Slashdot Mirror

Also, congress knows this and has even written legislation to support it.

The problem with this situation is that none of the things being seized fall under 'persons, houses, papers, or effects'. The items in question are technically the data logged by a business describing the operation of their systems. The fact that this data pertains to the persons and their effects is inconsequential, as they are not the ones recording or in possession of the data.

Your "papers" are any type of documentation or "paperwork", it doesn't matter if the information is written on paper, vellum, papyrus, animal skin, or stored electronically, it's the same thing. And yes, the courts have ruled in support of that definition.

But it's completely irrelevant as the information we're discussing is considered part of your calling records, and there are a variety of laws which protect that information specifically.
Would You Like to Know More?

You already have every piece of information you need to make an informed decision today.

The facts are a matter of public record. Look up the FCC ID on the label on your cell phone here: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
Now, read the documentation that was filed in order to certify that device, and find out which sets of FCC rules it falls under to see the limits it must meet. You can also see the test reports they filed proving their device complied with all applicable rules.

If that information is inadequate to make an informed decision, how does giving you one single number suddenly make you competent to evaluate the health effects of a cell phone?

Here are the real facts that should be printed on a poster at every cell phone store in San Francisco: "WARNING: The city of Oakland is home to a crackpot who has built a lucrative speaking business convincing gullible, easily scared, and/or ignorant people about the imagined risks of cellular telephone RF emissions. If you do not own a cell phone strictly because of the irrational fears she is spreading you risk being stranded in case of emergency, which has been statistically proven to be far more dangerous to your health than any anecdotal based, non-scientific study."

You are right - we should let any nutjob group put useless information on our products. Each cell phone can come with a 50-page list of grievances. PETA can put whether animals were used in it's production. Al Gore can slap the carbon footprint on there. Greenpeace can list the natural resources used on there, and score the phone for it's environmental impact. UNICEF can score it for child welfare. Then of course, you will have religious groups who want to score it for thetan count and whatnot. (Thank you, Firefox, for not including "thetan" in your dictionary!)

I'm sorry, but it needs to be recognized that labels are not free and should be used judiciously. If people care about the emissivity of their cell phone, they can get together with other uneducated people and rate them at their own expense. If they find one that emits something greater than a few mW, they could just call the FCC anyway. Which, by the way, requires that this sort of testing be made public anyway.

Buy the way, any change you make would have to be certified by the FCC as being compliant and that can be expensive.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. I recently read a tech topic blog on the FCC site that states,

WLAN was originally designed and developed as a home networking technology for nomadic users to wirelessly extend an Ethernet equivalent local area network (LAN) using shared communications media among a group of users through a wireless connection that operates at relatively short distances. WLAN uses license-exempt spectrum bands regulated by FCC rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 15.2 The FCC originally conceived the license-exempt bands to provide a no-cost slice of public access spectrum with only two provisions. First, the transmitter could cause no harmful interference to any nearby licensed services, and secondly, any receiver in this band must be able to accept any interference that may be present. Subsequently, the first wireless LAN was developed by the IEEE 802.11 standards committee (widely known as Wireless Fidelity or 'Wi-Fi' and 'Radio LAN') in 1997. Interestingly, the Wi-Fi standards were a response on the part of industry to the relatively restriction free use of the license-exempt spectrum allocation and rules.

2: See http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/47cfr15_07.html for the Part 15 rules. Note that the letter versions of the standards are not chronologically consistent since version (b) actually came before (a)!

But, even if you were right, it's important to know that you don't have to hack alone. You can work with others. Let's say you are worried some change you want to make could lead to some malfunction which would boost the signal. You could file a feature request to the project and see if someone else will make the change and test it. Or, if you make the change in code and are worried about installing it yourself, submit the patch upstream and see if others can review the code and test it for you. Just because things could potentially go wrong doesn't mean we should live in fear and abstain from using, fixing, or customizing our software.

Control your hardware, don't let it control you. =]

Unbelievable. I can't even begin to understand how you can possibly get anything you said from the regs.

There is no mechanism to license an illegal activity.

