Slashdot Mirror

There is a chance this will change in the (near ?) future.

The US government says they are going to let ICANN 'go global':

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-...

Please take a look here:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/...

Every block where you see "Amateur" _not_ in all CAPS, Amateur Radio is a secondary use and not the primary licensee. You can see that there are no blocks that are allocated primarily to Amateur use that would be useful to cellular carriers.

420-450, 902-928, 1240-1300 are all government property that Amateurs are allowed to use provided they do not cause interference to the primary licensee.

If government didn't have a use for that spectrum, it certainly would have been sold already - certainly before going through all the trouble to move OTA TV to HD and reclaiming that spectrum.

Seriously, think logically for a minute. If the government could have opened up over 100Mhz of spectrum to cellular carriers by simply displacing a few hams, rather than upending the entire broadcast TV industry, that's the way it would have been done.

You really don't need to be justified to boycott a product/company. You can do it whenever you really want.

Unless the product/company is Israeli. Then it needs to be reported to the Department of Commerce.

Yes, this huge volume of traffic totally makes their overage charge of $1.99 per MEGABYTE if you go over your 2 GB monthly limit. Why do I fucking pay 15 dollars per gig for the first 2 and then 2 thousand dollars for the next one? Is it to lull me to sleep and then ram a huge charge up my ass? Because it feels like it.

We think of limits as some sort of communist plot, hatched by the president and the Democrats in dark vegetarian only rooms.

Yet there is a problem here. I hate to say this to digital people, but there is a limit to bandwidth when run outside of wires or fiber.

This is a big problem, because people want to look at their porn and watch movies on their smartphones. But that is a lot of data, if we dare call it that.

But we will reach saturation pretty quickly at this point.

And the same old solutions will be trotted out. But the RF spectrum isn't going to cooperate. There are physical limits, apparently unknown to the general public, and digital engineers, of Signal propagation, intermodulation, and just sheer numbers of users that limit the frequencies that will work for data. We're talking about a couple GigaHertz and above.

And we are really rapidly running out of available frequencies.If you want to dig for some, here you go:

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf

Or a nice graphical chart http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/spectrum_wall_chart_aug2011.pdf

Because it's no fun looking through text lists. Don't even think about those lower frequencies, microwatts can somethings propagate around the world on them, and some other times, solar activity can knock them dead. The lower in frequency you go, they more atmospheric noise too, which will regularly knock out your signal. Look for 2 GHz and above. If you find a suitable place let us know. Not much real estate left.

A year or so, there were tests made to see if Data could be run at frequencies not far from the ones used for GPS. The RF guys said it wouldn't work, because there would be interference. Thee digital guys said, "WTF are you talking about?"

They ran the tests, and it didn't work. The only people surprised were the digital folks.

But what to we do? People "gots to" have their porn on their smartphones. I suspect that we are going to have to have a sort of hybrid system. Signals run through fiber, especially approach infintie bandwidth because if you need more signal, add more fiber. The cell phone towers as they are today are a technological dead end, rapidly being killed through popularity. We are going to have to have fiber going to shf points in individual buildings, and similar setups on the street. Very low power, really high frequencies to keep the range purposely short. It's doable, but people will have to pay. Otherwise, it's data throttling brought to you by the laws of physics.

It is antiboycott laws (such as the blatantly unconstitutional one the U.S. has to squash criticism of Israel) that are attempts at silencing free speech.

The only "boycotts" US businesses are prevented from participating in by the law you cite are those that are compelled by a foreign power (e.g. if Saudi Arabia says "You can sell to us or you can sell to Israel, but not both," the law compels you to deal with Israel rather than Saudi Arabia). Personal and private decisions that are simply coincidental (e.g. you happen to have your own personal objections to Israel) are still perfectly legal.

If you don't like it don't buy it. Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts that are nothing but attempts at silencing free speech.

