From my reading of the FCC broadcast flag rule making, I think your post contains a couple of errors, as follows: You say "The broadcast flag rule, distilled to its essence, is a mandate that all consumer electronics manufacturers and information technology companies ensure that any device that touches digital television content encrypt that content and protect it against unauthorized onward distribution." Yet in paragraph 24, after discussing various protection scheme alternatives, including encryption at the source and in retransmission, the Commission concludes "As such, we decline to adopt encryption at the source as a content protection mechanism for DTV broadcasts." and goes on to say in paragraph 40 "As such, we decline to adopt compliance and robustness rules relating to consumer modulators." The rule making recognizes the inherent differences between devices which are used to recieve and view flagged broadcast DTV content, and those which are used to record, edit, and retransmit it, perhaps over data networks, and directs its focus accordingly, to the question of "redistribution control." That focus is clearly stated in paragraph 35, for the narrow class of equipment intended for the reception of over the air broadcasts, which is a diminishing distribution channel: "We further note that we intend our redistribution control regulations to apply to any device or piece of equipment – whether it be a consumer electronics, PC or IT device – that contains a tuner capable of receiving over-the-air television broadcast signals. Application of our rules in this manner is necessary in order not to create arbitrary lines of distinction that would result in vitiating the regulatory regime altogether." The rule making only requires equipment sold after July 2005 to give effect to any broadcast flag it finds in broadcast DTV content, and does not require the recieving device to encrypt that content in doing so. Later you say "The thing is, this rule doesn't merely affect TV receiving equipment. It affects everything that RECEIVES digital files from TV receiving equipment as well -- every device inside any home network. It affects the open-platform PC. " I don't agree, and I don't think that was the intent of the Commission in this rule making, as they say in paragraph 10 "We also wish to clarify our intent that the express goal of a redistribution control system for digital broadcast television be to prevent the indiscriminate redistribution of such content over the Internet or through similar means. This goal will not (1) interfere with or preclude consumers from copying broadcast programming and using or redistributing it within the home or similar personal environment as consistent with copyright law, or (2) foreclose use of the Internet to send digital broadcast content where it can be adequately protected from indiscriminate redistribution." Shortly after this rulemaking, the Commission approved a scheme by Tivo for limited redistribution of content over the Internet (which happened to involve encrypting the content during transmission and storage, as Tivo proposed it), from one machine to another, owned by the same person, but used at different locations, as an acceptable use, thus giving effect to the intention above expressed in the rulemaking. As to your comments regarding the Commission's reasoning regarding its authority in this area, I think you stand on firmer ground. But as an FCC licensed broadcast engineer for the last 30 years, I can say that the line of reasoning the Commission expressed in this rule making pretty clearly follows the intent of Congress since the early 1990's, following from the Communications Act of 1996, the DMCA, and related laws since. Congress simply doesn't want to be in the business of trying to regulate technology, because it doesn't feel it is a nimble enough body to do so effectively, and has been trying to pass that burden on to the FCC, which Congress feels should be a nimbler specialist agency, capable of doing the job. And the FCC, given the job of overseeing telecom deregulation, and aware that traditional broadcasting is a dying business, has taken on the job with a certian amount of self-interest. Whether that is a good way of doing things or not, for the larger society, is what many supporting the challenge to this rule making would like to argue in court. But right or wrong, that arguement needs to be decided back in Congress, if it is to be decided at all, because as things stand now, Congress has given the ball to the FCC, and is expecting it to the job. I doubt the courts are going to be proactive in reviewing broader claims, or reversing the present will of Congress, unless there are clear First Amendment issues at stake. In this case, I just don't see them.