The modifications required to get XM radios back in compliance with the FCC may be much smaller that we thought. When Forbes published an article that read "The FCC issue could be more pervasive than previously believed", we previously believed them. Pitty us, as the answer may be much closer to the mundane.



According to Orbitcast, the part needed isn't internal, it's simply a 25-cent ferrite bead. That's right, one of those funny little bumps on the cord may be the cause of all this ruckus. The little loop is used to dampen magnetic radiation emmitted from cables carrying electric current.

This is good news for everyone involved if its true. I'm still not certain this is the issue in question. Other stories have pointed to the FM modulator being the problem that drew the ire of the FCC. If that's the case, I'm hard pressed to see how this fixes the issue.

XM Satellite Radio has announced the termination of a prior agreement to acquire WCS Wireless, a private entity. XM had been seeking additional wireless spectrum WCS Wireless held in certain geographic areas throughout the United States. The deal, previously announced on July 13th, 2005, would have seen XM acquire WCS wireless for 5.5 million shares of XM Common Stock.

At the time of the acquisition agreement between XM and WCS Wireless the parties had expected to close their transaction by this time, with the timing dependent on receipt of necessary government approvals.

Neither XM or WCS has been able to obtain approval for the new use of the spectrum held by WCS. Accordingly, XM and WCS Wireless have agreed to terminate the acquisition agreement in order to free WCS Wireless to pursue other alternatives for its spectrum licenses.

XM had at one point hoped to use the additional bandwidth to provide "a variety of multimedia subscription services, including innovative video and data offerings" in areas covering 160 million people throughout the United States and including 15 of 20 top metro markets.

In commenting on the termination, Gary Parsons, Chairman of XM, stated, "With the inability to obtain the necessary government approval for this transaction in a timely manner, WCS Wireless needed to pursue alternatives for its spectrum with greater certainty of regulatory approval."

On Friday, Ofcom, the UK's Office of Communications, announced they would auction 40 MHz of radio spectrum, from 1452 to 1492 MHz in the first quarter of next year. The upper 12.5 MHz would be dedicated to satellite radio, which is a pan-European requirement as regulated by the ITU. The UK is required to protect that block from interference with neighboring countries' satellite radio. The rest of the spectrum is unrestricted and technology neutral, a free-for-all. BT's Movio, a mobile digital TV product based on the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) standard, works in that lower block of spectrum, as do mobile TV systems based on DVB-H and wireless broadband based on WiMax. Ofcom is willing to break up the lower block of spectrum into multiple lots, and licenses would be good for a minimum of 15 years. Responses to Ofcom's Consultation (i.e. public comment period) must be in by June of this year.

[via ZDNet UK]

US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez has publicly supported Apple Computer on the issue of the proposed French law that will, among other things, allow Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies to be legally circumvented. Secretary Gutierrez said that more study is needed but "any time something like this happens, any time that we believe that intellectual property rights are being violated, we need to speak up..." The law, which was passed by France's lower house last week, would both make it legal to break open DRM technologies and also force music download services to only sell music files that would work on any digital music player. Both of these conditions rub Apple the wrong way because songs sold by iTunes can only be played back on the iPod, and, more importantly, the law would allow consumers to break songs out of their DRM wrapper and share them more easily (sharing and downloading would still be illegal, but with relatively low fines). Apple has called the proposed law "state-sponsored piracy."

[via MobileMag]

The Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA) officially backed HR 4861, otherwise known as the Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006, according to a story in Billboard Radio Monitor. Teaming up with its sister organization, the Gospel Music Association, the CMTA issued resolutions to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate and the FCC supporting HR 4861, stating, "...with new recording devices capable of recording satellite radio broadcasts and digital broadcasts from terrestrial radio stations, we are concerned that further damage will be inflicted on copyright owners and in turn, the record labels, musicians, recording artists, recording engineers, record store owners and others employed in gospel music." The resolution is similar to one the Gospel Music Association put their name on last year alongside AFTRA and the RIAA. The CMTA is also running an anti-piracy campaign with the slogan "Millions of Wrongs Don't Make it Right."