You're not making any sense. A boycott is nothing but a large group of people saying "we don't like it, so we're not buying it." Boycotts (and buycotts) are an exercise in free speech and free markets. It is antiboycott laws (such as the blatantly unconstitutional one the U.S. has to squash criticism of Israel) that are attempts at silencing free speech.

This is simply not true. According to the dept. of commerce, there are 100 million poor people who don't have internet access

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/exploringthedigitalnation-computerandinternetuseathome.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20899109

And if you leave the western world for a moment you'll find its even worse.

I don't know where you're getting your information about ubiquity, but it's just plain wrong.

Hong Kong
SIZE: 426 sq miles
POPULATION: 7 million
DENSITY: 16.5K / sq mile

Los Angeles
SIZE: 503 sq miles
POPULATION: 4 million
DENSITY: 8K / sq mile

Los Angeles is half the population density of Hong Kong. Furthermore, the LA Metro area, which has a population of 12 million.

Let's just look at LA county, which has a population of 10 million, spread over 4,752 sq miles.. For a density of 2K/sq mile.

See the difference?

Southern Connecticut is a great example. No, it's not as dense as NY, but the entire southern half of Connecticut is fairly heavily populated. But you can't really point to a city as the demographic. It's one continous moderate density sprawl.

Connecticut
SIZE: 5,550 sq miles
POPULATION: 3.5 million
DENSITY: 739/sq mile

The result is that to wire most of Connecticut's population one must cover thousands of square miles. Note, Connecticut is 4th dense state. So let's compare the math. For Hong Kong to wire 3.5 million people, they need to cable 426 miles vs Connecticut, same population, must wire over 5,000 sq miles.

So to achieve the same connectivity, Connecticut must wire 10x the area of Hong Kong. Now, we're not talking about a rural/country area. Yes, some parts of the NW/NE Connecticut are rural. Even if we allowed Connecticut to only connect 90% of it's population, we'd still be required to wire around 3,500 square miled (7x Hong Kong).

Remember, this is the 4th most dense state in the United States. I would wager, that few countries spread as much cable to reach as many people over as great an area as the U.S.

Per the links, 82% of rural communities have access high speed internet (25mbps service), 98% can access basic broadband (6mbps).
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/blog/
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/ntia-explores-broadband-availability-new-report-series

Alternately, if you actually read those emails then you should be armed with precise quotes of the "deceptions and manipulations" which you found so powerfully convincing, or at least have some mental construct of their findings to provide us, rather than just a brief handwave in their direction preparatory to an ad hominem slur devoid of substantive content.

As, for instance, these quotes from 7 unrelated investigations which I find convincing:

"even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."
-"The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal. "
- "Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit." http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

"Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."
- "Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann" http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

"On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. ... In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
- "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review" http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

"Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."
- "Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act" http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html

"In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures. In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that NOAA was non-compliant with the IQA or the Shelby Amendment. "
- "Examination of issues related to internet posting of emails from Climatic Research Unit" http://www.oig.doc.g

Are you maybe comparing 2010 to 2013?

The retail box version of 2010 is US$499; add the 10% Australian GST and the 5% Duty on the license, and that gets you to US$575, not including the shipping cost + 10% GST on the shipping cost, which could, combines get you up that high.

http://web.ita.doc.gov/ITI/itiHome.nsf/9b2cb14bda00318585256cc40068ca69/c321b1b57a1a598985256d010070bf9e?OpenDocument

I was unable to find a boxed retail version of 2013 list price online; I guess I could look next time I was at an office store or Fry's, and see what price they have crossed out to show me what I'm saving.

Before the general technology agreement, it was incredibly expensive to export software to Australia (I worked for several small software houses which jumped through the necessary hoops). This could be a leftover, but you should expect 15% higher for boxed copies just from your own taxes and duties down there.

What does Amazon charge you for the download version? I think they pretty much don't care where they ship.

Here's the 2011 version of that chart.

It's startling when you look at a chart of frequency allocation and see how much is allocated to DOD, maritime, and obselete tech. Meanwhile you have everyone and their neighbor competing over 11 channels for Wifi.

