Slashdot Mirror

The DirecTV analogy is exactly what this argument is about. Here's the problem:

- DirecTV (and cable companies) pay local channels for retransmission rights. (Since 1992's Cable Television Protection and Competition Act, a concept called "Retransmission Consent" has been the guiding law. See: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi... )

- Aereo does not pay these fees, because (it argues) it is not a "video program distributor", but instead a company that rents out the use of antennas and DVRs across the internet.

All of the analogies to mp3.com and similar services aren't nearly as relevant as they should be.

Indeed it was 1973-1974 that it was .40 ($2 / minute).

In 1980, the rate was $2.17 ($6.18 in today's money) for a five-minute call, or $1.23 / minute.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

In 1950, it was was just over $5 / minute, inflation adjusted.

It's never forever, these agreements always have time limits on them. Usually ten years with the option for renewal. Here's the factsheet for the big auction from 2008, if you recall that one.

So, are you saying that we lost our Freedom around 1914? I'm very curious, what was happening then? Well, there was the build up to the Great Depression. I'm probably giving you too much credit. You probably just don't know how old our country is.

Federal Income Tax. Evidently, I know your history at least somewhat better than you do.

The Free Market is a lie. It has never existed, and it never will.

That's putting it straight, sure... Completely false, but nicely straightforward, thank you.

Mind you, the CIA and the NSA have been doing this shit for decades now

CIA and NSA are only invading my privacy. It is a serious transgression, to be sure, but they don't care, how I raise my children, what I am paid, what sort of light-bulbs I use (a new excuse for the government to check my bedroom), nor, indeed, where and I how I buy my car — just to put this conversation back on topic.

You should read up on what the US did in South America

Stopping the spread of Communism — the deadliest school of thought known to man (even Hitler's peculiar strand of Fascism is but a distant second) — was and remains something to be proud of. Compare Chile, where we succeeded, with Cuba, where we failed... One is Latin America's top economy, the other a crap-hole, which even Michael Moore's brilliant propaganda can't turn into a chicken sandwich.

But we are talking about domestic laws, not foreign policy, so let's stick to that.

If you don't want to help the needy, fund basic education for the betterment of all

I don't want to be forced at gun-point to pay for all those things — and that's exactly, how IRS collects the monies. But, if I must subsidize those poor, would you accept their disenfranchisement? For any recipient of public assistance is to state the Pauper's Oath — and not participate in any poll while receiving such assistance and for, say, three more months after recovering their self-sufficiency?

Why wouldn't you accept that — the unfortunates temporarily down on their luck will not care, while the life-long takers will, at least, lose their say in the affairs of the country. No, it is neither a poll tax nor a property requirement — you can be dirt poor and still vote, as long as you don't ask for public assistance.

Still a no?..

I don't know where you got shelter and telephone service from...

From the government's subsidies for housing projects, fuel assistance, and the telephones — both wired and cellular (affectionately referred to as "Obamaphones"). Evidently, I know more about the country's present than you as well — not just history.

go live in fucking Somalia

(Manners, young man, manners. If you lose your temper, I win.) Why don't you instead go live in fancy North Korea — where laws abound, effective taxes exceed 90% (what is not government-provided is unaffordable) and every one is equally poor?

With my taxes, I buy civilization. I'm going to bike my hippy ass to work tomorrow on publicly funded roads

Is not it terrible, that one still has to pay for the bicycle to e

The FCC provides a nice breakdown and illustrates how these fees can change based upon your usage (local versus long distance) and some (such as the USF) are strictly mandated by the Government. I kind of like knowing how much is going to the various Governments in terms of taxes; often we hear people railing against some company making a certain amount of profit on their activities, but we find out that the Governments actually make even more profit (in the form of taxes)...

US Broadband is slow because that's the state of the infrastructure -- the infrastructure is very expensive to build out, and most of the country can't support a broadband build out.

It may surprise some, but the majority of the United States is not serviced by a cable television or internet system: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/connec...

What happens if you scale that map so that regions are sized according to the population within the region rather than the geographical area of the region?

Or, to put it another way, is the majority of the US population serviced by a broadband Internet service provider? the FCC's "Eighth Broadband Progress Report", from August 2012, says that the percentage of the US population "without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark", said benchmark being 4Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up, is 6% (5.9% of households), with the figure for rural areas being 23.7% and for non-rural areas being 1.8%. So the majority of the US population is serviced by a broadband ISP (by the FCC's 4Mb/s down/1Mb/s up definition of "broadband") - and even the majority of the rural US population is.