You missed this part of your quote "..except under and in accordance with [the Communications] Act and with a license ...". Your operation must be in full compliance will ALL the provisions of the act as well as be licensed.

it doesn't flat-out say they're illegal. It just says they're illegal if they don't comply with the regulations.
They are not legal to "manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship ... or use" because they CANNOT comply with the regulations. That sounds pretty illegal to me.

1) Jammers are not eligible for certification because their primary purpose is jamming and cannot by design meet emission standards
2) Radio equipment that is not certified may not be imported, sold or used
3) All radio transmitters (a cell phone is most certainly a station) must be authorized or licensed.

In case you missed it, 47 USC 333 is part of the United States Code, you know, federal law? Title 47 CFR is also in play here, of course.

If Section 333 were to be taken literally, it would be illegal for people to build metal-sided buildings because that would be "willfully" blocking signals.

It says "interfere with or cause interference", not "block" - interference is caused by an interfering radiated signal, NOT structures. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/whitepapers/IEEEUSAWP-HarmfulInterference0712.pdf

I don't know if it's true but I heard of a case where a cell tower was required to be taken down when it was determined to be obstructing a point-to-point microwave link, so there is some precedent for protecting narrow RF paths.

"You are absolutely incorrect."

No, I am not.

See question 3.

"Section 301 of the Communications Act: âoeNo person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio...except under and in accordance with [the Communications] Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.â 47 U.S.C. Â 301."

Which means it's NOT strictly illegal. The FCC may refuse to give you a license, but that refusal does not imply that it is automatically against Federal law. That's not the same thing. More about this:

"Section 302(b) of the Communications Act: âoeNo person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.â 47 U.S.C. Â 302a(b)."

It doesn't flat-out say they're illegal. It just says they're illegal if they don't comply with the regulations. Section 301 implies that those regulations could include licensing... if, of course, the FCC wanted to do that.

Section 333: No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under [the Communications] Act or operated by the United States Government.â 47 U.S.C. Â 333.

A cell phone is not a "station" licensed by the Act, nor is it operated by the Government. Having said that, cell phone towers definitely are stations. But any law or regulation is subject to interpretation. If Section 333 were to be taken literally, it would be illegal for people to build metal-sided buildings because that would be "willfully" blocking signals.

The point is: jammers may be disallowed by the FCC, but that does NOT mean that the law itself specifically excludes them. It is FCC policy only.

I am pretty sure you can apply to the FCC to [operate a jammer].

You are absolutely incorrect.

You cannot get a permit to break federal law. Operating any equipment in a manner that "... willfully or maliciously interfere[s] with or cause[s] interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government" violates Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934. They cannot even be imported, much less certified for sale in the US unless they're sold exclusively to the US government. Please read the NAL, particularly section IIIA and related footnotes. They lay out in very clear terms why they're illegal and would never be legally imported or sold, let alone licensed.

Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?

In what context? If I'm a renter, yes, I have certain legal rights, and a few are RF-related.

If I'm a casual visitor, no, not really. However, YOU STILL CAN'T USE JAMMERS, no matter what. The FCC has made this very clear, and they have extremely good reasons:

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement

Your purely theoretical argument is pretty contrived, and pointless, as the reality of the situation is that you can NEVER block RF signals on your property in any way that will guarantee that you aren't interfering with your neighbors. Even with "passive" methods like faraday cages around buildings, you're creating a large obstacle to any RF coming from that particular direction. You have the right to do that, though. With jammers, not only can you do far more damage very easily, there's also practically no way you can mitigate the risk... RF isn't static, and every little temperature or humidity change can suddenly cause your weak little signal to interfere with folks many miles away.

Are you sure? I did a little research and found this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf

"Jamming devices, however, are ineligible to receive a grant of equipment authorization
from the FCC or an FCC ID. (The FCCâ(TM)s Office of Engineering and Technology oversees
the authorization of non-jamming equipment that uses the radio frequency spectrum.
More information is available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/equipmentauthorization.) "

Are you sure? I did a little research and found this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf

"Jamming devices, however, are ineligible to receive a grant of equipment authorization
from the FCC or an FCC ID. (The FCCâ(TM)s Office of Engineering and Technology oversees
the authorization of non-jamming equipment that uses the radio frequency spectrum.
More information is available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/equipmentauthorization.) "

In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.