That is the meat of it, Etherwalk. But it's worth noting there really is a bandwidth shortage. I was part of the "band clearing" effort for the relatively disused 1710-1755 Mhz AWS band and it's extremely painful.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2013/sixth-annual-progress-report-relocation-federal-radio-systems-1710-1755-mhz-spectrum-ban

The military, and other Federal agencies, both buy and maintain equipment that lasts virtually forever and the cost of new equipment that uses more modern bands is enormous. In many cases my employer simply purchased it for them. It doesn't matter if the FCC has sold you the band, if using it is going to interfere with life-saving traffic you have to have a "fix" that is better than sending them repeated violation notices.

Much like with Linux, the basic problem is with the users. 8 years ago voice traffic was the largest use of a wireless carrier's spectrum with 15-25% shaved off for GPRS-EDGE (or basic 3G UMTS) data comm. Now voice is a trivial component, and "phones" spend hours a day streaming Netflix and doing other things that consume 20x more bandwidth than a mere voice conversation. While Moore's law has applied nicely to handset capabilities, the pace at which spectrum opens up has not kept pace. LTE makes better use of the new spectrum, but it already requires a much better SNR than it's predecessors, there is no jump to "LTE2" that will save us from being this spot again in a few years, and people already want high-def video on their tablets.

So, actually "now" is the right time to push for freeing up some more spectrum so it will be available in the nick of time, just like the 3G spectrum for Apple's IPad explosion wasn't.

Interestingly, the FCC is not the primary authority for federal use of the radio spectrum - the OSM is (part of NTIA). Use of the stingrays under the aegis of the federal government is not regulated by the FCC. This handy-dandy wall chart shows what spectrum is used by whom and for what (unless it's classified).

Interestingly, the FCC is not the primary authority for federal use of the radio spectrum - the OSM is (part of NTIA). Use of the stingrays under the aegis of the federal government is not regulated by the FCC. This handy-dandy wall chart shows what spectrum is used by whom and for what (unless it's classified).

You're talking apples and oranges.

Classified technologies must be kept secret from everyone not authorized to see them, regardless of their nationality.

In the U.S., export-controlled technologies are technologies that may be freely distributed to anyone in the country -- and indeed, to anyone in most countries -- but not to members of certain "lists." One of the lists is for entities, and includes, "China." Such technologies may be even discussed in public forums -- stadiums, even -- as long as one is assured that no one from the restricted lists is present. Note that one does not have to physically export anything to be in violation of these laws -- discussing the wrong technology with the wrong foreign national is all that is required.

I'm not an expert in this field, but I seem to remember an exception to the rules in that anything intended for publication is permitted to be exported. That's how technical journals continued to exist. Strange, I know.

You're talking apples and oranges.

Classified technologies must be kept secret from everyone not authorized to see them, regardless of their nationality.

In the U.S., export-controlled technologies are technologies that may be freely distributed to anyone in the country -- and indeed, to anyone in most countries -- but not to members of certain "lists." One of the lists is for entities, and includes, "China." Such technologies may be even discussed in public forums -- stadiums, even -- as long as one is assured that no one from the restricted lists is present. Note that one does not have to physically export anything to be in violation of these laws -- discussing the wrong technology with the wrong foreign national is all that is required.

I'm not an expert in this field, but I seem to remember an exception to the rules in that anything intended for publication is permitted to be exported. That's how technical journals continued to exist. Strange, I know.

Actually, the military and licensed government spectrum is controlled by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. It informs the FCC what frequencies will be used by federal users. The FCC only regulates use of the spectrum by non-federal users.

Both must coordinate with each other, of course, and international bodies like the International Telecommunications Union.

