Slashdot Mirror

1) Yeah, so what I said only applies to grandfathered unlimited data plans.
2) I originally read it at GigaOm. The FCC press release is vague on the matter, but the full order and consent decree makes it more clear:

On June 28, 2012, Verizon Wireless modified its pricing plans to allow customers on usage-based plans to tether their devices without paying an additional fee, while customers on unlimited usage plans must continue to pay an additional fee to tether their devices.

1) Yeah, so what I said only applies to grandfathered unlimited data plans.
2) I originally read it at GigaOm. The FCC press release is vague on the matter, but the full order and consent decree makes it more clear:

On June 28, 2012, Verizon Wireless modified its pricing plans to allow customers on usage-based plans to tether their devices without paying an additional fee, while customers on unlimited usage plans must continue to pay an additional fee to tether their devices.

File a complaint against AT&T here: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

It is guaranteed that there will be remarks, double entendres and innuendos with huge potential of getting worse.

Hostile Work Environment:
"Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.

Examples of actions that may create sexual hostile environment harassment include:
- Leering, i.e., staring in a sexually suggestive manner
- Making offensive remarks about looks, clothing, body parts
- Touching in a way that may make an employee feel uncomfortable, such as patting, pinching or intentional brushing against another’s body
- Telling sexual or lewd jokes, hanging sexual posters, making sexual gestures, etc.
- Sending, forwarding or soliciting sexually suggestive letters, notes, emails, or images"

Somewhere, a labor law attorney is locking and loading his briefcase... :-)

And as another person who spent 18 months testing, debugging and implementing a CALEA solution for a major telco I can point you to the FCC rule issued in 2005 that specifically states:

The Order is limited to facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and
VoIP providers that offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the
public switched telephone network. These VoIP providers are called interconnected VoIP
providers.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260434A1.pdf

No service provider is required to have equipment that can intercept PC-to-PC packets under the CALEA act. Only where those packets transit to or from the POTS.

Whether they do or not is an entirely different matter. In this matter I do not consider Microsoft trustworthy and would expect them to roll over on PC-to-PC Skype communications at the drop of a hat. Just my opinion on that, though. I have no evidence.

Here we go: Microsoft is a major multinational corporation, with a substantial base, substantial assets, most of their higher-ups, and a fat load of juicy contracts within the jurisdiction of the United States(and a number of other countries that have less clout; but are no more savory)...

Now, according to the feds"CALEA Compliance for Packet Equipment, And Equipment for Facilities-Based Broadband Internet Access Providers and Providers of Interconnected VoIP

All facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected[with the POTS legacy telephone system] VoIP service have until May 14, 2007 to come into compliance with CALEA."

So, how lucky do you feel? Skype in and Skype out are definitely 'interconnected VoIP service', but it isn't entirely clear whether PC-PC skype connections would be treated as part of that 'interconnected VoIP service' or whether, because they aren't directly interconnected, they are treated separately. Do you fancy hoping that Microsoft feels like belaboring that decision in court to no obvious benefit for themselves?

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=810879 PDF link
They're scum.
Just sayin'......

The DeVos family is an interesting study also.....

I'm sure the theater owners ought to be able to block signal to cellphones, so it's not a question of intent any more - you just can't use them.

The use of any cell phone jamming device is expressly prohibited by U.S. federal law. If a movie theater tries to jam cellphone service, they will receive a warning letter from the FCC ordering them to stop.

What?
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/regulation-obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

But you DO need FCC approval on a per-device level to transmit in the cellular spectrum. And unlike in ham radio in which all you get for unlicensed transmissions is a stern lecture from a cranky old man (the reality is that the FCC only acts on the very worst transgressions in the ham band), if you transmit on cellular frequencies without an approved device, the FCC will be all over your ass. Because of the potential for serious harmful disruption; you might even end up on the DHS radar and discover first-hand how paper-thin the veneer of "civil rights" actually is. Disabling a portion of a city's phone infrastructure is just the kind of thing that Really Bad People would love to do.