Why is an area not serviced?

By "serviced" you presumably mean "serviced by broadband Internet access above some speed threshold"; what is your threshold? Presumably it's better than 4Mb/s down/1Mb/s up, as most area that actually has people in it is serviced by services that's at least 4Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up.

So how about municipal broadband? Take the private company out of the picture and make internet a government service and it must get really cheap, right? Well, Bristol, Virginia is considered the most successful implementation of Municipal Broadband right now. This village of 17,000 people offers fiber optic connections to its residents for....roughly the same price as TWC or Comcast (for comparable speeds) and far far more expensive for 1GBps service ($320/mo) than Google offers.

And Google's service is a little under twice as expensive as the 1 GB/s service Bredbands Bolaget offers - 899 SEK/mo (the rate after the first year) is USD 137.73/mo at the current exchange rate. That, in turn, appears to suck relative to, say, HelloVision's $31.47 (at the exchange rate at the time for the South Korean Won) for 1Gb/s up and down, according to table 2 in the New America Foundation's "The Cost Of Connectivity 2013", but I don't know whether that's a first-year teaser rate or not (Bredbands Bolaget's first-year rate is, at the current exchange rate, $73.31).

The facts are this:

1. Huge portions of the country cannot be cost effectively serviced by high speed internet access.

How high is "high speed"?

3. Most large population centers do not have enough potential 1Gbps residential customers to make it cost effective to upgrade the equipment in those locations to support 1Gbps connection speeds -- businesses can already get those speeds and more but it is not inexpensive.

[Citation needed] What statistics do you have for the number of potential 1Gb/s residential customers in those large population centers?

4. New entrants with deep pockets don't have to deal with replacing equipment that is still being used to pay for the debt taken out to install it in the first place, but they will.

They do, however, have to deal with installing equipment in the first place.

5. More options for internet service in a community mean lower market shares for the participants, which mean

US Broadband is slow because that's the state of the infrastructure -- the infrastructure is very expensive to build out, and most of the country can't support a broadband build out.

It may surprise some, but the majority of the United States is not serviced by a cable television or internet system: http://www.fcc.gov/maps/connec...

What happens if you scale that map so that regions are sized according to the population within the region rather than the geographical area of the region?

Or, to put it another way, is the majority of the US population serviced by a broadband Internet service provider? the FCC's "Eighth Broadband Progress Report", from August 2012, says that the percentage of the US population "without access to fixed broadband meeting the speed benchmark", said benchmark being 4Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up, is 6% (5.9% of households), with the figure for rural areas being 23.7% and for non-rural areas being 1.8%. So the majority of the US population is serviced by a broadband ISP (by the FCC's 4Mb/s down/1Mb/s up definition of "broadband") - and even the majority of the rural US population is.

Why is an area not serviced?

By "serviced" you presumably mean "serviced by broadband Internet access above some speed threshold"; what is your threshold? Presumably it's better than 4Mb/s down/1Mb/s up, as most area that actually has people in it is serviced by services that's at least 4Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up.

So how about municipal broadband? Take the private company out of the picture and make internet a government service and it must get really cheap, right? Well, Bristol, Virginia is considered the most successful implementation of Municipal Broadband right now. This village of 17,000 people offers fiber optic connections to its residents for....roughly the same price as TWC or Comcast (for comparable speeds) and far far more expensive for 1GBps service ($320/mo) than Google offers.

And Google's service is a little under twice as expensive as the 1 GB/s service Bredbands Bolaget offers - 899 SEK/mo (the rate after the first year) is USD 137.73/mo at the current exchange rate. That, in turn, appears to suck relative to, say, HelloVision's $31.47 (at the exchange rate at the time for the South Korean Won) for 1Gb/s up and down, according to table 2 in the New America Foundation's "The Cost Of Connectivity 2013", but I don't know whether that's a first-year teaser rate or not (Bredbands Bolaget's first-year rate is, at the current exchange rate, $73.31).

The facts are this:

1. Huge portions of the country cannot be cost effectively serviced by high speed internet access.

How high is "high speed"?

3. Most large population centers do not have enough potential 1Gbps residential customers to make it cost effective to upgrade the equipment in those locations to support 1Gbps connection speeds -- businesses can already get those speeds and more but it is not inexpensive.