On March 15th, a bill was introduced in the Senate called the "Local Emergency Radio Service Preservation Act of 2006." The bill requires the FCC to determine if satellite radio can continue to offer "locally oriented services on nationally distributed channels." According to Billboard Radio Monitor, the bill's aim is to prevent satellite radio broadcasters from broadcasting any form of “locally differentiated” content. NAB President and CEO David Rehr had this to say:
"NAB applauds Sens. Snowe, Baucus and Lott for introducing legislation designed to preserve the rich tradition of local broadcasting. It is crystal clear that both XM and Sirius – with nearly $1 billion in combined losses last year and having failed as a national programming service – are skirting the intent of their original FCC licenses. This bill holds satellite radio accountable to those licenses." Mr. Rehr had similar remarks in a March 1 letter to the FCC opposing XM's acquisition of blocks of the WCS spectrum. I suppose we can't blame Mr. Rehr for his position - it's his job, after all, to look out for terrestrial broadcasters - but this is nothing but protectionism.

On March 16th, the France's National Assembly will vote on a law that would force music download services to sell music that would be compatible with all portable players. This notably affects Apple, whose iTunes store sells music that can only be played on iPods. The law would also reduce fines for illegally sharing and downloading music. Further, the law would decriminalize the creation and use of software to crack DRM schemes open. It's like the French Freddy Krueger went into the sleeping minds of record company executives and pulled out their nightmares in the form of French law. Leave it to the contrarian legislators of France - the same people who brought you total intolerance of religious symbols in public schools - to come up with a plan that is totally intolerant of the wishes of the recording industry. Um, you go, France?

UPDATE, 3/21: The National Assembly, France's lower house, approved the bill 296-193.

On March 2nd, House Resolution 4861 was introduced: The Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006. Like its predecessor, The Broadcast Flag (cue Night on Bald Mountain), The Audio Broadcast Flag is a method of alerting devices to the fact that material is copyrighted so that it can actively prevent copying. The problem with the way this legislation is worded is that it seeks to prevent unauthorized copying, not illegal copying - meaning, even if you are recording something that would ordinarily be fair use, you would still need direct permission to do so. Further, the Act requires consumer electronics manufacturers of digital radio receivers (satellite included) to get a license from the FCC plus use a broadcast flag or similar technology.

I'm of two minds on the issue of mandatory DRM. I am sympathetic to copyright owners who have long enjoyed the de facto protection of the redistribution of their works by dint of the difficulty of removing them from their medium - songs stayed stuck on records and radio... until technology marched forward. Cheap magnetic media was the first disruptive technology to harm this de facto protection. Audio tape forever changed the music landscape, not only by ultimately allowing the creation of the Walkman, removing citizens from a shared reality with everyone else, but by enabling the easy recording and copying of audio works. Now, the digital domain enables recording and copying to an unprecedented degree. We all know how easy it is to obtain music that we did not pay for (calling it "stealing" would cause too much cognitive dissonance), so we can't really be upset at the recording industry for trying to protect what is theirs (in the contract sense). Before you flame me and tell me it's the RIAA's own damn fault for charging such high prices, consider that business models don't turn on a dime, and the recording industry is no exception. All I'm saying is that it's unreasonable of us to expect that, in face of technologies such as CD ripping and p2p networks, the owners of copyright do not get to fight for their historical, albeit exorbitant profits.

Now, that said, f*%k those guys! I don't want the FCC having a hand in the manufacture of my digital radio devices, except to make sure the radio waves don't make me sterile! 

The Virginia General Assembly passed a bill that would impose a flat-tax on all communications and video services, including satellite radio and Internet telephony. Instead of four separate communications taxes, there would be one, across the board 5% tax. Sounds good, everyone likes harmonizing and streamlining regulation. But... something's not right.  Why is satellite radio being taxed next to phone companies, cable providers, and VoIP? Especially since over-the-air radio & TV, Internet service, and music download services are specifically exempt! A sharp blogger named Craig Vitter had these same questions and wrote a Virginian Delegate to get some answers.  Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter responded, and Craig was kind enough to post the letter and his commentary here.

In his first post on the subject, Craig makes the point that satellite radio is not similar to traditional telecommunications services that use public facilities, nor is it in competition with the likes of cable and DBS. I think this is the most compelling issue; the Richmond Times-Dispatch quotes State Senator Jeannemarie Devolites Davis as saying the bill would put Virginia "down the path of taxing content," and she's right. The taxes this flat-tax replaces are about public utilities, telecom subsidies, and local cable franchise fees. Satellite radio is a service that does not use public facilities - the tax is therefore discriminatory.