Cellular spectrum isn't Citizen's Band. Homebrew will land your ass in front of a judge.

Also, there are serious restrictions on what you can and cannot do and say on the ham bands. You cannot engage in work-related topics (that's what commercial bands are for). You are not allowed anonymity; your callsign has to be given, and it's in a publicly searchable database. You are forbidden to encrypt your traffic (digital or otherwise), or even engage in coded speech. You're not supposed to swear. You MUST get out of the way of emergency traffic. And nobody needs a warrant to listen in or record your conversations.

Ham radio is great fun and is useful in regional emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, but is in no way a substitute for a telephone (socially, technologically, or legally).

Now, if someone came up with a user-configurable platform with an approved radio and approved locked-down radio driver code (which is separate from OS code, as people who write jailbreaking software know), there might be a very small niche market for that. But it's only a niche; don't fool yourselves otherwise. Slashdotters are not the center of the world, do not drive social or legal policy, and for that we should all count ourselves lucky.

This is complete non-news, really. The ADA isn't forcing anything directly - ie, yes, the ADA lawsuit is largely irrelevant, if Netflix wants to avoid this they need to sue the FCC. Though in general I have no idea why the ADA would bother with this silly lawsuit around the Americans With Disabilities Act when this is already covered by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.

The FCC ruled months ago that Internet content would be required to support closed captions, they have a whole document with various requirements and deadlines based on the types of content and provider. And being in the industry, I can tell you content owners and distributors are already starting to work on it.

You can read the requirements yourself, but yeah, the point is *broadcast* (OTA, cable, or satellite) TV is required to have CC by the FCC, and now the FCC is using above Act to require any program that has been broadcast to have CC with Internet distribution. Technically they have no control over content that has never been broadcast (new release movies, Youtube, etc) but given it does include movies that have been broadcast on TV it's probably going to be available for all feature length content.

And as far as quality, they have said it must comply with CEA 708, which is an absurdly overcomplicated standard (probably designed by the subtitle/closed caption software insdustry). Luckily almost no one uses all of the ridiculous parts of it (but in theory you still have to be compliant if they do and someone files a complaint).

http://www.fcc.gov/document/closed-captioning-internet-protocol-delivered-video-programming-1

Actually that's not quite accurate...

As of January 1, 2008, 75 percent of “pre-rule” English language programming, defined as analog programming first shown before January 1, 1998, and digital programming first shown before July 1, 2002, must be captioned, with some exceptions.

Source

They're not ripping DVDs. They're purchasing content from digital distribution houses such as Funimation, Weinstein, Dreamworks, Starz (well at least used to), etc.. The content provider would have to make the subtitles available to Netflix to push onto the stream. If they don't/won't then Netflix would be on the hook if they are legally recognized as a "multi-channel video programming distributor".

Yes, the public has been ignored, research even ordered destroyed when it didn't support the pre-determined outcome.

The story
http://web.archive.org/web/20090123153744/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/18/senator_says_media_study_suppressed/

The suppressed report
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267448A1.pdf

Some PBS coverage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEoKXKUnLsY
PBS transcript
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11162007/transcript5.html?print
more PBS info
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11162007/profile2.html
Info related to Providence Equity (where a former FCC chair went)
www.sungarddx.com/pdf/Data_Exchange_Fundraising.pdf

Loud commercials have been addressed before. If the ad agency has used aggressive audio processing, and uses less energy at bass frequencies, the station actually needs special equipment to sense the higher average energy and compensate. The peak voltage value can be the same with a large difference in loudness.

To those that think so-called market forces make things good, explain why we've now got those half-hour infomercials, 18+ minutes of ads an hour instead of 9 to 11, and far less depth and diversity in news coverage. The same former FCC chair that Bill Moyers talks about taking a job at a major communications-oriented venture capital group has since become head of the cable-tv industry group that pushed for the Comcast/NBC/Universal merger. Cable companies don't want broadcast tv to be excellent.