[Citation needed] What statistics do you have for the number of potential 1Gb/s residential customers in those large population centers?

4. New entrants with deep pockets don't have to deal with replacing equipment that is still being used to pay for the debt taken out to install it in the first place, but they will.

They do, however, have to deal with installing equipment in the first place.

5. More options for internet service in a community mean lower market shares for the participants, which mean

Has one of these petitions done anything other than get a watered down, neutered response from the WH? I mean people really, the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave doesn't give a shit about petitions. He does care about giving you the impression that he cares, but he really doesn't. If he did he'd already be directing his Cronies in Congress to put legislation through and ask for it on his desk in 30 days. But no, "The FCC is an independent..." bullshit. The FCC is an appointed group mostly made of of Industry insiders who don't have your interests at heart, but the monopolistic practices that keep their customers, the Carriers and Broadcasters, firmly entrenched in this country. Independent my ass, just look at Tom Wheeler's resume and tell us he's impartial. Yeah, just what we need at the FCC, somebody up to his ass with industry connections and a vulture capitalist too. I wonder how much money he'll make while at the FCC or afterwards when he's rewarded with a posh do-nothing job at Comcast or Verizon?

You can run your commercial server on a commercial connection problem solved.

Certainly money solves many of lifes problems rather neatly.

My problem I suppose was that I bought into this-

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf

topic: FCC-10-201 Paragraph 13 ...
(Under Section Heading:)
The Internet’s Openness Promotes Innovation, Investment, Competition, Free Expression, and Other National Broadband Goals
13.
Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a "general purpose technology" that enables new methods of production that have a major impact on the entire economy.(12) The Internet’s founders intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the network.(13) Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access the content and applications of her choice, without requiring permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables innovators to create and offer new applications and services without needing approval from any controlling entity, be it a network provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government agency.(14) End users benefit because the Internet’s openness allows new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of sources, not just by the companies that operate the network. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web nearly two decades after engineers developed the Internet’s original protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any approval from network operators.(15) Startups and small businesses benefit because the Internet’s openness enables anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else,(16) allowing even the smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce(17) and online advertising.(18) Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges -- including improvements in health care, education, and energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.(19) ......63

Before you open your mouth, maybe you should at least read what you're trying to pretend you know about, and then disclose the material you're pretending to have interpreted so other people can read it, too.

If people were actually intelligent in this thread, they would mentally put the onus on you to prove your claim. But since they appear not to be, and since you appear adamant to malevolently spread your personal ignorance like the disease that it is, here you go:

Page 40, paragraph 68 of the actual FCC "Net Neutrality" Order (Preserving the Free and Open Internet) explains what you seem to be ideologically missing from your brain:

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic over a consumer’s broadband Internet access service. Reasonable network management shall not constitute unreasonable discrimination.

And here is the relevant note on what potentially constitutes reasonable discrimination for this type of scenario, from page 41, paragraph 73:

Use-Agnostic Discrimination. Differential treatment of traffic that does not discriminate among specific uses of the network or classes of uses is likely reasonable.

Allowing a bottleneck to exist only for "Cloud Providers" discriminates against a class of uses for network traffic, and is therefore unreasonable, which inhibits the intent that "the ability to select which traffic gets priority lies with individual subscribers."

So, kindly go to hell. I am tired of civilly dealing with pieces of shit astroturfers like you that only seek to spread lies that match your fucking agenda. This post isn't even here to convince you (since that's incredibly unlikely given the ignorance you've already displayed) but to give the truth (and the resources to read it themselves) to anyone who might have even had a seed of a doubt enter their minds because of your malevolence in misinforming the public.

The situation presented in TFA is that a Verizon representative allegedly claimed that they were limiting bandwidth to "Cloud Providers" which is an unreasonable discrimination of network traffic according the text of the FCC's own order. Not sorry if facts and actual documents hurt your brain.

This is exactly one of the many situations the FCC intended to enforce via Net Neutrality.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cram...

Use WISP technology. And before you say our covenant won't allow antennas....

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

Mod Parent up.

Mod the GrandParent down.
Just off the top of my head, here are two things the FCC regulates because of annoyance:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list

Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.

If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.
Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.

Mod Parent up.

