Lots of gear still that’s still kicking around only has an analogue connection with digital video recorders (DVRs): like TiVos and Slingboxes made before 2004. And what about your TV? You’d likely be forced to upgrade to gear with digital ports (like HDMI) to watch movies protected with Selectable Output Control (SOC).

The studios are desperate to show on-demand movies over cable prior to their DVD release, but claim they can’t without so without SOC. They say the tech protects their revenue by blocking easy analogue copying — the so called “analogue hole“. Problem is, DVDs (a supposed secure format) get ripped and shared online anyway.

Not only that, but it’s almost a moot point. Warner Brothers (who signed the original SOC petition last year) released Observe and Report and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past for video-on-demand (VoD) this September — before their DVDs hit stores. Consumer advocacy groups, like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), also point out that Magnolia Pictures, distributors like IFC Films and more recently, Starz Media, are also doing VoD before DVD.

The MPAA says that the outputs would only be disabled for the new movies, and wouldn’t impact any existing content. And they make the fair point that there’s always a lag between new experiences early adopters get compared to those with older gear.

But I’m sorry MPAA, pull your head out of your arse. DVDs still get ripped, and one of the very studios you represent is still releasing on-demand movies prior to their DVD release. Why bother? Think about the huge customer base you’re alienating, and stay away from the back of my TV. [Public Knowledge and PC Magazine via BoingBoing]

Maybe the more interesting number though, is how many companies it takes to make Google Voice happen:

In its correspondence with the FCC, Google also reveals several companies that help it provide Google Voice. The list includes fiber-optic network operators Level 3 Communications (LVLT) and Global Crossing (GLBC). It also mentions Broadvox Communications, Bandwidth.com, and Pac-West Telecomm. IBasis (IBAS) is responsible for connecting outbound international calls on Google Voice and Neustar (NSR) provides “porting and carrier lookup services,” Google says in the letter. Syniverse Technologies (SVR) provides the free text-messaging service.

That’s eight, not counting Google itself. [BusinessWeek]

We don’t know too much about the gadget at this point. There’s no release date and no pricing information, but there are some pretty pictures and a brief explanation of how it works:

Previously recorded video, accessed on a computer via FlipShare software, is wirelessly streamed via the FlipShareTV USB stick to the small FlipShareTV box and controlled via remote.

Wowza. That combined with the fact that the FlipShareTV is a three-piece set seems a bit overly elaborate for a basic task. Until there’s more info, maybe we should just stick with being excited about Apple updates even if they’re a bit ugly.

[Zatz Not Funny!]

The FCC, being all about neutrality nowadays, is probably still going to flick Google in the balls over it. Given that Google’s clearly happy to give something away for free that costs a lot of money to make happen, would they really even consider charging Google Voice like they vaguely threatened? Nahhh. [Washington Post]

When you replace content provider fees with new network backbone company charges, and pay TV packages with traffic or website packages, this doesn’t seem so crazy, does it? [Reddit via Crunchgear]

We’ve mentioned the FCC’s plan to speed up new mobile tower rollouts to get more 4G goodness in the air, and now they may shift a portion of the spectrum set aside for digital TV to wireless companies to help create more bandwidth.

Of course, broadcasters don’t like the idea, and if you’re happy with free over-the-air digital TV, you probably won’t either.

This latest idea is being considered as part of the larger US national broadband plan, which is set to be made public in February. It’s not yet known if the TV spectrum proposal will make into the final plan. [Wall Street Journal]

Microsoft:
• Windows 7: A Weekend Install Guide and More
• You Guys Had Some Wild and Crazy Windows 7 Launch Parties
• Japan’s Windows 7 Whopper Is Real, and It’s Horrifying
• Behold! The Saddest Example of Promotional Convergence Ever!
• Microsoft’s First Retail Store Opens (Like Apple Store With More Colours)
• Windows Mobile 7 Screenshots Leak: Where’s the Start Button?
• Surefire Ways (Not) to Make Windows 7 Cooler
• 7 Reasons to Stick with Windows XP
• 27 Takes on Windows 7
• Windows 7 Review: You Can Quit Complaining Now

