letter that was sent to Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan who is the current chairman of the House of Representatives panel on Internet and commerce. The letter was signed by 12 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

I mention this not to further the Dem vs Rep debate, but rather to show the depth of the support for continuing the BF (in whatever shape).

What we should all know is that the 'BF' as we now know it (Mandated by the FCC...) was struck down. It was struck down due to the courts deciding that the FCC overstepped it's mandate, which was given to it by Congress. In quoting from news.com the current issue is that, "The draft bill says, simply, that the FCC will "have authority to adopt regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks." The District of Columbia Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up."

By attaching further mandates/powers to the current FCC lineup, Congress would 'sidestep' the courts decision, and give the FCC to bring BACK the BF. In our current political arena, this proposal could be attached to almost any bill, specifically those related to spending. The current funding bill for the FCC is still before a conference committee....

As most of know from our schoolhouse rock videos (did I just date myself...?), a bill is just an unsigned law. Once it is signed [into law], then the only person who can veto it, is the President. Good 'ol GW's recent appointment of Miers (a pro-business conservative!) to the Supreme Court may indicate how that would go! (Sorry for the short political jab there... )

-Jason

[DFA]

Thanks Andy.

I do not have anything to contribute myself but was interested to read the comments, opinions and advise of others in order to obtain some better direction for myself.

I understand the problem where politics is integral to the discussion. It can be like Pandora's box. First, the finger pointing before an all out rhetorical slug-fest breaks out. Hopefully, members will remain focused on discussing ways and means to defeat BF legislation.

DFA

[DFA]

Jason:

Hmmm. I did not know that was the tactic. So, it's not a matter of introducing and passing the BF itself through congress but rather having congress endow the FCC with the necessary authority to put the BF in place as originally attempted. Is that it? How would that be fought since not being able to meet the BF head on?

DFA