Mod the GrandParent down.
Just off the top of my head, here are two things the FCC regulates because of annoyance:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list

Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.

If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.
Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.

Nope, I'm saying it isn't the FCC's job. http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do Also I misread the parent's post where they actually mentioned FAA in reply to the GPs FCC response. I still stand by my original statement though, I don't see how it would really be FAA's role either. Someone talking on a phone isn't really a safety issue just because someone loses their cool.

The FCC won't fight back, in fact this result was probably the intention along.

Prior to joining the FCC, Chairman Wheeler was Managing Director at Core Capital Partners, a venture capital firm investing in early stage Internet Protocol (IP)-based companies. He served as President and CEO of Shiloh Group, LLC, a strategy development and private investment company specializing in telecommunications services and co-founded SmartBrief, the internet’s largest electronic information service for vertical markets. From 1976 to 1984, Chairman Wheeler was associated with the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), where he was President and CEO from 1979 to 1984. Following NCTA, Chairman Wheeler was CEO of several high tech companies, including the first company to offer high speed delivery of data to home computers and the first digital video satellite service. From 1992 to 2004, Chairman Wheeler served as President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler

Seems as good a place to ask it as any.
What does /. think of:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937

http://www.physiology.columbia.edu/MartinBlank.html
"
â EMR accelerates the reaction rate, i.e., electron transfer rate
â EMR competes with the chemical force driving the reaction, so the effect of EMR varies inversely with the reaction rate
â Interaction thresholds are low, comparable to levels found in EMR-cancer epidemiology studies
â Effects vary with frequency, and there appear to be different optima for the reactions studied: ATPase (60Hz), cytochrome oxidase (800Hz), BZ (250Hz)

These properties, in addition to stimulation of DNA in the cellular stress response, are consistent with EMR effects on many biological systems through interaction with electrons moving during redox reactions and also within DNA"

I ran into it a couple of weeks ago and it ran contrary to what I was expecting to find.
Curious if there's any problem with his work.

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.

On the contrary, encryption of basic-tier cable was NOT ALLOWED until FCC 12-126 was adopted on October 10, 2012, as a result of intense brib...err, "lobbying" by the cable TV industry.

Everyone's guess as to why they don't drop the N bomb (I like to say N Bomb, not because saying nigger scares me or anything I just like bombs!) on TV are just simply wrong. You all think America is some kind of enlightened place when, in fact, we are not. The same answer that can answer every question on the planet applies here: money. They are charged a fine by the FCC for violations of Obscenity, Indecency, and Profanity. So no! We do not value foul speech any more than anyone else does. We ban it, and if you choose to ignore that you get a fine. I didn't feel like Googling it but I want to say it is $10,000 per incident which regarding profanity is per word. That'll add up fast!

Doesn't the FCC regulate the frequencies used by cell phone towers? Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?

Two things to remember. First, each state police agency is already a licensed user of sophisticated radio equipment that will generally have state-wide reach, a law enforcement agency, increasingly automated with sophisticated equipment, and able to engage in surveillance. Second, Congress has passed laws that the FCC is involved with overseeing for the assistance of law enforcement.

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA requires a "telecommunications carrier," as defined by the Act, to ensure that equipment, facilities, or services that allow a customer or subscriber to "originate, terminate, or direct communications," enable law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities as communications network technologies evolve

The FCC under Chairman Powell during the Presidency of GW Bush, made an interpretation of the laws declaring that cable modem service, absent TV service is an "interstate information service" (Title I) and not a "telecom service" (Title II) under the scope of the Communications Act. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

ALL of the regulations the Communications Act imposes on Title II companies but not on Title I companies are the set of regulations which "telecommunications companies" must meet and which Google DOES NOT abide by. Title II status is defined without reference to monopoly status, government-granted or not.

On a tech geek note, that exact FCC rule is why the FCC cannot impose net neutrality rules on Comcast so folks here really should have been aware of this.