What FCC broadband page would that be? The only FCC page I found linked to is WCB Announces Workshop on Gigabit Community Broadband Networks but it does not say how to build gigabit fiber. It may be in the video on the page, but that is more than 5 hours long. Searching FCC how to build gigabit municipal fiber networks doesn't return the how to either in the first five pages of results. Only the first result is an FCC link.

Falcon

Should there be a Law?

How would it look if Gumshoe Freddy tried to hack a cell phone tower and crapped an entire communities' access? 911 calls that go nowhere, customer service lines jammed, people stranded because their GPS glitched out...

If Gumshoe Freddy was able to hack a cellphone tower and cause somone's GPS to "glitch out", I'd say Gumshoe Freddy was a remarkably skilled hacker. GPS and cellphones use entirely different sets of frequencies, and I doubt that you could coerce a cellphone tower into transmitting on a GPS frequency no matter how good you are at it. Maybe those cell transmitters have a DDS system that can go where the GPS lives, but I doubt the amps or combiners would pass the signal. They kinda have to be selective enough so that the transmitted signal doesn't block the received one, so transmitting out of band is not going to be highly efficient if possible at all.

For what? I can walk into a cell phone store and get a cell phone "mini cell" to put in my house to help with reception. FCC approved. I don't need a license to do that. Unless he's causing harmful interference to a licensed broadcaster and the broadcaster reports it, the FCC isn't going to do anything.

You can buy a type certificated cell phone mini cell because the cell phone companies have agreed to allow it and the FCC has created a specification for what they can do and manufacturers have to meet that spec. They aren't just deciding on their own say so that they can do this.

You don't have to be causing interference to a licensed broadcaster before the FCC cares, all you have to be doing is causing interference. True, most cases come to the attention of the FCC because the licensee complains, but the FCC can act without a complaint. You don't think Verizon or any of the other cell phone companies would complain about someone creating interference publicly?

The FCC is an administrative government entity. It is not really law enforcement in any meaningful sense.

That would be news to the FCC Enforcement Bureau, and the people to whom they've issued notices of apparent liability and levied fines.

If they are telling you that you cannot have a satellite dish they are lying...

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

As long as your dish is less than 39.37" in diameter you are good to go, even if you are a renter they can't stop you if you have a porch/deck to put it on.

Why don't they just setup a number of VLANS, one for Faculty Staff, one for Students primary machines, one for research projects and one for open devices. I'm sure they already have a couple in place. Was their I.T. group consulted? Student Government and Faculty? I hope this wasn't an excuse to submit to CALEA http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/communications-assistance-law-enforcement-act . Higher Ed does not have to abide by it but some Universities do it anyways. [quote]"After thorough review, the final court decision appears to allow for most, if not all, campus networks to be exempt from compliance". [/quote] http://www.educause.edu/library/calea

My favorite opt-out is this.

What You Can Do to Stop Unwanted Texts to Your Mobile Phone and Spam in General
        Do not respond to unwanted texts or emails from questionable sources. Several mobile service providers
        will allow you to forward unwanted spam texts by simply texting it to 7726 (or “SPAM”) to enable the
        providers to prevent future unwanted texts from the specific sender.

If they're going to benefit from running wires on public land, or using public spectrum, then they need to become a public utility.

The joke is that the regulated parts of the telco industry are now pushing as aggressively as possible to switch their entire infrastrucute over to internet protocols so that they aren't regulated anymore.
AT&T recently made a FCC submission requesting that they not have to continue supporting their switched telephone network (TDM).
Here's all the responses for and against

They'll still be using wires on public land and providing phone service over *copper wires, just not under the auspices of "legacy" FCC regulations.
I.E. if AT&T gets their way, they'd no longer have a legal obligation to continue wired phone service to the middle of Montana or even the poor part of town.

*only a fraction of U-Verse customers have fiber to the home

""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do and specifically to

" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities; Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution; Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism; Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."

Let me highlight that for you.

Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do [fcc.gov] and specifically to

The scope of legal authority of a regulatory agency is not, surprising as it might seen, "everything that might plausibly fit within the description the agency provides of its general function on its website."

Whether or not an agency has the legal authority to take action on a specific question which it has not previously addressed is something that the head of the agency might want to consult with the agencies legal staff before stating. Its, IMO, quite appropriate for Genachowski to acknowledge that he is unclear on whether the FCC has authority in this area if that has not been examined.

""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do and specifically to

" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities;
        Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution;
        Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally;
        Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism;
        Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."

There are a couple of problems with what they are doing here.

#1 Illegal wire tap:
I use my internet connection for both telephone and mail. That being the case deep packet inspection is both opening my mail and tapping my phone line. There are many federal laws broken here.

#2 Disclosure of CPNI:
There are FCC regulations and mandates about sharing customer proprietary network information without consent. Your ISP needs your consent to share network usage data with a 3rd party. I have received no communication or notice from my ISP.

Here is the form you can use to file an FCC privacy complaint:

https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000B

If we get a large number of people making formal complaints against their ISPs for breech of privacy the FCC will be at the very least annoyed. They might even do something about it if we are lucky. This can be used as the groundwork for the upcoming court battles I envision.

Actually... Yes. All you have to do is look at the webpage for the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/

Just the headlines near the bottom of the page show $20K fines for operating without the appropriate license, interfering with licensed users, etc. If you browse around a bit you'll see some fairly recent enforcement of CB operators with illegal setups, primarily amplifiers, but some are also related to out-of-band operation.

I don't think the FCC really has time or resources any more to go randomly look for violations, but they will react when they receive complaints of interference. They also don't usually accept "But I didn't know" as an excuse.

It can be rather interesting reading through the enforcement actions, especially since some contain responses from the accused, and the subsequent FCC responses.

So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.

Citation needed.

Are you trolling? I did post the citation. Here it is again: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order

In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.

So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.

Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.

In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.

So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.

Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.

One of the pictures in TFA shows the FCC ID, ZRB792593. Checking the FCC's site for this (here: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ ) turns up the device and a number of documents for it. Alas, the most interesting ones for hacking, namely the block diagram, the operational description and the schematics, are all "permanant confidential" and thus not accessible.

Still, there's some photos, RF test info, and the user manual (such as it is).

That FCC site is worth checking if you're trying to reverse engineer something, although the potentially most useful stuff is usually confidential.

The author of the Washington Post article apparently did a clueless mashup of three different things and got virtually every fact wrong.

First, the FCC isn't going to create nationwide free Wi-Fi. It is trying to make some more radio spectrum available for unlicensed uses, some of which may ultimately be part of the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard or something like it. The FCC isn't building networks itself; it's just making spectrum available for users and entrepreneurs.

Second, the article seems to be referring to three very different unlicensed spectrum blocks. One is the so-called TV White Spaces, which in the past has been predicted to become "Wi-Fi on steroids," however unlikely that may be. White Spaces is simply TV channels that are unoccupied. The FCC limits which channels can be used, and it requires a database dip to determine whether the channel is truly unoccupied. This hasn't really gotten off the ground yet, and it's going to get a lot harder soon, due to the second item.

Item two is the Congressionally mandated "Incentive Auction" that will cause TV stations to sell off some UHF TV channels and repack the stations into fewer channels. The resulting freed-up spectrum will mostly be auctioned to commercial mobile wireless companies. Some portion of the freed-up spectrum may also be set aside for unlicensed use, but it isn't going to be large new blocks of spectrum that will allow for "super Wi-Fi," and the repacking of TV stations will also result in fewer TV White Spaces that can be used for unlicensed wireless. This auctioning and repacking process was set forth in the "Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act" from early 2012, and the FCC is now conducting a rulemaking to figure out how to make it work. Thousands of pages of comments were filed with the FCC on every aspect of this plan on January 25, so the concept has recently been in the news.

The third item that the Post reporter mashed together with TV White Spaces and Incentive Auctions also comes from the 2012 tax relief bill -- a reallocation of spectrum in the 5 GHz band from federal government to non-government use. The Commerce Department has determined that this spectrum can be reallocated, and the FCC is going to consider a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this in February. In early January, the FCC chairman announced this as a plan to free up as much as 195 MHz of spectrum for "Gigabit Wi-Fi." His speech is available here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-318326A1.pdf.

