Court strikes down FCC ban on unscripted profanity

One things TV does NOT need more of, it is profanity. Slowly, networks have been allowing more profane images onto their screens and have been flirting with adding profane language as well in the service of "realism" or "gritty feel." During the George W Bush years, the FCC got very aggressive, especially after the so-called wardrobe malfunction. But now a 3 judge panel in NY has overturned FCC rules against profanity in "unscripted" events. This is likely to free to networks to allow any level of profanity at events like award shows.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not have the power to strike down the 1978 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the FCC's right to police the airwaves for objectionable content. But it reversed the aggressive stance the agency took starting in 2004 that found even a slip of the tongue that got by network censors was a violation subject to fines for the stations that aired it.

The court said that policy on so-called fleeting expletives was "unconstitutionally vague" and created a "chilling effect" on the programming that broadcasters chose to air. The court echoed complaints from network executives that the FCC's standards were nearly impossible to gauge, noting that the agency allowed the airing of the f-word and s-word in broadcasts of the World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan" but not in the PBS miniseries "The Blues."

What I want to know is what an "unscripted event" entails. Specifically, how does this ruling affect reality TV shows like SURVIVOR which technically are unscripted, but are all over the airwaves?

The origin of the iPhone 4's signal problems?

Fans of government intervention and regulation believe that it is possible to create complex guidelines for businesses which give us only benefits and no detriments. But the reality is that every government regulation has an unintended consequence and one antenna designer is suggesting an FCC regulation is behind the reported iPhone 4 antenna issues. It may explain several other mysterious decisions behind Apple's designs in previous generations.

Just about every cell phone in current production has the antenna located at the bottom. This insures that the radiating portion of the antenna is furthest from the head. Apple was not the first to locate the antenna on the bottom, and certainly won't be the last. The problem is that humans have their hands below their ears, so the most natural position for the hand is covering the antenna. This can't be a good design decision, can it? How can we be stuck with this conundrum? It's the FCC's fault.

You see, when the FCC tests are run, the head is required to be in the vicinity of the phone. But, the hand is not!! And the FCC's tests are not the only tests that must be passed by a candidate product. AT&T has their own requirements for devices put on their network, and antenna efficiency is one of them. I know because I have designed quad-band GSM antennas for the AT&T network. The AT&T test similarly does not require the hand to be on the phone.

So, naturally, the design evolved to meet requirements - and efficient transmission and reception while being held by a human hand are simply not design requirements!

I can confirm that I have seen this issue with my iPhone, and it now appears Apple has acknowledged the issue. But it is interesting to see how it came about, and the pressures that may have justified it. In the meantime, many users are looking into cases to alleviate the issue.

FCC preparing switch to VOIP

Have you made a phone call using Skype or Google Voice or Vonage? If so, you are using a technology called "VOIP" or "Voice Over Internet Protocal". Basically, it routes calls over the internet instead of over the old hardware networks that cellular and landline calls use. This method is MUCH cheaper - international calls can be made for pennies per minute - although call quality and reliability can be somewhat less because the same networks are used to send e-mail, video, etc. which can hog the bandwidth. Most cable companies who offer their own telephone service are using VOIP technology.

Apparently, the FCC is ready to consider doing away with hardware-switch network entirely and move all phone calls onto VOIP. This could be a huge (and mostly positive) change for voice communication, as VOIP networks are much more flexible, cheaper, and merge voice, video, and textual information easily. And did I mention how much cheaper they are?