In response to: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/20/fcc-announces-plans-to-upgrade-century-old-phone-system/?intcmp=obnetwork http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ip-transition-starting-now It's all conjecture on my part, but I'll take a stab. Deploying a next-generation telecom infrastructure is an interesting challenge - but one that is underway as we speak. Verizon chose Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) (FiOS). AT&T chose fiber to the node (FTTN) (U-verse) and is rolling out VDSL. CenturyLink (Qwest) has also picked FTTN and is rolling out VDSL as well. These rollouts are slow moving - but will continue to use copper for the foreseeable future - FTTP is the long term future still I think - but we keep being able cram more and more data over a pair - and with pair bonding that number keeps rising. For now at least, most voice will still be served over fairly long loops from the CO - AT&T is rolling out VoIP over U-verse - Verizon is doing the same over FiOS, CenturyLink has not yet marketed VoIP to residences - but I suspect it will come in a while (when more of their footprint is covered). Fiber to the Node has the advantage of having fiber near the customer when the cost of repairing the legacy copper exceeds the cost of putting fiber in to each house. Largely, based on my research - the new VoIP circuits are often being served off TDM offices that have upgraded been to packet switching. Both Lucent and Genband offer a way to upgrade their TDM switches to a packet based core (Lucent 7ESS or 7 R/E and Genband C15 Session Controller). In short - the article was full of hyperbole - If you look at the underlying blog post - it doesn't mention the removal of copper, copper will play a big part in last mile service delivery for likely another 20-30 years - in the end is about replacing the TDM based network core with packet switching - a process that has been going on for almost 20 years at this point. With proper engineering a packet based system is every bit as (if not more) reliable as TDM based one. That said, it raises some real questions - what of universal service? How about the CLEC market - will they be granted access to the new networks which are replacing the old? Only time will tell.

Actually, it's the other way around. The company that originates the call pays the company terminating the call. (reciprocal compensation, 'tho it's a very muddy river.) Inter-VoIP provider traffic doesn't necessarily have to ever touch the PSTN.

Yes, SCA. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/broadcast-radio-subcarriers-or-subsidiary-communications-authority-sca/

Actually - no it's the FCC (you had me worried) http://www.fcc.gov/complaints BTW - This is just derivative of the toner sales phone calls companies used to get. They would ask you for the model # of your photocopy machine and then send you over priced toner - that they swore you ordered.

I doubt that any of the official russian presences satisfies those constraints.

Perhaps not. It would probably be a simple matter though, for the big ol' government of Russia to finance a private contracter, who would legally buy the property in the US and setup the facility; providing they adhere to regulations and permitting requirements.

I don't see how anyone would need permission to run a non-broadcasting monitoring station on private ground) are impossible or don't exist, just that urban locations and building roofs wont work.

Probably nothing prohibiting them from monitoring a frequency they hold a license to operate on.

There may be applicable FCC or government restrictions against operating receivers on restricted frequencies.

Sec. 705, 47 USC 605:

except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,....
(6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. [....]

Report and order FCC 99-58

Specifically, we adopt rules that require scanning receivers to include adequate filtering so that they do not pick up Cellular Service transmissions even when tuned to frequencies outside those allocated to the Cellular Service.
... In addition, we amend the rules to require that scanning receivers be designed so that their tuning control and filtering circuitry are not easily accessible and that any attempts to modify the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions will likely render the scanning receiver inoperable.
...

....

we prohibit the importation and manufacture of scanning receivers and frequency converter kits capable of receiving and decoding signals from the Cellular Service frequency bands.

I doubt that any of the official russian presences satisfies those constraints.

Perhaps not. It would probably be a simple matter though, for the big ol' government of Russia to finance a private contracter, who would legally buy the property in the US and setup the facility; providing they adhere to regulations and permitting requirements.

I don't see how anyone would need permission to run a non-broadcasting monitoring station on private ground) are impossible or don't exist, just that urban locations and building roofs wont work.

Probably nothing prohibiting them from monitoring a frequency they hold a license to operate on.

There may be applicable FCC or government restrictions against operating receivers on restricted frequencies.

Sec. 705, 47 USC 605:

except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,....
(6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. [....]

Report and order FCC 99-58

Specifically, we adopt rules that require scanning receivers to include adequate filtering so that they do not pick up Cellular Service transmissions even when tuned to frequencies outside those allocated to the Cellular Service.
... In addition, we amend the rules to require that scanning receivers be designed so that their tuning control and filtering circuitry are not easily accessible and that any attempts to modify the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions will likely render the scanning receiver inoperable.
...

....

we prohibit the importation and manufacture of scanning receivers and frequency converter kits capable of receiving and decoding signals from the Cellular Service frequency bands.