[Via FMQB and the TimesDispatch.com. Special thanks to Jeff Kelley at the Times-Dispatch.]

The US Public Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery (USACM) has released a Policy Brief on Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology to help law- and policymakers make better decisions. The recommendations are, as they call it, a balanced view of the DRM debate, which can so often only reflect the shrill, alarmist view of some content owners and copyright holders. The ACM recommendations recognize that two principles must be upheld to avoid a skewed and unfair copyright regime: 1) copyright owners have every right to protect their works, and 2) the public has every right to fair use, consumer protection, and the absence of policies that overreach or attack problems that do not exist.

The recommendations succinctly state: "The marketplace should determine the success or failure of DRM technologies but, increasingly, content distributors are turning to legislatures or the courts to erect new legal mandates to replace long-standing copyright regimes. DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior, not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints." This is a beautiful example of the grey areas of technology regulation - Congress is notoriously bad at regulating the growth and evolution of new technologies, but some technologies are so disruptive to certain activities that Congress has to surmount the steep learning curve of complex technological ideas and create laws that fairly protect all the stakeholders.  Remember Sony's copy protection scheme? It's that kind of egregious corporate behavior that must be prevented at the Federal level to ensure that we little people - the music-listening, video-watching public - are protected and safe from unfettered and harmful attempts to control the use of media.

[Via p2p.net.  Thanks, Christian!]

Over at Forbes.com, they are reporting on information from research firm RBC Capital Markets, that issued a client note on XM that reiterated its "Outperform" rating on XM stock. But the big item that is discussed is that the analyst thinks there will be three distribution channels in three years. Those three channels are OEM, aftermarket and cell phone operators. The analyst thinks that XM should sign a deal with a cell phone operator, and that the technology hurdles will be overcome to allow good integration with XM and cell phones.

Do you think satellite radio and cell phone should be integrated?

While lawmakers consider using analog TV spectrum for Emergency Services communications after the DTV transition in 2009, it appears that satellite radio might actually get there first. According to an FCC filing last week, XM is commenting on the usage of satellite radio for the Emergency Alert System (EAS). Volunteering to transmit national emergency messages on all channels, XM also suggests it can send state and local emergency messages on their Instant Traffic & Weather channels.

By the end of 2006, XM and SIRIUS will be required to transmit the national messages and the gist of XM's FCC filing is to suggest different methods of coordinating state and local broadcasts as well. Is this a good idea if it doesn't cost the consumer any additional subscription fees or do we just need national emergency messages on satellite radio?

Read the PDF (thanks Dave!)

Is this the same story as last year with different players? Now the NAB is going at it with the RIAA over HD Radio. The National Association of Broadcasters apparently gained a conscience overnight and accused the RIAA of scuttling "the progress made to date and turn[ing] back the clock on the digital radio revolution." The RIAA is firing back with the whole piracy issue even though we know that in a past life they had dual cassette tape dubbing capabilities (but they'll never admit it).

After all this, the "b" word was used in vain as RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol pledged to help "implement a broadcast flag solution for digital over-the-air radio." At this point, are we the only ones ready to re-up our old ham radio licenses and just say to hell with all of this silliness?

That's right: if you've been carrying one of those portable XM players in your pocket, that warm sensation just might be the battery. All three of the XM portable players are susceptible to overheating batteries, so get that thing out of your pants and check with XM for a new power supply. The voluntary recall affects the Delphi MyFi, Pioneer AirWare, and the Tao XM2GO, which we're now dubbing the "XM2HoT."

Read [via Engadget]

ZDNet has an incredible, and I mean that - incredible - article on the upcoming DRM laws that the RIAA, MPAA and other alphabet soup rights-constricting organizations are trying their darndest to push through. The HD Radio Content Protection Act of 2005 specifically is of concern to anyone listening to radio and who are concerned about the future of radio. To break it down in one line: they want to control how you are able to record digital radio, no matter the cost to the listener or the broadcaster.

I won't get into it any further because the article truly does have it all, and spells it out in plain english. So stop reading these words, and go read these.