Sorry, how about I link one made in the last 10 years.
Frequency Allocation table, August 2011

Hi. If you mean held for by the government in that they manage and regulate it, then yes. That's what they're supposed to do. If you mean to imply that only the government uses it, then you're amazingly misinformed. Here's a chart that shows the usage allocation of US spectrum. The narrow bar under the spectrum indicates the primary user (commercial-only, government-only, shared)
US Frequency Allocation Table

You say this in jest, but the government actually has "strategic stockpiles" of a lot of different materials. See http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/stockpikecommittee.html and https://www.dnsc.dla.mil/

The story says she was Tasered when she came in to pick up phones she had already ordered on line. So she was rightfully demanding that the store fulfill an obligation to her.

As for "unauthorized export", that has no meaning in state law, and state cops have no authority in that area. There are some Federal restrictions, but they involve mostly the few countries the US still doesn't get along with, like Cuba and North Korea. You can ship all the iPhones you want to China as far as the US is concerned. Importing into China is difficult, much more so than importing into the US. But that's enforced at China customs processing. Not by some mall cop.

Those aren't iPhone model numbers. Those are Export Commodity Classification Control Numbers, which is how the government refers to categories of products. See http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/nlr.htm The poster above you is saying that the iPhone falls into a category that does not require an export license. However, not all encryption technology falls into that category.

No, they didn't. Not until the law changed. Encryption no longer counts as munitions.

That's not true. Encryption for DRM purposes no longer counts as munitions. In general, devices that enable custom encryption applications are still considered munitions (e.g., cryptoanalysis libraries and devices that have hardware encryption accellerators that make them easy to use in password cracking farms).

You can thank hollywood and the computer software folks for the DRM exemption, though... ;^)

No, they didn't. Not until the law changed. Encryption no longer counts as munitions.

That's not true. Encryption for DRM purposes no longer counts as munitions. In general, devices that enable custom encryption applications are still considered munitions (e.g., cryptoanalysis libraries and devices that have hardware encryption accellerators that make them easy to use in password cracking farms).

You can thank hollywood and the computer software folks for the DRM exemption, though... ;^)

US export law is no joking matter. It is impossible to exaggerate how goofy the rules are, and how much trouble you can get in for violating them. It doesn't matter if you're a hacker in a basement or a Fortune 100 defense contractor -- you do not want to mess around with these people.

Some examples of the evidence you're asking for.

More here. I think my favorite is the veterinary supply wholesaler in Waukee, Iowa who was fined $250,000 for sixteen unlicensed exports of cattle prods to Mexico.

US export law is no joking matter. It is impossible to exaggerate how goofy the rules are, and how much trouble you can get in for violating them. It doesn't matter if you're a hacker in a basement or a Fortune 100 defense contractor -- you do not want to mess around with these people.

Some examples of the evidence you're asking for.

More here. I think my favorite is the veterinary supply wholesaler in Waukee, Iowa who was fined $250,000 for sixteen unlicensed exports of cattle prods to Mexico.

how does bringing them back there in anyway give China access to any "controlled technology" they don't already have?

It's the information the technologist has stored on it that is the problem. The export control laws are enforced by the Bureau of Industry and Security, and they are arcane, complex, and woefully out of date. Just to give one example, if you're a microprocessor designer, and have a design that operates at temperatures exceeding 125C, that design is controlled; carrying that design in your laptop when you go to China is a violation of the law -- whether or not it is even accessed while in China. (It's also illegal to show that design to any person of Chinese citizenship, even if you both are in the US at the time; that, too, is considered export under the law.)

If I read the radio spectrum allocation chart correctly they would be sued out of existence by satellite communication companies, assuming the C band is still used.

You will love these charts!

  --> US Cellular Frequency chart --> http://www.qrctech.com/assets/Frequency-Chart/19Nov201024x36FreqChart.pdf

--> US Radio Wave Frequency Allocation Chart --> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf

Next time take a page from the Chinese and just convince the target country to manufacture the components in your country in the first place.

Hmmm, sounds like you should brush up on your export control laws. From the most basic concepts:

WHAT IS AN EXPORT?

Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.

How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.