It appears that way. For example:

http://www.adafruit.com/products/1535

No schematics. No BOM. Details for FCC certification were kept confidential:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Sum&calledFromFrame=N&RequestTimeout=500&application_id=375407&fcc_id=S6OBLUEFRUIT

So, is Adafruit still Open Source or not?

In the US, if you want to compete, you have to roll out your own infrastructure. That is prohibitively expensive for anyone except a couple of large companies. To me, that is by far the most significant factor in explaining the differences. There are other factors, sure, but that right there is #1.

Nope.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.

http://www.usac.org/li/
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

The specific savings report of wireless over wireline:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lifeline-year-end-savings-report-2012-savings-target-exceeded

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.

http://www.usac.org/li/
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

The specific savings report of wireless over wireline:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lifeline-year-end-savings-report-2012-savings-target-exceeded

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/07/30/2322253/google-argues-against-net-neutrality [slashdot.org] its a dupe.

The original complaint I filed with the FCC, then the Kansas Attorney General, and then back to the FCC is here-

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf

Another slashdot echo of the EFF's take is here-

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/08/13/2148245/eff-slams-google-fiber-for-banning-servers-on-its-network

Its the same dumb points from anonymous cowards.

Ad hominem much tuppe666? My name is Douglas McClendon.

Google want to charge businesses for attaching servers to the internet...and yet this has been twisted into a Net Neutrality argument,

Here is my twist, I'll just post a paragraph from 10-201 (aka 'Net Neutrality')

FCC-10-201 Paragraph 13 (see appendix B for the entirety) ...
(Under Section Heading:)
The Internet’s Openness Promotes Innovation, Investment, Competition, Free Expression, and Other National Broadband Goals
13.
Like electricity and the computer, the Internet is a "general purpose technology" that enables new methods of production that have a major impact on
the entire economy.(12) The Internet’s founders intentionally built a network that is open, in the sense that it has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and
communication through the network.(13) Accordingly, the Internet enables an end user to access the content and applications of her choice, without
requiring permission from broadband providers. This architecture enables innovators to create and offer new applications and services without needing
approval from any controlling entity, be it a network provider, equipment manufacturer, industry body, or government agency.(14) End users benefit
because the Internet’s openness allows new technologies to be developed and distributed by a broad range of sources, not just by the companies that
operate the network. For example, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was able to invent the World Wide Web nearly two decades after engineers developed the
Internet’s original protocols, without needing changes to those protocols or any approval from network operators.(15) Startups and small businesses
benefit because the Internet’s openness enables anyone connected to the network to reach and do business with anyone else,(16) allowing even the
smallest and most remotely located businesses to access national and global markets, and contribute to the economy through e-commerce(17) and
online advertising.(18) Because Internet openness enables widespread innovation and allows all end users and edge providers (rather than just the
significantly smaller number of broadband providers) to create and determine the success or failure of content, applications, services, and devices, it
maximizes commercial and non-commercial innovations that address key national challenges -- including improvements in health care, education, and
energy efficiency that benefit our economy and civic life.(19)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf

by changing the definition of Net Neutrality "discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality [wikipedia.org] . I'm just shocked its not an Ars Technica...maybe they are still defending the iPhone launch.

And here, I will emphasize a quote from Vint Cerf, about what IPv6 _ought_ to enable

>Not all phones have GPS so I don't see how it could be mandatory by law,

You forgot to read the rest of the sentence. Cell providers are /required by law/ to supply lat/long. If your phone has GPS, it's going to be used for E911. And I said "failing that, they will use triangulation."

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

Phase II E911 rules require wireless service providers to provide more precise location information to PSAPs; specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller. This information must be accurate to within 50 to 300 meters depending upon the type of location technology used.

Since the GPS in the phone is the easiest way to comply, it's not going to be off when you call 911.

--
BMO

> When you're in the middle of nowhere, you aren't covered by anyone's 911 service.

But that's not true.

As long as you're covered by a tower or repeater, you're on a 911 service as long as you're in the US. Even if you don't have GPS, the law says that the wireless services need to be able to triangulate.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services

Using your logic, it would be impossible for anyone stranded on Mt. Washington (the middle of nowhere and high up in the sky) to get 911 service, which is blatantly not true.

--
BMO

What it won't include: Pirate Sites

It will add new ammunition to prosecute them --- suddenly they are guilty of the federal crime of evading the tax man. With the FCC; if you fail to file and pay fees, they can assess massive forfeitures.