And now ... the rest of the story. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//document/view.action?id=7021691575 is a filing to the FCC with real-world measurements of how competition between FIOS, Comcast and RCN cable in Montgomery County, MD has affected broadband internet and broadband TV prices over a (roughly) 5 year period that the three providers have been competing.

The bottom line is that the competition not only failed to lower prices over the long run, but it does not even appear to have slowed the rate at which the prices rise.

It seems like Verizon and AT&T spend millions that they collect from their monopoly of the spectrum and give it to politicians to who then make laws in their favor. http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=B08&year=a

The government sales of the free spectrum to the highest bidder is one of the biggest scams ever. Carrier-less mesh networking technology has been a viable alternative for a long time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_networking ) but the government persists in licensing the most useful spectrum frequencies to the highest bidder for billions of dollars ( http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=about_auctions ) while restricting the unlicensed spectrum like 802.11 to limited frequencies with severe power restrictions.

If I was running a arc welder near buy, or industrial equipment, sure. But the home? not really needed.

The point of shielding is not to keep the arc welder from interfering with the computer, but to keep the computer from interfering with radio transmissions.

Further reading.

I believe the first sentence of the parent post covers this... "While the FAA has rules regarding electronics usage, cell phones in airplanes are covered specifically by the FCC." Also, here's a link (pdf) from the FCC describing their take on it: http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.pdf

What part of communication isn't understood in Federal Communications Commission?

Maybe the censorship part.

Are you folks ready to give up your porn?

Incorrect.
"Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels"
Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials

"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting."
If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.

"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
" Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."

You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.

Incorrect.
"Only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, no cable channels"
Broadcast television stations and pay TV providers were given until this date to be in full compliance.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials

"Allows for a one year exemption for anyone requesting."
If they can show that it is a financial hardship to do it now.

"Does not apply to any commercials put in by your cable or satellite provider"

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials
" Specifically, the CALM Act directs the Commission to establish rules that require TV stations, cable operators, satellite TV providers or other multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) to apply the Advanced Television Systems Committee's (ATSC) A/85 Recommended Practice ("ATSC A/85 RP") to commercial advertisements they transmit to viewers."

You are just another asshole who looks to complain and thinks an opinion based on ignorance is just as justified as actual facts.

I don't know where you got that info from, but it certainly does not agree with this. The FCC rules (2011) state that class-D stations can not radiate in the two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset. It also states that the minimum hours of operation for AM and FM stations is "two thirds of the authorized hours of operation between 6AM and 6PM, and two-thirds of the authorized hours between 6PM and midnight, every day of the week except Sunday".

The summary mentions "The FCC studied the question several years ago but found insufficient evidence to support lifting the ban at the time." It is not talking about the FAA ban.

The FCC also bans cell phones and some other wireless devices in aircraft, not only the FAA.

To answer your question about digital TV antennas:
Despite the marketing implications, there really is nothing different about antennas for Digital TV. The encoding is not important. The frequency is the main factor and that has not changed substantially. Most digital TV stations are on the UHF band around where I live. So, if you are lucky, you can get by with just a simple UHF antenna if the stations are nearby.

Here is where you can find your nearby stations:
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/#

I built a simple 4 bay bow tie antenna for UHF. Mine looks like the one pictured at the top of this thread.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/consumer-electronics/614073-how-build-your-own-4-bay.html
Here is a really nice example of one:
http://www.dtvusaforum.com/dtv-hdtv-reception-antenna-discussion/8629-kosmic-antennas-superquad-4-bay-bowtie.html

I also built a folded dipole for VHF: Here is an example:
http://crdahl.com/antennas/dipole.html

My stations were fairly close by. These two antennas are not high gain antennas. I added a Winegard preampt to bring up the signal a bit. I have been very pleased. So, in summary, there is nothing different. Just look up your local stations and pick an antenna based on band(s) and distance.

I'm definitely not an expert, but I believe it's possible to register for a non-exclusive license for the 3.65 GHz band online.