Cable operators must provide subscribers with CableCARDs upon request.1 Over the years, the Commission has received a variety of complaints from consumers concerning their efforts to obtain and use CableCARDs. The Commission adopted new rules to improve consumers’ experience with retail CableCARD devices.2 The new rules require cable operators to provide accurate information about retail set-top boxes and ensure that consumers are treated similarly, whether they choose to buy a retail device or rent a device from their cable provider. This Enforcement Advisory underscores the Commission’s commitment to “strictly enforce our navigation device rules in order to ensure proper support for CableCARD devices.3 We encourage cable operators to review their policies, procedures, and operations to ensure that they comply with the rules. The Enforcement Bureau will review complaints carefully to determine if cable systems comply with the rules.

The FCC has a couple of web pages where you can get more information and file a complaint.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/digital-cable-compatibility-cablecard-ready-devices

The requirement to provide CableCARDs on request existed long before 2011, but cable companies have been notoriously dishonest about it. Apparently dishonest enough that the FCC felt the need to tell them to stop lying about it.

Cable operators must provide subscribers with CableCARDs upon request.1 Over the years, the Commission has received a variety of complaints from consumers concerning their efforts to obtain and use CableCARDs. The Commission adopted new rules to improve consumers’ experience with retail CableCARD devices.2 The new rules require cable operators to provide accurate information about retail set-top boxes and ensure that consumers are treated similarly, whether they choose to buy a retail device or rent a device from their cable provider. This Enforcement Advisory underscores the Commission’s commitment to “strictly enforce our navigation device rules in order to ensure proper support for CableCARD devices.3 We encourage cable operators to review their policies, procedures, and operations to ensure that they comply with the rules. The Enforcement Bureau will review complaints carefully to determine if cable systems comply with the rules.

The FCC has a couple of web pages where you can get more information and file a complaint.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/digital-cable-compatibility-cablecard-ready-devices

The requirement to provide CableCARDs on request existed long before 2011, but cable companies have been notoriously dishonest about it. Apparently dishonest enough that the FCC felt the need to tell them to stop lying about it.

Cable operators must provide subscribers with CableCARDs upon request.1 Over the years, the Commission has received a variety of complaints from consumers concerning their efforts to obtain and use CableCARDs. The Commission adopted new rules to improve consumers’ experience with retail CableCARD devices.2 The new rules require cable operators to provide accurate information about retail set-top boxes and ensure that consumers are treated similarly, whether they choose to buy a retail device or rent a device from their cable provider. This Enforcement Advisory underscores the Commission’s commitment to “strictly enforce our navigation device rules in order to ensure proper support for CableCARD devices.3 We encourage cable operators to review their policies, procedures, and operations to ensure that they comply with the rules. The Enforcement Bureau will review complaints carefully to determine if cable systems comply with the rules.

The FCC has a couple of web pages where you can get more information and file a complaint.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/digital-cable-compatibility-cablecard-ready-devices

The requirement to provide CableCARDs on request existed long before 2011, but cable companies have been notoriously dishonest about it. Apparently dishonest enough that the FCC felt the need to tell them to stop lying about it.

At the state level, agreed. The policy right now is only to allow LFAs to tightly control rates in near monopoly situations: http://www.fcc.gov/guides/regulation-cable-tv-rates

However they are doing major cost shifting from urban to rural: http://www.broadband.gov/download-plan/

What would you want regulated that isn't?

That list looks pretty good. Very close match to (search will take about 15 seconds or so, be patient).

Just because you don't like what they broadcast doesn't mean there's no radio in the area. Less hyperbole please. As well, your use of "narrowcasting" I think threw me off. I think you're using buzzwords (or the FM radio equivalent of things like "M$").

Untrue. Frequency matters a great deal. Take a look at page 3 of this guide from the FCC - the max power an amateur station can run without having to perform an evaluation bottoms out between 10m and the VHF band (that's 10m to 2m or 28-144 MHz for amateurs in the US).

