I'm at the San Francisco airport.  Kudos to them -- it took five minutes to get through security.  I'm not quite sure why this was so easy.  Maybe everyone gave up on flying today.  This gives me a moment to look at the next section of the Stevens bill, starting on p.195.

It's called the Wireless Innovation Act of 2006, but it doesn't seem very innovative.  It says that "certified unlicensed devices" (oxymoronic) may use "eligible broadcast television frequencies."

The certified unlicensed devices have to submit to Commission testing ("to protect licensees from harmful interference from certified unlicensed devices") and have to be remotely disable-able if the Commission decides they're dangerous.  That is a big deal -- that means that these devices always have to be controllable.  A PC isn't remotely disable-able, but it could certainly be something that could use broadcast frequencies.  This requirement could have substantial chilling effects on whatever newfangled "certified unlicensed devices" the Commission has in mind.

It's a step in the right direction to open up spectrum for uses by wireless devices, but the testing and disabling requirements seem to be wrong-footed.  This means that all of these devices will be subject to Commission approval/testing, and that they be hardwired in some way to a central facility.  Not the most flexible approach.

The next section makes more sense -- it requires manufacturers of analog TV sets to let buyers know that starting in Feb. 2009 we'll be cutting over to digital broadcasting and they'll need a converter.  Because a huge majority of Americans already get their television over cable facilities, this transition should work smoothly -- and we have a couple of years to get the news out.  The bill requires both the Commission and broadcasters to help publicize the transition.  Yet another reminder that the Commission continues to mandate that broadcasters control content in particular ways (even though the justification for this is increasingly weak).  

There's an interesting provision requiring TVs to be able to block "programs with a common rating."  As long as the TV owner gets to choose what and whether to block, having this capability makes sense (if the form this capability takes isn't mandated).

Yet another multi-stakeholder group is suggested by this section -- the DTV Working Group.  This is like the group that's supposed to recommend "audio flag" rules.  Who's in this group, and who they claim to represent, will be a source of interest and concern.   

Tomorrow -- p.205 -- the "requirements for digital television sets and certain other equipment."  Yes, this deregulatory bill gets complicated.