Emphasis mine. So how are you telling the Chinese what to make if you're not shipping them the schematics? If you know a company that is manufacturing such sensitive controlled electronics overseas I believe you are legally obligated to report it to your local Office of Export Enforcement branch.

Next time take a page from the Chinese and just convince the target country to manufacture the components in your country in the first place.

Hmmm, sounds like you should brush up on your export control laws. From the most basic concepts:

WHAT IS AN EXPORT?

Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.

How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.

Emphasis mine. So how are you telling the Chinese what to make if you're not shipping them the schematics? If you know a company that is manufacturing such sensitive controlled electronics overseas I believe you are legally obligated to report it to your local Office of Export Enforcement branch.

The Bureau of Industry and Security, US Department of Commerce, is the place to go to see the appropriate regulations. See, especially, the Export Administration Regulations, the Commerce Control List (especially), and the Lists to Check list. (Yes, there are so many lists that the lists themselves have a list.)

The Bureau of Industry and Security, US Department of Commerce, is the place to go to see the appropriate regulations. See, especially, the Export Administration Regulations, the Commerce Control List (especially), and the Lists to Check list. (Yes, there are so many lists that the lists themselves have a list.)

The Bureau of Industry and Security, US Department of Commerce, is the place to go to see the appropriate regulations. See, especially, the Export Administration Regulations, the Commerce Control List (especially), and the Lists to Check list. (Yes, there are so many lists that the lists themselves have a list.)

The feds (US) created the map you want as part of the Federal Stimulus program (NTIA BTOP http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about)

I am sure they did not get it all, because the carriers did not like to give up this information. They feel that knowledge of dark fiber would be helpful to their competitors but the feds made it a condition for the grants.

They put some of that information on line, although not in the way you want, as the National Broadband Map. I believe they are interested in public input to this map (where do the hills block the wireless signals, how far out does the DSL stop working)
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/technology

I think you will find that almost all fiber in public right of way is paid. At least around here, you cannot plow in some fiber along side a state road with paying the DOT and you cannot put fiber into city conduit without paying the city. Now everyone can have their own opinion about what is a fair price for access, but I am sure that the carriers feel that they are paying their fair share for use of public right of way. Still the price to get the permissions lot by lot would have been much much more than what they are paying the local governments (and power companies?).

What's the point in knowing where everything is? Having cables between and in communities is no surprise to anyone. If you are going to look at utilities, don't forget cable and satellite companies. It is also worth examining how the revenue siphoned off by them may reduce resources at local news operations.

It might be more interesting to look at what happens with our frequency spectrum. Should the push always be towards something business can monetize? Some might prefer peer owned networks with minimal expenses. It's like having most of your power or water heating from your own panels versus always having to buy energy from a major utility.

There's more than the F.C.C. involved with spectrum

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about

Yeah, go to the movie and discover the trailer you already saw was the movie.

The sped-up aspect of it is sorta like Blipverts.

The smoke must have been dense. Perhaps one could have bounced signals off of that. I recall that when a power failure hit during a large California fire, I discovered that some reflected out of town FM and tv signals were quite strong

Smoke isn't the best way to get those weak DTV signals, but the deadline for rural low power analog tv stations to have applied for a subsidy refunding some DTV conversion costs ended July 2nd. It looks like there may have been $20 million left to hand out too.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/lptv/index.html

Well it was a fun 4th, hopefully everyone still has their fingers.

There's an IT opening at the NTIA. Yes, there's actually an agency besides the FCC involved with spectrum.

http://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?OrganizationID=CM61&ApplicantEligibility=All

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/about

http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/bis_reexport_controls.pdf