This is the Q and A document. Page 7 describes Specific Absorption Rate, which is the frequency-dependent rate at which energy is absorbed by tissue.

From OET 65:
As indicated by Table 1
in Appendix A, the most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where
whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies
whole-body absorption is less efficient, and, consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.

You realize, of course, that stepping out into bright sunlight exposes you to 100-120 times the extrapolated maximum RF exposure level of 1mW/cm^2? [Page 15 of the second doc - extrapolating the established constant limit of 1mW/cm^2 that's defined from 1500 to 100,000 MHz out to light].

Untrue. Frequency matters a great deal. Take a look at page 3 of this guide from the FCC - the max power an amateur station can run without having to perform an evaluation bottoms out between 10m and the VHF band (that's 10m to 2m or 28-144 MHz for amateurs in the US).

This is the Q and A document. Page 7 describes Specific Absorption Rate, which is the frequency-dependent rate at which energy is absorbed by tissue.

From OET 65:
As indicated by Table 1
in Appendix A, the most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where
whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies
whole-body absorption is less efficient, and, consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.

You realize, of course, that stepping out into bright sunlight exposes you to 100-120 times the extrapolated maximum RF exposure level of 1mW/cm^2? [Page 15 of the second doc - extrapolating the established constant limit of 1mW/cm^2 that's defined from 1500 to 100,000 MHz out to light].

Untrue. Frequency matters a great deal. Take a look at page 3 of this guide from the FCC - the max power an amateur station can run without having to perform an evaluation bottoms out between 10m and the VHF band (that's 10m to 2m or 28-144 MHz for amateurs in the US).

This is the Q and A document. Page 7 describes Specific Absorption Rate, which is the frequency-dependent rate at which energy is absorbed by tissue.

From OET 65:
As indicated by Table 1
in Appendix A, the most restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where
whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient. At other frequencies
whole-body absorption is less efficient, and, consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.

You realize, of course, that stepping out into bright sunlight exposes you to 100-120 times the extrapolated maximum RF exposure level of 1mW/cm^2? [Page 15 of the second doc - extrapolating the established constant limit of 1mW/cm^2 that's defined from 1500 to 100,000 MHz out to light].

No externally mounted dishes,

Note that you cannot require this, assuming this is in America (and I didn't bother reading the submission all that closely. Though I probably could have in the time it's taken to type this disclaimer. Especially the time to write about the time it would have taken. Oh deary me.) FCC OTARD

Other than that, I agree completely. Don't get into the building ISP business. And don't contract with a specific provder to do it either, if you can avoid it. Choice is good. But if you really want to do it, the method would be to put either a DSLAM on the building phone wires and provide DSL, or a CMTS on the RG-6 and provide cable internet. Don't do any of the powerline stuff. Just don't.

This. How about mandating that the customer get to keep his/her number when switching networks? *Boggle*

Actually, you can. Since ~2004 or so.

I wanted to set up a nice tall antenna mast to try and catch a few, but the landlord was unenthused.

Doesn't matter. According to the FCC, landlords may not prohibit you from installing antennas except for well justified safety reasons.

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

I have little interest trying to participate in a P2P communication system where encryption is explicitly forbidden.

Some encryption is allowed, and the prohibition is against the use of codes or ciphers to obscure the meaning, not explicitely against all encryption. HSMM (ham WiFi) uses WEP (maybe WPA, I don't know) and gets away with it.

What's more important is that amateur radio isn't supposed to be used for things that would really require encryption anyway. No commercial use. You can't order a pizza, so you don't need to send anyone your credit card number, for example. The HSMM folks need to keep non-hams from using amateur systems, so they've taken the steps to do that.

Also, the fact my country would prosecute me for communicating internationally with someone who lives under a repressive regime seems totally bogus.

You've got it backwards. It's not the US saying "thou shall not", it is the other country. Yes, it's against the US rules to do it, because we're part of the worldwide treaty organization ITU and we've agreed to those rules. According to The FCC, there are currently no banned countries. I'd think you would want to refrain from doing it, if there were any, not for your own protection, but to protect the hams in that country from prosecution there.