For example mom and pop ISPs or VoIP providers that buy PSTN connectivity from a wholesalers that fail to meet the new complicated FCC Reporting requirements, about their number of customers down to the level of ZIP code and Census tract, can be assessed fines of millions of dollars a day, and thrown in jail until they pay.

Are we supposed to applaud this? It sounds like a boondoggle.

I read the article, and read the PDF produced by the Navajo 'IT' group. They spent the past 13 years soliciting funds from the state and federal level. This is also another E-Rate disaster ( FCC based 'broadband' initiative that also 'successfully' hooked up 9 schools in Puerto Rico for 150 million ).

Obama wants to not increase cell phone taxes to give E-Rate even more funding.....

(These are general ideas and may not be technically accurate... feel free to correct me)

There are several problems with WiFi technology itself. First, there is no contention management for wireless. When you're wired in, collisions are detected quickly, so you can saturate the connection near its theoretical limits without too many errors. (There's a promotional video about this from Meru Networks, but it is fairly educational.) By contrast, WiFi will roll through a larger bit of data and then ask for confirmation of receipt, which can lead to a lot of problems as radios talk all over each other. This is not a problem in regular office environments, where walls, floors, and furniture can provide separation so the radios can "hear" things that are closer. However, get into an open air environment and add a bunch of devices at once, and everything flatlines as the access points attempt to orchestrate several hundred devices in range, including interference from other radios within "hearing" distance on the same channel.

The second issue is one of limited channels. Originally WiFi was designed to move a tiny amount, and I think you could actually split off 802.11b into 11 discrete channels. As data needs grew, they consolidated 11 channels into 3 discrete channels for 802.11g (4 in the EU, I believe) and that's where it stands: a 3 lane road for 2.4GHz. 5GHz has more channels, depending on where you are in the world, but right now they are unreliable as the requirement for many of them is to be compatible with DFS, which means that if there is a certain signal being broadcast, your access points are expected to abandon that channel immediately. I think there are changes in the works from the FCC and although it only introduces 30% or so of new spectrum, it happens to cross multiple channels, so it may be like going from 9-12 channels to 20 or so. Combined with the more limited range of the higher frequency, having 20 discrete channels opens up a lot of options for basic broadband in public spaces. (Well, it did until the new ac standard came out, and I haven't even bothered to read it because these massive spectrum widths are going to be a nightmare, and I'm in a different line of work these days.)

However, none of this solves the "microcell" design of WiFi, where the client makes the decision on what radio to connect to instead of the access point. Your cell service, for instance, works well because the tower instructs the client so it can perform handoffs, reduce the data rates, and make other adjustments to keep things from choking up. I have sat and watched an iPhone cross over multiple access points and hundreds of feet to connect across a stadium for no explicable reason. (That's true for every wireless device, but I'm picking on iOS because they are notoriously noisy, always flooding the air with useless beacons, trying desperately to connect to stored wireless networks even when they aren't around.)

I have deployed Xirrus, Aruba, Extricom, Unifi, and some other products in dense situations, but as far as I know, the only pseudo non-microcell options available are from Extricom and Meru. Although I haven't used Meru, I can say that Extricom has been the most reliable in very dense environments, since they use some tricks to keep the air quiet, and they do not introduce beacon traffic with the addition of more radios. (Disclaimer: I have worked with the guys from Extricom quite a few times, and I think they are very capable, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.) Xirrus works pretty well in corporate environments, and their reporting interfaces are great, but I was disappointed that their sales staff continued to deny problems in 2.4GHz long after it was obvious that they didn't have a workable solution for super dense deployments. But maybe they just didn't know.

Anyway, ignoring all of that technical garbage, the

I completely agree with you and would add that they have to know what phones are connected to a tower otherwise they wouldn't be able to route calls, text messages, or even data to a particular phone.

as well most Cell towers need to be registered with the fcc and as part of their registration are the Latitude and Longitude of where the tower is located.

So the data exists for what phones are connected to a particular tower, and the exact location of a particular tower. whether someone has written any software to tie that data together is a different question. maybe they should ask the NSA...

Time to setup our own encrypted wi-fi/radio/microwave/personal satellite based communication networks. Bypass the wired choke points and go above everyone's heads. Although they can intercept radio waves, encryption could protect the message in the transmission. Where are Amateur Radio operators when you need them? ;-)

Minding their P's and Q's - it's currently illegal to use encryption on amateur bands. There is a petition filed with the FCC to reverse that rule, but as far as I've seen no action has been taken in that regard.