Some phone companies / telco exchange suppliers offer this as a service:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/caller-id-and-spoofing

Simple home method is to use a Fax Machine - by law you are supposed to have correct identification details configured onto the machine.
My parents had their old address and number on their combo fax/machine telephone. Caller-ID would show up their old details.

"2 years" ? Looks like it may have been around since the 90's: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=initial&application_seq=47495&license_seq=48010

Your lease agreement can't stop you from installing an (outdoor) antenna on property you are leasing. My last place was strict about that, too, but several of us had big antennas on our balconies, and the landlord has no ability to stop renters from doing so, per FCC rules which preempt all local laws, regulations, and rental contracts.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes

Now, if the property you're renting doesn't have any suitable locations to site an antenna, you're still out-of-luck, but not because of any terms in your lease agreement.

If you get hassled about it, print out the full FCC rule, and give it to them, with highlighted passages. Most people depend on the ignorance of those they rule over, and others may just be ignorant, themselves.

Excellent, so this should mean, since my Comcast Internet-only package requires me to tack on a $20 extra fee for the limited basic cable precisely because I can plug the coax into the TV and receive all the unencrypted over-the-air channels and a few others like C-SPAN and home shopping channels, I should be able to opt out since it would require me to also lease a box if they indeed encrypt it, right? I imagine they'd find a way around that and find a way to stick it to me.

I suspect that ultimately I will mount a tall mast on the deck of my apartment complex (I'm on the highest floor) to break the tree line and get OTA reception since my apartment complex has disconnected their antenna and plans to scrap it (there's a room full of amplifiers from the early 80s that goes to the units, no idea if they even work for the DTV frequency range). Thankfully the FCC makes it legal for me to mount an antenna for DTV reception and there's not a damn thing the complex can do about it. I warned my apartment complex that I would the moment I'm compelled to pay a dime more for something I don't even want and they refuse to fix their antenna. Like hell I'm leasing a DTV box just for OTA stuff and the shopping network!

Ok, so I spoke to an expert in company law today about this, and basically the rules on multi-jurisdiction incorporation come down to whatever each country's laws say. So you can have a company operating in different jurisdictions, provided it complies with the rules for incorporation in both countries.

Obviously is is possible for a company to work in different countries, otherwise how would it be able to set up/own/run a subsidiary in that country.

Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction.

I'm going to use the Google UK because I have better access to UK legal and corporate stuffs, so here we go, after some digging:

So, the UK version is Google UK Ltd (a private company limited by shares). You can find details at Companies House (the site doesn't seem to like linking). According to this site, Google UK Ltd is wholly owned by Google International LLC (a US limited liability company). According to this document (and the previous site, but this is probably more reliable; there's at least one mistake/out of date bit of info on that one), Google International LLC is wholly owned by Google Inc (the US public company).

Aren't group structures fun...

So, let's say Google UK Ltd breaks English law, the principle of incorporation probably means that any judgment can only be enforced against Google UK Ltd. However, were an English court to issue a judgment against Google Inc, they might be able enforce it against Google UK Ltd (due to it being an asset of Google International LLC and thus of Google Inc. That will depend on the various rules of tracing etc.

Now, can Google Inc be sued in the UK? Probably. While not conclusive, there is this case. In this one, Google Inc and Google UK Ltd were sued for defamation under English law. At paragraph 2, the court notes that Google Inc is a US-registered company, and at paragraph 4, that Google UK Ltd was "improperly joined" to the proceedings, so aren't relevant. Google Inc had applied to the court to not exercise its jurisdiction (under CPR 11(1) and (6) - if you want more details, examples of when claim forms can be served out of jurisdiction - that is, on foreign persons - can be found in 6D PD 3.1 here).

It's not conclusive because the court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction because it didn't think the claim had a decent chance of success, rather than because it didn't think it had jurisdiction. However, it may be being appealed.

Anyway, so yes; if court in the UK ordered Google UK Ltd (or Google Inc) to hand over private emails of US senators, either Google would be required to do so, or face a fine for contempt of court (which, if made against Google Inc might be enforceable by seizing Google UK Ltd, as an asset of Google Inc - but probably wouldn't work the other way around unless there was a statutory method of going back up the chain). It could try to dispute jurisdiction, but could lose.