What is more restrictive are the rules about third party communications, which is sending messages for someone else into other countries. The same link convers that topic, and lists the countries that have third party agreements with the US. That's different than just communicating with someone there via ham radio, however.

I have little interest trying to participate in a P2P communication system where encryption is explicitly forbidden.

Some encryption is allowed, and the prohibition is against the use of codes or ciphers to obscure the meaning, not explicitely against all encryption. HSMM (ham WiFi) uses WEP (maybe WPA, I don't know) and gets away with it.

What's more important is that amateur radio isn't supposed to be used for things that would really require encryption anyway. No commercial use. You can't order a pizza, so you don't need to send anyone your credit card number, for example. The HSMM folks need to keep non-hams from using amateur systems, so they've taken the steps to do that.

Also, the fact my country would prosecute me for communicating internationally with someone who lives under a repressive regime seems totally bogus.

You've got it backwards. It's not the US saying "thou shall not", it is the other country. Yes, it's against the US rules to do it, because we're part of the worldwide treaty organization ITU and we've agreed to those rules. According to The FCC, there are currently no banned countries. I'd think you would want to refrain from doing it, if there were any, not for your own protection, but to protect the hams in that country from prosecution there.

What is more restrictive are the rules about third party communications, which is sending messages for someone else into other countries. The same link convers that topic, and lists the countries that have third party agreements with the US. That's different than just communicating with someone there via ham radio, however.

One of the under-appreciated technologies to result from the Titanic disaster was the development of the auto alarm: An automatic receiver that continuously monitored the calling frequency (500 kHz) for a specific alarm signal to be sent by ships in distress.

Prior to this time, an operator trained in Morse code reception was required to be on duty or, failing that, a "wireless watcher," a deck officer trained to listen for the distinctive three-dits-three-dahs-three-dits of the SOS call. However, the wireless watcher system had obvious flaws (e.g., other duties of the deck officer taking him away from the receiver), and so an automatic system was desired. The trick was doing it with 1920s technology.

It was decided early on in the development of the auto alarm that having a detector able to correctly decode "SOS" with sufficient sensitivity and selectivity (i.e., without false detections during a night of reception of multiple simultaneous and possibly interfering signals, lightning crashes, etc.), and at different rates and fidelity (recall that the SOS signal would be sent by hand, by a person likely to be under high stress) was beyond the technology of the day. Instead, a second, simpler, signal was invented -- a signal specifically for detection by the auto alarm. This signal was defined to be a series of four or more dashes, each four seconds long, with a space of one second between them. (Clocks provided in the radio rooms were required to have a sweep second hand, and a pattern of 4 on, 1 off dashes was printed around the circumference of the clock to aid the timing of the operator.) Alarm bells were placed over the bunks of both the Radio Officer and the ship's Master.

When the radio officer went off watch, he turned the auto alarm on. Should an auto alarm signal be received, the bells would go off (not unlike a fire bell and, a foot over your head, very impressive at 2 AM, I can assure you), and the operator would then climb off of the ceiling, go to the radio room, turn off the auto alarm, and monitor 500 kHz to see what's going on.

In an actual emergency, the radio officer on the ship in distress actually sends the auto alarm signal first, then sends the SOS signal. (The SOS signal, by the way, is sent as a single character, with no spaces between the letters -- di-di-dit-dah-dah-dah-di-di-dit, not di-di-dit-space-dah-dah-dah-space-di-di-dit.) This mp3 file, of an actual disaster (the fire on the MS Prinsendam, PJTA, in 1980), has this clearly audible: The recording starts with a long series of auto alarm tones, followed by the SOS call at about the 2:30 mark.

Those of us with a logical bent would find the design of these auto alarms to be a study in stone-knives-and-bear-skins analog computing. This document gives one some idea of the requirements. It would be a good task for an engineering student project.