Apple:
• Apple iMac Review: 27 Inches and Less Chin
• Unibody Apple MacBook Review
• Apple Magic Mouse Review
• Time Capsule and Airport Extreme Grow New Antennas to Get Faster and Stronger
• Mac Mini Updates: Faster Processors, More Memory and a Dual Hard Disk Server
• 10 Things You Need to Know About Apple’s New Stuff

Barnes & Noble
• Exclusive: First Photos of Barnes & Noble’s Double Screen eReader
• Barnes & Noble’s Dual-Screen Nook: $US260, Eats the Kindle’s Lunch
• Barnes & Noble Compares Nook to Kindle 2: Biased But Fair
• Live From Barnes & Noble’s Nook Event
• 8 Reasons You Can Finally Love eBook Readers (Thanks to Nook)
• Barnes & Noble Nook Up Close: Yep, It’s Real Nice

The Rest:
• FCC: We’re Going to Make Net Neutrality the Law
• The Totally Predictable Cable Industry Response to the FCC’s Net Neutrality Plan
• John McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act” Seeks to Block FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules
• Motorola Droid Unexpectedly Appears on Motorola’s Site Ahead of Schedule

He’s introduced the “Internet Freedom Act”, which would block the FCC’s rulemaking process. He says the rules would create “onerous federal regulation”, and constitute a “government takeover” that would stifle innovation.

“Today I’m pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation,” McCain said. “It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy.”

I’m trying to keep politics out of this, but apparently his view of “Internet Freedom” refers to big business freedom, not American citizens. It’s strange, because I always thought that thriving competition was the best way to boost jobs and protect us consumers. Apparently not.

Lest we forget: Mac or PC? “Neither, I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get.” His words, not mine. Even if you don’t agree with the FCC, is this really the right guy to oppose them? [Computerworld]

We fully appreciate that Chairman Genachowski and all Commissioners have approached a difficult set of issues in a constructive way. The Commission has provided a fair and transparent process to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) adopted today, and we will participate fully in helping the Commission develop a record on these issues. To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet. However, we continue to believe the broadband marketplace is an unparalleled American success story and already offers consumers an open Internet experience. So, we welcome the opportunity to make our case that investment, innovation and consumer welfare are all enhanced by continued government restraint. Given the tremendously high stakes, we hope the Commission will approach these issues with a healthy scepticism of hypothetical harms, and with a full understanding of the very real consequences that regulatory action may have on investment, job creation, and the continued expansion and improvement of next generation networks.

We appreciate it! It’s fair, and transparent! We supports a free and open internet! But hey, by the way, we hope the commission totally guts this proposal, because it’s dumb. Get that?

The event is still happening, but they got right to the meat. Here are the proposed guidelines — the first four are old, and the latter two, the ones that matter, are new:

Under the draft rules, subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not:

1) prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;

2) prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;

3) prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;

4) deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers.

5) A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.

6) A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Now, this is just a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, so it’s not yet an actual, binding rule; this is the stage where the FCC seeks public comment on their proposal, after which they adjust (or not!) accordingly. The draft proposal, which Chairman Julius Genachowski and co. are universally expected to follow through on, would be open to scrutiny until January 14. The biggest issue up for debate, aside from the core principles, is how to apply them.

The Notice will seek comment and input on these principles and their affect on internet services. With the tremendous growth of mobile and wireless broadband enabled devices, there will be a large question concerning the application of these principles to those devices.

That’s the literal billion dollar question, which, rest assured, armies of lobbyists have a ready answer for.

What’s important, though, is that this is what they intend to do, which is fantastic for net neutrality proponents, if not, you know, objectively fantastic. An open internet means no tiered service, sure, but the possible data caps and metered bandwidth—two ways telcos and ISPs can recoup heavy users’ bandwidth costs in the near-term—probably wouldn’t be too popular either.

UPDATE: The five commissioners have now voted on the NPRM; here’s how it shook out:

FCC votes on Open Internet NPRM: Genachowski, Clyburn & Copps in favor. Baker & McDowell dissent in part, concur in part

If I’ve got my procedural rulemaking protocols right (this is the iffiest of ifs, by the way), that means the process is going forward. Mazel tov, FCC.

UPDATE 2: Ars has a skeptical piece up about the vagueness of some of the proposed rules, specifically the definition of “reasonable network management processes” as it concerns rule six. It’s fascinating, but presumably exactly the kind of thing that’ll be publicly discussed during the vetting process. [FCC]