International law doesn't really come into it, as it is all done within each country's own jurisdiction (and international law is fairly wishy-washy anyway).

So... erm, yes, isn't law fun, or something?

The wireless mics that operate in that range were not made illegal - the rule was discussed but never implemented. They do risk becoming useless because of interference, and no one sells mics in the US that use those frequencies anymore, but if you own them you can still use them.

You sir, are incorrect and spreading false information.

Source: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/wireless-microphones

I work in the industry and it is indeed illegal to operate any microphones in the 700 MHz spectrum (698-806 MHz). Not only is the FCC (and Verizon etc) are concerned you are encroaching on their newly owned spectrum, there are public safety bands which could be disrupted by RF microphone use.

Icom is another well known company that makes Marine HF and VHF equipment. If you have a general or higher (or older equivalent) amateur radio, you can use the HF marine radio to talk on the amateur radio frequencies if it has that capability (the Icom HF can be configured to operate on amateur frequencies).

You will also need at least a Restricted Radiotelephone Operator's License http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/index.htm?job=rr to legally operate an HF radio on a marine vessel OR a VHF in other country's territorial waters. You may also need a ship's license http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing&id=ship_stations.

Icom is another well known company that makes Marine HF and VHF equipment. If you have a general or higher (or older equivalent) amateur radio, you can use the HF marine radio to talk on the amateur radio frequencies if it has that capability (the Icom HF can be configured to operate on amateur frequencies).

You will also need at least a Restricted Radiotelephone Operator's License http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/index.htm?job=rr to legally operate an HF radio on a marine vessel OR a VHF in other country's territorial waters. You may also need a ship's license http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=licensing&id=ship_stations.

Citizen's Band is *supposed to be* only for NON-commercial use.

There is no such restriction for CB. "You can operate a CB device regardless of your age and for personal or business use so long as you are not a representative of a foreign government." - the FCC

Thanks for the informative post. I'm an FCC licensed amateur radio operator and I'd always assumed CB was off limits for businesses. I learned something today.

Citizen's Band is *supposed to be* only for NON-commercial use.

There is no such restriction for CB. "You can operate a CB device regardless of your age and for personal or business use so long as you are not a representative of a foreign government." - the FCC

It's not standardized across the US, but many states have standards for emergency radios. Find out what's standard and go with it.

One of the more useful projects of Homeland Security is to get all the agencies that have first responders connected in emergencies. It's hard, because each agency has their own system and they don't interoperate. Here's the Texas plan. And the Florida plan.

Most of the hard problems have to do with too many people on the air in urban areas. If you're a volunteer department, you're probably not in an urban area and don't have that problem. If you want something that will Just Work, get high-powered 700MHz public safety band capable VHF FM handhelds and vehicle radios for your own people and get them fitted into your state plan. A few Iridium satellite radios for command personnel and those who really need to talk to the outside world during an incident are helpful. Here's one suitable for fire truck installation. Iridium airtime costs are high, about $1.29 per minute, but in an emergency that's the least of your problems.)

The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Why is this necessarily the case? Convince me. There are many luxuries not enjoyed by people who don't live in densely populated areas. They lack many retail and restaurant options. Traveling musicians don't schedule shows nearby. They are typically further away from airports. Often there are fewer doctors per capita. Justify the idea that we should should we spend some portion of our collective wealth (which could potentially be spent on some other worthy endeavor) to eliminate "lack of broadband" from among this list of inconveniences?

To add some numbers to the discussion, the FCC recently issued a report that states 19 million (6%) of Americans lack access to wired broadband. If we broaden the definition of "broadband" to wired connections with downstream bandwidth exceeding 768 Kb/s the number without access drops to 9.6 million. It's also worth noting that, of those who do have access, about a third third decline to make use of it. If that ratio holds true for those without access we're talking about approximately 6.4 million people who would be willing to pay for broadband but who lack access.

One also wonders why this need be a federal issue. What stops an individual state from subsidizing the expansion of broadband access into its rural areas?