<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Path to Getting Greater Choice in Content</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/</link>
	<description>Technology &#38; Telecommunications Policy Discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:26:15 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CableTechTalk &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Cool Drink of Water</title>
		<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2477</link>
		<dc:creator>CableTechTalk &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Cool Drink of Water</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cabletechtalk.com/?p=647#comment-2477</guid>
		<description>[...] to submit something to Ars Technica on the hot topic of the SOC waiver, addressed previously here. The following day, they followed up with a counter to our thoughts. We&#8217;re grateful for any [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to submit something to Ars Technica on the hot topic of the SOC waiver, addressed previously here. The following day, they followed up with a counter to our thoughts. We&#8217;re grateful for any [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: michael petricone</title>
		<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2370</link>
		<dc:creator>michael petricone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cabletechtalk.com/?p=647#comment-2370</guid>
		<description>We share Kyle McSlarrow’s interest in giving consumers accelerated access to high-value content.  Fortunately, there is nothing preventing the Hollywood studios from providing these benefits NOW – without action from the FCC and without inconveniencing millions of viewers with analog input - only products.  Indeed, some studios like Warner Brothers are already releasing movies to video on demand simultaneously with the release to DVD.

Other studios claim they cannot speed up their release windows due to fear of piracy.  But they know this argument does not hold water, since most illicit files are uploaded within a day or two of a movie’s theatrical release.  By the time a movie hits cable, the piracy horse is long out of the barn.  Little wonder the studios have provided the FCC with zero evidence that “selectable output control” would reduce illicit file sharing.

 In reality, “selectable output control” is not about controlling content, but about controlling your TV.  If Hollywood gets the right to unilaterally turn off outputs on consumers lawfully purchased equipment, they will gain a broad and extraordinary power to dictate the specific designs of televisions and other products.   

We believe that consumers, not big movie studios, should choose the features of their televisions and determine how they are used in the privacy of the living room.   That is why we oppose Hollywood’s onerous and anti-consumer “selectable output control” scheme.

Michael Petricone
Consumer Electronics Association</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We share Kyle McSlarrow’s interest in giving consumers accelerated access to high-value content.  Fortunately, there is nothing preventing the Hollywood studios from providing these benefits NOW – without action from the FCC and without inconveniencing millions of viewers with analog input &#8211; only products.  Indeed, some studios like Warner Brothers are already releasing movies to video on demand simultaneously with the release to DVD.</p>
<p>Other studios claim they cannot speed up their release windows due to fear of piracy.  But they know this argument does not hold water, since most illicit files are uploaded within a day or two of a movie’s theatrical release.  By the time a movie hits cable, the piracy horse is long out of the barn.  Little wonder the studios have provided the FCC with zero evidence that “selectable output control” would reduce illicit file sharing.</p>
<p> In reality, “selectable output control” is not about controlling content, but about controlling your TV.  If Hollywood gets the right to unilaterally turn off outputs on consumers lawfully purchased equipment, they will gain a broad and extraordinary power to dictate the specific designs of televisions and other products.   </p>
<p>We believe that consumers, not big movie studios, should choose the features of their televisions and determine how they are used in the privacy of the living room.   That is why we oppose Hollywood’s onerous and anti-consumer “selectable output control” scheme.</p>
<p>Michael Petricone<br />
Consumer Electronics Association</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CableTechTalk &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ars Technica, Selectable Output Control and The Eternal Optimists</title>
		<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2353</link>
		<dc:creator>CableTechTalk &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ars Technica, Selectable Output Control and The Eternal Optimists</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cabletechtalk.com/?p=647#comment-2353</guid>
		<description>[...] &#160;  &#171; The Path to Getting Greater Choice in Content [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &nbsp;  &laquo; The Path to Getting Greater Choice in Content [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BIT RATE &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is the Movie Industry Crazy for Wanting to Lock Down Its Blockbusters?</title>
		<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2347</link>
		<dc:creator>BIT RATE &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Is the Movie Industry Crazy for Wanting to Lock Down Its Blockbusters?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:26:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cabletechtalk.com/?p=647#comment-2347</guid>
		<description>[...] President &amp; CEO Kyle McSlarrow, in a blog post Friday, makes this point and says the content controls are what make this possible: &#8220;While content [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] President &amp; CEO Kyle McSlarrow, in a blog post Friday, makes this point and says the content controls are what make this possible: &#8220;While content [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.cabletechtalk.com/tech-discussions/2009/11/06/the-path-to-getting-greater-choice-in-content/comment-page-1/#comment-2343</link>
		<dc:creator>Moose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cabletechtalk.com/?p=647#comment-2343</guid>
		<description>Denying SOC would be analogous to saying the studios can&#039;t make Blu-Ray discs because standard DVD players can&#039;t play them. So, since not everybody could immediately have the benefits of the best protection technologies, then nobody should have those benefits? Absurd. Exactly who would we be protecting by denying the SOC waiver? Certainly not the consumer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Denying SOC would be analogous to saying the studios can&#8217;t make Blu-Ray discs because standard DVD players can&#8217;t play them. So, since not everybody could immediately have the benefits of the best protection technologies, then nobody should have those benefits? Absurd. Exactly who would we be protecting by denying the SOC waiver? Certainly not the consumer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
