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 , 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 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 For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Nov 97 15:33 CST From: Jim Thomas 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 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 ************************************