The FCC aren't acting like fucking savages, having certified SDR equipment--with a modifiable software software component--since 2004.

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics4.html

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254463A1.doc

The FCC aren't acting like fucking savages, having certified SDR equipment--with a modifiable software software component--since 2004.

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics4.html

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-254463A1.doc

The claim that a years worth of phone calls is around 272 petabytes is dead on, it matches up perfectly with some back of the napkin calculations I did a while back based on a published report from the FCC[1]. Depending on the encoding bitrate, the range I had was 107 PB for 8 Kbps audio to 430 PB for 32 Kbps audio. 272 PB is about 20 Kbps, exactly in the middle...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3871487&cid=44027425

[1]: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf

The report only documents up to year 2000, but I presumed POTS service had leveled out with the emergence of VOIP and SMS messaging.

You do know that weather alerts and amber alerts can be turned off, but not alerts sent out by the President of the United States, right?

I don't know about you, comrade, but I sometimes wonder what's going on in this country.

That seems reasonable to me. Our president isn't going to waste his time sending out alerts for every missing child. If he uses this system you know it's going to be at least a 9/11 scale situation.

[I]magine an Amber Alert that says it's for a kidnapped child but actually happens to be for a political dissident like Snowden...and that's when I turned off the Amber Alerts.

You do know that weather alerts and amber alerts can be turned off, but not alerts sent out by the President of the United States, right?

I don't know about you, comrade, but I sometimes wonder what's going on in this country.

You can not even use it for relaying messages for a third party, that's what phones are for

There are exceptions:

Messages may be transmitted on behalf of unlicensed individuals, at the discretion of the amateur station licensee. These messages are referred to as third party communications. The FCCs rules permit an amateur station to transmit messages for a third party to any other amateur station within the jurisdiction of the United States. Amateur stations in the United States may transmit third party communications to amateur stations outside the United States under certain circumstances.

http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/amateur.html

Also there is NTS, which has been around for a long time. Third party messages are its whole focus.

We had a 5.29 repeater in the SF Bay area that took years to pull, but got pulled. It turned out the control operator had moved away! He said he'd left the repeater in someone else's care, but if that person existed they did not police the repeater.

If you care about this, start writing letters to FCC. They really do enforcement if pushed, the letter file is here.

Read the memo, though. The main reason they want to allow encryption is for communication with government emergency services. The proposed change would only allow encryption for these reasons:

(a) signals exchanged between an amateur station and a space station in the amateur satellite service for the purpose of controlling the operation of the space station; and

(b) signals exchanged between an amateur station and an unattended amateur station for the purpose of controlling the operation of the unattended amateur station; and

(c) intercommunications when participating in emergency services operations or related training exercises which may involve information covered by HIPAA or other sensitive data such as logistical information concerning medical supplies, personnel movement, other relief supplies or any other data designated by Federal authorities managing relief or training efforts

This isn't about modernizing amateur radio or allowing exciting new uses, it's about making it compliant with other boring federal regulations.

It's a little lengthy to post directly, but here's the info you're looking for (I think): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022424684

Skip down to FCC regulations part 97.113 (4)
enjoy

Reported number of local phone calls (for peek year, 1999) [1, Table 10.2]: 553,853,237 thousand.
Reported number of long distance calls (for peek year, 2000) [1, Table 10.2]: 102,245,666 thousand.

Average phone call length: 3 minutes (+/- 1 minute):
        (180 seconds) * 8 Kbps (minimum bitrate) = 180 kilobytes per call.
        (180 seconds) * 32 Kbps (maximium bitrate) = 720 kilobytes per call.

(553,853,237,000 + 102,245,666,000) * 180 kilobytes = 107.409326 petabytes
(553,853,237,000 + 102,245,666,000) * 720 kilobytes = 429.637303 petabytes

So for the NSA to record and retain every call for the year would be in the ball park of 107 to 430 petabytes. Retaining one months worth of calls would be in the ball park of 9 to 36 petabytes, and one weeks worth of calls would be 2 to 8 petabytes. Worth noting, these figures are pre-text messaging era, I believe call volume is actually much less today.

[1]: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/trend605.pdf