But if the systems were designed to be secure would "normal" people be better off in practice?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if things really became more secure. But as long as Banks, regulators etc keep calling "identity theft", "identity theft" and not bank fraud, what do you think will actually happen?

Paranoid slashdotters might be able to keep good control over some fancy "foolproof" transaction system. But do you think most people would? They can't even secure their computers and phones.

So cynical me thinks at worst all the fancy tech would do is give the Banks a reason to pass more of the losses to their customers. At best it just makes the people supplying the tech rich, while not improving things much.

Right now, if stuff happens, a customer can go to the issuer/court and say "I didn't make that transaction" and the issuer/jury/judge would be more inclined to believe him. With fancy "foolproof" tech, when stuff happens and a hacker gets or guesses passwords or manages to pwn the system via other means, the customer might find it harder to convince the court that he didn't make their transaction - because the "expert witness" says it's "100% secure".

The goals and motives behind people creating SSH and SSL/TLS were better, so you did get something better than telnet. And even then has https really been that effective in stopping that many people from getting phished/pwned?

Yes there are hackers going around stealing money, but when Banks are helping their friends and customers _directly_ steal money and get away with it I don't really think hackers are the biggest problem we should worry about. See:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2761105&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=39549881
http://www.csoonline.com/article/603461/ach-fraud-why-criminals-love-this-con
And also
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cramming-unauthorized-misleading-or-deceptive-charges-placed-your-telephone-bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramming_(fraud)

So many easy ways of directly stealing your money. Think the Corporations will make things more secure? I bet they'd only lock down your transactions while still allowing their friends and customers to steal your money easily.

Nope, just an amateur radio geek. We're required by law to evaluate our stations for MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure). Here's an article about it, and here's the FCC page where you can download Bulletin 65 and its supplements. There are lots of calculators online - these rules apply to most every transmitter, so if you know a few details you can discover the MPE exclusion zone(s) for it.

Thanks for the kudos!

Are you capable of thought? If so, does the the phrase "the device must accept any interference" make even the slightest bit of sense as a technical statement? That would mean that having ANY filtering would be illegal. For the phrase to mean what you think it means, it would have to say "the device must REJECT any interference".

But clearly, the statement does not say that. You know why? Because it is not a technical statement, it is a USAGE statement. "The device must accept any interference, including interference that may cause undesired operation" means that, as a USER you have NO regulatory protection against interference. If the device is interfered with, too bad.

To quote from the FCC document:

If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.
That is part (1) of your quoted statement.

Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference.
That is your "must accept interference" statement.

The compliance label indicates to consumers that the transmitter was authorized under Part 15 of the FCC rules and that it may not cause, nor is it protected from, harmful interference.
That is the whole statement. How you manage to twist that into "the device must continue working normally even when there is interference, or it is not compliant with regulations" is beyond me.

Certainly I can provide a citation, straight from the FCC itself. See if you can find any reference to receivers in there.

I clearly said that they certify both intentional and UNINTENTIONAL transmitters. TVs and radios have oscillators in them, both for tuning and for digital processing. An oscillator means you have an unintentional transmitter. The only thing they are certifying is that the EMISSIONS from the device are within limits. They don't do anything at all with the receiver portion.

Some quotes from that document:

Page 3: The certification procedure requires that tests be performed to measure the levels of radio frequency energy that are radiated by the device into the open air or conducted by the device onto the power lines. That's it. Just measure levels of RF at different frequencies. There is a chart in the doc that lists the permissible levels across the spectrum. There is nothing in the certification that says a device is doing (or is suitable for doing) anything in particular, just that the RF emissions are legal.

Page 5: If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected. That is what is meant by "The device must not cause interference" on the label.

Page 5: Part 15 transmitters receive no regulatory protection from interference. That is what is meant by "The device must accept all interference" on the label.

Everything I stated was 100% accurate.

I could see requiring permission to place transmitters, but why for receivers?