Are there any special restrictions I should know about?
You may not reexport an item subject to the EAR to a party whose export privileges
have been denied by BIS. Information on parties subject to denial orders is
provided on the BIS Web site at www.bis.doc.gov.
Guidance to the Commerce Department’s Reexport Controls
5
Please note that U.S. persons may be subject to additional restrictions under the
EAR. See section 744.6 of the EAR. U.S. persons may also be subject to restrictions
under other U.S. Government regulations, such as those issued by the Office of
Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or other U.S.
Government departments or agencies.
Why should you comply with reexport license requirements?
The Department of Commerce has enforcement and protective measures available
to it to ensure that recipients of items subject to the EAR comply with the reexport
license requirements of the EAR. If the Department of Commerce determines that
you have not complied with these requirements and restrictions, it may institute
administrative enforcement proceedings, resulting in the possible imposition of civil
penalties and/or denial of your eligibility to receive U.S. exports (part 764 of the
EAR).
Where to apply for a reexport license?
If your reexport requires a license and is not eligible for a License Exception, you
may apply for a reexport license electronically through the Simplified Network
Application Process (SNAP). You may find the basic information on the SNAP
program on the BIS Web site at www.bis.doc.gov. If you have not submitted an
application electronically before, you must first complete a “PIN” request package.

Further on my previous post, the definition of an export according to the US department of commerce states that it is the transportation to the country in question, or the sale to a 'foreign national' in the US that defines the export. Sales to a US citizen would not qualify.

"Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.

How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR."

Source: http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

"Sort of. Since Apple, the original article, and nearly everyone who has commented says it's against the law, the burden of proving otherwise is actually on the person claiming otherwise. You're espousing an unsupported theory, and it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. When you're arguing against consensus, the burden becomes yours, perhaps not from a legal viewpoint, but it does shift."

That's not how it works. People making positive claims bear the burden of proof, ALWAYS. "The law required this" is a positive claim. It needs to be supported. Further, the number of people making a claim does not, in the absence of other proof, make that claim true. If it did, Vishnu must exist. In fact, from a purely epistemological point of view, consensus has zero meaning. Thanks for giving an example of why people think slashdot is full of groupthink, though.

"Regardless, you are incorrect.."

Because you did not bother citing any relevant portion, expecting everyone else to make your argument:

'Any item that is sent from the United States to a foreign destination is an export. “Items” include commodities, software or technology, such as clothing, building materials, circuit boards, automotive parts, blue prints, design plans, retail software packages and technical information.

How an item is transported outside of the United States does not matter in determining export license requirements. For example, an item can be sent by regular mail or hand-carried on an airplane. A set of schematics can be sent via facsimile to a foreign destination, software can be uploaded to or downloaded from an Internet site, or technology can be transmitted via e-mail or during a telephone conversation. Regardless of the method used for the transfer, the transaction is considered an export. An item is also considered an export even if it is leaving the United States temporarily, if it is leaving the United States but is not for sale (e.g., a gift), or if it is going to a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary in a foreign country. Even a foreign-origin item exported from the United States, transmitted or transshipped through the United States, or being returned from the United States to its foreign country of origin is considered an export. Finally, release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national in the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national under the EAR.'

Again, like everyone else who has "cited" something in this discussion, the requirements are not met. Apple was not directly exporting, as those paragraphs make clear the page only applies to.

'Your argument that "no one else is doing it" is a straw man [nizkor.org].'

That is not my argument. My argument is that, if it is required by law, it is not possible this is unique to Apple stores, and must have occurred at other stores. If it is unique to Apple stores, then something is going on here beyond legal restrictions. That is not a straw man, that is inductive reasoning. I know the difference might be subtle, especially when the conclusion doesn't agree with your world view, but it is there.

Also, if you want to accuse me of logical fallacies without actually saying anything to disprove my point, allow me to point you to the argument from fallacy. Just to list others you have committed, of less magnitude: argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, false attribution, appeal to authority, a few others I can't be bother to look up, which of course leads to kettle logic. I don't like to list these because it doesn't add anything to discussion, but it is always worth pointing out when someone uses "straw man" as an ad hominem.

Sort of. Since Apple, the original article, and nearly everyone who has commented says it's against the law, the burden of proving otherwise is actually on the person claiming otherwise. You're espousing an unsupported theory, and it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. When you're arguing against consensus, the burden becomes yours, perhaps not from a legal viewpoint, but it does shift.