If you follow the links, the FCC said Google Fiber didn't need permission for the Ku band receivers. They amended their filing to reflect that (and to add specific satellites for the Ku-extended band; apparently you not only need an FCC license for the receiving antenna, but for which satellites you point at. Both of which are kind of ridiculous. I wonder if the FCC would have any jurisdiction if you just built an enormous dish and did not actually connect it to anything).

This has been done already, it's called the Do-Not-Call registry

The Do-Not-Call registry does not prevent all unwanted calls. It does not cover the following:
- calls from organizations with which you have established a business relationship;
- calls for which you have given prior written permission;
- calls which are not commercial or do not include unsolicited advertisements;
- calls by or on behalf of tax-exempt non-profit organizations

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list

I've registered ever phone number I've had. I have never had a problem with with advertiser and never get any Robo calls,
other than the library calling for their books back.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/unwanted-telephone-marketing-calls

For those who could not be arsed to click the link in the preceding page.

It explains everything without having to look up the law itself.

--
BMO

A paywall?

Are you effing serious, subby?

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

--
BMO

>Yeah, same frequency as WiFi, dude

No it isn't.
WiFI 2.4GHz
DECT 1.9GHz

Even if the frequency ranges aren't the same, in the context of safety concerns, both of the above frequency ranges are in the same ballpark. Interestingly if you read the IEEE C95.1 report (which is difficult to get a copy of) you'll find that the most concervative levels of concern are somewhere around 5 to 10 W/m^2, and that includes a 10:1 safety margin of the actual power density levels of concern for controled invironments. [If you find the report, see Figures 3 and 4.] However if you want to understand RF exposure, a good place to start that is readily accessible is right at the FCC: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html

Also for the Original Article to say that Electromagnetic Radiation hasn't been studied enough is dubious and at best a truism, because it's been studied for 60 years. America, Canada, Japan, and the EU all have their own studies and conconclusions about safe electromagnetic levels broken down by frequency ranges. The only known concern is RF heating, and WiFi can't put out enough power for that to be a concern. Cell base stations put out only a small amount of power per sector antenna (typically about 20 Watts) and these antennas have a "pancake" pattern that focuses at the horizon, so even standing right under the base station isn't unsafe. You have to be three feet in front of the base station antenna before it would be unsafe -- and for that to happen you'd have to be right in front of it on the tower. The cell phone right against the head is a lot stronger amount of RF exposure than a cell phone base station right across the street is.

There's a LOT of general misunderstanding of "RF exposure", which usually comes out as "we don't understand it enough" in some form. To an extent that may always be true, because it's something you can only measure with equipment and is otherwise invisible to a human being. So for some it's hard to understand that low levels of RF exposure is safe.

The map link is good, the linked article has you trapped on that site with no outgoing links and no real information other than "look at this map". Real journalists would also be answering who, what, when, why, and how, the answer to which is that this survey was done as part of "Mobility Fund Phase 1", a $300 million dollar payout by the federal government to mobile telco providers to service these areas. It's a reverse auction, telcos bid to put in 3G and how much it will take the government paying them for them to do it. Perfect opportunity for the phone companies to collude and bilk the taxpayer for the most money, and to make exclusive deals to ensure the most roaming billing possible happens when you are there.

Here's the public notice (pdf), a request for public comments, hidden well enough that nobody in the public will notice before it's too late. From the FCC auction 901 site.

The map link is good, the linked article has you trapped on that site with no outgoing links and no real information other than "look at this map". Real journalists would also be answering who, what, when, why, and how, the answer to which is that this survey was done as part of "Mobility Fund Phase 1", a $300 million dollar payout by the federal government to mobile telco providers to service these areas. It's a reverse auction, telcos bid to put in 3G and how much it will take the government paying them for them to do it. Perfect opportunity for the phone companies to collude and bilk the taxpayer for the most money, and to make exclusive deals to ensure the most roaming billing possible happens when you are there.

Here's the public notice (pdf), a request for public comments, hidden well enough that nobody in the public will notice before it's too late. From the FCC auction 901 site.

The Equal Opportunity clause of the FCC rules for Political *Candidates* is quite clear. Network television may not refuse a political ad from a candidate, nor can they "overcharge".

Tuesday, the FCC passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, or CALM.

Wrong. Congress passed the 2010 Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act and it was signed by the President on December 15, 2010, a year ago tomorrow.

What the FCC did yesterday was to adopt rules restricting loud commercials, as it was required to under the CALM Act, which will become effective one year after adoption, on December 13, 2012.

Here is a link to the FCC website for the actual text of the Report and Order regarding implementation of the CALM Act.

Cramming - Unauthorized, Misleading, or Deceptive Charges Placed on Your Telephone Bill

AT&T knew this merger would never happen. It was all a big distraction. What happens next is AT&T blusters a bit, then the FCC, which already has localities scrambling because of the deadlines for next generation emergency services radio. Well, why not just quietly pass them some lucrative monopoly contracts for supplying lots of new network services and devices for localities all over the country? Just a consolation, right? Or, just the thing they really wanted in the first place, only now everyone will think AT&T lost, instead of complaining about giving them such a huge amount of business on the taxpayer dime.

Call me paranoid if you want, but you might want to wait a few weeks and see what happens.

The issues is that the frequency bands we use day to day aren't separated enough. A few years ago trying to cram 10 devices in the 2.4 GHz spectrum inside a house was fine but now everything and your grandmothers rolling pill is broadcasting over 2.4 GHz. Newer routers are going into the 5 GHz band but it's not really a great solution.

The problem with everything using the 2.4 GHz band is that almost no devices are smart about how they make sure of that band. This is a problem we deal with a lot when it comes to sensitive embedded systems. You need to make sure that the signal you want isn't the raw signal you send, you need to encapsulate the single into a modulated and coded scheme. Using techniques like:

Channel Coding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_code
Phase Modulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulation

The more "secure" or encoded the signal the smaller the chance that any other signal will play off it and alter the key data. Now I'm not saying that this is a perfect solution but it is a start to smart design. Amount several other option such as not letting your embedded solution be sensitive to every other signal in the air. I know there are FCC regulations and all that jazz around this but it still all boils down to smart design. As more and more devices are occupying the 2.4 GHz band smarter and smarter encoding methods are going to have to be taken into practice, this might even boil down to editing the FCC regulations on wireless devices.. I would hate to think my wireless pacemaker is going to short out because my gas meter wanted to log 1 KilloWatt.

If anyone is interested it's a good idea to read:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/index.htm?job=rules_and_regulations

The Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X ruled that cable ISPs are "information services" rather than "telecommunications services", and thus are not subject to the taxes and regulations of the latter, which includes common carrier status. The next month, the FCC reclassified DSL ISPs as the same (link (PDF)), which also removed the requirement that incumbent carriers lease lines to independent ISPs, effectively obliterating competition.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/personal-localized-alerting-network-plan

also, providers have the capability to get emergence text. Most are implementing it, but it wouldn't hurt for you to inquire.

The USA has similar regulation.
http://transition.fcc.gov/telecom.html
The company I work for sells thousands of circuits on Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) facilities (lines).
The prices are regulated and they are required to provide the same level of service, and the FCC can and frequently does fine them if they do not. The actual level of service is generally more dependent on how good you are at gaming their ticketing system than who is leasing the line, in reality.

Regarding one particular device, from TFA:

With the factory battery âoeit will last 7-15 days reporting every hour in a good cellular coverage zone,â according to marketing literature describing it,

Also, regarding your device, you can check the FCC ID to see what exactly it is at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

sure until some asshole decides to broadcast advocacy for terrorism from his ham radio

Obviously you've never listened to the idiots on 75 meters and 20 meter sideband

all of a sudden fit the description of a domestic terrorist due to information being available that would otherwise have required warrants to collect

Ham radio licenses are public record.

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAmateur.jsp

Also http://www.qrz.com/ and about a zillion other places.

Don't confuse government sharing, which is nearly total, and govt publicity which is also pretty wide open, with this new idea of advertiser sharing.