Regardless, you are incorrect.

Your argument that "no one else is doing it" is a straw man.

Iran is on the list of countries for which it is against the law for U.S. citizens or companies to do business with. Even the Google Summer of Code cannot accept students from these countries because it would involve commerce which is against export law. See http://www.bis.doc.gov/exportlicensingqanda.htm

You have obviously never exported anything out of the states.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/hpcs/default.htm Contains a lot of information regarding computers directly. One thing you notice in reading, it says things like this in many places.

(ii) Technology and source code. Technology and source code eligible for License Exception APP may not be released to nationals of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

Computers may not be accessed either physically or computationally without prior authorization by the U.S. Government by nationals of Cuba , Iran , , Libya , N. Korea , Sudan , Syria . However, commercial consignees as described in Supplement 3 to Part 742 of the EAR are prohibited only from giving such nationals user-accessible programmability.

From dell's website.
Trade Compliance
        I WILL NOT export this order outside the United States.
        I WILL export this order outside the United States.
The export of any product and software purchased from Dell must be made in accordance with all relevant laws of the United States, including and without limitation, the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. This may require that you obtain a formal export license or make certain declarations to the United States Government regarding product(s) to be exported, their destination or their end-use.

We have all kinds of trade restrictions with Iran. Selling someone a computer for export to Iran may constitute a straw purchase and may very well get any number of federal agencies investigating you.

Is it over-regulation that allows only a few competitors to exist in the cell market? I'd think that it was the high cost to market entry that was the problem, especially since spectrum is limited and is expensive to acquire.

Spectrum is not that limited. It's just not available due to overregulation. It's also interesting to note that despite that overregulation, there are allocated dozens of available channels for various sorts of mobile uses.

Certainly a free market, with no restrictions, results in monopolies. We've seen that.

Temporary monopolies. We also see one needs some sort of force at their disposal, usually government power, to create permanent monopolies.

Only 44% of the residences which can get cable TV actually buy it. In comparison, 68% of US households have broadband access. (3% are still on dialup.) That's impressive reach for an industry that barely existed a decade ago.

Bear in mind that a significant fraction of the US population barely reads. 14% of the US adult population has "below basic literacy skills." They are not likely to find a computer very useful. Another 15% of Internet penetration and everyone who can read will be connected.

Measured by a different study, the most connected major countries are at 80%, +- 2%. The US and Japan are at 78%, Germany is at 80%, Korea is at 81%, and the UK is at 82%.

How does the USA like it's foreign tourist trade now that it's dropped off a cliff?

I'd like to fact check that statement. It's a shame that the government doesn't keep track of those numbers. Oh wait... they totally do!

Let's see:
year - millions of visitors - change from previous year
2000 - 44.6 - n/a
2001 - 39.2 - -12%
2002 - 35.9 - -8%
2003 - 34.5 - -4%

Steep drop in the years following 9/11, but wait, what's this?

2004 - 38.2 - +11%
2005 - 41.1 - +8%
2006 - 43.5 - +6%
2007 - 48.4 - +11%
2008 - 50.5 - +4%
2009 - 54.9 - +9%
2010 - 59.7 - +9%
2011 - 62.3 - +4%

Wow, US tourism is absolutely booming! That's an increase of at least 4% (average of 8%) every year for nearly a decade! That greatly exceeds the world's average birth rate, especially when you consider that the birth rate is lower in places where most tourists come from. In light of these numbers, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your position?

The headline is a bit misleading. What NTIA did was withdraw the RFP. The IANA contract still stays with ICANN (contract extended until the end of September), and there will likely be another RFP.

However, it is indeed a big rebuke, because in the NTIA Notice they stated that " we are cancelling this RFP because we received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community" which is another way of saying that ICANN has not been acting in the global public interest.

Last time I saw stats STEM unemployment was running at about half the national unemployment rate. http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf, page 5. What's the source for your complaint about unemployment?